Mark, I think what happened was that the baseline was the very valid understanding that we are social creatures. A face-to-face, where one can read very subtle cues, can grab someone's arm, pat someone on the shoulder, share food, etc. is preferred.

In an era of relatively cheap transportation, people just took that model and stretched it to make it common to fly all over the place for these encounters. I think the model will seem to be a product of its time in the future, with the security concerns about concentrations of people, the virulence and speed of transmission of disease, the remarkable fidelity of big screen video, high speed communications with bandwidth and so forth.

I think we're just on the cusp of some significant changes in the direction you think is appropriate. I used to fly a lot, and although it's nice to visit other places, I used to wonder how much bang for the buck people were getting. I don't miss it, frankly.

posted July 9, 2008

Mark,

I'm in full agreement....with the need to reduce the demand side of the equation, not the supposed global warming theory.

Domestically we can easily make changes. Internationally, you have to deal with older cultures that deal in relationships that can only be formed in person.

Michael

posted July 9, 2008

I agree with most of the other explanations here, but business travel is but one small element of higher fuel prices and pollution. Since you are in real estate, I should also mention that massive houses (e.g. McMansions) are not very "green," nor are gas guzzling vehicles. Both of these are at least as unnecessary as many meetings, but are chosen for reasons of social acceptance ("mine is bigger than yours") or consumer preference ("I need a lot of space for all my stuff"). People need to rethink a lot of behavior, not just that which relates to meetings and business travel.

posted July 9, 2008

The answer is very simple - trust is built face-to-face.

I agree we need to protect our environment, so using technology to support virtual meetings and cut down face-to-face meetings make sense.

I work with teams several places in Europe from my office in Menlo Park, California. You can do effective meetings true video conferencing and collaboration software, but the teamwork and collaboration done in those meetings and over email builds on trust and that trust is best built if you meet face-to-face about every 4-8 weeks.

- Christian

Links:

• http://www.copetersen.com

posted July 9, 2008

Because the average businessperson isn't trained nor is an expert in social interaction profiling. Sure, there are books, articles and videos about how to spot non-verbal cues, but these are best to witness in-person. It's also because we use all of our senses, not just sight and hearing, to evaluate and make decisions.

posted July 9, 2008

Part of the problem is that you don't know who you are going to meet at the meeting. If it is someone that I know well, then there isn't much need for face to face and we can do things via e-mail or the phone. However, if it is someone that I don't know well, then it is useful to see each other first.

The interesting thing is meeting people that I don't know at all. I don't know who I'm going to meet at a conference and I don't know when and how I'm going to meet them. In order to teleconference with someone, I have to know who to call. At conferences, you make all sorts of useful contacts by randomly being in the same hotel lobby.

posted July 9, 2008

I've never been successful at building team work without at least one face to face meeting. Phone calls and video conferencing only go far - its the human condition, we build strong relationships best in person and not "virtually". Once the relationship is established everyone gets so much more out of the virtual meetings.

posted July 9, 2008

Brrrr. Freezing ;-) Let me add some seasoned thoughts ;-)

We had the issue of teleconference at ITB Travel Technology congress 2002. Yes, they make sense. No, they don't work (to date). Why not?

Partially answered... Skype opens minds, but to do it to replace fly-in personal meetings, it must be a more decent quality.
Professionally done, it should be "video-conferencing-rooms", to reduce the previously mentioned "social interference". To do that, you need a decent technology, which is a little more expensive than a cheap webcam that you may use to skype. You need to be able to "see" the group on the other side, as well as the face of whoever speaks.

In a person-to-person meeting, you constantly shift attention from face to body language to others in the room, back to face and so on and so forth. That is difficult to do with today's technology.

I shall add another important issue: Many business travelers would deny it, but I've been involved in a comprehensive study: Travel is often considered a privilege! Self-importance being the emotional issue you have to address. It's less a privilege to attend a (same important) tele-conference, as it is to travel there to be needed there "in person"...
Which brings me to change management... Full Stop here ;-)

posted July 10, 2008

Many have already made the obvious point that some real person to person contact is always going to be necessary. The real question is - do all the trips that occur truly need this? That is a moot point! And what, if any, if the "tipping point" that will force this judgement on businesses?

- Some of the travel is just habit - "we've always done this".
- Jurgen makes a good point that there is a certain amount of self importance and machismo associated with corporate travel.
- New ways of interacting at a distance require new skills - and learning those takes effort, corporate determination etc etc. People are too busy travelling to take the time and make the effort?

The change management effort of breaking these three patterns is seriously non-trivial.

All that being said, I think we should ask ourselves were we are on the "hockey stick" curve of adopting and developing technologies that may change this. Have we reached the steep part of the curve yet?

It is arguable that this is in sight.
- younger generations are more comfortable with a range of online collaborative tools
- travel costs, currently in high focus, may well come down again, but one day not too far away this IS going to be an issue.
- there are larger straws in the wind for technologies that overcome some of the objections to lack of interpersonal clues - see video linked below.

Links:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kd2SO1_kSA&NR=1

posted July 10, 2008

As many have said, there is a trust (and attention span) factor with meeting in person that is not always present when using faceless technology. Some would no sooner do business with people they hadn't met than they would get involved in a relationship with someone based on their internet dating profile.

Also keep in mind that many of the people you are talking about are traveling to visit corporate facilities, and there is a certain level of knowledge and due diligence from doing so that cannot be conveyed through a teleconference. While technology is useful for dealing with colleagues you know and trust, it cannot completely replace in-person contact for these reasons.

Another factor to consider is that in many parts of the world, including parts of the Middle East and Asia that are becoming increasingly influential in global business, it is considered culturally necessary to have personal contact with your colleagues. For example, suggesting a videoconference to your investors from Dubai because you don't want to go visit them may be taken as a personal insult.

posted July 10, 2008

Mark,

Great timing for the question. I just gave a presentation today to an integration manager for the company that I work for. We recently bought a competitor several states away. We therefore have all kinds of people flying back and forth from OH to WI.

My presentation was based on how do we reduce travel miles or more to the point reduce the cost of all of the travel. I also own my own business on the side where I market Videophones. I gave a quick demo of the videophone and demonstrated how the phone could be used.

Like others have said, it will not work in every situation. But in our case the cost of the videophone and a full year of service is about the cost of a round trip ticket for us so it only has to work one time to pay for itself.

I think as the Videophone technology continues to the next generation, there will be more and more uses for them such as off-site training, telecommuting, etc. Videophones will eventually replace the bad-habit of thinking we need to jump on an airplane and travel all day for a 2 hour meeting and I'm going to help get it here sooner.

Ryan McClure
ryanmcclure@5Linx.net

posted July 11, 2008

Hello Mark,

Why don't you try this site www.lonelyplanet.com (URL provided as a link), as well as check out their 'Thorntree' forum where fellow travellers write in to share their experiences and give their recommendations for hotels/restaurants/sight seeing/transport, etc., with dos and donts, at destinations through out the world ?

You could even ask your question(s) and share your experiences there in the Thorntree forum, and get better and more appropriate responses, share resources, since that is an ideal and dedicated place for international travellers, whether on a tight budget or not.

I am not a part of/connected with the Lonely Planet group in any ways and I am just offering suggestions, which could be of some benefit to you by increasing your options through the more sharing of information.

Links:

• http://www.lonelyplanet.com/thorntree/index.jspa

posted July 16, 2008