Communication Models and Methods
Communication models and methods are two tools that the PMBOK Guide places in the Plan Communications Management process. A communication model traces the path of a message from sender to receiver: encoding, transmission, decoding, the noise that degrades the message and the feedback that confirms understanding. Communication methods move the information. They fall into three families: interactive, push and pull. With both tools the project manager or the analyst picks a method for each message. The method must reach the level (available, received or understood) that the recipient needs to act on the message.
Goal
A communication model is a description, analogy or schematic that shows how communication unfolds in the project. A communication method is a procedure, technique or process that transfers information among stakeholders. Both definitions are the PMBOK Guide's. The model shows where a message gets lost. The method shows how it travels and what the sender knows after sending.
The PMBOK sums up their problem in one sentence on push communication: it ensures that the information is distributed, not that it reaches its audience or that the audience understands it. A project that confuses these three states finds the gap at acceptance testing, at go-live or on the day a sponsor claims never to have been told.
The decision covers every message the recipient must act on: which method, for which recipients, with what proof of the level reached (available, received or understood). The deliverable is a grid with one row per message. It feeds the communication plan. The PMBOK calls it the communications management plan. The same process produces it.
Usage
When to use
- A communication plan in preparation: choose a method per message and per recipient before choosing the tool.
- A message the recipient must act on: the recipient must apply a changed rule, process or scope.
- A multilingual or multi-site team: spot the gaps in language and professional vocabulary between French- and German-speaking Switzerland before sending.
- A remote team: plan the feedback that the room would have made visible.
- Message sent, behaviour unchanged: find the step of the model where the message got lost.
- A stakeholder who says they were poorly informed: separate what was distributed, what was received and what was understood.
- A large volume of documentation or a large audience: switch to pull and announce the repository with a push message.
When not to use
- Disagreement on substance: the recipient understands the message and rejects it; move to negotiation.
- Recipients not yet identified: draw up the stakeholder list first.
Description
The Plan Communications Management process (§2.5.2.3) names both tools without defining them. Section 5 of the Guide (Tools and Techniques) gives their definitions, the models and the families of methods.
The basic model: sender, receiver and noise
The basic model involves two parties: a sender and a receiver.
- Encode: the sender translates the message into symbols (text, sound or another medium) to send it.
- Transmit: the message travels through a channel. Physical factors such as unfamiliar technology or inadequate infrastructure can compromise it. Noise destroys part of the information when the message is sent or when it is received.
- Decode: the receiver converts what they received back into a form they can use.
According to the PMBOK, this model ensures that the message is delivered rather than understood. It has the shape of the diagram that Claude Shannon published in 1948: an information source, a transmitting device, a channel, a receiving device and a destination. A noise source acts on the channel. Shannon's source and destination correspond to the PMBOK's sender and receiver. Shannon was solving an engineering problem: reproducing at one point a message selected at another point. He held meaning to be irrelevant to that problem. The basic model shares this limit. It explains a channel failure: a video call that drops, an attachment that the mail system rejects, a recipient without access to the shared folder. It says nothing about a message that arrives intact and is misunderstood.
The interactive model: acknowledgement and feedback
The interactive model keeps both parties and adds two steps.
- Acknowledge: the receiver signals that they have received the message. According to the PMBOK, this acknowledgement signals receipt alone. It does not necessarily mean agreement or comprehension.
- Feedback: the receiver has decoded and understood the message. They encode a response and transmit it to the sender. The communication has succeeded if the sender judges that this response matches the original message.
Between people, feedback runs through active listening. The receiver paraphrases. The sender compares the paraphrase with what they meant. In this model, noise extends to everything that hinders understanding: a distracted receiver, perceptions that vary from one receiver to the next, a lack of knowledge or of interest.
According to the PMBOK, the sender transmits the message, makes sure that it is clear and complete and confirms that the receiver has interpreted it correctly. The receiver makes sure they receive all the information, interprets it correctly and acknowledges it or responds to it. A project manager who sends an email and waits for questions has therefore left that confirmation to the recipient.
The cross-cultural model: what each party brings to the message
The third model adds the human dimension of both parties. The PMBOK illustrates it with a cross-cultural communication model. The sender's emotional state at the moment, knowledge, background, personality, culture and biases shape the message and its transmission. The same factors in the receiver shape reception and interpretation. They add to the noise.
