We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
A good question about communication Here:
Will very high res teleconferencing substantially reduce the need for business air travel?
My answer? It may, in some sense, reduce the need for such travel, but that doesn’t mean that it actually will reduce it. Face to face contact has a way of proving stubbornly superior to all the other kinds, for all kinds of weird reasons that you never saw coming. I can remember people saying that the internet blah blah would have us all working on the beech [sorry, see comments, when you get old your spelling goes into reverse] beach by around now.
But what do I know? And what does anyone else think?
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I am not thinking of videoconferencing so much as Skype seriously changing the dynamics of group interaction.
I am an IT professional, and at this point I can perform almost any job function remotely, that I can do in person. Obviously, this is not the case with all industries, but many benefit from fast internet, free voice conferencing, virtual whiteboards, shared document repositories, public calendars, and the like.
It is even possible to record a musical performance, post it on the internet, and have other musicians add their parts, and then for an audience to enjoy the full mix.
I think the pace of innovation is constrained more by internet speed and reliability, rather than video.
I have worked remotely for a very large corporation for several years now. I live about 2 hours from our headquarters so it works out well for me to work at home. Most days I can be very effective and get more done at home than I could at the office.
That being said I still end up driving in at least once a week for meetings. Sometimes it is just to “be seen” — other times there are topics that are just easier to deal with face to face.
In my role I work with people across the US and throughout the world (mostly Europe but also Asia). You can work with someone for years and never have any idea what they look like because you communicate via email or phone calls. I have noticed that your working relationship becomes more friendly once you meet in person — even if it is only in a 1 hour meeting.
Based on these experiences and talking to others in similar situations I’ve come to the conclusion that modern communications make it very easy to work with anyone anywhere in the world. But we are still social creatures and face to face contact, even if reduced due to other communication channels, will always be important.
Not if Branson succeeds with a new 250 seat Concorde.
(Link)
Let’s just meet on the beach.
There already are people who are forming as-needed teams on projects and bids on proposals. A very close friend is one of them. The reason we have not yet got the beach thing down is that laptops do not do very well in bright sun light… in my case that means I print a lot of things out so I can do the markups out in the sun whilst sipping a coke or some other work-friendly caffeinated beverage.
Now, when I am at work in Belfast I tend not to do this as much. Not much of the year is really warm enough for sitting still and writing and more importantly… you get wet a lot more often!
_REDUCE_? Yes. Eliminate? Not even. A good bit of my work can be done remotely, but there’s about 40% of what I do that REQUIRES my hands on the keyboard, or the screwdriver, or whatever.
And for the arrogant “chosen ones” like Algore, they will never give up the right to travel – especially at our expense. 99% of the “global warming” conferences could be telecommuted, but that’s not good enough for the self-selected master class.
The world is run by control freaks. These are the people for whom it is more important that you are in the door at x am and don’t leave before y am and that they can look at you and see you working than it is that you perform your function and deliver.
Funny thing is, I can’t say that they’re wrong. The people that I know who have done this have run some very successful businesses (though they have made some related missteps.)
My point is though that what’s holding this back is not the technology but the human factor. It’ll take significant management buy-in and, as most of us who work in tech know, they’re often the least technically inclined people. The technology has been there for a long time, we just have to wait for the dinosaurs to die off.
The apostles of teleconferencing seem to think business is done in meetings. It isn’t. Business is done in the pub; the agreements made there are ratified in the meetings.
The suggestion is emerging from this that improved distance communication maybe increases the need for face-to-face contact, by making face-to-face contact more economically productive.
Face-to-face contact starts good long distance relationships, which are then far more productive than they used to be, because easier to maintain and make good use of, thanks to better communication at a distance.
Ergo, more travel. Especially as that too has been getting a lot easier and cheaper, even if not as nose-divingly quickly as long distance communication has.
That certainly fits with what has already happened in the last few decades.
Not to negate this idea, but for me quite the opposite has been the case, both with work (translation, all long-distance), and with friendship (Samizdata, among others). Eventually, it is all about trust, and in that respect different media of communication work for different people. Or, in cases such as mine, both can work well, but in different ways, and so they tend to be complementary: there are things one can learn about a person only in a face-to-face setting (facial expressions, body language – elements that for some reason do not transmit as well over video). But there are other things one can learn from a speedy written communication (e-mail, skype chat) that are unavailable in a face-to-face. Bottom line, no way I would bet on internet killing off air travel. All other things being equal, they are bound to coexist and complement each other.
The magic word here is need.
A non-subjective evaluation of need in cases of particular forms of communication (where the objective is a non-complex transfer of information) argues for the simplest means – don’t travel.
Where the objectives involve evoking motivations, particularly through the desired understanding of the information communicated, need becomes more objective.
Perhaps a major factor in sustaining business air travel will be the the ever increasing diffuse nature (and volumes) of information that have to be sorted out for the communications to be effective. Thus what “A” has and understands differs from that of “B” &’C” etc.
Attaining a grasp of others’ understandings will probably continue to support adequate need.
When something becomes easily available and more affordable it is used much more often whether it is necessary or not.
That’s why we have more work related travel for all sort of dubious reasons like conferences and fact finding missions. It’s also why we have inboxes full of pointless emails, far too many dull, amateurish, computerised presentations full of bar charts, graphs, pie charts and allegedly witty graphics, and why business documents for meetings and other purposes are now often as thick as a telephone directory instead of the old couple of sheets of A4 typed up, photocopied and stapled together by the secretaries.
*sigh* Me too! What’s up with that?
ESPECIALLY with vowels in various configurations.
I use Skype a heck of a lot in my day job. I work in the media/wealth management world, and I can get a great deal done at home first thing in the morning when I am writing reports; I can liaise with colleagues in Asia/Switzerland and later, in North America. It is far less intrusive to chat using the Skype messanger system than to be on the phone all the time. I work in a place where we don’t need, or have, a massive office. Our type of business could not function without this sort of tech.
But…..I do need to get out and about in London and in other cities for face-to-face interviews if I am pursuing a new line of business. It is a cultural thing; I have been able to move even some of this to technology, but there seems at the moment to be a sort of irreduceable minimum need to interact. And I actually enjoy working for part of the day in an office and sharing some of the conversation in the workplace.
I agree with Alisa. Most of my business is long-distance, and the relationships begin via telephone and e-mail. But they can be solidified by face-to-face meetings, either scheduled for that purpose or (more often, in my case) at trade conferences. Which is where I disagree with Pete: conferences aren’t “dubious”, if by that he means of questionable value. They are of immense value, although generally not in the formal presentations but rather in the informal “networking” sessions, receptions and side meetings. If I can meet with 15 or 20 people from all across the country over two days in one central location, that’s both economical and a very effecient use of my time.
I worked on a few EU research projects where each of the research groups meet up once every six months for meetings to do a few presentations, and discuss progress etc
in all fairness if a good video conferencing system was introduced they wouldn’t be needed
but then there’s the free hotels, airfilghts across europe fancy restaurants that come with
I can’t see anyone voluntarily giving that up except us asperger’s types
I am usually cynical about “the internet has achieved X” stories, however……
I am going to see a friend of mine in a few days. The lady works in Shiefield, England – and lives in Antrim, Ulster.
And, no, physical commuting is not a big thing in the ladies live.
So when faced with hard evidence even I have to admit there is something in this internet thing – including video conferencing (in order to speak to other people in the office, or rather in the company).
After all in my small way even I use the internet.
I am doing it right now.
Of course I would love this conferencing stuff – it would mean that my useless typing (etc) would not be a factor.