Who Moved the Workplace?

It was bound to happen. In a country that invented take out food, that is in love with automobiles and cruising down the highway and that is perpetually in motion, it was inevitable that work and indeed the workplace itself would become mobile as well. Over the past five to ten years, the place where knowledge work happens has shifted from primarily office type facilities to literally anywhere – on your back deck, in a subway car, walking down the street or of course, hanging out at a coffee bar.

Many people, especially the technology-savvy among us (exclude me), take this fact for granted. Sure people have been working at home or on trains and planes for decades. But until recently most work outside the traditional office setting involved activities that were peripheral or certainly not critical - mostly people catching up on calls, e-mail or administrative tasks. Today however, because of advances in information technology and communications, all manner of high value work can be performed routinely almost anywhere. This means that people don’t really have to ‘go to the office’ unless there is a good reason. With the high price of fuel, hassles of commuting and general desire for more balanced work and personal lives, pressure is building to accommodate work that takes place wherever workers happen or want to be.

A recent survey released by the International Telework Advisory Council (ITAC) http://www.workingfromanywhere.org/ and The Dieringer Research Group demonstrates the extent to which flexible and mobile working is now happening. They conducted a national survey this past summer of U.S. workers to find out where people work.

Respondents were asked to indicate up to 13 locations where they conducted work during July. The survey found that among the estimated 45.1 million Americans working from home—known as telecommuters—26.1 million do so at least once a month and 22.2 million at least once a week.

Other results from ITAC’s survey show that respondents worked at an average of 3.4 locations outside their employer’s offices. These included:

• 24.3 million working at a client’s or customer’s place of business. That’s a lot of people working onsite with customers. Relationships are the grease that keeps the wheels of business spinning and there is nothing like face-time to build good relationships with customers. I wonder however, how many of these people prefer working on their client’s premises to their own offices because they are better places to work. Or how many clients would prefer their vendors/suppliers worked somewhere else, instead of taking up expensive space in their own facilities.

• 20.6 million working in their car. One shudders to think how many of these people are working in MOVING cars while DRIVING. The hazards of talking on cell phones behind the wheel are well known. The thought of people using computers or PDAs as they barrel down some highway on their way to wherever is scary!

• 16.3 million working while on vacation. What a sad commentary on the state of American workers. It’s bad enough that we take the least amount of vacation of any country in the developed world – must we continue working while we’re on holiday as well? Although given how many hours people seem to be putting in these days, it's surprising there were so many people on vacation in the first place.

• 15.1 million working at a park or outdoor location. It should be noted that the survey was administered in summer time (July 2005), so this may be an inflated number. Still, I wonder how many managers would be comfortable with their staffs working under a tree somewhere or at the beach.

• 7.8 million working on a train or plane. This figure seems a bit low to me. But given the dismal and tortuous experience of business travel today, perhaps many workers are opting for a little entertainment and relaxation to reduce the inevitable stress and hassles instead of working while in transit. Indeed, some people might even argue that traveling on business IS working.

The ITAG's survey findings suggest that tens of millions of Americans are now routinely working everywhere and anywhere but the traditional office. In the future, companies and people will be driven by strong cost and productivity pressures to adopt even more flexible and mobile working. Real estate is expensive and there are substantial savings to be had from reducing its use. Sun Microsystems for example saved over $70 million in facilities and infrastructure costs last year by providing workers with an array of home and mobile working options. Not exactly chump change. And with the costs and hassles of commuting rising due to skyrocketing fuel prices and roads under perpetual construction in many parts of the country, more workers will no doubt demand alternatives to the 5-day commuting grind.

The economic and social consequences of work happening everywhere are only now emerging and are still largely not understood. Perhaps most challenging is the task of management when work can be performed anywhere. Many managers are still comfortable only with daily face-to-face encounters with staff and are loathe to allow their charges too much time out of their sights. But continued advances in technology, unrelenting cost pressures and strong demand for more work-life balance will ultimately force the hand of corporations to allow more flexible and mobile working.

