Apocalypse Now

This, of course, brings up even bigger issues. Is there a valid, defensible rationale for requiring workers to gather in central locations so they can perform their assigned functions? There was such a need in the days before personal computers and instant messaging and cell phones. Just a short 30 years ago, business communication depended on land-line telephone, handwritten or typewritten communication, and in-person meetings. Facsimile (FAX) machines still were in their infancy in the 1970s. The PC revolution has changed all that. I routinely work from my home office connected to remote networks, computers, and servers. There is literally no difference in the experience I would have were I physically on site at a location thousands of miles away. In fact, many times when I am on site at a client, the data center I am accessing may be three time zones away.

There are only a handful of reasons we require workers to gather centrally:

o We don't trust them to do their job without constant and continual direct supervision, as in "I really need that TPS report before you leave today."

o We have always done it that way.

o Their job requires them to do something to something–as in put a radio in the dashboard of a car.

Given the correct equipment, knowledge workers or information workers do not really need to be anywhere in particular. OK, there obviously are times when people actually need to meet in person. But that says more about human nature than the requirements of a job. I have clients who are hundreds or thousands of miles away. At some point in time, I have sat across a conference table from these people. I have eaten meals with them; I have learned about their families and their hobbies and interests. I have discussed technology and business issues with them. But the most important thing that occurred as a result of that human contact was I got to know them as individuals and they got to know me. That has allowed me to continue to work with them professionally. And the majority of that work has been done remotely using teleconferencing, Web meetings, e-mails, instant messaging, and videoconferencing. I do not need to be physically present in a building or an office with someone to do useful work with that person.

Things Fall Apart

There are perhaps a half-dozen legitimate reasons you may need to provide a structure so your corporate employees can carry out their job functions from remote locations. The days when we can reliably count on hav

ing everyone together in the same physical location are gone. Consider the following:

o A worldwide oil shortage occurs. Gasoline prices reach $10 per gallon with widespread shortages. Many of your corporate employees simply cannot afford to commute to the office.

o Minor acts of terrorism have occurred. Where I live (in Atlanta), it would not take a large quantity of C4 or Semtex to bring down a few highway bridges that would render commuting impossible.

o A pandemic occurs, and people are ordered to stay home and avoid public places.

o Your organization determines it is not economically viable for every employee to have an office or a cube. Employees are encouraged to work from a home office. This is taking place today. I have worked with very large organizations that hire individuals and expect those individuals to work from their home offices.

There are other scenarios we can imagine, but the point is valid. Does your organization provide a reliable structure that would allow individuals to work effectively remotely? You notice I am not using the word infrastructure–maybe the new term should be extrastructure–an environment that would allow employees and others to work together from external locations.

The Center Cannot Hold

What would your response be if tomorrow morning your CEO calls you into his or her office and tells you to provide the ability for all corporate information workers to work remotely? Furthermore, the CEO wants you to provide that ability in three months. What would your first steps be? How would you fulfill this need?

Obviously, the first thing that needs to be resolved is to provide reliable (redundant?) channels of communication. You need to ensure every worker has access to Internet connectivity. In this day, that is probably a given, but you cannot make that assumption. At a minimum, you would need to survey your workers and validate they do have ready access to the Internet. Critical workers will require a backup system, too. You may need to provide them with wireless cards or pay for an extra connection to their residence. Telephone communications also are critical. If workers have an Internet connection, they may have a VoIP telephone. Most critical personnel already will have company-provided cell phones. In some cases, you might want to provide additional backup communications–perhaps a land line and ISDN for those who are operating with a cable modem and VoIP. Supercritical employees may need satellite communications. Other backup plans might include signing up hotels in the area that can provide standby regional communication centers for employees.

Now What?

Let's assume you have cracked the communication nut. A substantial number of your employees now have reliable voice and Internet communication. How many of them also have company laptops? If they all do, then you are way ahead of the game. But what if only 20 percent or 30 percent of your workers have a portable computer? Now, we are getting into the tough zone. Laptops are expensive. If purchasing everyone a laptop is not an option, we are left with two alternatives:

Provide an "allowance" for employees to maintain a reasonably effective home computer. The allowance may just encourage them to maintain a better machine than they normally would. To receive the allowance, they would need to provide some "proof" they have a system available for work.

Provide each employee who currently uses a desktop with a low-cost desktop system or a netbook.

Rich Client, Thin Client

Which brings up another interesting item. The current corporate IT model provides workers with expensive fat-client productivity applications that are loaded on and licensed to every computer. Not only is this model expensive, it is inefficient. Very few workers really require the full suite of productivity tools, yet software licensing models force us into providing that full suite for everyone.

There are various online application suites available on the cloud. For $50 per year, you can license Google Apps, which provides e-mail, collaboration space, calendar, Google docs, and instant messaging. Other more traditional software providers offer similar services.

If you are serious about remote workers, it just might make sense to move more of your corporate applications to the cloud. I understand all the arguments against cloud computing–particularly that it isn't as secure as applications and data locked down behind the corporate firewall. But if supporting remote workers becomes a corporate priority, it might be time to give the cloud a little more thought. You still can use secure VPN to access the corporate infrastructure for supersensitive information while using a low-cost cloud solution for day-to-day stuff.

Bare Essentials

So, what do we really need to provide our remote workers? It isn't much. Internet, telephone, instant messaging, shared spaces for collaboration, productivity applications, and a system to run it all on. Some workers will require additional access to corporate resources, databases, and back-end office systems. But I'll bet those people already have secure VPN access as well as everything else they need to work remotely.

All About the $ or Not?

This little exercise serves multiple purposes. First, it actually makes very good sense to have a plan in place to facilitate remote workers for the reasons listed above. Second, there very well may be valid economic reasons to build a workplace around remote workers. Consider an enterprise with multiple locations, say, a corporate headquarters in Raleigh, N.C., and regional offices in Chicago and San Francisco. Real estate costs along with cost of living and regional salary variations make the cost per employee for the California and Illinois offices substantially higher than the North Carolina office. If that firm were using a remote employee model, the necessity for the regional offices may be eliminated. Or as is more likely, the size and, thus, the cost of those regional offices could be reduced. Creating a corporate structure and environment that facilitates and encourages remote workers makes sense in a number of ways. Maybe corporate IT departments can lead the organization down the path to innovation and change instead of following the lead of the business leaders.

At the very least, you need to be prepared to support remote for finite periods during times of crisis. Where you go from there is your decision. As for me, I am going to work remotely as often as I can.