Challenging the Logic of “Good Enough” Video Communications
Have you ever seen someone use a device for well beyond its intended purpose?
To the well-informed this can be eye-opening, while others may find it comical. In reality the operator may intentionally be attempting to “do more with less”, or they may be trying to be innovative even at the risk of negative results. However, in just as many cases, the innocent consumer has no idea they are mis-using the device in the first place. They just commit to how they plan to use the tool and they will deal with the consequences as they come.
Has anyone else been part of an organization where they believe that must be how management came to their respective technology decisions? At the risk of stating the obvious this is happening all the time in business office boardrooms, meeting and training centres the world over. And it’s having an impact on business productivity.
Often, one of two outcomes take place: The users make the best of the situation and deal with shortcomings and frustrations with the use of unsuitable tools and technology despite impacts to effective communication, day-to-day productivity and efficient use of time in a meeting. Or, secondly, the users revolt and management decides to give in and search out the correct technology for their use-case. Neither of these outcomes are ideal for either the users or the business.
We have all heard the statistics pertaining to wasted time in meetings, (upwards of 50% of them being a waste according to a past Forbes study1, and more than 4 work days a month are lost as a result).2 That translates to a hard cost. In addition there is unproductive time trying to start meetings in a timely fashion. Let’s face it, we all understand the employee’s frustrations and resentment of trying to work with hard-to-use technology. Most of us have been there. Perhaps less so these days since many remote users, through COVID, have familiarized themselves with their standardized platforms and equipment. But the problems often remain in the office’s larger team meeting rooms. Another big consideration is employee satisfaction because therein we find a direct correlation with productivity. Studies have shown a 13% increase in productivity with happier staff,3 but equally compelling is the fact that improved employee experiences are helping to reduce turnover by up to 43%.4 Using perceived “good enough” technology that is neither designed nor scaled to the task in an office’s team meeting spaces is a significant problem and has consequences.
If a company works with a technology partner to implement a designed interim system that sufficiently allows users to function effectively ahead of a properly planned and funded deployment, that may allow a company’s workforce to get by with minimal disruptions. In some cases the delays are for financial reasons and sometimes they are due to planning and resource scheduling. In these cases, your company can work with partners to assist with finding effective low cost interim options. If they are true partners, they may prove themselves to be a great candidate to help with future design and implementation. Be honest about your situation and your goals and you will likely get better value and engagement out of your partner.
If you are attempting to be innovative, or upgrading your tools and technology is simply too low of a priority relative to other initiatives, then take note of the risks, have a Plan B, (or C), in mind, and monitor the existing system’s performance. If negative consequences are identified and the priorities change, take action on your contingency plan.
Understand the impacts and recognize the value of your productive teams. Have a plan. And lean on your partners. Your happy and engaged employees will notice.
References:
2 https://www.booqed.com/blog/minutes-wasted-of-meeting-50-shocking-meeting-statistics
4 https://www.gallup.com/workplace/236927/employee-engagement-drives-growth.aspx