I concur with the observation about multitasking as a reason why people won't turn cameras on. Starting in the late 90s I noticed people (myself included) who started staying in cubes/offices and calling into meetings even if they were only a few steps down the hall from the conference room. Reason: Internet access. (Checking/sending email, browsing web, IM, etc.) No one wants to be observed while they are not paying attention to the meeting they are supposed to be in. Whether we are suppose to be writing code, designing circuits, writing product requirements, reading specifications, calling customers, etc. we are all now being constantly interrupted with trivial communication events. Also when we are supposed to have important person to person interactions we instead either stay in offices and call in to meetings. Or we go to meetings and bring laptops and promptly check out of the meeting room we are in and into "cyberruption" space. I observed this as the seed stage of a drop in effective technical/business productivity. The main thing we are losing is strategic level thinking both on the technical and business elements of our workplace. People have largely stopped spending focused amounts of uninterrupted time doing a single thread of work and as a result have stopped "seeing the big picture". The first kind of productivity that sees a drop in quality and effectiveness is the work that involves "reflection"; strategy, architecture, innovation, planning, post-project review, etc. At the risk of sounding like a technology luddite, What we need is a business culture change involving 2 main things. Companies must set up cultures that reward/encourage the following ...
1. When people do have meetings with the intent to get team-based work accomplished, people who are in the building should attend in person without laptops, cellphones, etc...
2. If a person is remote that person is expected use a desktop video system that also displays a text list of the names of their active PC applications. The entries of this list should then flash prominently when that person uses them so other participants know when attention is being diverted from the discussion. People who are remote do not use video in this manner should only be allowed to listen...not to speak.
I know this sounds draconian but the only thing that changes behavior in an effective way is social peer pressure. If the above behaviors/requirements were instituted in companies we would see an increase in the attractiveness of desktop video and an improvement in the quality and productivity of teams in our corporations.
My 2 cents,
Roger Toennis
multitasking
that is why we are always spending endless hours in conference calls, because people are not focused on the call, they are focused on everything else they're doing. This is actually a major contra-productive practice and a costly one as well since most of these calls are international and could be finished much faster with the proper focus from the participants.
Not Just Any Video Matters
Research that I've published at www.brockmann.com shows that video collaboration makes SURE that people are concentrating on the discussion. Sessions are 25% shorter than audio conferences and if done with high definition video conferencing systems (cheaper than you'd think) participants can get a full range of visual and audio communications - without the hassle of travel.
Our research also shows a link between adoption of video conferencing and higher business performance. Read it in The Perfect Storm: Why Video Conferencing Will Dominate Business Communications.
-- Peter Brockmann
Eye contact and ease of use
Great article, and I agree with all the previous comments.
Here are another two aspects to think about in this context: eye contact and ease of use.
1) Face-to-face communication is effective when we look each other in the eyes. But in videoconferencing (VC), when you look at the screen in front of you to see your peers, you cannot look at your camera. Same thing happens on the other sides of the call. Therefore you cannot really look each other in the eyes, which makes you feel like the participants are not fully engaged in the conversation, even if they are not multitasking during the call. It is a well known problem and I once read about a technical solution for that, but in reality this solution has not found its way yet into the leading VC products in the market.
2) Ease of use - or the lack of it - limits VC to early adopters and prevents it from crossing the famous chasm into mass adoption. It will happen only when VC will be as easy to set-up and use as plugging in a phone and dialing a simple number. Being able to use a personal quality VC from your own desktop is also part of it, otherwise you will always have to book a meeting room - which means VC will not be available for most people most of the time. Also, being able to seamlessly call by video to people outside the company is essential for mass adoption. We are not there yet because of lack of interoperability and standardization that are the foundations of Voice and telephony for example. This limits the usage of quality VC internally within the enterprise. From a corporate perspective why should they invest so much money in VC when it still takes a technical expert to conduct - if it is possible at all - a quality call with the outside world?
Ease of Use... I'm Not Buying It
I'm really starting to get tired of every worthwhile piece of new or up-and-coming technology not being adopted because it is labeled as "too hard to setup and use."
If I recall correctly, setting up a domain or Exchange aren't all that simple either, yet we still have corporate networks and e-mail, don't we? The reason for this is that we hire trained, knowledgeable professionals to ensure that the system is built properly and maintained accordingly.
VTC (video telecommunications) systems should be handled with the same attention to detail, precaution, and care that any enterprise-level IT solution is given. I think the real reason why companies haven't taken more of a positive adoptive stance on videoconferencing is indicative of a larger problem within all of IT - responsibility overload.
I've seen countless times (and am an example myself) of a Network or Systems Admin suddenly getting tasked with building a scalable, usable, and intuitive VTC solution. How many companies can really be serious about tapping the benefits of videoconferencing when the required infrastructure is an afterthought?
I believe that as fuel prices seemingly hit new record highs on a weekly basis, you'll see more and more institutions realizing the potential gains of a properly administered VTC system in reduced travel costs. Once the hurdle of the initial setup (and pricetag) is complete, the other, less tangible benefits like immediate face-to-face communication, increased employee productivity, and less out-of-network downtime will help to further ingratiate this technology into corporate IT solutions.
Issue of online eye contact solved
The issue of online eye contact has been solved. Check out this website: http://www.iris2iris.com/en-UK/home.htm
From my experience I know that using video in 1 on 1 communication is much more effective then in multi person meetings.
This Is A Test Comment
This is a TEST Comment
Salman Khan
Salman Khan
http://www.google.com/
Post new comment