• IT Job Market, IT Jobs and Job Trends

    What is the Zander Report? At Project One we’re all about IT jobs, IT careers and IT consulting opportunities. Every day we read business and industry sources to keep the pulse of the IT job market, as well as the general management, marketing and technology trends that affect hiring.

      Read more...
  • Follow Us: LinkedIn  Twitter  Facebook  search-for-jobs-out

Tuesday, November 21st, 2017

From 10/13/08 ComputerWorld...
Telecommuting has been steadily gaining in popularity.  If your company is considering telecommuting options, this article from ComputerWorld raises important questions & issues.  For example,
.  Should full-time telecommuting be an option?
.  How will you define and measure performance?
.  Will creativity suffer?
.  How will telework affect collaboration?
.  What about employees "left behind" in the office?
.  Do you have an exit strategy?

Also, learn why Intel pulled the plug on telecommuting. 

Telecommuting is back on workers' radars in a big way these days, thanks to gas prices that were a whopping 30% higher this summer than last.

Telecommuter wannabes are lining up outside their bosses' offices with work-from-home plans in hand, and many of them could get their wish this time around: According to WorldatWork, an association of human resource professionals, 40% more employers are offering telework programs this year than last year. Should your IT employees be part of that burgeoning crowd?

It's certainly tempting to say yes. Increasing fuel costs and heightened corporate environmental consciousness are magnifying many of the benefits of telework, including conserving fuel (and money), reducing traffic congestion (and CO2 emissions), and reducing space and energy use at the employer's facility. Employers also often find that they're better able to attract and retain talented workers with the flexibility and increased job satisfaction that telework programs offer.

All of that is driving a huge number of inquiries from organizations looking to deploy more systematic, companywide telework programs, says Josh Holbrook, an analyst at Yankee Group Research Inc.

That said, IT and telework don't have an unblemished record of success. In 2006, Hewlett-Packard Co. ended teleworking arrangements for hundreds of its IT workers. And early this year, Intel Corp. began requiring more than half the teleworkers in its IT group to report to the office at least four days a week. In both instances, the companies indicated that teleworking had had a negative impact on IT employee productivity and collaboration.

Although a few reversals of telework policy do not constitute a trend, those cases should caution technology managers who might otherwise be inclined to say OK to telecommuting.  "These instances get attention because they cut against the grain," Holbrook says. "The trend is overwhelmingly in the other direction."

Nevertheless, in some instances, managers or even whole business units have "gone rogue," he says, allowing employees to work from home without the right technology, policies and procedures in place. "It's very possible for a well-meaning manager to shove the employee out of the corporate jet without a parachute," Holbrook warns.

Some telework decisions are fairly obvious. Most managers wouldn't let a new, inexperienced employee telework until he had proved himself, for example. But there are other, more subtle aspects of a person's character and work style and a company's culture that can make or break a telework arrangement.

Computerworld talked with telework experts and IT managers to discover some of these nuances. Before you approve telework, make sure you've asked yourself and your employees these tough questions.

1. Should full-time telecommuting be an option?

Some IT jobs will never be candidates for telework. Either the employee is physically required on-site -- to repair client hardware, for example -- or the job requires a lot of communication, interaction and collaboration with others, such as managing relationships between IT and business units.
Other times, the situation is less clear. The work can be performed remotely, but should it be?

Telework is best for those with task-oriented jobs and for people who need little face-to-face communication, says Scott Morrison, an analyst at Gartner Inc. "Can they get through a day's work without leaving their desk?" he asks. "Then they can do their job remotely."

But just because they can doesn't mean they necessarily should. The most successful telework arrangements are those that still bring the worker into the office at least some of the time.

Why Intel pulled the plug.

When Hewlett-Packard CIO Randall Mott pulled IT teleworkers back into the office in 2006, he said he was trying to foster better teamwork internally. HP was in the midst of a major IT overhaul, consolidating more than 85 data centers into six facilities.

