Re: Telecommuting

[John Wilson <jwilson -at- AMADEUS -dot- NET>]

Joe wrote:

>...one of the basic things to do with "new" contractors
is set up a small but well-defined piece of work and see how long it takes
the contractor to accomplish the task. (You could just as easily do this
for work done "off-site.") Either way, it should give you a sense of
whether
you've hired a "keeper" or not.
>

I think this is the crunch issue in telecommuting (and in office life) -
defining the piece of work. Most managers I ever had did not want to define
the piece of work, as it was easier for them just to have me sit there,
working or otherwise.

I think this issue of "trusting the worker" is irrelevant and a cop-out. So
what if the telecommuter does errands? It doesn't matter if he or she
stands on her head, as long as the task is done on time. The object of the
exercise is to get a task done, not to keep someone busy. But unless the
task is defined, how can you know that it has been done? It is much easier
to make sure people are (or look) busy. This is behaviour modification, not
project management.

I fear that the main barrier to telecommuting is the reluctance or
inability of management to break a project down into defined, estimated
tasks, to the level of detail required, and to make sure they get done (and
if this is not a project manager's job, what is?). If such a breakdown were
done, the physical location of the worker would matter a lot less.

Many managers I have had prefer to firefight from day to day, so there is
visible activity which masquerades as productivity but is to some extent
the result of bad or non-existent planning in the first place. I would go
so far as to say that a project which cannot allow some telecommuting is by
definition badly managed.

My conclusion is that the difficulties of telecommuting or other forms of
outsourcing go very deep and are tied up with fundamental problems of
management. Telecommuting is not an isolated issue.

Regards
John


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=