The utility had a clear problem: how to develop their current integrated resource plan (IRP). The size and scope of the problem seemed to expand daily.
The state’s public service commission had issued an order prescribing in detail the methodology and requirements necessary to be addressed in their IRP. The utility was used to creating their own IRP, with their own methodology, employing a tried-and-true process for attaining the goal of everyone’s IRP: reliable power at the lowest cost.

But this current commission order turned all of that on its head. 

Crossroad. What was being ordered looked more like an IRP that simply ticked off the commission’s boxes, and less like a strategic plan for delivering low-cost, reliable power. In fact, that traditional goal seemed to be secondary to the commission’s goal. Being one of the state’s largest and most visible utilities, its core executives realized that everyone was watching—and closely assessing—how they executed the commission’s directives. Thus, the executives were at a crossroad. They had to decide to develop their IRP by: 

Scrupulously following commission guidelines (which on closer inspection, clearly had process-oriented holes) to satisfy regulatory requirements and other statutory goals.

Diligently relying on their tried-and-true methodology to satisfy their clear mission-oriented need to best serve their wide array of customer needs.

Far-reaching implications. They realized that their decision would have far reaching ramifications, some of which were most likely unknown, but certainly would be unearthed.

These utility executives were not delusional by any stretch. They were fully aware of the transformation that had been occurring in the electric power industry over the past several years. They fully understood that the familiar ground upon which the industry was based for the past one hundred or so years was completely in flux. They clearly understood how the inexorable influx of renewable generation, especially from distributed energy resources (DERs), coupled with drivers to reduce carbon emissions from greenhouse gases (GHGs), fundamentally changed their landscape. 

And they embraced the fact that the planning process for developing their IRP had expanded in scope, incorporating both traditional and emerging factors: increasing numbers of inputs and assumptions; forecasting volatility; wider array of generation options; distribution planning; grid modernization; renewable generation targets (mostly through renewable portfolio standards—RPS—legislation); judicious thermal generation retirements; myriad financial considerations (capital expenditures, operation and maintenance expenses, and rate design being key); transportation electrification; emerging technologies; energy storage systems, both large-scale and distributed; and customer empowerment. 

Even with all these additional consideration, the executives felt certain that their planning methodology could incorporate these factors and create a preferred portfolio of generation and distribution that satisfied their overarching need for reliable power at a low cost while still maintaining a level of adaptability to adjust to future known and unknown circumstances. 

Ultimately, their collective eyes were open.

To come to grips with their basic IRP problem, they assembled a planning committee that included representatives and executives from resource planning, transmission and distribution, finance, operations, legal, regulatory, and corporate communication. 

Paths for an IRP. The planning committee quickly honed in on their purpose: to choose a path that best served their customers. They assimilated all the information they had, considered what other utilities were planning and had actually done, considered their past experiences, considered their apparent place in the state’s utility mix, and projected the implications of their decision, then pinpointed three potential paths:

Adhere to the commission’s prescriptive path to the letter, essentially abdicating their contributions to developing an IRP.

Expand on their tried-and-true process to incorporate evolving changes in the energy landscape (including meeting statutory and regulatory requirements) and thus establish an updated process for developing an IRP.

Duplicate their work by developing two IRPs simultaneously: one that employed the commission’s prescriptive path; and one that traversed their own need for a strategic plan. Left unsolved for the moment, was the decision on which of these two IRPs to file.

Deciding on which path to choose is a question that many utilities are being forced to answer—an answer that has far-reaching and pivotal implications for everyone involved.

—Rich Maggiani, Resource Planning Consultant

Events in Nevada over the past three years shone a bright light on how net energy metering (NEM) has affected the evolution of distributed energy resources (DERs). Or would it be more accurate to call it the DER revolution?

Nevada: an insightful perspective. In December 2015, the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) cut NEM compensation by about one-third and instituted a monthly fixed charge. This new policy applied to both new and existing NEM installations, virtually all of which were rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) panels.