Low productivity on collaborative projects was also the reason for Intel's recent crackdown on IT teleworkers. The company's move was not a change in policy, but rather a decision to enforce the rules around its existing policy, says Intel CIO Diane Bryant.

As part of a corporatewide efficiency review, Bryant found that lax application of those rules had allowed many IT workers to telecommute who didn't closely meet the company's three criteria: that the job was appropriate for teleworking; that the employee was senior enough, mature enough and self-disciplined enough to work remotely; and that the remote employee would remain as productive in the telework arrangement as he was in the office.

That laxness had led to inefficiency. "There [was] a layer of inefficiency in fixing problems that would not [have been] there had the two people been sitting next to each together in the same building," Bryant says.

So Intel started requiring more than half of the 250 IT teleworkers -- 150 out of 250 -- to report to the office at least four days a week.

Although Bryant is frank in her assessment of the current state of remote work -- "Telecommuting inhibits collaboration," she says -- she has high hopes that collaborative technologies such as videoconferencing and online social networks will improve in performance and decline in cost enough to enable broader teleworking in the future.

Dennis Cromwell, associate vice president for enterprise infrastructure at Indiana University in Bloomington, lets 10 to 12 of his 75 employees telecommute -- but not every day. They are mostly systems and database administrators who work alone on the computer and communicate chiefly via phone and e-mail. The arrangement has worked well -- so well that Cromwell has cut the number of offices that one of his teams requires from six to two.
Still, because he wants to keep informal communication flowing, he won't allow anyone to telework 100% of the time, except in rare circumstances.

2. How will you define and measure performance?

Most experienced managers stress that you must establish well-defined performance measures for teleworkers and then judge performance accordingly.

On the face of it, that approach seems simple enough. For task-oriented jobs, it's easy to measure performance in terms of output. For an IT support person, for example, you might track how many cases he handled per day and whether problems were successfully resolved.

But such an approach implies that it doesn't matter how much time it takes to do the job. And that raises a sometimes thorny question: Are you paying employees for their output, their time or both? Some people work faster or more efficiently than others, especially when working from home. If an employee hits his output working only four hours a day, is that a win-win situation or poor use of that employee?

"People say they manage by results, but they also like to know whether the person is only active a few hours a day," says Eric Spiegel, CEO and co-founder of software start-up XTS Inc. In a previous job as an IT manager, Spiegel had bad experiences allowing staffers to telework. Members of his team were sometimes unavailable during work hours, and he had trouble scheduling meetings.

To avoid such problems, he says, you should decide upfront whether meeting deliverables is enough, or whether you will require employees to be at their phone and computer at certain times and for a certain number of hours.

3. Will creativity suffer?

Beyond the hours-vs.-output debate, there's a larger question that pertains particularly to jobs where deliverables can't be easily quantified: Are you getting the same level of intellectual investment from your remote employees as you would if they were in the office?

In software design, for example, creative ideas can be the most valuable output. Should you measure performance based on creativity? Will workers be more creative at home -- or less?

Maybe you should measure quality rather than quantity. If so, what constitutes high quality? The answer will depend on the person and the type of job. The important thing is to have a frank discussion of what's expected -- including intangibles like creativity -- before you allow an employee to telework, with the understanding that the arrangement could be changed if expectations aren't met.

Today, all seven of Spiegel's employees telework. The difference, he says, is that they are all senior-level people whom he personally hired. Thanks to stock options and equity interest, they are highly motivated.

As an added bonus, Spiegel doesn't need office space at this point in his young company's development.

Even so, he advises managers to proceed with caution. "If I had to go back and manage a support team at a Fortune 1,000 company, I'd take a different stance," Spiegel says. "I'd want more control over what teleworkers are doing."

4. How will telework affect collaboration?

Think about the culture of your organization and how the employee fits into it. Some people are naturally creative, innovative and inspirational, notes Robert Keefe, president of the Society for Information Management and senior vice president and CIO at Mueller Water Products Inc. These people stimulate discussion and generate ideas, and others like to work with them.
"Some people are like the gel that holds the organization together," says Keefe. The organization would lose something if those people worked remotely 100% of the time. "That's a very soft intangible, but something that's often overlooked in team dynamics," says Keefe.

