Air travel or Telepresence?
Traveling by air to attend meetings, conferences or training sessions in another Australian or international city is expensive in terms of flight costs (say around $300 for domestic and $2000 for international flights), hotel and taxi expenses (around $150 per night plus $140 for taxis), and living allowances (averaging around $100 per day). Increasingly important also is the cost to the environment with typical CO2 emissions (on a per seat basis on a jet) ranging from around 110 kg for a 1000km flight on a Boeing 737 and 800 kg for a 6000km seat in a Boeing 747.
Compare this to the cost of using the the newest and most “real” video conferencing equipment now available. This is known as telepresence. At around $200 per hour the cost for a telepresence conference is significantly cheaper with the added benefit you do not have to leave your office. (Here's a link to an overview of the technology from Tandberg
Fortunately the Australian government, through Lindsay Tanner as Minister for Finance is taking a leadership role in providing video conferencing facilities to government. The Minister has allocated nearly $14m to install telepresence facilities in Australian, State and Territory governments. Providing high speed internet access throughout Australia is another government priority. In addition big business is increasing the use of video conferencing as a core communication tool and even SMEs like Link Asea are testing the new technology that will allow secure high quality multi point video conferencing from home computers.
So the infrastructure is being rolled out. The challenge now is to ensure it is embraced within companies and government agencies. To do this we need to understand the incentives and disincentives for increasing their use.
The main disincentive is that many people like travel with all the opportunities it affords to stay in nice hotels, accumulate frequent flyer points and avoid doing the dishes after dinner. This issue is one for management to address.
Proponents of video conferencing and other IP based business tools must also be proactive by unequivocally demonstrating the power of the new communication options. Advocates for using this technology need to demonstrate that telepresence and other new technologies represent powerful new options for delivering training, holding conferences, facilitating group support, creating professional networks and for holding negotiations.
To kick this off this process, we will build up a store of information on the new technologies on this website. Anyone interested in promoting the technologies as a green and effective alternative to travel is welcome to post comments and articles of their own. At the end of the day the Link Asea team believes that using modern communication technologies is good for business efficiency and great for the environment.
Comments
In addition to incentives, I feel that an important barrier to the adoption of telepresence for meetings and workshops is quite simply the lack of familiarity with the medium. Experienced managers, negotiators and facilitators who have developed their skills over many years may find themselves lacking the familiar but subtle cues of body language and eye contact. They also have to contend with the need to manage the various views of the different participating sites (or the lack thereof) and often feel at the mercy of those who operate the cameras at each site.
These 'problems' may of course be turned into advantages. But that is the challenge - participants will need to hone their skills within an entirely new paradigm. And many, especially those who are not professional presenters or facilitators, will understandably resist. Just as people once resisted e-mail...
Posted by: Ravi Corea![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://linkasea.com/ThirdOne/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 25, 2009 12:33 PM
Colin's comments about the fact that many people like to travel are, of course, quite right. This is one factor encouraging the use of CO2-greedy planes rather than videoconferencing. Another factor may be convenience. In the university where I work it's not so easy to get to a videoconferencing site. They are not well-publicised around the university, and there is little incentive for people to use them. It would promote videoconferencing if the use of the facilities in the workplace was encouraged by making sure that facilities are easily available at the times when they are most likely to be used.
Posted by: Peter McCawley | August 25, 2009 01:49 PM
Another interesting technology growth area similar to videoconferencing is webconferencing. Webconferencing includes software such as Elluminate, Adobe Connect and Dim Dim (open source) and is ideal for training and educational purposes. The benefit of many of these products when compared with videoconferencing is that they offer multiple ways of communicating in one environment: video/audio/text/document sharing etc. And this can occur from your desktop- so you can avoid some of the convenience issues that Peter M so rightly highlighted. Another plus - in the case of products such as DimDim - is that they can integrate into learning management systems such as Moodle and Blackboard and dont require the user to download or purchase any software. These are some great attributes, however currently these programs certainly don't provide the same level of personalisation that face-to-face and well designed video-conferencing facilities do. And they can leave you at the mercy of the quality of your own internet connection. As always it's a matter of finding the most appropriate medium for the job.
Posted by: Peter Yates | September 9, 2009 04:31 PM
Peter, Thank you very much for your comments.I think you are spot on. The key to using these technologies is reliability, preparation and blend. Simply put: If the internet or software is not reliable - don't use it; if the workshop, meeting or training session is not adequately planned (such as running orders for VCs) don't proceed; and experience now shows that the most effective approach to using these technologies is to use a blended approach. The good news is that it is now apparent is there is momentum building about using modern communication technologies to complement or replace some face-to-face activities. That is good for a range of reasons not the least of which are cost and environment.
Posted by: Colin Lonergan | September 11, 2009 02:18 PM