Here in the UK the snow continues to fall, and yet another face to face meeting is cancelled. I had a quick chat with the other person involved and we’ve now arranged to hold the meeting at the same time as originally planned, but via Skype. Simple.
So why didn’t we just do that in the first place?
As someone professionally involved in virtual communication and collaboration, I regularly look for oportunities to do things online rather than in person, and yet it surprised me how many times in the past year I’d met with people face to face when maybe it could have happened virtually.
I think we tend to assume that certain types of meeting and event should happen in person, and as a result we don’t consider all the options.
Going forward I’ve resolved that for myself, virtual options will be the first I consider. That doesn’t mean I don’t intend to do anything in person (far from it), but where the inconvenience of travel, time and location outweigh the benefits of meeting in person I think it’s right to question doing it any other way.
What I’d really like to know is what you think.
Are there any particular circumstances when we shouldn’t even consider doing things virtually? I’m thinking about this in the context of meetings, interviews, training activites, conferences and any other event where the default behaviour is to do it face to face.
Similarly I’m thinking of the whole range of virtual solutions from VoIP to Telepresence, whatever is appropriate.
So why don’t we just consider doing things virtually as the first option?
Related posts:
Dear Barry. Thanks for an interesting post which I’ve enjoyed reading. This is a subject that keeps me busy most of the week. Having spent a good part of the previous three months researching this topic, amongst others, I would like to add that virtual communication, whether it be 2D, as I call it, or 3D, is becoming a much more acceptable form of meeting and conducting collaboration. During the past few weeks I’ve also been researching 3D business world environments. Currently Second Life does not have the ability to display in-line web browsing, so unfortunately, this medium does not yet feature in my research; I did however hear that there are possible solutins being developed, but no specific time frame as yet. Currently opportunites for 3D immersive business and training include, Web.Alive, VenueGen and Teleplace. The following link is to a post I made recently on my blog which conveys some of my thoughts on this subject, perhaps it is of interest to your readers. http://bit.ly/4S0meY.
As businesses and organisations today are more under pressure from declining revenues as a result of the biting recession, virtual meetings are providing a way to instantly save costs and therefore impact the bottom line. How much money in one month is spend globally on travel, hotels, flights, restaurants, not to mention the effect it has on the planet, and all this only to hold a meeting, demonstrate a product or conduct a training seminar. It is my belief that the virtual collaboration trend will continue to grow strongly in 2010/2011 with much more innovation and price reduction attracting a wider audience (this will be especially true in the UK if it doesn’t stop snowing
. One of the key benefits of in-world virtual collaboration is the lack of distraction in comparison to simple 2D meetings such as Skype, Go-to-Meeting, Webex and the likes, often described as ‘immersive’.
There are many other benefits too, some of these can be found from a post from Karl Kapp, http://bit.ly/61wJG0. Of the three mentioned solutions, I am leaning in the direction of VenueGen, but only slightly, as they have spent considerable effort and research applying realistic body language and expressions to the Avatar; you can even upload a series of face photos to add even more realistic effects. I’m often found tweeting on this, and other similar subjects, on Twitter, your readers are welcome to follow me from my link in this post. On a personal note, it would be nice to catch up again soon, it’s been a while since we spoke. With kindest regards, Paul.
I definitely think I’d stop short of a “pat on the back” or disciplinary review online.
I spent about five years working from home, so I know the value of virtual communication and I got pretty good at it, too. Nevertheless, now that I’m back in an office setting, I arrange face-to-face meetings as much as possible.
Non-verbals are important. That tired old bit about 80% of communication being non-verbal is a myth, of course, but I do think you can pick up a lot from non-verbals. Even the best (read=most expensive) videoconferencing systems don’t quite deliver the fidelity of a face-to-face meeting…and that good videoconferencing stuff is usually not in the budget anyway.
Other stuff happens at face-to-face meetings. Aside from the content of the meeting itself, there is pre-meeting and post-meeting chatter, smalltalk, and scuttlebutt that enhances one’s awareness of the organizational culture. (Is this possible with the virtual stuff? Sure, but it usually doesn’t happen. Pre-meeting time is usually spent making sure everyone is logged in correctly, etc. There doesn’t tend to be any post-meeting time; people just hang up or log off.)
Connection This one is fuzzy, but you just feel more connected with someone that you’ve met in real life. I can talk to my wife on the phone, for instance, but I’d much prefer to be in the same room. The same interpersonal kind of connection holds for non-romantic relationships as well.
Will we ever get to the point where virtual communication will be so robust and rich that these three points are no longer an issue? Maybe, but it hasn’t happened yet.
I do have a good deal of sympathy with your views Ben. In my earlier post http://onlignment.com/2009/10/beware-the-luddite-within/ I mentioned EM Forster’s short story “The Machine Stops”, in which all communication has become virtual, and the main character in the piece longs for face-to-face contact with his mother. You’ve raised three really interesting and serious points, and I find it hard to disagree. Your final question is the real teaser. As a species we have a habit of evolving – every organism adapts to its environment – but we have no history of adapting to a digital world, because we’ve never lived in one before. We could fudge the question by saying, “Who knows where technology will lead us next?” Is this the year of 3D television? Is it true that some have already become so immersed in virtual worlds that they are unable to tell the difference, or even prefer them to the real World? Like you, Ben, I’m only asking the questions, but I feel the dead hand of EM Forster on my shoulder as I write and as I ruminate over the answers.
As a postscript to this comment I’d like to thank you for the word “scuttlebutt”, which sent me scurrying for my dictionary. What a wonderful gift – and more evidence that the new literary rubrics – blogging, microblogging, text-messaging and the like, far from impoverishing the language, have enormous potential for enriching it for the good of all. Well done, Sir!