Accessibility and Other HR issues in Virtual Environments

Lets consider the use of VR environments for education and business. Further, lets limit the scope of thos discussion to using VR for business or education tasks that are essential, not for entertainment. Lets also consider that employees and students are required to use the VR platform to perform tasks. Now that we have the basic discussion scoped...
In my opinion, it is essential that serious users of VR tools be represented in VR in a way that allows other users of the system to clearly identify that person to the extent that they feel a sense of presense with a colleague or fellow student. In most cases, VR is being presented as a tool to help reestablish co-worker intimacy that is lost as the workforce become disintermediated by physical distance. Buyers of these system want to create more engaging and effective communication, create deeper bonds among users, and finally use these enhanced relationships to help achieve business results. Therefore, it is essential that VR is a direct extension of everyday business operations, not a parallel universe that has no impact on real life. In some ways, its no different than email. I suppose that when email first came on the scene, many peopel felt it was a "false" communication because they did not use the phone. The same was likely said of the phone when it was first used(face to face is real, the phone is not). However, time as passed, and quite often email is accepted as a more indelible mode of communication because it is "permanent". surely we accept email as a tool of business, and life in general, and we would never say that "it was just an email, not real". Further, in business it is essential that we trust that when we receive an email from "Bob Jones" it is truly Bob Jones that sent the email. If we have any doubts, the business value of the communication is lost. Why would this be any different in VR? Now, we know that VR is multi-sensory. We See and Hear. So when I meet Bob Jones in VR, I must immediately trust that I am seeing and hearing Bob Jones. But, VR easily enables the altering of Bob Jones. Lets say the following:
1. Business communication should not be dilluted by questions of identity
2. VR creates a multitude of opportunities to "adjust" identity
3. Users may have a wide variety of reasons for wanted to adjust their identity
4. Typical corporate policies have guidelines on appearance and behavior

There is no way the questions of accessibility, equality, employee rights, etc will be answered with finality or clarity in the near future. these debates will continue for quite some time. Key questions become:

1. Just because something is possible in VR, do employee have the right or entitlement to leverage those possibilities?
2. In what cases should the possibilities of VR be leveraged to the benefit of employees?
3. Should there be two sets of rules in a company: one for VR, one for Physical?

Some use cases:
1. I work from home and dress in shorts and t-shirt. My avatar wears a suit. Is this a misrepresentation of who I am?
2. I am in a wheelchair. My avatar walks. Is this ok?
3. I am legally a man, but dress like a woman in the workplace. What should my avatar look like?
4. VR can alter your voice. Should "voice fonts" be permitted?
5. VR can make it look like I am in the virtual office while I am actually sleeping. is this ok?

to be continues

How fast is Glacial?

I've had SME's tell me that the speed of change in Healthcare is "glacial". And some environmentalists will tell you that our glaciers are melting "incredibly fast". So how fast is fast?

Great article in the WSJ today. so how fast is fast?

http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2009/08/26/the-convergence-of-health-care-information-technology/

Roll-your-own, or buy Best-of-Breed?

lets suppose you are a software vendor and you've identified a niche in the market place for a new PC based application. Lets suppose then that you get some money together and some programmers, and set about creating a plan for the build. Maybe it looks something like this:
1. Get some money
2. Get some programmers
3. Sketch out your vision for the new software application
4. Reject the Windows operating system
5. Spend all the investor money on writing a new operating system
6. Spend what is leftover on end-user functionality

Sounds like a killer project plan, right? Many people would agree. In fact, in the VR space we see any number of providers doing exactly this. But the plan is slightly different:
1. Get some money
2. Get some programmers
3. Sketch out your vision for the new software application
4. Reject the best-of-breed gaming engines
5. Spend all the investor money on writing a new graphics/animation engine
6. Spend what is leftover on end-user functionality

Hmmm, maybe I will open an online store, and instead of using PayPal, I will try and raise $5m in VC money to write a new merchant payment system.

