Feeds

Productivity – operational dream or individual reality?

Hmmm...

Build a business case: developing custom apps

Are there benefits resulting from an investment in wireless or remote access technology in addition to direct financial return? Many companies recognise the importance of increased competitive advantage, and enhancing the value of previous investments, but far fewer perceive the value of user acceptance.

This is disappointing as many other benefits, including individual productivity will be greatly compromised by employees who are resentful or have not bought into the use of new technologies or processes. A little early consultation might also identify other problems that can be fixed before purchase or deployment.

Technology is often expected to make improvements in productivity – either changes that directly impact the individual or the overall operational efficiency – and this is no less the case for wireless and mobile communications. Why then do only half of UK businesses employ a formal process to measure productivity of new mobility projects, and why aren’t others doing their best to ensure that the broader benefits are realised by getting users involved early?

Any investment in a business needs to generate a financial return. Most UK businesses expect this to be over 12-18 months for a typical IT project, but this period lengthens slightly for wireless and remote access projects. Why a longer period? Some of the technology might be a little more complex or unfamiliar, but the difficulty in measuring the changes to individuals’ working lives and the broader impact on business processes are the more likely causes.

Neither individual nor organisational productivity are easy to measure, as the costs and benefits beyond the simple financial return on the capital expenditure in the solution are difficult to quantify. For example, are office workers more productive if they are able to communicate when out of the office, and does this also improve responsiveness? This is unlikely to have a direct impact on profits or costs, but may improve customer or employee satisfaction. It may be harder to measure for the bottom line, but just as valuable to the business.

The challenge is made more difficult by the different agendas of specific roles; line of business managers seeking operational improvements, financial controllers looking to reduce costs, and IT managers trying to look beyond day to day fire fighting and dreaming of innovation and new technologies to add value to the business.

Users are looking to cut out tedious paperwork, reduce unnecessary commuting, and get some more control over their own time. Not so much work/life balance, more like plain old effective time management. Something that supports them along this path will encourage them to be more productive. If it is a solution they buy into, so much the better.

There is an acknowledged fear that employees will become resentful of the intrusion of mobile and remote working technologies as they take work home, and will feel they are working longer hours. Some employers will see this as the extra productivity they were hoping for, but this is unlikely to be the case.

Employee attitude is vital to realising any improvements in productivity. Well motivated employees will always try to get the best out of anything that might help them improve their working day, but poorly motivated ones may rebel, fool around and squander any efficiency gains.

Mobile and remote working might require some major changes in the way employees can be supervised and managed day to day, but it does little to change the basic principles of good management. Have clear objectives, communicate them well, consult early, get buy-in, monitor and use positive reinforcement appropriate to the results. Good for the individual and good for the organisation.

Details on the responses to a survey of mobile productivity in UK businesses and further analysis can be found in the "Productivity or Pain" and "Users and Applications" reports which are freely available for download from the Quocirca website.

Copyright © 2005,

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
Assange™: Hey world, I'M STILL HERE, ignore that Snowden guy
Press conference: ME ME ME ME ME ME ME (cont'd pg 94)
Premier League wants to PURGE ALL FOOTIE GIFs from social media
Not paying Murdoch? You're gonna get a right LEGALLING - thanks to automated software
Caught red-handed: UK cops, PCSOs, specials behaving badly… on social media
No Mr Fuzz, don't ask a crime victim to be your pal on Facebook
Ballmer quits Microsoft board to spend more time with his b-balls
From Clippy to Clippers: Hi, I see you're running an NBA team now ...
Online tat bazaar eBay coughs to YET ANOTHER outage
Web-based flea market struck dumb by size and scale of fail
Amazon takes swipe at PayPal, Square with card reader for mobes
Etailer plans to undercut rivals with low transaction fee offer
Call of Duty daddy considers launching own movie studio
Activision Blizzard might like quality control of a CoD film
US regulators OK sale of IBM's x86 server biz to Lenovo
Now all that remains is for gov't offices to ban the boxes
prev story

Whitepapers

5 things you didn’t know about cloud backup
IT departments are embracing cloud backup, but there’s a lot you need to know before choosing a service provider. Learn all the critical things you need to know.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Build a business case: developing custom apps
Learn how to maximize the value of custom applications by accelerating and simplifying their development.
Rethinking backup and recovery in the modern data center
Combining intelligence, operational analytics, and automation to enable efficient, data-driven IT organizations using the HP ABR approach.
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.