Among the sources of difference, the PMBOK cites working methods, age, nationality, professional discipline, ethnicity and gender. It also counts professional jargon: a technical design document has its own. In Switzerland, the regional language adds to these. A team in Lausanne and a team in Zurich read the same English specification in their second or third language. The lawyer and the developer read "mandatory" in two different ways. A message written for one of them reaches the other without a transmission error and with an error of meaning.
This model helps to prepare communication from one person to another or from one small group to another. The PMBOK sets its limit: it does not apply to emails, broadcast messages or social media.
The three methods: interactive, push and pull
The PMBOK's three families differ in the direction of movement and in what the sender knows after sending.
| Method | Movement | Media cited by the PMBOK | What the sender knows after sending |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interactive | Real-time exchange in several directions between two or more parties | Meetings, phone calls, instant messaging, some social media, video conferencing | The recipients' reaction during the exchange |
| Push | Sent directly to named recipients | Letters, memos, reports, emails, faxes, voicemails, blogs, press releases | That the information is distributed; neither its receipt nor its understanding |
| Pull | Made available; within the security rules the recipient consults it when they choose | Web portals, intranet, e-learning, lessons learned databases, knowledge repositories | That the information is available; if the tool tracks access, who consulted it |
The pull method suits large or complex volumes of information and large audiences. A document placed on the intranet is available before anyone has read it. A push message therefore announces every pull repository. A message goes through an interactive exchange when the recipient must understand it to act on it.
Forms of communication
The PMBOK combines the methods with five forms of communication, which the communications management plan defines. The form states how many people are involved and what links them.
- Interpersonal: between individuals and most often face to face.
- Small group: three to six people.
- Public: one speaker or a group of speakers before a larger audience.
- Mass: a minimal connection between the sender and large groups whose members sometimes remain anonymous.
- Networked: many-to-many exchanges that social platforms often carry.
The communication model covers the first two forms. Beyond them, the sender no longer receives individual feedback. The choice of method and the measurement of reach take over.
Choosing the method for a message
The analyst starts from what the recipient must do after receipt.
- Name the message and the expected action. "Department heads approve expense claims above CHF 500 from 3 March" is a message. "Inform about the project" is a topic. The list of messages starts from the stakeholder register and the communication requirements analysis. The PMBOK places this analysis in the same process. It draws on interviews, workshops and lessons learned.
- Set the required level. The required level is available, received or understood. The scale starts from the PMBOK's sentence on push. That sentence separates information that is distributed, information that reaches its audience and information that the audience understands. The scale extends the first level to pull: available information is published and announced. A user guide must be available. A cutover date must reach every person concerned. Those who apply a new rule must understand it.
- Determine the form. Count the recipients and choose among the five forms.
- Spot the noise. Physical noise comes from access, tools and infrastructure. Obstacles to understanding come from language, professional vocabulary, the current workload and interest in the subject. The analyst looks for them on the sender's side as much as on the receiver's.
- Choose the method. The "understood" level calls for an interactive exchange with feedback. The "received" level makes do with a push and an acknowledgement. The "available" level makes do with a pull that a push announces.
- Plan the proof. A paraphrase by the recipient proves understanding. An acknowledgement proves receipt. The published page and the sent push announcement prove availability. A page-view statistic measures who opened the page. The grid names the proof and the person who collects it.
- Transfer and review. The grid goes into the communication plan. A message that does not produce the expected behaviour goes back to step 4.
Pitfalls
Taking an acknowledgement for agreement. A "seen" mark in the chat, a thumbs-up or a "noted" signal receipt. A sponsor who replied "noted" to a scope change has approved nothing. A decision needs an explicit answer on its content.
Confusing sent with received. The project manager's email has left. A filter, a shared mailbox or a holiday stopped it. A message with a deadline attached needs a named acknowledgement that the sender tracks.
Copying the pull into the push. The announcement email repeats a date or an amount from the intranet page. The page is then corrected. The email stays as it was sent. The two versions now contradict each other. The push therefore links to the page instead of copying its content.
