An interesting link in a Tweet last night from Jason Bordujenko (AARNet National Video Conferencing Manager);
I’ll quote the final paragraph here;
I am not saying that a videoconferencing experience should be based on fantasy and a contrived story line. But I am saying that if B.O.R.K. understands how to analyze its videoconferencing organism as a highly valuable experience for business communication it would begin to shape the videoconferencing experience into one which, when repeated consistently, transforms the way they do business. Does that sound outlandish? Is that a highly inflated view of what visual communications can be for a business?
We already know that this is a highly experiential medium, but we usually compare it to a telephone.
We already know that there’s a difference between delivering a service to the customers and staging an experience for them.
We already know that a good experience is highly valued, and good service is merely a commodity – blithely offered by a thousand different providers.
What we aren’t sure of is whether or not staging videoconferencing experiences is worth the effort.
I don’t know about you, but I go out of my way to visit Disney. The effort they put into the theme park experience makes it well worth the effort. And it transforms my outlook on life.
– This is EXACTLY why the videoconferencing SERVICE is a mongrel
(2012-Jun-14) [Greenline Emeritus Consulting]
In a nut shell, I think this is why we are now getting more bookings for the KLDC and related services. I had initially thought that we were passing through a an uptake barrier where there was a familiarisation occurring with a new technology (now that *is* an IT perspective) where in fact it is more likely that the chance in booking was because we are no longer selling a ‘service’ or a ‘technology’ but are offering an experience to the users in this space.
Why the difference?
~ We are no longer struggling with the technology; We can confidently perform most of the technical functions without difficulty. We know the limitations, and can work around these issues without impacting the experience.
From a technical perspective it no longer matters if we are connecting via H.323, virtual classrooms, web conferencing or desktop conferencing we can provided a good experience that matches the capabilities of the connecting parties.
~ We are not focusing on the technical details, or the technology. We are asking the clients “what do you need to achieve in your meeting?” and providing a solution that suits the outcome. We will provide a different experience for a job interview, a business meeting or a virtual classroom – it is not a one size fits all package. [In time there will also need to be changes to the online booking system to reflect this change.]
~ We possibly spend as much time with the client discussing ‘how should this session feel’ as we spend determining the technology that will underpin the connection; this ties into the client experience and the emotion that they take away from the event.
In some cases we can discuss the psychology of the camera placements and angle combined with the lighting to optimise the conference … you certainly cannot get to this point when you are worrying about “can we connect?” This has been a real game changer.
~ The client doesn’t need to worry about the technology, that is the Tech’s problem. The client only needs to worry about the meeting, their presentation or the job interview – the core of the experience.
~ Our clients/staff are, in general, now seeing these services as day-to-day business tools rather than special cases. (I think the remove of the technical ‘whizz bang’ which had become a barrier has assisted in this process)
Why is this important?
We are at present focusing on many of our IT deliveries as technical services and concentrating on the technical elements of the processes. Without evaluation of the client experience we are building a system where there is an understanding of the parts but we don’t understand the experience.