I was CTO for enough years to recognize the importance of spending money in non-glamorous ways. Without a solid infrastructure, the flashy stuff on the desktop won't operate properly. But, I also kept as my mantra: build vs buy? in my experience, generally the people who build, have too much money provided by people who don't really understand the alternatives. These same folks are quite often the ones who like to create fiefdoms of developers. IT headcount = power, right? in the high-tech software marketplace, it is no different.

I am open to debate. Please let me know why its a better strategy to roll-your-own VR engine as opposed to buying the best available SDK.

Out of the "Money Flow"

in the arena of virtual reality tools for serious business use, many(if not most) people are uncertain about how to implement VR as a business tool. Forward thinking business managers are beginning to recognize that it could be a valuable tool, but is it really necessary? think of daily operational life in any major corporation. I believe that the majority of employees perform corporate-neutral functions(i.e. the same function exists in every large company). The minority of employees perform corporate-identity functions(things that are specific to the company or specific industry). corporate-neutral workers perform "transactions" on all daily basis. a transaction may be part of Admin, finance, IT, marketing, etc. a business objective or complex task has a workflow lifecycle which consists of tasks. each task requires a tool. I will refer to the tools that are required to complete a task that is part of the business objective lifecycle as "Money Flow Tools"(MFT). Logically, any tool that is part of MFT suite will be considered a business requirement, and resources(time, money, people) will be assigned to the tool according to its MFT ranking. Tools that are "out of the money flow" are generally perceived as nice-to-have, or non-essential technology. As a tool provider, you will want your business tool to be part of the MFT suite. In the majority of corporations, Email and MS Office would be considered MFT. Webex or LiveOffice would be considered an MFT. The Telepohone and bberry are MFT. Then there is a body of software tools that may or may not be MFT: Visio, MS Project, Adobe Professional, etc. Apart from Adobe Pro, the other two products have easily accessible workarounds. I can make a flow-chart in powerpoint, I can create a project plan/gant chart in Excel. so are they MFT or not? maybe it varies by the individual user?
lets consider immersive technologies and the MFT concept: who cannot do their job without virtual reality tools? is there a task that cannot be performed with any other tool? is there a task that truly can be performed faster, better, cheaper using VR? if you cannot answer yes, you are not in the Money Flow. ok, so you are thinking now: a "business meeting" is a task that needs to be performed, the meeting needs a tool: telephone, conference room, webex, video conferencing. I suggest that the meeting is not a task. the meeting is a tool. the business objective of the meeting is the task. there is a big difference. task does not equal tool. this also makes it easier for us to talk about the criticality(or not) of VR as a tool. we must remember to target the business objective, not "tool replacement". to be continued.....

Data visualization and the problem with a virtual "library"

