by gg3 » Tue 25 Apr 2006, 15:54:15
Back to telecommuting for a moment...
Emersonbiggins, I don't like to boast, but I'm an expert in this field, > 20 years' experience in the industry. A number of features on the Panasonic KXTDA and KXTVA platforms, as well as KXTD and KXTVS before them, are things I originally designed and proposed to Panasonic, which they adopted. The whole foundation of telecommuter features on those systems originated with something I developed in 1998 called OutRoute, which we still offer along with the newer feature-sets. (And if you only think of Panasonic as video, they've been doing commercial phone systems since at least 1964, this I know because I have one of their 1964 office telephone sets and the date is stamped on some of the parts.)
We have a number of clients who are architecture firms, some of whom are household names in the architectural field. And it is true that of all of our categories of clients, architects are more reliant than average on the physical office.
However, from everything I've seen, the issue of interpersonal synergy is largely generational. The blunt fact is that GenX and younger are as capable, sometimes moreso, of doing creative synergy via phone, email, and online chat, as they are in person. And for those who insist on seeing a face to go with the voice, there are numerous videoconference solutions that will work with any desktop of laptop on any OS.
As for outsourcing, its days are numbered. No less a conservative than Kevin Phillips has come out with a scathing critique of "financialization", many others have been up in arms about the stripping of the American economy, and liberals are onboard with this one as well. There is a growing coalition on this issue, which will eventually translate to enough votes to make it stick. Take away some of the favorable tax treatments and other market-warping "incentives," and it becomes a far less attractive option.
Additionally, the fact remains that telecommuting and virtual offices, are viable in cases that are not susceptible to outsourcing.
Think of a construction company or anything else that is largely field-based, anything where you meet on the client's site rather than have the client at your site. In many of those cases, there is no need for an office as such, and going virtual saves much in overhead costs.
Telecommuting also works as a part-time solution for office-based jobs. I know of a major law firm which is a household name in the legal profesion, in which attorneys routinely work from home two to three days each week. They meet with clients on their downtown office days, they do deskwork on their home office days. These are people making a half million and up per year, and you can believe they are not going to be outsourced. I know of a number of privately held companies, and a number of publicly traded companies, in which engineers, middle managers, upper-level managers, senior managers, and their staffs, do likewise.
Telecommuting also works for small companies in a wide range of fields. Right now it is possible to have a virtual office with people anywhere in the world, with all of the communications capabilities you would find in a regular physical office suite. These small companies are typically privately held, and they do not outsource their own jobs. For the price of two months' rental of physical office space, they can buy outright all the telephony and computer networking infrastructure they need, and the only cost after that is the same cost for dialtone & data carrier services they would pay in any case.
This is not to say it's a panacea. Clearly there are cases where it just doesn't fit. And clearly the technology, like any other, can be used for harmful purposes as well as beneficial ones. But many are the cases where it fits well and more than earns its keep. The growth in demand for it is clear, and every single telecommuter is one less car that would otherwise be stuck in traffic, burning dinosaurs, and going nowhere fast.