Communication is a related factor. Some companies are more reliant than others on informal communication, where an employee just walks down the hall to IT to solve a problem or hash out an idea, Holbrook notes. Moving a key IT employee out of that picture could upset that delicate balance.

For example, Intel relies on a high level of collaboration, according to Intel CIO Diane Bryant. The company found that projects were completed much more efficiently when all the IT workers were at one site rather than spread out over two or more sites -- or in remote locations.

5. What about employees 'left behind' in the office?

Timothy Golden, associate professor in the Lally School of Management & Technology at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, published a study earlier this year suggesting that allowing some employees to telecommute can decrease job satisfaction for co-workers who remain in the office and increase the chances that they will leave the company.

Golden studied a sample of 240 professional employees from a midsize company. The study found that the more people in the organization who teleworked, the less satisfied the officebound employees were.

There could be several reasons for this, according to Golden. First, there are fewer opportunities for workers to get to know one another, which could impede good working relationships. Second, the officebound workers may find themselves bending to accommodate the teleworkers -- for instance, they have to schedule meetings around when teleworkers are going to be in the office.

And third, office workers may be more likely to be tapped for certain tasks simply because they are handy, whereas the teleworker is left undisturbed. "The teleworker may very well be available," says Golden. "but they aren't perceptually there in the moment."

While telework has gone smoothly for the most part at Cox Enterprises Inc., that misperception of availability has been a problem, says John Bell, assistant vice president of information systems engineering at the broadband service provider.

"Someone will stop by an office, and the door is closed and the lights are out," he says. "People think he's not available or that they may be imposing if they call him at home."

To combat that perception, Cox has started requiring teleworkers to post their schedules on their doors so other staff members know when they are available.

Golden suggests other ways to ensure that in-office employees aren't inconvenienced by at-home colleagues, including requiring all employees to be in the office at certain times or on certain days; reshuffling responsibilities so officebound employees aren't dependent upon remote workers; and scheduling informal social times, separate from formal meetings, to reinforce trust and camaraderie among the entire workforce.

6. Do you have an exit strategy?

It may seem counterintuitive to be thinking about an exit strategy while you're trying to approve a telework arrangement, but experts like Keefe suggest that very thing.

Even as he's hammering out details on how often an employee will need to come into the office, Keefe puts a time limit on the teleworking arrangement. "You don't want to set a false expectation that this is the way it's always going to be," he says. "It's really highly dependent on the role they are in currently, and things change."

A new department manager may prefer to have workers in the office, for example. Or an IT consolidation project might require employees to come back to the office.

Particularly if the person is a high performer who might come up for a promotion, it's important to note that he might need to return to the office if his role changes.

Managers should also consider the possibility that telework can become too good of an offer for some workers. Strong performers might forgo advancement, or even leave the company, in order to continue teleworking. "It becomes a lifestyle," notes Keefe. "I've had a couple of key people leave the organization, so now I'm more cautious about that."

Ironically, the opposite situation can also occur: Employees who pushed for and received permission to telework may find it's not as wonderful as they expected. They may feel disconnected from the workplace and the office banter. Rather than admitting the mistake, they may look for work in another office.

In fact, there is a higher degree of churn among teleworkers today than in the past, according to Sean Ryan, an analyst at IDC. Statistics indicate that telework tends not to be a permanent arrangement, he says. "They telecommute for a while but then go back into the corporate world," Ryan says.

Indeed, research from 2005 published in the Journal of Management suggests that allowing insufficiently screened employees to work more than three days a week outside of the office results in long-term decreases in productivity and morale and increases in staff turnover. "They move on to jobs where they feel more included," says Gartner's Morrison.

The consensus among managers who have had it both ways is that telework should never be an all-or-nothing proposition. And whether you ultimately decide to allow an employee to work from home full time, part time or not at all, your decision should be the result of careful consideration of the needs of the worker, his colleagues and managers and -- most important -- your business.

