The Personality of Presence

Last week I posted some thoughts on the issue of presence in a post entitled Is presence simply an interruption in flow? It's an issue that gets a lot of talk in the back hallways, but far less in the open space of broad discussion. I wrote this over the weekend and let it percolate in my mind a bit before posting live.

In that post, I posit that while presence, like attention, might perhaps be viewed as a resource, there's a different issue at play. One I termed interruption management, although I didn't create that phrase. If presence isn't an issue you've thought about, you might want to read that post first.

Today I'm goign to carry the conversation a bit farther I hope. In part, because while I think it's an important issue, I think presence is a concept that is failing dismally in the market space, particularly the enterprise. It's too vague. Too misunderstood. In short, it's not sexy or complelling enough to gain the attention those of us on the inside of the industry believe it may warrant.

I'm going to cite a couple of comments as thoughts to move froward with.

I might counter “interruption management” with an idea framed more along the lines of “attention (or presence) distribution” and in this way answer Boyd’s question with “yes,” attention is a resource. I wonder if the difference is more a rhetorical “high ground” than a real difference in function or fact. By this I mean it seems to me that interruption management gives the interruption (and therefore the interrupter) the edge of control, but framing the same phenomenon as “attention distribution” give the consumer/individual the experience of control - even if only the experience - and creates an opening in the market for meeting more a need fashioned in “cause” than one fashioned in response to an outside force needing to be controlled. - Mary Godwin

Mary is an educator. A consumate professional in her field. I hold her thoughts in very high regard. And sometimes we don't quite connect on the same wave length. This might be one of those cases. As an educator, she works in a system that is highly structured. It seems to me that she's reluctant to give "the interruption (and therefore the
interrupter) the edge of control". I think that's a fair and accurate assessment in her environment. Which leads me to believe we, the industry, have been very shortsighted in our approach. Her reaction exemplifies to me one reason that the concept of presence hasn't widely been accepted.

To embrace presence, you must embrace the chaos that is interruption management. If you are not immersed in the flow for a myriad of diverse inputs (interruptions), if your day is based on planning aforethought and structure, presence is not likely a good thing. It removes personal control and places it in the hands of the interrupt.

For those of us who live by interruption and rarely adhere to a strict schedule, the idea of presences adds value, whereas for the structured world, presence is an anathema to order.

Another good friend, Marc Orchant, offered some really great insights, but here's a snip that gets to the heart of things.

Location, combined with presence and attention, contributes to mastering the flow (or current). In the scenario I've been assembling as I think about these bits of data, when I arrive home, my mobile device (based on lat-long and perhaps a connection to my home WiFi access point for IP address) automatically flips a set of switches that routes incoming communications and data to a particular device (or set of devices), adjusts to the appropriate prioritization of "number ringing" (the GC piece), and changes my presence notification(s) on the services I use (Twitter, Skype, Gizmo, SightSpeed, etc.) accordingly. - March Orchant

I see presence as an attribute of our state of being in the flow of information. Marc is describing the same thing really - a set of attributes that relate to where we as people are in the flow of information throughout the day

This all led me to a variation on a theme I've used to discuss a number of different topic in the past, most notably network performance. But the concept fits very nicely into thinking about what I'll call the Personality of Presence.

Consider this visual:

It's simplistic, and there are obviously attributes that are left out. This is just a stake in the ground for thinking about presence, availability and how we fit ourselves into the information flow. Some of the attirbutes include:

Are we simply available? This is a binary decision point really. If unavailable, don't try to process a call. Period.
What Endpoint Resources are at our disposal? Network-connected PC. VoIP. Mobile. Internet tablet? What devices are we presently using so the network knows how to give us the richest possible user experience.
Are we mobile or stationary? If the network knows vai cellphone GPS we're on the move, but sees an EVDO connected laptop, do we really want a video call?
What will the call cost? Am I willing to pay for a call minutes on my mobile network from this person at this time?
What network resources are available? Broadband, dial-up, WiFi. How good is my connection to the network.
Do we want secure communications? Are there people with whom I want to encrypt VoIP calls or only speak to over strictly defined channels?
Are we open to interruption? Is this a good time? Am I busy, but can be interuppted by people of my choosing? Am I on stage giving a talk and not to be interrupted for any reason?
Do we have a realiable connection? If my network connection has been flapping in and out, do I want a call from a high-priority client that might make me look sloppy? Is it better to defer the call?
Is it an appropriate time of day? If it's evening family time, or middle of the night sleep, do I really want any phone ringing at all?
Where are we? At the office. Home. Beach. Golf course, Restaurant.
Are we online? Where? How many online presences are active at the moment? How many of the myriad online presences I maintain are active? Skype. Gizmo. Twitter. AIM. Yahoo. Gtalk. Mobile phone. SightSpeed. Email. How many different ways can I be reache in the moment?

I'd argue for present to be effective, parameters have to be set for all of those. In some manner like shown in the next figure.

Now it's looking complex isn't it? But there's more. What we're real'y doing is defining our ideal requirements for connection to each and every person who might call us. That means either individual parameters, or far more intelligent grouping that most of us use in our Outlook categories today. It's a very complex matrix. It's one reason that presence isn't more popular today. Who wants to take the time to build it, even if all these tools exist?

In the last figure, we see what becomes more of our daily reality.

In this visual, the green line represents our ideal state of connectedness to receive calls. The yellow line represents our real state. Reality doesn't match the ideal. It never does. But it gives us a benchmark to work with and something to manage to. It's a start.

Today, even thought we have multiple facets or presence, it's a very binary decision. I am available or not. It's black and white. Then we layer on pieces - I'm available to that individual or not. I'm available during these hours to this set of individuals.

In my response to Marc's comment, I said:

I think it's a combination of location based services, driven by GPS, and heuristics we don't have today. I think the next generation mobile device will be as much our personal rules engine as it is anything else.

I think we'll rely on that mobile device to "know" us - our state, our availability, our routines, our relationships - in ways current generation devices just don't. It will become our "interaction peripheral" of a new sort.

That was a short answer, because the real answer, the mature evolutionary answer, is much bigger. It goes beyond mobile devices, laptop computers and raw Internet.

My friend Pat Phelan mention's Ken's Phone every now and then because he and I had a long, fascinating talk about what I look for in a phone.

For years I've thought about networks. We all understand wide area networks. They're like the Internet. It's our best example, but the PSTN is another wide area networks. Our business local area networks, and for many enterprises, internal voice networks connect to them. They are networks of networks. And what I look forward to is far beyond Ken's Phone. It's three generations beyond that.

With the advances in technologies, we're really now at the dawn of intelligent Personal Area Networks (PANs). Our personal area network is made up of several elements:

Voice devices - Smartphones, dumb phones, PDAs, tablets,laptops and desktops.
Video devices - Smartphones, PDAs, tablets, laptops, desktops and video cameras.
Data devices - All the devices already mentioned.
Network connectivity - Wired (Ethernet, DSL, cable, twisted pair phones, etc>) and Wireless (WiFI, WiMAX, EVDO, Edge, free space optics, etc.)

The next generation, Ken's Personal Area Network, will incorporate heuristics and intelligent devices. The handheld of the future will become our information broker, gatekeeper to connection, and a real personal digital assistant.

iotum is the thought leader in presence management today. For today. What they're doing is incredible, but it's still in its infancy. PDAs today do not assist. They're another interruptor to our flow, requiring input.

Whether you use a smartphone or PDA, they all require constant care and feeding so they can constantly interrupt our flow. The next generation will be an intelligent network of personal devices that work together to enhance our day with a rich and productive user experience. They'll be intuitive, and work out of the box. They'll come from a combination of component providers, the components being all the hardware and network technologies working seamlessly together.

That's unified communications of the next generation. I hope I'm here to see that generation come to fruition. And I'd like to be involved in getting us there.