The Costs of Commuting

brucelynn — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:21:53 GMT

The Transport Studies Unit at the University of Oxford has released a study on “The Costs of Transport on the Environment – The Role of Teleworking in Reducing Carbon Emissions” which looks comprehensively at empirical macro-economic data on workers and commuting. Its conclusions include...

Empirical studies of teleworking show that it typically results in substantial reductions in car mileage for the day on which teleworking takes place.
Teleworking can save energy at the worksite – providing working practices change accordingly.
Teleworkers typically have longer than average commutes but this does not necessarily mean that teleworking encourages more remote living.
Mobile working has fuelled a recent growth in teleworking.
The majority of teleworkers are self-employed or unpaid.
Teleworking has a wide range of benefits for employers, employees and communities. It has been linked with lower absenteeism, improved recruitment and retention, higher productivity, good work-life balance and good quality of life. Teleworkers tend to work longer hours than non-teleworkers, and identify this as one reason for their improved performance, but see reduced stress and better concentration as more important factors. Greater autonomy and flexibility in work planning and performance appears to be a key reason for improved work-life balance. Teleworking has also been linked to better health. There is evidence that teleworkers become more involved in their own communities and spend more on local services.

An example of the research cited is Microsoft’s own Tickbox.net survey (April 2007) on the benefits and profile of remote and flexible working. The study is really a comprehensive review of latest thinking and research in the UK which underscores the imperative and increasingly critical economic benefits to reforming the conventional modes of work and stripping out much of the synchronous commute to our knowledge worker factories.

Gensler’s Modes of Work

brucelynn — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:24:41 GMT

One of the observations Edelman’s Robert Phillips notes is the segmentation into different workstyles. He speaks of the ‘podists’ and the ‘benchists’ describing sub-groups that have formed based on personal preferences for where and how they work.

The design firm Gensler who engineered the Edelman London offices, has also published its own segmentation of work modes (see attachment below)...

· Focus – 59%, thinking, reflecting, analysing, writing, problem-solving, quantitative analysis, creating, imagining, reviewing, assessing.

· Socialise – 6%, talking, laughing, networking, trust-building, recognition, celebrating, interacting, mentoring, enhancing relationships

· Collaborate – 22%, sharing knowledge and information, discussing, listening, co-creating, showing, brainstorming.

· Learn – 4%, training, concept exploration and development, problem-solving, memorising, discovery, teaching, reflecting, integrating, applying knowledge.

This appreciation of the diversity of both the workforce and the workplace is central to the notion of Dynamic Work. Too often when I speak to people about Dynamic Work they try to pigeon hole it from one specific mode (office work) to another (home working, mobile working). Actually, Dynamic Work encompasses all of the modes of working aligning the mode with the person with the task to be done.

Dynamic Work : modes

The Costs of Commuting

Gensler’s Modes of Work