Obama's New Tech Agenda

November 16, 2008

From 11/16/08 eWeek...
Here's what can be expected as part of President-elect Obama's technology agenda, as it pertains to:
. Network Neutrality
. H-1B Visas
. Patent Reform
. Broadband Rollout
. Spectrum
. Clean Energy
. Free Trade
. Health IT
. Open Source Government

President-elect Barack Obama brings a decidedly different technology agenda to the White House than President Bush did eight years ago. Widely considered the most tech-savvy president ever elected, Obama sees an activist government - tinkering here, readjusting there and spending here, here and here - as the path to innovation and the future.

Since technology is the key to virtually all of President-elect Barack Obama's plans for sweeping changes in the direction of the country and the way Washington does business with its citizens, it is not surprising Obama brings a decidedly different technology agenda to the White House than President Bush did eight years ago.

Bush praised technology as a key driver of the economy and worked to remove government barriers such as laws, rules and regulations to let the free market make its decisions on winners and losers. Obama, though, embraces technology as the path to innovation and the future and plans to invest heavily in technology as the key to reviving the economy.

Network Neutrality

Would innovation blossom if virtually any legal Internet service or software program could run on any broadband network? Obama thinks so. Broadband providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast do not, conjuring up nightmare traffic management scenarios. One of Obama's earliest tech campaign promises was to throw his support behind network neutrality, which would prohibit discrimination in the delivery of broadband services by providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.

Absent network neutrality rules, Obama said, "you could get much better quality from the Fox News site and you'd be getting rotten service from some mom and pop site. And that, I think, destroys one of the best things about the Internet-which is that there is this incredible equality there."

Prime example? In August, the Federal Communications Commission ruled that Comcast violated the agency's Internet policy when it throttled peer-to-peer traffic by BitTorrent, a clear discrimination against the P2P provider. The agency ordered Comcast to stop the practice but did not fine the cable giant. Comcast has sued to overturn the decision, claiming the FCC does not have the legal authority to impose the decision.

Obama has already promised to put network neutrality proponents on the FCC, but if Comcast wins its case against the agency (and many think it will) Obama is likely to put his support behind federal legislation to mandate network neutrality. His first choice, though, is to leave the issue with the FCC. All this will take time to play out.

H1-B Visas

The technology sector has long fought for an increase in H1-B visas, a specialized-occupation (i.e., tech-related) temporary worker. While Obama has said he will support a temporary increase in the H1-B cap, his heart is not in it. The president-elect, along with a number of Midwest lawmakers, does not see it as a long-term solution to providing the high-tech community with skilled workers.

Comprehensive immigration reform with an emphasis on retraining workers who lose jobs to offshoring is a top priority for Obama. As with under Bush, though, as long as H1-Bs are tied to immigration reform and its more incendiary border security and amnesty issues, the visa issue is likely to go unresolved with, perhaps, only a small bump in the number of H1-B visas.

A more likely scenario is an overhaul reform of the H1-B system. A recent U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services report said as many as 20 percent of the applications may be fraudulent or technically flawed. Cleaning up the system would free more H1-B visas for tech companies.

Patent Reform

Along with network neutrality and H1-B visas, patent reform is a top priority for Washington technology policy shops that want to limit infringement damages and install a process to weed out weak patents. So far, that effort has failed in the face of fierce opposition from the pharmaceutical, biotech and manufacturing industries.

Tech scored a major victory last year when the U.S. House approved the first significant overhaul of patent law in a half century, narrowing the definition of willful infringement and limiting infringement damage awards to the actual value of the technology involved instead of the overall value of the completed product. The bill also created a "second window" to challenge patents issued by the Patent and Trademark Office. The legislation, though, died in the U.S. Senate, putting tech back at square one.

Obama, it appears, is on tech's side in the patent reform battle that will surely resurface in the next Congress. Obama supports reform producing "gold-plated patents" to "reduce the uncertainty and wasteful litigation that is currently a significant drag on innovation." He's backing opening up the patent process to citizen review and giving the Patent and Trademark Office the resources to improve patent quality.

