VR has its place, and its place is not Everywhere

I was just checking out the following Survey conducted by Forbes Magazine. How frustrating.


http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=65560894&gid=1391417&srchCat=WOTC&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2E3dtlc%2Enet%2F2009%2F09%2Fforbes-survey-concludes-against-virtual-meetings%2Ehtml&urlhash=drEr

I really don't think that Forbes needed an elaborate study to demonstrate that executives prefer face-face meetings. I'm not sure that anyone with a solid understanding of business operations would even consider challeging this truism. I believe that Forbe's could have provided significantly more value to the tech industry by asking more informed questions, such as:1. when a face-face meeting is not possible due to time, money, etc. what do you feel would be the next best alternative?2. Of the face-face alternatives currently in your "Toolbox", which do prefer, and why> How could these tools be improved?3. We all understand that many people don't fully engage themselves on conference calls, webex's, etc. Assuming that face-face is not always viable, how could current state technologies be improved to increase participant engagement?
In my daily work, I have to handle "results" and objections that are consistent with the Forbes conclusion. I have been lecturing for the past year about a "Toolbox" approcah to business. In your Toolbox for example, would be: Telephone, Email, IM, Webex/Live Meeting, Video Conference, Virtual Reality, and Face-Face. Given all the variables in play when a task needs to be completed, the business user should select the most appropriate technology. "Appropriate" considers: time, money, priority, logistics, etc. We cannot/should not try to force a round peg into a square hole. Instead, we need users to understand the pros/cons of each tool in their Toolbox, and select the appropriate tool for the task. Its really a waste of everyone's time to talk about how "VR will replace Face-Face". The RIGHT word to use instead of replace, is "Augment". VR can Augment the business toolbox. A business user will likely select the tool that can best accomplish the task, assuming it is easy to use and stable. And just like we saw 10 years ago with the flight to the internet: the good ideas that have survived a decade are those that can accomplish a task better(faster, better, cheaper) than an exsiting tool, or can provide a service that is simply not possible in the real world. The same is tru of VR: it is a massive blunder to target uses of VR that are better accomplished using another means. The correct strategy is to focus on scenarios in which there is no "better alternative". leverage VR for its unique abilities: accomplish this task and you have become an essential tool, not just a nice to have tool

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.....