I recently had a problem with my MacBook Pro. The graphics chip went bad, which was a known problem with the particular chip I had. While it was shipped off to Apple for repair, I struggled through more than a week of trying to communicate with team members and keep a normal rate of productivity without the laptop I had become dependent on. Although I have access to a Windows machine in my office, it lacked the RAM to run some programs I needed, and some of my files which I had from a back up of my Mac were saved in file formats that are not transferable to Office. Add in an older machine running Ubuntu at home, and my head was swimming with trying to keep up with “business as usual.” Luckily, my machine came back good as new. It seems that this is not always the case, however. CNN recently reported on a survey by the Pew Internet & America Life Project which asked people about these kinds of problems with their latest high-tech gadgets.

The survey, which covered computers, Internet service, music players, cell phones and smart phones, reports some surprising statistics and trends. Fifteen percent of people who had a gadget break in the past year were never able to get it repaired, and this was higher for cell phones (25%). This means that those people gave up completely on that particular item or service. Those who did manage to get it fixed often did the fixing themselves or with the help of friends or online communities. The problem with getting things fixed could come from the fact that tech companies are faced with not only with having to get gadgets working correctly, but also getting our communication gear to get along with each other. This increased complexity of technology and compatibility issues has gotten some companies to turn to online communities to offer help to customers. Although, according to the survey, most people fixed the problem themselves or turned to friends, with traditional customer service being the next favored option. Online communities only accounted for 2% of resolved issues. Everyone else gave up.

These results raise some interesting questions about virtual collaboration and the tools we are dependent on for it–questions that virtual teams, remote workers and virtual team leaders might want to consider and plan or set guidelines for before being faced with a similar problem.

• What happens when the technology the team or worker depends on breaks down and a team member or the entire team is not able to complete or deliver work in the usual fashion?
• What are the security risks involved in getting technology fixed that might hold important or sensitive information, especially when turning to friends, acquaintances, or even strangers for help?
• The author of the study suggests that technology needs to be designed in a more user-friendly manner. Is that the case, or do we need to make sure that those dependent on the technology are properly trained to use it effectively and understand it? Technology training is oftentimes overlooked or competency is assumed in virtual teams.
• How can compatibility problems be minimized in ways that reduce stress and costs, but also leave some flexibility for the team as needed?
• What is the environmental impact of non fixable gadgets being tossed because no one is able or willing to fix them, and can it be minimized?

Very often, technology is taken for granted. We tend to assume that it will be there when we need it and it will work without problems. Answers to these questions will help a virtual team prepare better to deal with technological challenges that seem to emerge from nowhere and, maybe, even help the environment.