Broadband Rollout

You've read the numbers over and over: The United States is falling behind other industrialized nations in overall broadband penetration, putting the United States at a distinct disadvantage in the global innovation race. Like Bush, Obama wants affordable, universal broadband for all Americans. Unlike Bush, Obama may actually do something about it.

Obama wants to expand the USF (Universal Service Fund), currently a tax on consumer telephone bills dedicated to extending phone service to rural and other high-cost areas, to also cover broadband connections. Obama aims to redirect USF funds in combination with promotion of next-generation broadband facilities and new tax and loan incentives to greatly expand the reach of U.S. high-speed Internet services.

USF reform is currently before the FCC, where commissioners are seemingly deadlocked over expanding the system to cover broadband connections. An Obama FCC is likely to change that.

Spectrum

Obama wants a "smarter, more efficient and more imaginative use" of the nation's spectrum as yet another way to bring broadband to Americans.

The FCC, under Republican Kevin Martin, is already moving in that direction with its decisions to mandate open access for portions of its recently concluded 700MHz auction, to open the interference buffer zones between television channels for the use of white space devices and a proposal for a spectrum auction in 2009 that would require the winning bidder to provide a free wireless broadband tier to 50 percent of the United States in four years and 95 percent of the country within 10 years.

Republicans in Congress have opposed all of those proposals. Obama's election not only puts a Democrat in the White House, but Democrats also strengthened their majorities in both houses. More spectrum clearly signals a new day for wireless innovation.

Clean Energy

A centerpiece of Obama's campaign, Obama is proposing that the government invest heavily ($150 billion over the next 10 years) in smart utilities, electrical grids and meters. The investment, Obama claims, will pay off with the generation of five million new jobs, almost of all of them in domestic tech firms that dominate the global smart technologies field.

A smart electrical grid, for instance, can send data to power companies every 6 seconds instead of every 30 days, allowing the utilities to constantly monitor energy usage and, in theory, make adjustments to conserve energy and, potentially, reduce the need for more power plants.

Obama believes green IT is not only financially viable but also deployable in the short term. He also promises to spend big on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, another growing area of technology.

Free Trade

Tech is not so keen on Obama's stance that any future trade agreements include strong labor, environmental and safety standards. As a U.S. senator, Obama opposed trade deals with Panama, Colombia and South Korea. During his campaign, he called for renegotiating NAFTA. Globalization, he wrote in opposing CAFTA, is "not someone's political agenda."

That would be Silicon Valley moguls who have never met a trade deal they didn't like, even if the murder rate among our trading partners' labor leaders is criminal.

Health IT

Since a recent PriceWaterhouseCoopers study concluded that Obama's overhaul of the U.S. health care system would cost the federal government $75 billion the first year alone, reducing the cost of health care is essential, and Obama is again turning to technology.

Most medical records are still stored on paper with all the inherent drawbacks that involves: coordinating care, measuring quality and reducing medical errors. Processing paper claims also costs twice as much as processing electronic claims.

Obama promises to invest $50 billion over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records.

Open-Source Government

Obama plans to bring the same tech-centric focus of his campaign to his new government. Obama spoke often on the campaign trail of using technology to make the government more open to citizens.

Among his proposals: making more government reports and data available online; Webcasts of all government meetings; and creating tech tools to allow users to track federal grants, contracts, lobbyist information and earmarks. He even proposes a five-day public comment period on any legislation pending before the White House.

Given Obama's bent to make the government more transparent to citizens, for the tech entrepreneurs who pioneered manipulating a flood of public information available during the campaign into actionable data, the future looks bright.

Page 49 of 49

Site Search

Project One, Inc

450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2509
New York, NY 10123

7350 East Progress Place, Suite 100
Greenwood Village, CO 80111

Northeast (NY): 212-268-5800
Nationwide: 877-677-6566

LinkedIn  Twitter  Facebook

You are here: Home | About Us | The Zander Report