Doing it In Person
When bringing people together for a collaboration session it’s hard to beat physical face-to-face discussions. When well facilitated, no other approach can boast the same level of free-flowing dialogue or concentrated attention that such sessions generate. Face-to-face meetings also allow people to physically connect on a highly personal level and establish relationships that build esprit de corps and a sense of common purpose. But, there are drawbacks too. Physical sessions are time constrained with the result that some opinions or ideas – potentially breakthrough opinions or ideas – can be missed. They also (occasionally) omit some participants that could contribute to the discussion but can’t physically be there for some reason.
Even before coronavirus forced a fundamental reassessment of how people meet and interact, physical meetings were not the only option.
Even before coronavirus forced a fundamental reassessment of how people meet and interact, physical meetings were not the only option.
There are two key ‘dimensions’ to consider; in-person vs. remote and real time vs. time displaced, and this creates four possible options:
Real-time, in person (RTIP) is (as discussed above) the traditional ‘default’ option for bringing people together, but let’s consider the others
- Real time/in person
- Real time/remote
- Time displaced/in person
- Time displaced remote
Real-time, in person (RTIP) is (as discussed above) the traditional ‘default’ option for bringing people together, but let’s consider the others
Real-time, remote (RTR) is the option that has grown significantly in popularity since the rise of coronavirus. It isn’t quite as effective as in person discussion, but with the rise of modern conferencing tools, it’s getting closer. It has two ‘flavours’, one where a cross-section of participants connect remotely and others attend in-person and another where everybody attends remotely. The first is the approach that many people were familiar with before coronavirus and has the advantage of expanding participation, but at the expense of remote participants being less included than those that are in the room. The second, where everybody is remote, has been an increasingly common occurrence during the coronavirus crisis, and even before then it was still sometimes adopted to ‘level the playing field’ and ensure that all participants operated at an equal level.
There’s no denying that RTR collaboration has challenges including more difficult facilitation, reduced team building opportunities, less free-flowing discussion and a susceptibility to participant distraction. But, the fact that it allows the inclusion of critical participants whose opinions and ideas would otherwise be missed, make it an attractive option.
Time displaced, in person (TDIP) collaboration is often an important extension of real-time collaboration. Although it doesn’t benefit from full group discussion and doesn’t (generally) create a sense of team, it does have other benefits. In fact, ‘sidebar’ discussions are often important elements of larger real-time discussions and allow participants to test their thinking on smaller groups or highlight issues that they are reluctant to present to everybody. TDIP collaboration is also a valuable technique for gathering information and insight before a real-time collaboration session … or capturing feedback and additional ideas afterwards.
Time displaced, remote (TDR) is the fourth and final option. This one is especially interesting because despite the lack of physical proximity, it can result in highly stimulating conversations and create a very strong sense of team. That is because this kind of collaboration can be supported by excellent collaboration tools such as online forums and team enablement software such as Slack, Chanty and Fleep. When well moderated, the online discussions that take place in these tools can be every bit as dynamic as those that occur in person.
There’s no denying that RTR collaboration has challenges including more difficult facilitation, reduced team building opportunities, less free-flowing discussion and a susceptibility to participant distraction. But, the fact that it allows the inclusion of critical participants whose opinions and ideas would otherwise be missed, make it an attractive option.
Time displaced, in person (TDIP) collaboration is often an important extension of real-time collaboration. Although it doesn’t benefit from full group discussion and doesn’t (generally) create a sense of team, it does have other benefits. In fact, ‘sidebar’ discussions are often important elements of larger real-time discussions and allow participants to test their thinking on smaller groups or highlight issues that they are reluctant to present to everybody. TDIP collaboration is also a valuable technique for gathering information and insight before a real-time collaboration session … or capturing feedback and additional ideas afterwards.
Time displaced, remote (TDR) is the fourth and final option. This one is especially interesting because despite the lack of physical proximity, it can result in highly stimulating conversations and create a very strong sense of team. That is because this kind of collaboration can be supported by excellent collaboration tools such as online forums and team enablement software such as Slack, Chanty and Fleep. When well moderated, the online discussions that take place in these tools can be every bit as dynamic as those that occur in person.
The very best collaborative networks make use of all four options for group interaction. Each has strengths and weaknesses and is suited to different types of interaction. Face-to-face is still the pinnacle and will probably remain the preferred option, assuming we eventually come to grips with SARS-CoV-2 . But remote and/or time-displaced interaction is no longer just an alternative, but is a valid option in its own right