Gavin’s Digital Diner

I was recently asked to dream up all the ways these new fangled information and communications technologies can save us from the carbon-based perils of flying. Flying dumps tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Not good, that. Technology, of course, that’s the answer, or so they say (who ever they are).

The litany goes something like this: “With video conferencing, broadband, and Second Life, well, we can all safely stay ensconced in our own virtual-reality-sensory-deprivation-tanks and just digitally dance the salsa at the next NTEN gathering.” In fact, I recall a posting on some blog, or some listserv, just before the last NTEN conference. It took NTEN to task for being so “20^th century” as to hold a conference people actually attended. I grumbled at the time, muttering to myself that people that think technology is a replacement for face-to-face meetings and conferences are missing the point, and forgetting that tech is never a replacement.

To put it personally — and curmudgeonly — there was no way in hell I’d be willing to attend a conference where I really wanted to be, with a virtual substitute. There are just some things you can’t do in WebEx. Those things are the reasons I actually go to conferences. If it weren’t for those things, I’d just spend my days curled up with a good book, dog at my feet, and a glass of Domaine de Berane in my hand.

It reminded me of a story about what’s important and what’s not — one of my professors in grad school was on the horns of a dilemma. He had been offered a new professorship at another university and couldn’t make up his mind of whether to stay or go. I found this ironic and said as much:

“But Doc,” I said, staring him squarely in the eyes. “Don’t you teach decision theory? Aren’t you one of the world’s experts on how to make this kind of decision? Didn’t you help develop some of the decision thingies that helped keep the Cold War from turning nuclear? Can’t you just throw this into some sort of quadratic matrix, push the magic buttons, and crank out the absolute right answer?” I queried.

“Yeah, I could do that,” he said, “but this is important.”

The important things don’t necessarily lend themselves to the virtual or the technological. Some things can’t be easily boiled down to a set of equations or business rules. I run into this all the time when I try to develop workflows around grantmaking. It’s the subtleties that count. And, it’s the subtleties in interpersonal communications that make a conference a conference, and a meeting more than talking heads on an LCD screen.

Nevertheless, I had an article to write. I had run into an editor for the Alliance Online (at a conference no less) and offered up my pen — I think I said, any topic, any time. It must have been the jet lag, but now I had to pay the piper. She wanted 400 words or so. I sat down, stared into space, and when I looked up I had 3,200 words on the screen. (Those that read this blog with any regularity will not be surprised. I do seem to wax on.)

When I looked at it, I basically said the same thing over and over again… it was a cascade of things like:

• “Well, yes you can use video conferencing…, but it’s no substitute…”
• “There’s WebEx, but… it’s no substitute
• Skype video… It’s great, but it’s nothing like being there…

With axe (actually red pen) in hand, I chopped and chopped, and got it down to less than a thousand. I invite you all to take a look. The theme is simple: technology is no answer; it’s an answer, but not the answer. The context is interesting as well. I invite you to start here with the original Alliance article that interviews a number of people in the nonprofit space. Then find my “no answer” here.

With most important decisions, there are no easy answers. And, this one is important.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS