Remote collaboration is broken
I was recently talking with Will, our director of product management, and something in the conversation brought up the topic of a virtual office. Will has talked about this idea before but I've had a hard time envisioning it. I just haven't been able to get past this idea of a Myst-like virtual desk (or maybe it was Jan, our CTO, striking the fear of God in me with tales of countless careers lost to Microsoft BOB).
After my last trip to visit our Seattle team I've been mulling over the idea a bit more. Every time our team is together, in the same room, it just works better. One of my biggest challenges at CX has been learning how to communicate effectively in a remote working situation. I came to CX with a freelance background so I had a good handle on personal productivity, and separating work and home life so it's not a matter of needing to read "Working from Home for Dummies".
So what's wrong with remote collaboration?
At the end of the day, it breaks down to the subtle differences between face-to-face vs distance communication. Communication quality isn't binary. It's a progressive scale that ranges from zero communication on the left to total communication on the right. Work communication tends to fall somewhere in the middle of that scale. Communication is also multi-faceted and there are many dimensions that make up quality communication.
Qualitative vs quantitative
The quantitative aspects of communication help us facilitate good conversations. Quantitative aspects might include:
Presence: are the people here and available to communicate?
Availability: do people have time to participate?
Space: are people in physical spaces that allow good quality communication?
Record keeping: can the outcome of communication be captured in a way that's meaningful to participants at a later date? Can that record be found at a later date?
Information radiators: can people readily see the outcome, evolution and history of communication?
Once the quantitative aspects are in place, we can start down the road toward quality communication. Qualitative measures might look like:
Engagement: can people engage each other?
Focus: are people focused on the conversation?
Outcome: is there a shared understanding of what needs to be communicated?
History: is there a history of communication that would help people engage, stay focused and determine clear outcomes?
Context and timing: can people communicate in an ad-hoc way that appropriately matches a discussion with the context or timing of the outcome?
Openness: can people freely contribute when appropriate?
Iteration: are people free to brainstorm and refine ideas?
A real world example will help shed some light on the interplay between the various aspects of communication.
Kyle has a great new iOS design idea that he'd like to bounce off Todd. He'd like to vet the idea with Nick as well and also thinks getting Jacob involved makes sense.
In a setting where everyone works side by side, here's how the scenario looks:
Kyle has a great new idea for an iOS design but wants to validate his thinking before he keeps working (context and timing).
Kyle looks around the room to see if everyone is available (presence). Jacob is busy but tells Kyle that he'll be free in 10 minutes (availability). In the meantime, Kyle takes a sketch into the conference room with Nick and Todd (space) and starts scribbling on a whiteboard (record keeping and/or information radiator).
In a few minutes, Jacob joins the group (focus and engagement) and Kyle explains what he'd like to discuss (outcome).
Kyle explains a little bit of background on his thinking and the team talks about some things that have worked in the past (history).
15 minutes in to the discussion, Artie pokes his head in the room to see what the meeting is about. Turns out, he's been thinking about the same issue and has some ideas (openness).
In about 30 minutes, the group critiques the idea and brainstorms a handful of tweaks to the idea. Nick sketches in front of the group as they talk the idea out (iteration). The meeting wraps up and Nick tacks a refined sketch on the idea wall.
Throughout the course of the week Kyle and Nick makes small adjustments to the idea and continue to post updates on the idea wall (information radiators as history).
Here's how the scenario breaks down in a remote situation.
Kyle has a great new idea for an iOS design but wants to validate his thinking before he keeps working (context and timing).
Kyle hops on Skype to see if everyone is available (presence). Jacob's status is away but Kyle starts a group chat (space) anyway and asks for a quick call. It turns out Jacob is available but hadn't updated his status. Jacob says he needs 10 minutes (availability).
In the meantime, Kyle snaps a photo of his sketch, uploads it and pastes the share link into the Skype chat (information radiator).
In a few minutes, Jacob is ready, Kyle starts the call and everyone jumps on. Todd says that he's ready but is wrapping up a conversation with Brad so he'll mute out (focus and engagement).
Kyle explains a little bit of background on his thinking and the team talks about some things that have worked in the past (history).
Artie wasn't aware of the meeting so he can't contribute even though he's been thinking about a similar idea (openness).
In about 30 minutes, the group critiques the idea. Nick sketches during the call but doesn't upload the refinements (iteration) because he'd rather focus (focus and engagement). The group wraps up and Nick says that he'll post some new sketches to the mobile group (record keeping and information radiators).
Kyle and Nick update the sketches throughout the week but they largely go unnoticed since email is a high volume channel and that's how people are notified when a new upload is available (record keeping and information radiators).
At first glance, it seems like these two workflows are similar enough to suffice. But the devil is in the details and the subtleties add up over time.
Remote communication isn't as good as the real thing Communication technology is still evolving. Even with good bandwidth and good cameras there are subtleties that just can't be captured in a remote conversation. Micro facial expressions, pauses in thought, and body language are lost or misinterpreted. If 65% of communication is non-verbal that leaves a lot of collaboration on the table.
Openness is non-existent In the remote scenario Artie had no idea that a meeting was taking place. Even if he had time and availability there was no way for him to contribute. Without knowledge of what's being communicated it's impossible for Artie to contribute and his input is lost.
No visible evolution of thought In a remote environment the value of information radiators (whiteboards, sketches, things happening on screens) drops dramatically. Instead of serving as a means to communicate an evolving thought process, artifacts largely become lost uploads in a shared directory and busy work.
A broken cost/benefit feedback loop One of the biggest benefits to co-location is the convenience of ad-hoc communication. It's cheap and easy to tap someone on the shoulder and say "can you look at this?" even if it's a minor detail that needs to be discussed. In a remote environment, the time cost of communication is much higher (setting up Skype calls, hunting people down, uploading things) so the perceived benefit goes down for minor issues. Over time, those minor conversations add up to a lot of lost opportunity to learn, be creative and, ultimately, innovate.
Dan, our director of engineering, recently told me that he thinks his kid's generation won't have the same challenges with remote work that we do because they're growing up with the technology. His son uses FaceTime to build legos with a cousin thousands of miles away (how cool is that?). Maybe it's a problem that will just dissolve over time. Even so, it won't happen overnight and plenty of innovation needs to happen before effective remote collaboration is a reality. I think it's a problem worth thinking about.