Smart managers however see these trends as an opportunity to redefine the workplace for the better. Work happening anywhere, anytime is no longer the exception. In some cases this will be because the business requires it, in others, because people want it. Regardless, isn’t it about time more organizations changed their policies and practices to allow workers to decide when and where they work in ways that strike a more productive balance between their professional and personal commitments? Instead of asking who moved the workplace – now's the time to take advantage of it.

Process or Practice - Two Paths to Innovation

Every organization wants more innovation – but how to best produce it? Some believe innovation results from creating the right environment to enable inspiration and invention among employees. Innovation is left up to individuals to create in their own unique ways. But few managers are comfortable with this hands-off approach to creativity. Surely, many managers ask, the key steps in the innovation ‘process’ can be executed in a consistent and repeatable manner? They believe that if you create the right process, support it with the right measures and incentives and innovation can be produced just as an assembly line spews out widgets.

John Seeley Brown, ex head of the famous Xerox PARC refers to these competing approaches to innovation as process and practice. Today, two of the most prominent companies in the IT marketplace – Microsoft and Google are embracing these opposite innovation strategies. Microsoft is pushing hard to increase its innovation capacity through the introduction of a process to manage and coordinate its new product development. Google on the other hand drives innovation through selected practices designed to motivate and enable individuals to innovate as they best see fit in the belief that smart creative people will naturally collaborate and innovate if left to their own devices.

In its early years, Microsoft was known for a free-wheeling and entrepreneurial style. But once it became big and dominant, it has slowed up. Now it has introduced processes to help speed things up and make new product development and other innovation-related activities more consistent and productive.

But this move to embrace process is apparently causing much frustration and some dissension among employees. Some feel that they are spending too much valuable time complying with the innovation management process instead of innovating.

One Microsoft employee puts the situation bluntly in a posting on his blog entitled “Satan’s Process Excellence” :

“We spent so much time filling out forms, creating reports, and attending meetings to explain what we were doing and to learn how we should be filling out forms and formatting our reports, that it took twice as much effort to accomplish anything. Process is killing Microsoft. Don't get me wrong - the old days were a bit to loose and wild out here in the field, but things have swung so far the other way it is ridiculous. There is no room for individual ingenuity. The Process Beast (in the field its goes by the name Seibel) is all about sameness and oneness so that managers can spend less time leading and directing and more time staring at spreadsheets. And it sure as hell has nothing to do with customer focus or doing right by our customers. The smart, energetic go-getters Microsoft used to hire are being replaced or forced out by ‘process drones’. Microsoft will look in the mirror someday very soon and see a circa 1980s IBM staring them in the face.”

The root of Microsoft’s current challenge may be found ironically in its incredible commercial success. Last year it made approximately $13 billion in profit on just under $39 billion in revenue. That’s a nice 33% profit margin – most of it generated by its legacy Windows platform and Office products suite. Radical change seems hardly necessary when you’re making these awesome numbers. But dark clouds are on the horizon. Growth has slowed to single digits for the first time ever. In its efforts to coordinate and extend its own products and platforms Microsoft has become increasingly slow and ponderous. New products take half decades to develop. As a result Microsoft is starting to lose some of its best talent and many in the company are concerned for its future.

Google on the other hand seems designed for speedy innovation. It emphasizes experimentation over regimented processes to spur innovation. Like a university, its key executives hold open ‘office hours’ every week so that staff can bring issues to them and be mentored. It also allows individuals to work 20% of company time on their own personal projects. Google’s approach to innovation seems to be a critical differentiator in this battle to attract and keep talent. The company is on a roll attracting the best and brightest programmers and computer scientists – even poaching some of these individuals from Microsoft.

Google and Microsoft provide a stark contrast in their approaches to innovation. Microsoft is older, bigger and operates in more mature markets. Given its profitability, many would say it is natural and indeed smart to focus on its cash-making businesses. A process-approach to innovation makes a great deal of sense for them.

Google is smaller, younger and still finding its way in emerging markets. A practice-approach to innovation fits it perfectly. But as the company gets bigger it will begin to experience more pressures to adopt repeatable processes and measurements.

In the battle for market dominance, Microsoft is the aging champion and Google the young
talented upstart. Both companies have battalions of brainy, dedicated people. The winner of
this tussle between tech titans could very well be determined by which innovation approach –
process or practice - better engages and channels the passion of talent into the best
performance.