Over a million developers have joined DZone.
{{announcement.body}}
{{announcement.title}}

Hello From the Other Side: Asynchronicity as Optimal Communication

DZone's Guide to

Hello From the Other Side: Asynchronicity as Optimal Communication

Working in a different time(zone) and place can communication rather difficult, and with so many distributed teams, calls and web conferences aren't optimal.

· Agile Zone ·
Free Resource

Adopting a DevOps practice starts with understanding where you are in the implementation journey. Download the DevOps Transformation Roadmap. Brought to you in partnership with Techtown.

I not only love talking in real time with my teammates whenever I can, either online or in person—I also strongly believe that sharing some moments talking in real time with our teammates, at least from time to time, is something crucial for any teams, as talking in real time is an exceptional way of establishing or building up bonds between the parts—which, of course, ends up adding to an entire team and, consequently, reflects on what that team delivers.

However, communication in real time clearly is not an optimal model nowadays and should be avoided in most situations. Thanks to the plethora of communication tools available in the market, we should all be taking advantage of asynchronous communication, which is, most of the time, the optimal approach.

Asynchronous communication is a method of segmental communication in which the parties involved can interact with each other at different times. Usually, each part communicates at the time most appropriate for them. For example, when you want to send an email (an asynchronous tool), you don't need to wait until the receiver is online because you don't expect synchronicity. Instead, you can send the email at any time (asynchronously). And the same will happen on the other side: the receiver will answer when is appropriate for them. The communication will build up that way.

Synchronous Is, Mostly, an Outdated Model

Synchronous communication, either online or in person, is the model which requires that the parties involved communicate at the same time, synced. Although synchronicity has certain advantages, as mentioned before, it often tends to be inconvenient, logistically harder, overly time consuming, and not optimal when it comes to developing complex ideas and getting to rock-solid conclusions.

Synchronous communication is inconvenient because when you ask someone to stop what they are doing to discuss something with them, often you will be breaking their flow—and flow is, unquestionably, one of the most critical essentials of the process of creating/doing/making/delivering great things.

Synchronous communication is logistically harder. People must "sync"—and frequently adjust—their individual agendas in order to be online or present at the same time, and only then they will be able to talk. It's certainly a burden for modern distributed teams, but it's often inconvenient as well for people who work in the same time zone, and even for people who work in the same physical location, especially if the discussion involves multiple people.

Synchronous communication is overly time consuming. Many topics require time for research, reflection, and experimentation, and when we're communicating synchronously we tend to extend a discussion to go through such things on the fly, as instantaneous decision-making is expected. Also, when a certain discussion involves multiple people, having all of them discussing together at the same time makes things move slower, at times very confusingly.

Lastly, synchronous communication is not optimal when it comes to developing complex ideas and getting to rock-solid conclusions because, as I've just mentioned, we all need to take the time to research, reflect, and experiment, and when we try to do those things on the fly, we often end up doing them poorly, without thoughtful ponderation, due to the obvious time restrictions. (By the way, forget about Malcolm Gladwell's Blink theory).

Asynchronous Communication Is King!

With asynchronous communication, we don't need to interrupt people and break their flow state, there is no logistic onus, we don't waste time, and we have more time to better work on ideas and to get to better conclusions, improving our decision-making process.

Plus, as a bonus, asynchronous communication naturally present us with a reliable record of communication (trains of thought, change requests, decisions, datetime of events, etc.) that can be referred to whenever needed—and we all know how important proper logging and documentation are.

Not to say, of course, that asynchronous communication doesn't bring its own challenges to the table. For example, people need to learn how to avoid noises, how to be concise, and how to use the proper channels when communicating asynchronously. And, again, not to say, either, that synchronous communication isn't better in certain situations, especially when it comes to establish or build up bonds between the parts. Nevertheless, for most situations, asynchronous communication is king.

Take Agile to the next level with DevOps. Learn practical tools and techniques in the three-day DevOps Implementation Boot Camp. Brought to you in partnership with Techtown.

Topics:
project management ,communication ,team building ,agile ,synchronous communication ,asynchronous communication ,flow ,distributed teams

Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.

{{ parent.title || parent.header.title}}

{{ parent.tldr }}

{{ parent.urlSource.name }}