"Now, i have a body": uses and social norms for mobile remote presence in the workplace

As geographically distributed teams become increasingly common, there are more pressing demands for communication work practices and technologies that support distributed collaboration. One set of technologies that are emerging on the commercial market is mobile remote presence (MRP) systems, physically embodied videoconferencing systems that remote workers use to drive through a workplace, communicating with locals there. Our interviews, observations, and survey results from people, who had 2-18 months of MRP use, showed how remotely-controlled mobility enabled remote workers to live and work with local coworkers almost as if they were physically there. The MRP supported informal communications and connections between distributed coworkers. We also found that the mobile embodiment of the remote worker evoked orientations toward the MRP both as a person and as a machine, leading to formation of new usage norms among remote and local coworkers.

[1]  BONNIE A. NARDI,et al.  Beyond Bandwidth: Dimensions of Connection in Interpersonal Communication , 2005, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[2]  Gerhard Weiss.  Groupware and Computer Supported Cooperative Work , 2000 .

[3]  R. Kraut,et al.  Varieties of Social Influence: the Role of Utility and Norms in the Success of a New Communication Medium , 1998 .

[4]  Owen Daly-Jones,et al.  Informal workplace communication: what is it like and how might we support it? , 1994, CHI '94.

[5]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Evaluating video as a technology for informal communication , 1992, CHI.

[6]  Owen Daly-Jones,et al.  Informal workplace communication: what is it like and how might we support it? , 1994, CHI '94.

[7]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  What Still Matters about Distance , 2009 .

[8]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  The VideoWindow system in informal communication , 1990, CSCW '90.

[9]  Hiroshi Ishiguro,et al.  Minimum movement matters: impact of robot-mounted cameras on social telepresence , 2008, CSCW.

[10]  Carmen Egido,et al.  Video conferencing as a technology to support group work: a review of its failures , 1988, CSCW '88.

[11]  Marilyn Tremaine,et al.  Experiences in the use of a media space , 1991, CHI.

[12]  Sara Kiesler,et al.  Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication , 1984 .

[13]  Abigail Sellen,et al.  Remote Conversations: The Effects of Mediating Talk With Technology , 1995, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[14]  E. Goffman.  The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , 1959 .

[15]  Andrew Sears,et al.  Human-Computer Interaction: Design Issues, Solutions, and Applications , 2009 .

[16]  A. Darzi,et al.  Communication skills for mobile remote presence technology in clinical interactions , 2007, Journal of telemedicine and telecare.

[17]  John C. Tang,et al.  Embodied social proxy: mediating interpersonal connection in hub-and-satellite teams , 2010, CHI.

[18]  E. McDonough,et al.  An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and colocated new product development teams , 2001 .

[19]  Jacques Wainer,et al.  Groupware and computer supported cooperative work , 1999 .

[20]  Robert,et al.  The VideoWindow System in Informal Communications , 1990 .

[21]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Understanding Conflict in Geographically Distributed Teams: The Moderating Effects of Shared Identity, Shared Context, and Spontaneous Communication , 2005 .

[22]  Tetsuo Ono,et al.  Android as a telecommunication medium with a human-like presence , 2007, 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[23]  J. C. Flanagan.  Psychological Bulletin THE CRITICAL INCIDENT TECHNIQUE , 2022 .

[24]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Groupware and computer-supported cooperative work , 2002 .

[25]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Portholes: supporting awareness in a distributed work group , 1992, CHI.