Confessions of a "Backchannel IMer"

Collaboration tools can be used for good or evil, or...entertainment.

On one hand, I still hear some customers suggest instant messaging (IM) is just a distraction. They seem to equate IM with the purely social communications of tweens and teens. Of course, sometimes during meetings or conference calls, IMs can be a distraction.

On the other hand, instant messaging and presence can break down arbitrary hierarchies in your business, allowing more rapid problem resolution. Further, if your company is federated with key customers and suppliers (so you can share presence status and instant messages across organizational boundaries), your ability to provide services or receive support may be greatly increased; a short IM can often get something done far faster than multiple phone calls or emails.

Backchannel IM as a Powerful Tool

Given the rise of distributed teams, it turns out that using IM as a "backchannel" can be a very powerful tool.

On a practical and constructive level, using instant messaging as a backchannel allows me to coordinate multiple, distributed presenters during audio or web conferences. IM can also be used to strategically direct questions during a customer call, allowing me to "remind" specific team members to ask a specific question. Sometimes I use IM to instruct a team member to drop the discussion of a particular subject, this can help larger meetings to stay focused.

Backchannel IM as Entertainment

On the other hand (that's three hands if you have been counting), it turns out backchannel IM can also be very entertaining.

I must confess, I have been known to engage in sarcastic backchannel IM conversations.

Sometimes when colleagues I know well are dialed into a large audio conference call or web conference and someone else is presenting, IMs fly fast and furious in the background, not so much to inform, or to direct but rather to entertain, or to persevere.

It can go like the exchange below, where I was less than impressed with the current presenter. (What follows is an actual transcript but names have been changed to protect the innocent.)

Kieller, Kevin ‎‎ [10:40 AM]:

This is lots of Goobley gook with no metrics

PERSON, OTHER‎‎ [10:41 AM]:

lol

‎‎Kieller, Kevin [10:42 AM]:

I hope he has more stats!

‎‎PERSON, OTHER ‎‎ [10:44 AM]:

that was the focus on our call yesterday and he had none

im skeptical

yesterday was like banging my head into a brick wall

and today seems worse!

‎‎‎‎Kieller, Kevin [10:54 AM]:

Are you paying attention? Are you conscious? Stay awake!

‎‎PERSON, OTHER ‎‎ [11:01 AM]:

yes, paying attention. a little. he is a boring though. voice = mono tone

lol

‎‎Kieller, Kevin [11:01 AM]:

Bob said he was a great and funny presenter -- perhaps he meant in person? I am not hearing that.

‎‎Kieller, Kevin [11:02 AM]:

hasn't he been talking for like 30 minutes?

‎‎PERSON, OTHER [11:03 AM]:

feels like it but really only 15

another 30 to go L

Admittedly, for me, it is these type of entertaining backchannel conversations that make some audio/web conferences, like the one above, bearable.

I would argue that humor can be a bonding experience for team members, as long as it is kept light and appropriate. (Do keep in mind that many organizations archive all instant messaging conversations and almost all organizations, as part of the electronic use policy, retain the right to do so if they suspect inappropriate communications are occurring.)

Often new unified communications tools help you work together to achieve a goal more quickly or deliver a better quality product and sometimes using tools in "interesting" ways simply make the work day more enjoyable. In both cases, UC tools benefit the organization, either directly or indirectly. Perhaps this is the serious lesson from this less than serious example.

New tools: Good, Evil or Indifference?

New tools and technologies open up new opportunities to improve communication and collaboration. But how do we know if these tools are being used for good, evil or simply entertainment?

Asking this question and seeking the answer is where we transition from a backchannel discussion to a discussion that should be in the foreground. Implementing mechanisms to measure usage and adoption is key to understanding, encouraging, and promoting how new communication tools are used. This includes even understanding how, when and why others in your organization use "backchannel IM" like me.

Start by tracking general usage and adoption metrics. How many and which people in your organization (adoption) are making use of a tool and how often or how much (usage)? Some adoption questions to ask...

Are a few people using the tool a lot, lots of people a little, or everyone all the time?

Did some people use the tool last month but not this month (abandonment)?

What are the adoption trends? Are more users adopting the tool each month?

What features of the tool are people using? Is the used feature set expanding?

Are certain offices or regions using the tools while others are not?

And a few usage questions...

Are more messages being sent?

More peer-to-peer voice and conferencing minutes being used?

More conferences being schedule?

More video calls occurring?

An effective use of your collaboration tools backchannel may in fact allow your distributed meetings to be more effective than in-person meetings, or at least potentially more entertaining.

Please don't dwell only in the backchannel. Share your thoughts by commenting on this article or via twitter @kkieller.