This decision significantly decreased NEM compensation while it also extended the payback period for a rooftop system. The consequences were quick and monumental. Immediately, the top three solar installers in the state announced their intention of moving to more “business friendly” states. It came as no surprise when rooftop solar installations dropped 92% in first quarter 2016. Nevada, once a darling in the solar sector, became a virtual wasteland.

Until the PUCN reversed itself.

Late in 2016, the Nevada governor appointed two new commissioners to the three-person PUCN. That new commission reinstated the original NEM rules. Then last year, the Nevada Legislature passed bill AB 405 that reinstated NEM compensation for residential solar projects at 95% of the retail electricity rate. The bill also contains numerous other consumer protections, ensuring the bill’s reach for at least 20 years. At its essence, though, AB 405 guarantees consumers the right to self-generate electricity. The bill’s passage not only resuscitated the state’s moribund solar industry, but also created a boon for potential energy storage system (ESS) installations.

So, let’s summarize. NEM active; rooftop solar DERs soar. NEM revoked; DERs grounded. NEM reinstated; DERs take off again. And this doesn’t even account for the state and Federal tax credit incentives. As a policy tool, NEM has wielded enormous power since its first passage in 1983. As a result, DERs are experiencing an annual, unabated 20% growth rate.

What hath NEM wrought? Over the past 35 years, NEM and the influx of DERs have caused a tremendous upheaval in the energy industry. Here are just a few.

Integrated Resource Planning. It used to be that resource planning focused on central station firm generation sited to facilitate a one-way transmission and distribution system. High capacity factors better ensured reliable energy delivery. Contemporary resource planning, however, is undergoing a wholesale transformation influenced by a number of aspects:

• Integration of variable, large-scale and distributed renewable generation with its decreased reliability, lower capacity factors, and uncontrollable “fuel”.
• Inadequate modeling tools.
• Expensive battery energy storage.
• Grid modernization considerations.
• Two-way transmission and distribution (T&D) systems.
• Load-eroding drivers.
• Legislative and regulatory mandates.
• Communication and transparency challenges.

Cost and benefits of rooftop solar. This is a controversial topic, to say the least. Utilities assert that NEM customers use the T&D network and require energy when their panels aren’t generating power, yet are not paying for it, all while receiving retail rates for their power. This unfairly shifts costs to non-NEM customers. Solar advocates contend that a number of factors (utility incentives, RPS policies, reduced T&D costs, fossil fuel price hedge) actually make this cost-shifting argument moot. Indeed, a 2014 report conducted by PUCN concluded that NEM actually benefited non-NEM customers. It’s no surprise that actual costs and benefits vary widely, and depend on numerous factors.

Utility of the Future. The proliferation of DERs has challenged the basic utility business model. Must the utility business model of the future align with public policy goals and customer electricity needs?

At its core, the challenge focuses around the potential for unbundling the energy services that utilities provide. More and more, some of these services are being provided at the “grid edge” where customers manage and use energy—such as self-generation. As energy storage prices fall while their capabilities rise, DERs will continue to grow as will the prospect for grid defection.

A transition to the utility of the future model is already underway. For example, the two largest utilities in New York, Con Edison and PSEG (both essentially “wires” companies), instituted a Utility of the Future department three years ago. Why? Put simply, to better align with the state’s Reforming the Energy Vision (REV) goals of a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, half the state’s generation from renewable resources, and a 23% reduction in energy consumption—all by 2030.

One thing appears certain: DERs are here to stay. How the utility of the future evolves remains to be seen.

—Rich Maggiani

The Hawaiian Electric Companies have a plan. Their resource plan, filed in December 2016, outlines the near-term actions for attaining 100 percent renewable generation in their service area by the state’s mandated goal of 2045; the most ambitious—and only—such plan in the country.

In July 2017, the Hawai‘i Public Utilities Commission (HPUC) formally accepted this December-filed resource plan—their Power Supply Improvement Plan (PSIP), which was updated from a previous PSIP filed in April 2016.

Broad, inclusive participation. Both PSIPs were created in an open, collaborative process that included multiple participants and intervenors admitted into the docket. These participants were directed to “propose questions and suggest alternative modeling inputs, assumptions, methods, and analytical approaches” that Company planners must consider to incorporate into the resource planning process.

Selecting generation resources. Company planners ran production simulations using optimized candidate resource plans that incorporated distributed energy resources (DER), demand response programs, and other resources; then analyzed system security requirements to ensure system reliability. From the final results, they developed near-term (2017–2021) action plans that encompass renewable acquisitions, grid modernization, DER policies, environmental compliance, and system security improvements.

In the aggregate, these action plans add enough rooftop and feed-in tariff solar generation combined with large-scale solar and wind to attain a 52% RPS by 2021.

Communication challenge. In Hawai‘i, actions taken by the Hawaiian Electric Companies are fodder for front page news. The December PSIP results, garnered through this collaborative process, were eagerly awaited not only by participants, but also by the media and general public. Having worked on both PSIPs filed in 2016 (as well as two previous Hawaiian Electric resource plans), I was keenly aware that the written report had to be easy to read by a wide audience.

For the December PSIP’s Executive Summary, I worked closely with Corporate Communication to design the flow of information and the messages needed to clearly communicate the enormity of the plan’s results—the first resource plan in the nation to achieve 100% renewable generation. To highlight the thoughtful planning effort, a sidebar explained seven foundational Renewable Energy Planning Principles:

1. Renewable energy is the first option.
2. The energy transformation must include everyone.
3. Today’s decisions must not crowd out tomorrow’s breakthroughs.
4. The power grid needs modernization.
5. The lights have to stay on.
6. Our plans must address climate change.
7. There’s no perfect choice.

The power grid needs modernization. About six months after completing the December PSIP, the Companies filed their proposal for modernizing their grid. The proposal described in detail a strategy for utilizing advanced technologies to develop its grid as a platform that enables increasing amounts of renewable generation, improves reliability and resiliency, and creates more customer choice. This modernization transforms the grid into a two-way power flow that opens the way for tripling the number of rooftop solar installations (including those with complementary energy storage systems) over the nearly 80,000 such systems already installed.

Integrated grid planning process. Modernizing the grid requires an ongoing integrated grid planning process conducted every two years, each with a five to ten year horizon. They call this planning process C³GP, for Comprehensive, Customer-focused, and Cooperative Grid Planning. Integral to this process is resource planning, transmission planning, and long-term distribution planning, especially to incorporate DER and customer-related services.

The proposed grid planning process incorporates customer input, updated assumptions, and latest advancements in technology, thus broadening grid planning as an integrated energy network Customer input is important given the significant increase in networked customer resources and flexibility in how they manage their energy use, especially through a wider array of demand response programs. This unprecedented integrated grid planning process pushes Hawai‘i even further ahead as the industry leader for attaining a modernized, renewable energy grid.

The need for greater communication. More renewable generation on the grid parallels the growth of privately-owned rooftop solar and energy storage systems, which results in customers becoming more actively engaged in the generation and management of energy. Coupled with that growing interest is the need for clear communication to better enable a successful grid transformation.

—Rich Maggiani

Creating an Integrated Resource Plan is a formidable challenge. I know; I’ve helped create and write several IRPs during the past decade that each followed a process developed 25 years ago. This is why the process currently being proposed by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) staggers me.

Typically, IRPs created by a utility or a load serving entity (LSE) focus on providing reliable, affordable power for their service area and customers. While these IRPs comprise a wide range of generation, costs, transmission and distribution, and service, they are isolated plans.

The CPUC proposes to elevate all that. Its proposal involves an iterative process to compile individual IRPs into one statewide resource plan—in other words, a resource plan using the state as its service area. This process seeks to balance the individual loads, generation resources, planning perspectives, power grids, and other aspects of each LSE—large and small, public and private—into one cohesive direction that focuses energy generation in the state.