Asking "Any questions?" as feedback. A room's silence at this question proves only that nobody asked one. Success rests on the match between the response and the original message. The sender therefore asks for a response they can compare: a paraphrase of the rule or what the recipient will do on Monday.
Blaming noise on the receiver alone. The cross-cultural model places emotional state and biases on both sides. A message written in the sender's jargon carries its own noise. A review by a member of the target audience detects it before sending.
Applying the model to a mass broadcast. A newsletter sent to 2'000 employees returns no individual feedback. A short survey or the questions that reach the support desk then measure the reach.
AI considerations
A language model drafts versions of the same message for several audiences: the detailed note for the controlling team, the short email for employees, the German version beside the French one. It reviews a message and flags jargon, ambiguous terms and sentences that a reader in their second language will misunderstand. It suggests paraphrase questions for a session. It sorts a list of messages by required level according to the criteria of the grid. After a session it groups the questions asked and the paraphrases collected to spot the points that were misunderstood.
The sender judges the feedback. A paraphrase written by a tool does not come from the receiver and proves no understanding. Machine translation adds noise on domain terms: a tool may render "Abnahmetest" as "test de réception" where the French-speaking team says "test d'acceptation". A domain expert who speaks the target language reviews the translation of every message at the "understood" level. A project's messages name people and sometimes contain confidential information. The sender submits them to a hosted service only with the organisation's consent. Where needed, the sender anonymises them first.
Examples
The required level chooses the method and the proof. A company of 400 people replaces its expense tool at its sites in Lausanne and Zurich. The grid shows one project message per level.
| Message | Recipients and form | Required level | Method | Expected noise | Planned proof |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| From 3 March, the department head approves expense claims above CHF 500 in place of the controlling team. | 30 department heads; small groups of six | Understood | Interactive: five 45-minute sessions (three in French, two in German) | "Approve" understood as a signature without checking the receipts; habit of the old workflow | In the session each participant processes a real CHF 740 claim and justifies the decision |
| Cutover on 3 March; the old tool becomes read-only. | 400 employees; mass | Received | Push: personal bilingual email; reminder in the team chat two days before | Email buried in the inbox; absences | Read receipts tracked; department heads follow up with people who have not acknowledged |
| Detailed user guide with screenshots | 400 employees; mass | Available | Pull: bilingual intranet page; the cutover email announces it | Page hard to find; German version late | Page published and announcement sent. Follow-up: page-view statistics and questions to the support desk for two weeks |
The first row costs the most: five sessions for 30 people. It carries the only message where an error of meaning produces an unchecked payment. The second row makes do with the email because the required level stops at receipt. The read receipt makes this level verifiable.
Visualisations
Each level corresponds to a step of the model and to the method that reaches it.
Cost
| Phase | Level | Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Preparation | Low | List the messages and their recipients from the stakeholder register. |
| Execution | Medium | An interactive exchange costs session hours per group; a push or a pull costs little to send but needs someone to track acknowledgements or page views. |
| Documentation | Low | A grid with one row per message; it goes into the communication plan. |
Tooling
A spreadsheet holds the message grid. The team chat (Microsoft Teams, Slack) carries written interactive exchanges and push messages. Its "seen" marks and reactions are acknowledgements. Email with a read receipt serves the "received" level. A recipient can decline a read receipt: an explicit confirmation (a button, a form) is safer. Video conferencing replaces the room for a remote interactive exchange if participants keep their cameras on.
An intranet or a team wiki (SharePoint, Confluence) carries the pull methods. Its page statistics show who opened a page. A lessons learned database is one of the pull media that the PMBOK cites. An online form collects a short comprehension test after a session or measures the reach of a mass broadcast. A machine translation tool such as DeepL prepares the language versions. A domain expert who speaks the target language reviews them.
Sources
- Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), 8th edition, PMI: the Plan Communications Management process and its tools (§2.5.2.3); the definition of communication models, the basic model, the interactive model, the cross-cultural model and its limit, the definition of the interactive, push and pull methods, the five forms of communication (Section 5, Communication models and Communication methods).
- Claude E. Shannon, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication", Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 1948, pp. 379-423 and 623-656: the diagram of a communication system in five parts plus a noise source; meaning held to be irrelevant to the engineering problem.