Maria Rose
Boris Johnson’s trip to New York yesterday to attend a press conference – admittedly to promote business travel – got us thinking about one of the main reasons for organising a conference call instead of a face-to-face meeting: time.
While he may have had other things to do there, Boris’ press conference probably lasted only an hour, so he effectively travelled over 10 hours (return trip), not including getting to and returning from the airport, for a one-hour meeting. Ten hours would surely have been better spent in and around his office in London.
Travelling to a meeting often takes more time than the meeting itself, and even in this age of the mobile internet, travelling is never as productive as sitting in the office with all the necessary tools to hand. What is scary, too, is how little distance you need to travel for travelling time to exceed the meeting time. For instance, our company’s offices are based in Richmond, so only around 15 miles from Central London, and yet even from this distance it will typically take two hours of travel to get there and back again once you take into account walking to and from stations, waiting for trains, changing trains, etc. This means that a one-hour meeting will take three hours of potentially billable time, and this doesn’t even consider the cost of travel or the environmental cost. Once you start to go further afield, say Leeds, then a whole day will be consumed for a 1-2 hour meeting.
We’re not saying there aren’t good reasons for face-to-face meetings, but there are many more bad reasons. In all of these cases, a conference call is undoubtedly cheaper and greener, saving time every time.
Marie-Claire
