4  Module 2: Communication Architecture (45 minutes)

Facilitator: Jamie Toghranegar (Precision Public Health - Voice)

4.1 Learning Objectives

By the end of this module, participants will be able to:

  1. Explain why informal, ad-hoc communication breaks down as team size and complexity increase.
  2. Match communication channel choices to message type, urgency, and audience.
  3. Identify the components of a team Communication Charter.
  4. Draft a basic Communication Charter for a current or hypothetical research team.

4.2 Module Overview

Every research team communicates, but most teams have never deliberately designed how they communicate. The result is predictable: important decisions get buried in email threads, urgent questions wait days for a response because they were sent through the wrong channel, and junior team members hesitate to speak up because no one has established that it is safe to do so. Communication dysfunction is consistently one of the top complaints in research collaborations — and it is almost always preventable.

“Communication architecture” is the intentional design of when, how, and through what channels information flows across a team. Just as physical architecture shapes how people move through a building, communication architecture shapes how information moves through an organization. This module introduces the concept and then puts it directly into practice: participants leave with the beginning of a Communication Charter — a concrete, actionable artifact that specifies their team’s communication norms and channel assignments. The Charter is not bureaucracy; it is a coordination tool that saves time by resolving ambiguity before it becomes conflict.

4.3 Participant Background Reading

Participants are encouraged to review the following before the session. Each takes 15–20 minutes.

  • A Communication Charter example or template. Before the session, review at least one example of a team Communication Charter — a document that specifies which channels are used for what purposes, response time expectations, meeting norms, and escalation paths. Examples can be found in project management resources, open-science community documentation (e.g., The Turing Way), or by searching “team communication agreement template.” Arriving with a concrete example in mind will make the drafting activity much more productive.

  • Dabbish, L., & Kraut, R. E. (2006). “Email Overload at Work: An Analysis of Factors Associated with Email Strain.” ACM CSCW Proceedings. Or any accessible article on communication overload in professional teams. The key insight to take from pre-reading: the problem is not too much communication per se, but a mismatch between message importance and channel visibility. This framing will ground Part 1 of the content block.

4.4 Instructor Notes

4.4.1 Conceptual Background

Media richness theory. The academic framework underlying channel selection is media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986), which holds that communication channels differ in their capacity to carry “rich” information — nonverbal cues, immediate feedback, natural language variety. Face-to-face is the richest; a standardized form is the leanest. The principle is to match channel richness to message ambiguity: routine, unambiguous information can go through lean channels (email, forms); sensitive, complex, or contentious messages need richer channels (video call, in-person meeting). Instructors don’t need to name this theory explicitly, but understanding it helps explain why the channel-matching exercise in Part 1 works the way it does.

Communication architecture and psychological safety. Communication norms don’t just affect information flow — they signal who belongs and whose voice matters. Teams that default to the most senior person’s preferred communication style (often long email chains or back-channel conversations) inadvertently exclude junior members, people in different time zones, and anyone who communicates differently. A well-designed Communication Charter explicitly addresses inclusion: it says, in writing, that certain channels are for everyone, that response time expectations are realistic, and that asynchronous participation is valued.

The Charter as a living document. Participants sometimes worry that creating a charter is overly formal or will be ignored. The key facilitation move is to frame the charter as a hypothesis: “We think these norms will work for us. We’ll revisit in 30 days.” This makes it lower-stakes to propose and easier to adapt.

Facilitating the drafting activity in virtual/hybrid settings. If participants are distributed, use a shared collaborative document (Google Doc, Miro, Notion) rather than flip charts. Consider providing a template with pre-filled sections so groups have a starting point rather than a blank page.

