Qualitative interview study with 12 people at the UK offices of a corporate research lab, after a three-month pilot of telepresence robots ended with low use. Most 30-minute interviews were held online.
Robot pilotFive Double 3 telepresence robots, screens on wheels that a remote person drives, were offered to staff for three months to support hybrid work.
Pilot endedThe company discontinued the project after low adoption and some emerging security concerns.
12 intervieweesSeven individual interviews and one group interview with a team of five covered users and non-users of the robots.
Thematic analysisInterviews were analysed for themes, largely inductively, both descriptively and interpretively.
BWhat the study found
Why the robots were not neededexisting hybrid practice
•Interviewees described hybrid work as already handled with routines, several channels and workarounds.Users and non-users alike were practised at hybrid work. Whether interviewees preferred meeting in person depended on the activity.
•Interviewees described back-to-back meetings that left no time to drive a robot between them.With colleagues across sites and most work in documents and code, no single office was the place everyone needed to be.
•Without being asked, interviewees compared the robots mainly with video calls, not with being there.The authors suggest video calling may now be the baseline that robots have to match.
Using the robotseffort, presence and social moments
•Interviewees described the robots as slow, hard to drive and poor at audio.Using a robot took effort and often help from colleagues in the office.
•Interviewees said remote robot users ended up as observers.Remote users still needed a video call to hear and work, and could not read shared screens, draw on whiteboards or handle lab equipment.
•Interviewees described the robots as too slow and visible for glancing around or easing into talk.People driving a robot felt conspicuous. The study covered one organisation and a few people, mostly those who had been interested in the robots.
CKey takeaway
Workplace technology may fall into non-use when it does not fit existing workflows. Telepresence robots may go unused where work is digital, teams are dispersed and meetings leave no time to move.
Made for this site with AI assistance from the verified research brief. It is not the paper's own figure.
Abstract
Mobile robotic telepresence technology may be a potential solution to hybrid communication as it allows remote attendees embodied movement in space. Yet, there is little exploration into how its affordances fit with the practices and needs of workplaces. This paper presents findings from interviews conducted following a discontinued deployment of telepresence robots at the offices of a global technology company. The findings indicate that in this case 1) The knowledge workers were equipped to manage hybrid work, 2) the robots offered limited perceived value, and 3) the robots were a poor fit to the knowledge workers’ physically distributed workflows. Drawing workflows and non-use literature, we explore how features of the technology failed to align with the office’s work practices and needs, and discuss the implications for evaluating the low use of robotic telepresence.
Research brief
By Andriana Boudouraki, Stuart Reeves, Joel Fischer, and Sean Rintel.
Takeaway: Workflow research explains why telepresence robots went unused. Most work was digital and colleagues scattered, so video calls were easier, and back-to-back meetings left no time to drive. At whiteboards, remote users became spectators, and the robots moved too slowly for graceful social contact. Technology should fit how work happens.
Why this matters
What was known
Office studies of mobile robotic telepresence report more presence and engagement alongside limitations, but have rarely asked how mobility fits daily work, and non-use is rarely reported. (§2.1, p. 2)
What this paper adds
Rather than another account of how telepresence robots are used, we study non-use. We interviewed users and non-users after a deployment was discontinued, and treat their reasons for not using the robots as data in their own right. The non-use of new technology is rarely reported in depth, however, much can be learned from such cases(§1, p. 1)
Who it matters to
Researchers and designers of telepresence for hybrid work, and organisations deciding whether and how to deploy it. Future work on telepresence technologies for hybrid work would benefit from more closely examining the workplace's work practices(§6, p. 9)
Research question
Why did people not opt to use the telepresence robots more, in terms of the practical realities of hybrid office life?
Method and data
Design
Qualitative interview study following a discontinued pilot deployment of telepresence robots.
Setting
The UK offices of a corporate research lab, where 5 Double 3 telepresence robots had been provided to employees for three months to support hybrid work. The company discontinued the project after low adoption and some emerging security concerns.
Participants / data
Seven individual interviews and one group interview with a team of five, totalling 12 participants (7 male, 5 female, ages 30-45), including users and non-users of the robots.
Duration
Interviews lasted 30 minutes. Most were held online within two months after the end of the pilot.
Hybrid work was already handled. After a three-month trial of telepresence robots at a corporate research lab, the knowledge workers we interviewed (users and non-users alike) were already practised at hybrid work. They had routines, several communication channels and workarounds. Whether they preferred meeting in person depended on the activity. #
“So I'm very used to working with people who are not anywhere near me, and so I'm productive in that environment.”
Hard work for little gain. Compared with tools that already worked well enough, the robots had poor audio, moved slowly and were hard to drive, and using them took effort and often help from colleagues in the office. #
“it was more like we have a little toddler and you kind of walk with the toddler. 'OK is it gonna fall, is it gonna get stuck?'”
