There is no circumstance in which a telephone or video interview would be even a fraction as worthwhile as an in-person interview. Any investigator who disagrees with this is probably just phoning it in (pun intended) with his/her in-person interviews already.
If there is a serious plan to rely on video interviews henceforth then maybe it’s best to scrap in-person interviews altogether because the process will have become something between rubber-stamping and NATSEC theater. Certainly not an investigatory exercise.
If there is serious consideration of making video interviews the standard based on things like “reduced windshield time” or increased investigator productivity, then yeah, scrap in-person interviews for the same aforementioned reason.
During my many years as a BI the investigation process consistently moved away from being investigative to a mere mechanical box-checking exercise. Less investigation yet more report-fillers (made up of pointless and worthless “reporting requirements”).
To improve the process make it more investigatory and less stenography. Reports should only cover errors in important information, developed issues, and noteworthy discrepancies or explanations. That’s it. And of course, all reports should be written in straightforward factual narrative devoid of any standard disclaimers.
I got off on a tangent there, sorry. I couldn’t help but point out that the movement to video/phone interviews is just one more step of minimizing the front end (investigations) while the the back end (coverage/reports) continues grow as an onerous, bureaucratized waste of
If an investigator were given the choice of windshield time vs. keyboard time— typing in the required inanities— I’m sure he/she would unhesitatingly choose the former.
tap…tap…tap… Subject has no knowledge of the closed Collection account #12345678 with $0 balance, 0 past due, Unknown high credit… tap… tap… tap