Senate Bill 350, which initiated the CPUC proposal, requires an IRP development process that meets California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets. The upshot, however, requires a modernized grid to transmit increasing amounts of renewable energy. Among many other goals, SB 350 calls for 50% renewable generation by 2030, essentially doubling current output. The pending SB 100 ups the ante by requiring 60% renewable generation by 2030 and a non-mandatory 100% by 2045.

This proposed energy resource planning initiative requires coordination among the CPUC and multiple state agencies: California Energy Commission (CEC), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and California Independent System Operators (CAISO). The proposal, which has garnered the input from LSEs and other stakeholders, still requires approval by the five state Commissioners.

The initiative is nothing if not daunting. It assimilates each LSE’s IRP process into a hierarchical five-step iterative process (shown here, taken from the CPUC proposal document).

Five iterative steps essentially involve two IRP cycles. For the process to be effective, all LSEs must develop their individual IRPs from similar positions. Starting with SB 350’s GHG goals (1), the CPUC defines foundational inputs and assumptions, a Reference System Portfolio (generation resources that meet policy goals), and filing requirements for each LSE (2).

LSEs create individual IRPs with one or more portfolios, at least one of which must be created from Reference System Portfolio elements. The IRPs must maintain reliability, minimize costs (and thus bills), and comply with GHG goals, with priority given to disadvantaged communities. The filed IRPs conclude with one preferred portfolio, a short-term action plan, and any procurement requests (3).

After all IRPs are filed, the CPUC first reviews them individually to ensure compliance with policy goals and the process, then as an aggregate to create one statewide portfolio that meets policy and reliability goals. If all goes well, the CPUC approves and certifies the individual IRPs, then creates a preferred system-wide portfolio (replacing the Reference System Portfolio) and a set of short-term actions for implementing the preferred portfolio (4). Finally, the CPUC takes the steps necessary to procure new resources, fund programs, change tariffs, and initiate anything else needed to implement the preferred portfolio (5). This two-year process then begins anew.

A 20,000 foot perspective of the process and its communication. Let’s try to get our arms around this. The proposed process involves several state agencies and numerous LSEs: a half dozen investor-owned utilities (IOUs), dozens of publicly-owned utilities (POUs), about two dozen electric service providers, and a handful of rural electric cooperatives and community choice aggregators. The largest LSEs will file a “Standard LSE Plan” (these plans are to be assimilated in step 4 and represent about 75% of statewide load); sixteen POUs will file an IRP as outlined by the CEC; and the remaining will file an “Alternative LSE Plan”.

If approved, this process will be carried out for the first time over the next two years—in a state whose economy is larger than all but five countries.

How well these numerous IRPs are created and written will have a profound effect on the effectiveness and efficiency of steps 4 and 5. In addition, the clarity of the IRPs and of the overall process in general, both in its written and spoken communication, will directly affect how the myriad stakeholders, media, and customers perceive the process.

Renewable generation is visible. As renewables increase on the power grid, so too will public participation and the need for clear communication—a critical aspect of the initiative’s success.

—Rich Maggiani

First, I start with Facebook. I scroll through to find anything interesting, especially posts from my three kids. Then I check out LinkedIn. Who’s invited me to connect? Who’s endorsed me? Who’s looked at my profile? I check out an article or a random post.

I don’t muck much with Twitter except to search on #stcorg and #stc13 . After looking at these two searches, I usually just close it. I might check out Instagram, but usually only because one of my children has posted there. Next, I check out the ST C Board of Directors site to read any new posts. And I check my iPhone to see if there is any pushed content I find interesting.

One morning, though, things were particularly active. I kept getting new posts all over the place. Bing here, ping there, bop over there. (Ok, not audibly; metaphorically, but you get the idea.) I could barely keep up. For some reason that I didn’t totally fathom, I wanted to check them all out. It quickly became took much, moving back and forth, forth and back, that it all became, well … chaotic!

