Communication networks in the Nutrinet project

Results showed that there were four different types of communication networks in the NUTRINET [Nutrition Research Information Network] Project. These were the formal or work-related communication network, the informal or non-work related communication network, the technical communication network and the feedback network. Each of these networks had distinct characteristics and manned by which it operated in the Project. Generally, all these networks were characterized by openness and differentiated roles or positions of members, hence, the identification of elique groups, bridges and isolates in each of the communication network. Members utilized various methods in communicating work-related and non-work related methods among themselves. To communicate work-related matters, the following methods were used: memorandum, letter/correspondence, face to face interaction, telephone conversation, telegram, written report and fax message. The most common among these were face-to-face interaction and letter/correspondence. Face-to-face interaction was the most common method for communicating non-NUTRINET matters. As to the types of work-related information/messages, the following were commonly discussed by members of the Project: finances/budget, work assignments, project place, accomplishments, policies, project problems and decisions. Conversely, six types of non-work related information/messages were identified: family matters, current events, updates in respective agencies and institutions, developments in the field of health and nutrition, notice of training and seminars and plan of outings, recreations, socials, etc. The frequency of communication in the NUTRINET varied depending on the regular schedule of meetings of each committee or as the need arose. Communication barriers in the NUTRINET Project were not simply due to a single underlying cause, but came about as a result of several interrelated factors. The problematique analysis employed in this study focused on the interplay of factors within each member agency/institution and the NUTRINET Project as a whole. It revealed eight major barriers or problems, three of which were superordinate influential factors; another three were subordinate factors, and two were immediate symptoms. The three superordinate factors which included nature of organization, organizational climate for communication and budgetary constraints gave rise to subordinate factors such as limited interpersonal communication, inadequate manpower and inadequate facilities; ultimately leading to immediate symptoms such as slow output turnover and inaccesible data for network members and information users