When I first started in the IT industry, helping most of my customers to move off paper-based systems and to get started on their very first computer system based on the then up-and-coming PC technologies, virtually all of the work I did was done face-to-face. This aspect of the fledgling industry was, of course, driven by available technologies.
I have been in this business long enough to recall the 300 baud modems, followed by modems of greater and greater speed, of course. Doing work remotely with client sites via dial-up connections was tedious and, almost always, fraught with the recurring frustration of dropped connections. As a result, at that time, only a small fraction of the work necessary for most serious IT work could be satisfactorily handled remotely. What was done remotely generally amounted to some portion of the post-go live support, and not much more.
The advent of high-speed broadband communications allowed for remote IT consulting. Suddenly, clients buying and implementing almost any IT system—even complex ERP systems—saw a way to save big money. All these companies had to do was to make arrangements with the software vendors and VARs (value-added resellers) to have as much of the work as possible done “remotely.”
The “Savings” Calculation
In doing so, they calculated that they could save lots of money that they would otherwise pay out in travel time and travel expenses. Additionally, the executives and managers of these client firms felt, perhaps, that less time would be “lost” in meetings and other work they deemed to be non-value-add for the implementation.
What is the Cost of Remote IT Consulting?
Having had, now, a decade or so of experience with the positives and negatives of doing IT projects employing remote technologies for some or all of the work involved, I’ve come to the conclusion that the “savings” are increasingly an illusion. It seems to be another case of what is calculable and measurable become “concrete” in the minds of the managers and executives involved while what cannot readily be measured or calculated—even though the number may actually be considerably larger—is ignored.
The apparent triumph of digital connectivity over travel has not changed the fact nothing beats real face-to-face interaction. Face-to-face meetings, conversations and discussions provide depth and dimensions that cannot be matched by emails, texts, tele-conferences, Skype, WebEx or any other digital format.
In my opinion, this lack of depth leads to several undesirable effects (UDEs):
Projects Take Longer
I have had dozens of conversations with my clients over the years, and I have never had a client disagree with my assessment when I tell them, “We don’t bring any ‘magic’ with us to your offices when we come. We don’t have any special formula we put into people’s coffee or a whip we crack. Nevertheless, the whole firm tends to be more attentive to the work necessary to make the project a success when we are present on-site. Work gets done faster because the ‘attention factor’ is different when non-company personnel are present in the offices.
“The fact is,” I go on to explain, “when we are not on-site, it seems that ‘business-as-usual’ is the general rule. People, quite naturally, are more attentive to their routine activities and assuring that the day-to-day activities are completed while the special activities that may be associated with the project at hand may languish from inattention.”
Recently, a project with which I am involved appeared to be quite urgent to the firm and the people involved. In fact, in meetings we held more than a year ago now, they were quite disappointed that it might take four to six months to complete the project. They were anxious to get the improvements underway and fully implemented.
However, they were also very cost-conscious. So, they have done all they could to keep us at arms-length and have attempted to keep things on-track through tele-conferences and internal management efforts. Now, almost 18 months later, they still are not live on their much-needed new system and they readily admit that their needs have changed. [Note: The longer projects take, the greater the likelihood that the original goals and decisions in the project will no longer be aligned with the firm’s present needs. Nevertheless, changing things cast in concrete many months earlier can also be costly.]
Benefits Are Delayed
Continuing with the example I mentioned in the preceding section, here is a firm that was struggling under the burden of a heavily-customized ERP system. In addition, many of the customizations in place were poorly architected and, as a result, as the data-set was growing in size, performance was also degrading. I believe their assessment was correct: they really needed to get off this system and onto a cleaner, more effective code base as soon as possible to sustain their growth and support changes in their business strategies going forward.
At those meetings more than a year ago, I believe that they could really envision dramatic ROI (return on investment) flowing from the upgrade and changes they were about to undertake. Now, all of those benefits have been delayed—delayed very nearly twelve months (if they are able to proceed post-haste now). How much of the business slow-down they are presently experiencing is attributable to delays in an implementation of technologies that could have freed up executives, managers and other resources to be focused on innovation and growth—rather than daily fire-fighting—is hard to say. What can be said with certainty is this: whatever benefits this firm hoped—and, yet, hopes—to gain from the implementation of updated technologies have been delayed at least a full year due to choices about how to—or how not to use the resources and guidance of on-site domain expertise.
More…
Clients and consultants, both pay a huge price for not doing more work face-to-face. Here are some of the ways I see us paying that immeasurable price:
- Lack of depth – Things get missed in remote communications that might otherwise be picked up through nuanced expressions of participants in a meeting or the ability to see the context of an experience or operation, rather than just the operation itself. It is tough enough for a consultant to try to ask all the questions that ought to be asked even when he or she is on-site with eyes and mind wide-open. It is much, much more difficult to be sure that all the appropriate questions are asked when the scope of vision and insight is narrowed to a Skype view, tele-conferences and emails.
- Reduced accuracy – It is virtually impossible to get things right 100 percent of the time when the client and the consultants have the benefit of all five senses and a real on-site presence. Narrow that interaction to what can be transmitted in emails and tele-conferences and you can rest assured—100 percent—that accuracy in decision-making will decline. Fewer on-target questions will be asked. Fewer right-the-first-time decisions will be made.
- Lower quality – Due to the lack of depth and reduced accuracy that are part and parcel in hand-off, arms-length work relationships, the quality of the work will falter. The clients tend to experience this and blame the consultants. This is natural. We should expect this blaming behavior. But, should both the client and the consultant consider “the process” and fix the process that leads to the outcome?
- Impatience – Everything takes longer when working remotely. A simple question-and-answer exchange that might take two or three minutes on-site, might take two or three hours (or even, two or three days) when conducted via email or while playing telephone tag to locate the right resources and coordinate their schedules. As a result, patience wears thin. The client, who may have just taken two weeks to reach a decision on a matter of significance to the project, now expects the consulting firm to take action and respond in two days (or, two hours).
- Selfishness – When we are all working in our own isolated cubicles and attempting to communicate via phone, texts and emails, we lack the visual feedback from the others involved in the project. We don’t see or comprehend their burdens. We are not aware of their anxieties expressed through their body language, facial expression or eyes. As a result, we have no empathy for them. We are thinking only about what is going on within the four walls of our own firm—or, worse, our own office or cubicle. We can’t know that the client’s team (or, the VAR’s team) is working 60 hours a week trying to keep up.
- Mental exhaustion – All of this: the lack of depth; the increased likelihood that errors will be made and special efforts to recover will be required; the disappointment of having to accept lower quality in the outcomes; the growing impatience of all involved; and the agonizing selfishness imbrued in the process all contribute to a constant state of mental exhaustion.
I am convinced that the success of every project is created by a fortuitous blend of knowledge, intuition (“tribal knowledge”) and good fortune, and that these are best brought forth by making a strong and enduring emotional connection between the participants. I find this increasingly difficult to do over the course of two days of meetings followed by twelve or 18 months of emails and phone calls.
And, I don’t think our clients who think they are saving money are really saving anything in the long run. I think clients and consulting firms need to take another long look at what this is costing us in very real terms.
We are certainly interested in hearing your perspective on this topic. Please feel free to leave your comment here, or contact us directly, if you prefer.