When that thought hit me, it just brought everything to a halt. Is social media just chaos, and we’ve all been sucked in to the flurry? While my computer and smart phone kept pinging and popping, I began to wonder. What if social media is a manifestation of the chaos theory? Well, that just might explain a lot.

So off to the Internet to refresh my memory about chaos theory. First, I learned that chaos theory is a field of mathematics. Right away, I liked it. After all, I was a math major in university. A major concept of chaos theory is the butterfly effect. A small change in one place—the proverbial butterfly flapping—has a profound effect on some cataclysmic event somewhere else—a tsunami, for instance. And here’s the kicker. In math terms, such a succession of events is nonlinear. In other words, there is no direct connection between the two events.

Mathematics, of course, has a more technical explanation: something about dynamical systems being deterministic, but sensitive to initial conditions (I’ll spare you the details). Suffice it to say that even though one event might lead directly to another event, a tiny change in that initial event can cause all hell to break loose.

Okay, so back to social media. Does this make sense? Why was I getting all these posts in such a short period of time? Did some Monarch flap its wings somewhere? Maybe social media as chaos doesn’t refer to my particular situation at all, but to a larger condition of the greater social media, the one in which everyone plays.

One post can certainly cause various events. Tweet that ST C is holding its annual conference, and people register. That’s a direct and expected result. There have been times, though, when one small post results in completely overwhelming and unexpected results. I’ve seen it on Facebook and on Twitter. You probably have, too.

In the end, I guess, that’s the greatest attribute of social media: the power to engender cataclysmic social disruption and change. There’s not much that is loftier than that.

A final note: This is my last column as your social media columnist. It’s been a great ride writing this column. And Editor Liz Pohland has been patient (my favorite trait), thoughtful, and considerate. But for me, social media has become too big a distraction, and a convenient excuse to procrastinate. I act with purpose, and while some of my social media interactions are certainly purposeful, most of them are in search of purpose. Social media has become (I’m going to say something potentially blasphemous here) what television has long since become: titillating but ultimately forgettable. Or maybe I just got tired of waiting to see that completely overwhelming and unexpected result from one of my posts.

—Rich Maggiani

[Note: This post originally appeared in my “Social Media Insights” column in the May 2013 issue of Intercom, the magazine of the Society for Technical Communication (STC).]

A Communication Audit. This is a comprehensive, systematic evaluation and analysis of your company’s communication. A communication audit unveils what is truly happening as opposed to what is thought to be happening. It:

• Encompasses the activities conducted in a communication assessment and its resultant findings (although here it is more robust).
• Identifies the people who create the messages and information being communicated.
• Evaluates the clarity and value of the communication.
• Critically looks at the various methods of communication (such as Web sites, newsletters, emails, blogs, videos, and other publications, as well as interpersonal skills and managerial communication), pinpointing problem areas and identifying successes.

A communication audit must be thoughtfully planned and implemented, and the results carefully assessed to achieve the greatest impact.

The Scope of a Communication Audit. You can focus on a number of communication areas to evaluate and analyze. This focus can be the broad-based communication for the entire company or for an individual division or group. It can be a specific communication method (such as interpersonal communication or your internal Web site) or for a specific vehicle (such as your corporate publications).

Sometimes the scope of your company’s communication is simply too large. Breaking your communication efforts into smaller, more manageable chunks enables more targeted, accurate findings. Your scope simply depends on what you want to achieve in a particular timeframe.

The exact scope of an audit depends on your company: on your particular problems and needs.

When to Conduct a Communication Audit. Communication audits are always helpful, if only to keep up with the needs of a changing staff and a changing business climate.

If you have never conducted an audit, now might be a good time especially if your company has grown substantially. When a company experiences any substantial growth, communication channels tend to break down—what once worked becomes antiquated and stresses its ability to carry the ever-changing and ever-increasing amount of information.

