Gordon Brenne, measurement consultant for the Telework Consortium, offers his views on the Where in the World Is the Virtual I.T. Worker? article posted earlier today:

"I find the isolation of a few activities that IT workers may be involved in and require face time to be off the mark. All activities require direction, authority and accountability. Even non-strategic actitivities which is a lot of IT work. Most activities require some initial and then periodic face time to check point with process owners. The rest of the time telework can get the job done. Telework is essential for anyone who has ever worked on a strategic plan in a global organization for example, or created a business process for a recently acquired subsidiary. The examples provided in the article for face time seem to people who don't do them to be non-routine, but in fact they are very routine activities for knowledge workers.

"The article did have interesting reinforcement for what we have been saying about importance of business process and measurements. However, it has the presumption that smaller companies can't afford this stuff and won't benefit from telework. I disagree. Just because it isn't written down in big policy manuals doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Most small service organizations use telework as a competitive weapon to stay agile, innovative and win business. I am thinking of the security company I talked to at last year's FOSE that had all of its employees working from home using workstations to access legacy systems and operate CRM applications."

2:37:11 PM    

Where in the World Is the Virtual I.T. Worker? includes the tagline, Although broadband connections, collaborative technologies, and remote diagnostic tools have facilitated telecommuting in I.T., there are some jobs that still require "face time." This article, by Vincent Ryan and Mark Long, NewsFactor Network (December 9, 2003) explores the issues of telework and outsourcing. 

There are five points I'd like to make based on this very intriguing article: 

The first point is that outsourcing may not be saving companies money:

"In calculating the cost savings from outsourcing, companies and analysts usually compare the pay of a programmer in India -- about US$6,000 a year -- to the salary of a new college graduate in the U.S. -- about $40,000 to $50,000. ... The actual cost of an offshore outsourcing project is closer to the salary given to a newly minted computer science graduate than most companies realize. ... [plus] the expense of periodic travel to the outsourcer's site"

The second point relates to teleworking. The article runs through the usual benefits of cost savings from reduced real estate needs, recruitment and retention benefits, and increased productivity. But many companies don't institutionalize telework to the extent that they can realize cost savings:

"Large Fortune 100 companies have been able to shed costs because they institutionalize the practice and use rigorous processes and measurements."

I'll make a third point, but if you've read this site much you'll see that it's nothing new! I partially agree with Marc Cecere, vice president at Forrester Research - I've italicized the points I find short-sited:

"Although broadband connections, collaborative technologies, and remote diagnostic tools have facilitated telecommuting in I.T., there are some jobs that still require "face time." For example, iterative development work that requires on-the-spot conversations with clients does not work when the developer telecommutes, Cecere said. Additionally, if an I.T. group is creating a new business process, defining new standards for the organization, or doing strategic planning, I.T. staff need to be on site, Cecere said. "

Face time is indeed critical, but it can be provided remotely with video. To be specific, desktop-based video can provide the ad-hoc, on-the-spot, person-to-person face-time that's missing from Cecere's vision of telework. Once video is more established in the organization, the same response applies to the quote from Merle Sandler, IDC senior analyst, small business and home office research:

"For the employee, telecommuting "is fine for a nascent stage in someone's career," Sandler argues, "but then, eventually, they will want to re-enter corporate life, especially during an economic downturn when they will want to maintain a high level of visibility." "

Point four is eloquently made by Victor Janulaitis, CEO of Janco Associates, a management consulting firm:

"After a company realizes it is possible to do an I.T. support job from a remote location, the next step may be to wring out even more costs -- like the cost of labor. If a company can get a database programmer in Korea for $10,000 a year, why should it pay someone in the U.S. $70,000 a year? Janulaitis asks. "Telecommuting makes outsourcing a much more likely outcome," he said."

I have to nod in agreeement with the last sentence, but let me answer Janulaitis's question and make point five. Why pay someone in the U.S. more? If it's a straightforward, well-defined task, with an easily measured outcome, it's a simple choice to go with the least cost. For many complex problems, as Cecere already pointed out, you need face-to-face collaboration. Video can overcome the distance, but what about the issues of crossing time zones, languages, and cultural differences? Depending on the problem space, the cost of overcoming these issues may tip the scale in favor of using the in-country resource.

10:17:22 AM