A word of warning
Case studies can be useful as you start to think about how an OSEP could be used in your enterprise, as long as you remember that they are only starting points for your own thinking.
For a start, every business will respond in its own way to the potential and demands of flexible work practices. As a result, there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ OSEP arrangement.
Second, it’s important not to fall into the trap of expecting specific results when you have not targeted them. Even if a business reports savings of $20,000 a year, you should not expect to gain similar benefits – unless you actively target them.
Telework in Law
During 1999, a formal OSEP pilot was developed for a major Auckland law firm . The firm had no previous experience of OSEPs and had a relatively conservative approach to ‘new ideas’.
The firm had approximately 113 staff, including part-timers, with the majority in professional or technical positions (53%) or clerical positions (31%). Staff commuted from all over Auckland region although most lived in central suburbs or on the North Shore. A steering group comprising senior partners and management adopted three main objectives for their OSEP pilot:
a) respond to human resource retention and recruitment issues
b) assess and achieve potential space savings
c) improve the way they work with and support their clients
It was decided to prepare a set of documents as a Kit for intending OSEP participants and make it available for an initial period of four months. This included a high-level introduction to the new way of working, a more detailed guidelines section, an eligibility questionnaire and proposal form. The kit also included an Agreement template and a number of other supporting materials.
The kit was introduced to interested employees during a lunchtime meeting and volunteers were invited to apply to participate in the trial. Four volunteers were selected for the pilot.
Most of the firm’s employees worked off-site for about 8 hours a week, with one senior partner working at home for 12 hours each week. Remote access arrangements were put in place as required – with appropriate security. One employee required no communication or computer technology – he spent most of his off-site hours reading letters and files and dictating letters for secretarial input on his return to the office.
At the termination of the pilot period, a meeting was held involving administrative staff and three of the four pilot off-site employees. (The fourth was working off-site to care for a sick family member.)
A number of results and benefits were identified:
- All off-site employees reported that the arrangement was working well. They were able to concentrate on their tasks without office interruptions. All staff noticed productivity improvements and the ease of co-ordinating work hours with other activities.
- Most OSEP participants have maintained their scheduled off-site working, although client meetings (and court commitments) have made it difficult on some occasions.
- One employee made use of telephone technology to have his office calls diverted to his cell-phone to remain in contact with clients and staff. Another employee allows selected clients (at his secretary’s discretion) to call him at home. For the amount of time spent away from the traditional office, no further technology or communication arrangements were necessary. (Once such technology was available, including remote access to email and company information, more extensive use of the arrangement would be possible.)
- No problems were reported by either the off-site employees or the administrative staff involved. The low number of trial participants, their relatively short time out of the office, and their seniority within the practice, ensured a smooth operation. Relationships with other staff and clients did not become a problem.
On the basis of this discussion, and other informal feedback, it was concluded that the OSEP trial was a success and that further benefits were likely in the future. The OSEP arrangement has continued to the present day (early 2005) although the emphasis has shifted towards enhancing the remote access facilities (through the Citrix product) available for senior staff. Up to 21 individuals have used the system and the intention is to expand this further.
According to the HR manager: “We are keen to take advantage of the opportunity to offer OSEPs to our staff. OSEPs fall in line with the firm’s commitment to our family-friendly policy that is focused on providing a work life balanced environment.”
Off-site employee comments
“I would say I worked off-site, during the trial, at least once or twice a week and the periods of time would vary from three hours to five hours. It’s more of a lifestyle and working environment. I worked better at the home office with less interruption. I still enjoy working from home and wish I could do it more.”
“One of the major advantages is the volume of work that you can get through without interruption. It forces you to be better organised as well and tasks need to be better co-ordinated to meet deadlines but that’s simply an operational issue…. I’m a big fan of the system.”
Management comments
“Although the people engaging in the OSEP are at a senior level, their performance is measurable on a monthly basis…. The fortunate thing that we have as a law firm is that performance is easily measured by recording and billing time and measurement of this is not location specific.”
“We’ve found that team-bonding and losing the personal touch hasn’t been an issue because the group only work off-site on a part-time basis.”
Tangible results
As the OSEP Guidelines required intending participants to provide their own technology and furnishings, there were no establishment costs for the trial. Neither were there any significant operational costs involved – other than a few hours of administrative time spent setting up the new work practices.
A basic cost-benefit analysis was prepared for the firm’s OSEP pilot and subsequent programme. On the basis of a generic cost-benefit analysis it appears that the pilot could have generated around $71,520 worth of savings: a productivity gain of $72,000 is off-set by $480 in telecommunication costs. Similar calculations for the full programme (involving 20-25 off-site employees) demonstrate a value of about $24,713 per off-site employee in the first year and $52,127 in following years. Over five years, the total gain was potentially $6 million.
Although this was a relatively conservative trial, there were benefits for the community and the environment. Peak hour trips by single occupancy car commuters in the firm were reduced by 13%, and the total number of peak hour kilometres travelled has been reduced by 11%. As the programme expanded the reduction in peak hour travel could approach 20-30% for around 20% of the firm’s staff. In other words, the OSEP is likely to deliver travel reductions of around 5-7.5% across the firm with continuing growth possible later.