here is something that has been bothering me for awhile. I met with a client a number of months ago and they had an idea for virtual resource room. The topic was relevant because we are building an enterprise Virtual Reality environment for them. The resource room is to be designed to allow users to find documents, educational courses, and other reference material. The client in this case got excited and started to describe how cool it would be for the user to "walk into a virtual library lined with book shelves" that would enable them to "look" for information. Now 200 years ago, or whenever the "dooey"-decimal system was created, it was revolutionary. Now think about how it really plays out for the user: walk into a library, think about what it is you need to find, locate a card catalogue, search until you find the reference piece and corresponding number, find a map of the library, follow the map, hunt for the book, hopefully its in the right and place and not checked out. Now why on earth would we want to recreate the same inefficient process in VR? I say inefficient because compared to what we can do in VR, a traditional library architecture makes about as much sense as hitching a horse to car(Borat anyone?). the best VR solutions(and internet as well) are those that take advantage of the possibilities of the medium to enable what is not possible in any other medium.(this also include faster, better, cheaper). So the question on the table is: if a library construct is not the best way to help users find what they are looking for, then what is? I do not know the answer to this question, but I need to figure it out. The best I can do at the moment is to think about how my brains performs recall. Here is an example: I am at home and I need to find my shoes. I am not immediately sure where they are. When I start to think about it, I DO NOT, visualize a spreadsheet that has a line item for each possible location for my shoes. What I actually do is pop a 3D rendering of my house into my head, and with a birds eye view, I "see" that my shoes are by the front-door where I left them. so in one quick thought, I know where my shoes are, and how best to go and get them. how did my brain do that? Now shoes are easy, but what if I am trying to find a document on my hard drive? I do not visualize my hard drive. I do think about what the document was for and when I wrote it. when I shop on zappos for shoes, they very conveniently lead me down a path of what is available. In the wide world of Text/Data Mining/Analytics, we call this Guided Navigation. Now imagine that we apply the science of guided navigation to an avatar in a 3D immersive world......now we are getting somewhere. now think about grocery shopping. I usually have list, but I never order online. I go to the grocery store and walk the isles. Why? because I like to be visually reminded of things I might be interested in, but were not on my list. Quite often however what I might be inspired to buy has no relevance to what's on my list. I will take irrelevance out of focus if I am in a hurry. If I am not, I will allow myself to "see" seemingly irrelevant things along my path to completing the list. We can do this digitally as well: "show me only what I asked for" or "show me things along the way". Lets call this a relevance filter option. So, Guided Navigation + Relevance Filter + 3D Immersion = Guided Visualization? Guided Information Immersion? every great idea needs a great acronym. but that aside, hopefully you see where I am going with this

Generation gap?

I had a chance yesterday to speak professionally with someone between the ages of 21-24. The topic of social networking came up, and I decided to ask her about what tools she used/did not use and why. very interesting feedback. It was just one person, but I think it is safe to say that there is not one definition of how people in this age bracket use digital comms.

Here is her take on some things:

Facebook: I don't use it. I think that people disclose too many personal details about their lives. Why would you put it all out there for everyone to see?

Twitter: What is the point? does anyone really care that I: just ate a sandwich, just went to the store, just rode my bike?

LinkedIn: I use this tool because it is helpful in networking.

Even more interesting I think was that she just graduated from college, and:
1. Never used books in the library. she feels that the books are still there so that it still looks like a "library"
2. people in the library are there to use the computers
3. all research is done online now

I felt like someone's grandfather talking about how the "young folks" these days have this new device called a "cell phone", and I am really not that old.

IMHO, cellphone, web, email, and txt are now all taken for granted and part of everyday life for this age bracket. However, we cannot/should not assume that other methods of communication are universally accepted or otherwise ubiquitous.

The Uptake of Virtual Reality in Ambulatory Medical Care

More doctors are going digital as a growing number of health insurers cover online medical consultations -- where patients get treated for minor ailments via online chats, video conferencing and interactive questionnaires.

"An increasing number of health insurers are either doing this on a more global basis or are conducting" pilot tests, as more doctors find the online approach useful for certain kinds of consultations, says Susan Picano, a spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans, an association representing nearly 1,300 insurance companies.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124977187174117097.html?mg&mg=com-wsj

Now, however, the notion is becoming more mainstream, with major insurers even reimbursing for these services. Generally speaking, such visits tend to be less expensive than in-office visits, paying doctors $25 to $35 with an average $10 patient co-payment.
Read more: http://www.fiercehealthit.com/story/health-plans-expanding-online-physician-connection-options/2009-08-16#ixzz0ORvPZdWD

http://www.fiercehealthit.com/story/health-plans-expanding-online-physician-connection-options/2009-08-16

First blog post and some thoughts

first and foremost, this blog will be used to share my thoughts on Virtual Reality, and how it is evolving into a useful technology in a variety of industries. As a producer of VR tools, as well as consultant, author, and speaker on the subject of VR, I am going to talking about a wide variety of things. I will do my best to publish thought provoking pieces. My main interest is dissecting the problem space that is targeted by the current wave of VR tools, with the goal being to determine if we are making up problems to solve, or if the technology is truly addressing existing problems in a manner that could not be replaced by something that is faster, better, cheaper.