Present, but only watching. Even if the technical problems were fixed, participants doubted they would use the robots. Remote users still needed Teams to hear and work, and could not read shared screens, draw on whiteboards or handle lab equipment, so they ended up as observers. #
“we can share docs and things like that. But then why are you on the robot, right? Because you're just looking at a doc anyways.”
Too slow and visible for subtle moments. The robots' slow, deliberate movement made it hard to glance around or ease into and out of a conversation, and people driving them felt conspicuous. #
“Wasn't private. Once you're moving on a robot, everybody's looking at you.”
No time or place for a robot. With back-to-back meetings there was no time to drive a robot between them. And since colleagues were spread across sites and most work happened in documents and code, no single office was the place everyone needed to be. #
“I've gotten really in the habit of having zero minutes between meetings.”
The yardstick was video calling. Without being asked, participants compared the robots mainly with videoconferencing rather than with being there in person, which suggests video calling may now be the baseline robots have to match. #
(§5.2, p. 8)
Questions this paper answers
Is moving around the office what remote workers need?
Not at a corporate research lab, because work was already spread out. Most happened in documents and code, with colleagues across several sites, so no office was where everyone had to be. Back-to-back meetings also left no time to drive. The unmet needs were equal participation and subtle social interaction. (See §4.2, p. 5; §4.2, p. 6; §4.3, p. 6.)
Do telepresence robots help remote workers join in-person meetings and whiteboard sessions?
Not when a corporate research lab offered robots for three months, because robots gave presence without participation. Remote users still needed a video call to hear and work, could not read shared screens or draw on whiteboards, and became observers. Some suggested moving the whole activity online for equal access. (See §4.2, p. 5.)
Are telepresence robots good for casual chats around the office?
People who tried them in an office wanted better support for casual encounters. But the robots' slow, deliberate movements made glancing around or easing into a conversation awkward, and driving around hoping to meet people felt forced. (See §4.2, p. 6.)
What should telepresence robots be judged against?
Video calling, not being there in person, may now be the baseline that robotic telepresence has to catch up with. Office workers who had trialled telepresence robots made that comparison unprompted, explaining why a video call was easier rather than comparing the robot with being in the office. (See §5.2, p. 8.)
Contributions and implications
Evaluate telepresence against the work practices and needs of the specific workplace, including where, when and with what tools work happens. (§5.1, p. 7)
Infrequent use, such as attending a demo, supervising a workshop or checking equipment, need not be treated as failure. use and non-use are not binary absolutes(§5.2, p. 8)
Before implementing novel telepresence, establish whether it addresses existing needs. Keep exploring it for accessibility with more diverse users. (§5.3, p. 8)
Focusing on office interactions through robots risks excluding fully remote colleagues. Whilst attempting to improve inclusively, it may in fact be doing the opposite.(§4.3, p. 6)
Limitations
Managerial, organisational and financial factors in adoption were not studied.
One organisation and a few people only. (§5.4, p. 8)
Non-users are hard to reach, and most people who came forward had been interested in testing the robots. (§5.4, p. 8)
Interview data only, since non-use cannot be observed. Asking directly may have prompted participants to produce explanations.
›
Concepts
Mobile robotic telepresence (MRP)
The technology we studied: a relatively simple combination of a videoconferencing screen mounted on a remotely controlled robotic body on wheels(§1, p. 1)
Non-use
More than a yes/no, and its reasons are as informative as those for use: non-use could be complete absence of use, selective use or a continually negotiated practice(§2.3, p. 2)
Workflows
Our lens. Technology that does not fit workflows can disrupt work: Workflows research uses models that showcase how the different steps of work are ordered(§2.2, p. 2)
Graceful presence
Being able to take part in interaction subtly and smoothly, such as glancing around or easing into and out of conversations. As one participant put it: with the robot, you have to stare, otherwise you can't, you know, see properly [...] there is a bit of grace missing to act more like a human(§4.2, p. 6)
How to cite
Andriana Boudouraki, Stuart Reeves, Joel Fischer, and Sean Rintel. 2023. “There is a Bit of Grace Missing”: Understanding Non-use of Mobile Robotic Telepresence in a Global Technology Company. TAS 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3597512.3599710
This brief was prepared with AI assistance and published by Sean Rintel. It is not the authors' published text. Page numbers refer to this PDF.
BibTeX
@inproceedings{boudouraki2023there,
author = {Boudouraki, Andriana and Reeves, Stuart and Fischer, Joel and Rintel, Sean},
title = {“There is a Bit of Grace Missing”: Understanding Non-use of Mobile Robotic Telepresence in a Global Technology Company},
booktitle = {TAS 2023},
year = {2023},
month = {July},
publisher = {ACM},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1145/3597512.3599710},
doi = {10.1145/3597512.3599710},
}