Communication audits are indispensable when a company is undergoing any significant change to your business, such as when you experience a layoff or change in staffing; merge with or acquire another company; implement a new technology; launch a new product, service or line of business; enter a new market; or any other disruption to your everyday business operations.

In these cases, the results of an audit can identify those key communication areas that are vital to your moving forward as smoothly as possible whenever your company experiences these inevitable transitions.

A Communication Plan. This plan takes the findings of an assessment or audit and defines a plan of action that enables you to communicate better. A communication plan has four main parts; it:

• Clarifies the quality of your communication by summarizing the comments garnered through conversations with employees.
• Evaluates the effectiveness of your communication vehicles and channels, as well as the messages and information being communicated.
• Recommends steps for improving communication and making it more effective, including specifics on methods, channels, and personnel.
• Outlines a timeline—both short-term and long-term—for implementing the recommendations.

A Communication Plan, thus, maps the roads you can travel to communicate better and attain the resultant benefits.

—Rich Maggiani

[Note: This post is one of our position papers originally published in 2012.]

Consider these questions to better determine how well you are communicating.

• Are your employees at all levels talking to each other?
• Do your strategic groups know what each other is doing?

• Is there a breakdown in communication—the information only goes so far, but from that point on, everyone makes it up as they go?
• Is there animosity over the perception that other groups simply don’t contribute enough to the company’s success?
• Does your staff know exactly how to proceed, or are there conflicting ideas?
• Are expectations clear?
• Are departments duplicating efforts while other tasks are left undone?
• Was your communication once flawless, but now that you are growing and changing quickly, these communication channels just don’t work anymore or are filled with static?

Communication fails as a company grows and changes. As a company grows—whether through sales or acquisition—communication becomes more of a challenge. What once seemed so intuitive, now seems like such a struggle. The breakdown of communication channels is common. This is not an isolated phenomenon, but rather a pervasive issue with growth and change.

There are size thresholds where communication becomes problematic: approach that size and issues arise. For smaller companies this happens when you just don’t know everyone in the organization any more, or staff come and go and you’ve never met them. For larger companies, the increasing size just doesn’t fit into your infrastructure causing things to slip between the cracks. For extremely large companies, employees don’t know all the countries around the world with company offices, much less what they do at those offices. There is just a sense that everything is just too distant.

Miscommunication results when channels breakdown. To compound the problem of weakening communication channels, employees at all levels unwittingly communicate schizophrenically—especially managers and company leaders. A specific message about policy discussed on Monday changes by mid-week. Appeals to raise the bar of integrity are counteracted when actions fail to support this imperative. Or decisions passed down through the chain of command take diverging routes as managers and leaders at each level obfuscate the meaning, diluting its impact.

Messages about the state of the company change, sending staff in varying directions to the point where they end up in many different destinations. Off-hand remarks are misinterpreted and undermine trust.

Miscommunication can occur at all levels of a company. This kind of communication, of course, leads to confusion and misunderstanding, takes up valuable time while everyone tries to decipher the real message, and leads to shrinking morale.

Absent any overarching statement of vision and values and image, absent any clear channel of communication, absent any method for engaging in a shared multidimensional dialog, managers and leaders up and down the organizational chart are free to interpret any message and its meaning.

Effective communication is clearly stated and singular in nature. A Communication Plan must clearly state the company’s brand and mission in words that can be understood and internalized by everyone. It must inform every employee about where the company is going and how it is doing.

A company’s stories must be truthful and honest; they can’t be mere claims using strong powerful words. The emotional value behind the words and the means of how the words are delivered must not only ring true, they must be true! When that happens, a focused strategy emerges, energizing everyone to arduously pursue a common goal of success.

—Rich Maggiani

[Note: This post is one of our position papers originally published in 2012.]

Successful performance means bringing together the best resources for serving future needs with a company’s capabilities, investing in the these resources, then constantly measuring and managing the results. To best bring these resources together, you must communicate effectively. And for that, you need a plan.