4.4.2 Key Concepts

  • Communication architecture: The intentional design of how, when, and through what channels information flows across a team; analogous to organizational structure for information.
  • Communication channel: A medium for transmitting information (email, Slack, face-to-face meeting, shared document). Channels differ in synchronicity, richness, visibility, and persistence.
  • Channel overload: A condition in which too many channels are in use simultaneously, making it unclear where to look for information and increasing cognitive burden on team members.
  • Communication Charter: A team-level agreement specifying which channels are used for what purposes, expected response times, meeting norms, and escalation procedures.
  • Psychological safety: The shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking — including speaking up, asking questions, and disagreeing — without fear of punishment or humiliation. (See also Module 5.)
  • Asynchronous communication: Communication that does not require all participants to be present simultaneously (email, recorded video, shared documents). Especially important for distributed and international teams.

4.4.3 A Model Communication Charter (for instructor reference and as an activity scaffold)

The following is a simplified example that facilitators can share with groups that are stuck or want a starting point:

Team: [Name] Communication Charter — Draft

Channel Used For Expected Response Time
Email Formal decisions, external communications, attachments 2 business days
Slack #general Quick questions, announcements, kudos 1 business day
Slack #urgent Time-sensitive items requiring same-day response 4 hours (during working hours)
Weekly meeting Project updates, unresolved questions, decisions requiring discussion —
Shared Drive (Google/Box) Documents, data, version-controlled files —

Meeting norms: Agendas shared 24 hours in advance. Meetings start and end on time. One note-taker rotates each week.

Escalation: If a decision requires broader input, the team lead flags it to the group Slack and sets a 48-hour response window.

Review: This charter will be reviewed at the 30-day mark and updated as needed.

4.5 Content Block: Designing and Implementing Effective Communication Plans for Impactful Team Science

4.5.1 Part 1: The Basics of Effective Communication (5 minutes)

A. The Communication Chain

Communication is not a single thing, and is not a singular act. Communication is more than speaking. It is a chain and the result of a series of choices between a sender and a receiver. These decisions determine whether our message is received effectively.

B. Communication Channels

  • Definition and purpose of communication channels
  • Matching message type to delivery method
  • Channels as the foundation of team communication architecture

C. Scenario Practice - Communication Examples: Identify effective and ineffective communication through examples - The Facilitator shares three scenarios and asks the group to share their opinions on whether each scenario depicts an effective way of communicating, and, if not, what the possible cause of misalignment is: presentation or delivery?

4.5.2 Part 2: Communication Architectures at the Team Level (10 minutes)

A. Defining Communication Architectures

  • Define roles, responsibilities, and decision-making processes

  • Build trust and psychological safety

B. Bridge2AI-Voice Example

  • Leadership roles and institutional representation

  • Communication channels used:

    • Email, Slack, Monday.com, Box, Google Docs, Teams, phone/text

  • Meeting structures across initiatives and task forces

C. How to Design and Implement Communication Architectures

  • Avoid over-communication and channel overload

  • Prioritize commonly used tools

  • Simplify whenever possible

4.6 Activity 2: Developing a Communication Charter (25 minutes)

4.6.1 A. Applied Exercise (15 minutes)

In small groups of 3–5, draft a Communication Charter for either a current team you work on or a hypothetical future research team.

Prompts to work through: 1. What channels do you currently use (or expect to use)? List them. 2. For each channel, what type of messages should go there? Who is the audience? 3. What are your response time expectations for each channel? 4. What are your norms for meetings? (agenda timing, note-taking, attendance) 5. What is the escalation path if a decision can’t be resolved asynchronously?

Facilitator Note: Groups that are stuck can use the model charter in the Instructor Notes section as a starting scaffold. The goal is not a perfect document — it is a first draft that surfaces disagreements and assumptions within the group.

4.6.2 B. Feedback and Presentation (5 minutes)

Each group shares one thing they agreed on quickly and one thing they found surprisingly difficult to decide. Facilitator captures the “surprisingly difficult” items on a shared surface — these are the real friction points the charter process is designed to surface.

4.6.3 C. Revision Time (5 minutes)

Groups revise their charters based on feedback and discussion. Participants are encouraged to share the draft with their actual team within two weeks of the workshop.

Module Materials