A lump of clay.

About a year ago, renowned management adviser Peter Drucker stated in the Harvard Business Review that "it is pointless to try to predict the future . . . but . . . it is possible . . . to identify and prepare for the future that has already happened" (September-October 1997). I've heard that one statement quoted so many times since that it has almost become a cliche.

Yet it aptly describes the reason I get excited when a best-practices review lands on my desk. By documenting the future that has already happened in certain, progressive places, we all get a glimpse of where we can be. It's almost like a pointillist painting; up close it may appear to be just so many dots or survey numbers, but if you stand back and look, a precise image appears.

But this future that has already happened isn't predestined or unavoidable. No supernatural force pulls us to a tomorrow that we can have no influence in shaping. In fact, having an image in our minds of what could be is like taking a lump of clay and molding it into a workable vision. We can keep the good parts and smooth over the rough edges now.

So much for waxing philosophically. I'm holding just such a survey report in my hands now. It's called "The Human Factor: New Rules for the Digital Workplace." The research was conducted by Synopsis Communication Consulting of London ([e-mail]) several months ago.

The study documents advantages of communication technology that include better information flow, better sharing of knowledge, better informed work force, more consistent communication, better enabling of feedback, and reduced cycle time. A bright future for us all investing in communication technology.

However, buried almost exactly in the middle of the report is this statement: "Technology is ahead of people's ability to cope and use it - it's becoming part of the problem, not part of the solution."

We are failing to manage how we combine people and technology.

But we aren't left hanging. A better understanding of why technology is hurting us leads us to solutions that may define the future for organizational communication. The study uncovered a three-pronged perspective, which articulates what you probably already have experienced.

* Brainspace - People are bombarded with information, often poorly presented, so people are becoming less willing to consume all the messages aimed at them.

* Context - No one is putting these rapid-fire messages in context for the audience, so the information lacks significance or meaning.

* Relationships - Effective sharing of information depends on relationships of trust and shared context.

Technology won't make messages more useful unless we build personal relationships first. The message will get through more easily if the recipient has some pre-existing relationship with the sender.

Simply put, relationship determines meaning.

In fact this study comes to a perhaps startling conclusion: "To make the most of electronic communications requires learning to communicate better face to face."

Because I've experienced it, I know that trusted business relationships can originate and be strengthened entirely electronically, without first building trust face to face. But at the same time, I likewise have experienced one drawback of technology that this study points out: Technology is being used in organizations to bypass middle managers - the exact group of people who can give context to information for employees.

So what kind of future do we want to shape? How can we realize the benefits, but avoid the pitfalls being documented in organizations where the future has already happened?

Picture this: An organization that harnesses technology to allow dialogue among people who share an interest in certain information. Imagine an electronic exchange that allows the group to learn from the meaning that each individual attaches to that information.

What if managers were no longer expected to just disseminate messages? What if instead managers had access to details that would help them put the information in context for people who depend on their trusted ability to help sort through the clutter and make messages relevant?

Or is there something we can do to cut out the clutter in the first place? That's one of the recommendations of Synopsis Communication. Too many messages try people's patience; organizations can either self-regulate their communication or contribute to confusing clutter. Do you suppose technology could help?

One of the points of the study is that messages that successfully change people's attitudes require communicators to take people through the line of logic - the thinking process - not just share the conclusion.

But as anyone who has observed how people digest change communication can tell you, everyone is on his or her own schedule, filtering messages based on previous experiences. Mass media can't take people en masse through the line of logic, because not everyone absorbs and adapts at the same speed. Technology can bring the messages to each individual on his or her own assimilation schedule.

While the focus of this study is largely communication within organizations, we can take what we learn internally and apply it externally. In fact, as guru Drucker pointed out in the same journal article: "We have concentrated these past years on improving traditional information, which is almost exclusively information about what goes on inside an organization. . . . Increasingly, a winning strategy will require information about events and conditions outside the institution."

Sheri Rosen, ABC, is director of organizational communication at USAA, a financial services company in San Antonio, Texas. She invites your online thoughts on digital experiences at [e-mail].