We are told we should work synchronously, which means everyone talking to everyone else.
It means that everything should be totally collaborated … in fact we should be connected with everyone all the time.
Perhaps that is being over dramatic, but do these suggested high levels of ‘synchronous’ collaboration represent a sensible way to work? Or do they just represent more complication?
Before we answer this question, let’s consider the word ‘collaboration’.
Wikipedia defines the concept as:
Collaboration (co+labor+action) refers abstractly to all processes wherein people work together —applying both to the work of individuals as well as larger collectives and societies. As an intrinsic aspect of human society, the term is used in many varying contexts such as science, art, education, and business. In certain political contexts, the term "collaborator" may refer (pejoratively) to individuals who are claimed to have been working with an outside entity against their own societies.
The first observation is that ‘collaboration’ can be both a positive and a negative thing. Certainly the positive aspect is being strongly promoted by many large organisation's selling services such as on-line meetings, teleconferencing and video conferencing in so called ‘converging technology’ solutions.
Indeed large organisation buying this type of technology are now appointing senior managers with titles such as ‘Manager, Collaboration’.
Let’s think for a few minutes about the way we actually should work and ask the key question: ‘Do these collaboration solutions actually help us reach better decisions, save time, save resources and help us become more effective?’
The major characteristic of the majority of these solutions is ‘synchronization’ or a ‘synchronous solution’.
The Wikipedia definition is:
Synchronization is the coordination of occurrences to operate in unison with respect to time. This process can be a premeditated arrangement set forth on a parallel time scape, or it can be an observable coincidence in eventuality.
Does this approach make sense in either personal or organisational terms? Consider the major road blocks in organisations when developing a major project or proposal. They include:
- The difficulty in convening meetings due to time or distance problems
- Gaining stakeholder approval with, again time & distance being an issue, but also the easy access to pertinent and timely information
- Transparency of process
Does the ‘synchronous’ solution solve these problems? Well in part the answer is a resounding ‘Yes’, but in other ways and equally resounding ‘No’.
Surely we should talk only when we need to, see and meet other people when we want to … have access to all the resources, data and information when we need it and certainly we need to be connected to everything. In other words we need instant access to information, to documents, to files but above all we should be able to work out our own best place.
So it is suggested that while ‘synchronous’ activities are important, ‘asynchronous’ activity is critical. This latter word is normally associated the data transfer world (ATM: asynchronous transfer mode) where small, encoded packets of data are transferred between two end points. So, it is being suggested that some activities occur best when operating in a more intimate way as against ‘everything/body talking to everything/body in real time’.
In the last analysis the individual needs to step back and digest, analyse and synthesize information into meaningful solutions in an efficient way that is both unique and comfortable to that individual.
Currently Mindsystems is working on a series of innovative NEW solutions designed to meet those exact needs.
‘Wikipedia’ is an on-line encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Increasingly these days we are being told the way in which we should work. 