A Communication Plan relates the a company’s brand, image, mission, values, and goals to all employees, informing them of what the company does and for whom; the benefits it offers and the problems it solves. It describes communication channels that facilitate the exchange of information and ideas among your board, executives, management, and staff. It is a strategic discussion about the very core of a company: how it operates, what it stands for, what it delivers. This discussion must be robust enough so that everyone related to the company speaks with one voice, one mind, one purpose: a focused, clear, articulate message.

Creating and implementing a Communication Plan. One way to create and implement a Communication Plan on your behalf is by applying four communication principals: Enlighten, Convince, Motivate, and Align. These four-steps provide the framework for creating and implementing company-wide communication where everyone actively participates.

When creating a Communication Plan, address the particular challenges to communicating effectively in your company. To better evaluate poor or nonexistent internal communication, look for ways to change how you talk about problems, to truly assess and analyze these problems in a new light, and to generate new and innovative solutions.

Examine the relationship between organizational structure and specific communicative practices, how communication practices by various levels of hierarchy establish, maintain, or change the message and, ultimately, the culture. Anticipate communication deficiencies, and use these discoveries as a means for facilitating organizational development and innovation.

In a Communication Plan, draw the map that enables you to create a company dialog. Be sure to implement simple, clear communication through the most effective channels so that all employees can easily access, understand, and distribute the necessary information. Devise a clear overriding message that embodies your image and values.

A well-implemented Communication Plan has many benefits. Effective internal communication, implemented through a thoughtful plan, allows employees to feel comfortable with the company and contribute to its vibrant culture. And it’s this vibrant culture that leads to the many benefits experienced through effective communication.

• Your company is able to distinguish itself enough to attract and retain the best and brightest employees.
• Your company has a strong sense of culture, one that employees help create and want to participate in.
• Employees feel comfortable enough to not only recognize and accept change and growth, but to participate and lead it.
• Employees can readily see how their contribution impacts the company and its performance.
• Employees at all levels engage in a dialogue to become intimately involved in the company and its daily interaction with its customers.
• Employees can readily see they are working for something larger than themselves, some greater cause, and thus can see the effect of their efforts on the bigger picture.
• Clear communication engenders a strategic discussion about your company and its industry, leading to continuous improvement and innovation that anticipates and addresses market needs.

To attain these benefits, your communication must be authentic, aligning words with actions; it must be real, having a human touch; and it must use a language, a voice, that everyone can speak.

—Rich Maggiani

[Note: This post is one of our position papers originally published in 2012.]

A Communication Plan defines a process for communication among all employees at all levels. It is a strategic method of getting everyone involved in the company, its growth and evolution, and ultimately its continued success.

A Communication Plan is based on strategic goals, aligned and focused, and results in increased revenue and profitability, more robust innovation, and marked organizational stability. It unites everyone—directors, executives, managers, and employees—in your company toward this strategic goal with a shared purpose.

Specifically, a Communication Plan identifies:

• The types of communication that most benefit your organization.
• The people involved in sending, receiving, and contributing to this communication.
• The best channels—written, audio, video, electronic, verbal, interactive, and others—for creating and transmitting this communication, and an action plan for implementing these channels. These channels allow for clear communication up and down the corporate organization chart (from directors and executives, to managers and employees, and back) and among all divisions, groups, and colleagues.
• A time table for how often information is communicated. Regular communication is one of the many keys to success.

What constitutes effective communication. Effective internal communication gets—and keeps—everyone on the same page with your values, image, brand, mission, and goals. Focusing on these aspects ensures all employees know:

• What the company does, and comprehends the entire scope of its products, services, solutions, and benefits.
• Where the company is headed, and how its products and services, coupled with innovation, keep the company moving in a positive direction.
• How the company is doing financially, as well as projected revenues and profits.
• How their work helps the company succeed.

A singular, purposeful message. A well-crafted Communication Plan, expertly implemented, allows you to quickly adapt to change and growth; it strengthens your position in the marketplace. As a company, you benefit from a clear sense of purpose, a laser-focused message, and a strategy to distribute your message, both internally and externally. When your external target market receives your message, they respond in a positive manner, helping fuel your growth and contribute to your bottom line.

This focus works for a number of reasons and has many benefits. Everyone in your company gets and contributes to the same message using the same voice. Clients and prospects receive the same message in their interactions with employees.

Within your company, one hand knows what the other is doing. Employees not only understand, and appreciate what other departments, divisions, and groups are doing, they also know what the people in these organizational structures contribute to the company. Employees see the big picture and better under stand their place in it. They better comprehend where the company is going, and the benefits it brings to your customers as well as to them.

This is a powerful motivation and an unstoppable force both within your company and in the marketplace. Customers know what you stand for, creating a clear image of who you are and what to expect from you: greatness. This focus allows your company to not only stand out from the din of too much information, but also to rise above it. This focus replaces uncertainty with clarity: a clarity which you define and communicate. For if you do not define your message—your brand, image values—outside forces will and it will not be the one you want out, nor would it be accurate or consistent.

Effective communication enables you to speak with one carefully crafted message backed by real action and commitment. Only this type of true message strikes deeply, withstands constant testing, and endures.

—Rich Maggiani

[Note: This post is one of our position papers originally published in 2012.]

Effective communication performs a core corporate role, vital to your company’s financial capacity as well as to your overall success.

This success encompasses many measurable factors:

• Increased market valuation.
• Increased shareholder value.
• Greater connection and commitment from employees.
• A more robust and inclusive corporate culture.
• Proactive involvement that drives corporate change and growth.

In essence, effective communication drives business results that lead to success.

Increased market valuation. Effective communication is one of the leading indicators for financial performance. Research shows that, over the first years of this century, companies with the most effective communication attained a 30 percent increase in market valuation. This is almost 20 percent higher than companies that do not communicate effectively.

This holds true for both publicly-traded as well as privately-held companies.

Increased shareholder value. Effective internal communication benefits your shareholders. Over the early 2000s, research demonstrates that companies with effective communication strategies experienced a 26 percent total return on investment to shareholders. This total return is 57% higher than companies with less effective communication. (By comparison, companies with the poorest communication experienced a 15 percent decrease in market valuation.)

Greater connection and commitment from employees. Employees work for more than just money. They want to be part of something bigger than themselves, to have meaning in what they do, to know their work contributes to a larger cause.

Companies that communicate better benefit from employees who feel more connected, more committed, and better understand how their actions contribute to a company’s success, which dramatically reduces turnover.

An effective communication strategy reinforces employees’ realization that they are critical assets to the company. Ultimately, employees are more inspired.

A more robust and inclusive corporate culture. Clear internal communication channels that create a dialog among all employees using a single company voice and that use technology in this exchange make everyone feel more in touch with the company. This is especially true for new hires. New employees feel connected to the company’s culture and immediately begin applying their efforts to the overall success of the company.

As companies grow, their culture can become scattered through the forced decentralization that must happen to keep up with a more complex business structure. Effective internal communication helps even the largest companies feel like a smaller, more comfortable, more secure place to work and fosters a sense of participation and contribution.

Proactive involvement that drives corporate change and growth. Effective internal communication has a positive effect on changes in the marketplace and in your industry. Employees adjust quicker and have a greater impact on changing business conditions, allowing your company to keep pace with this change, to grow, and to lead.

Most employees are adverse to change; they get too comfortable with the way things are, the status quo. Yet organizations with effective communication experience strong support for change and growth from management and staff when communication is at its most fluid.

Effective communication sparks a change in behavior, and more closely connects all employees to your customers. Ultimately, effective communication powers your company and proactively drives business performance to a higher measure of success.

—Rich Maggiani

[Note: This post is one of our position papers originally published in 2012.]