Supporting mobile worker networks: components for effective workplaces
The Authors
Camille Venezia, Knoll Inc., Austin, Texas, USA
Verna Allee, Verna Allee Associates, Martinez, California, USA
Abstract
Purpose – To better understand mobile work and the lives of mobile workers from the employee perspective and to identify aspects of mobile work that are working well or could be improved.
Design/methodology/approach – A survey of 557 respondents involved in mobile work, including managers and workers. Questions focused on how mobile workers identify roles and communicate socially/professionally; how they use space, technology, and collaborative tools; and how they feel about mobile working.
Findings – Identifies the workplace needs of mobile workers. Gaps in mobile workers' stated activities and work patterns are revealed in relation to current thinking about workspace utilisation. Considerable employee disenchantment suggests that office design is not supporting the new roles mobile workers are asked to fulfill.
Research limitations/implications – This report summarises the findings of the first phase of a multi-year research study which included 557 mobile worker respondents representing 84 world-wide organisations.
Practical implications – Demonstrates the need to reconfigure physical infrastructure to support the rapid changes in business practices, such as mobile, flexible, and collaborative work. Results are useful to managers under pressure to make better use of existing resources, free up space, or grow without adding space.
Originality/value – The first multi-year study of global mobile workers. Research has rarely examined the roles mobile workers play, the professional interactions they need to conduct, and differences in their output. Recent applications of network analysis in organisational settings have revealed that different roles can have very different needs for support of mobile work. Providing the necessary infrastructure by evaluating mobile worker roles creates new business opportunities and transforms the provision of space and services.
Article Type:
Research paper
Keyword(s):
Job mobility; Labour mobility; Remote workers; Employees; Knowledge management; Workplace.
Journal:
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
Volume:
9
Number:
3
Year:
2007
pp:
168-182
Copyright ©
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN:
1463-001X
Introduction
Over the past decade, the number of workers who spend a significant portion of their time, and in many cases all their time, away from traditional assigned office space has substantially increased (Beatty Saratoga/PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Convergys Employee Care, 2005; Becker, 2004; Nemertes Research, 2007). Mobile workers are now able to do their jobs without being tied to one desk for a fixed period of time. Recently, technology allows employees to work flexibly and improve their work-life choices by working whenever and wherever they need. Yet, little is known about how the shift to greater mobility and the associated changes in workspace and technology usage are affecting work roles, activities, interpersonal cooperation, and worker satisfaction.
A recent benchmark study from Nemertes Research (2007) showed that a staggering 83 percent of organisations now consider themselves to be “virtual” with workgroups spread across multiple locations and geographies. The workforce is increasingly mobile. According to Nemertes, fully 91 percent of company employees do at least some work outside of traditional headquarter locations, and 96 percent use some form of real-time collaboration tools (e.g. IM, Web or audio/video conferencing).
But Nemertes also found that only 43 percent of global organisations had a mobility strategy (with another 26 percent currently developing one). Among US-based companies, only 35 percent had a strategy, with another 16 percent having one in development; thus, almost half of US enterprises have no organisation-wide strategy for supporting the needs of the mobile workforce. Even more noteworthy, only 15 percent of all organisations interviewed had a specific mobility budget. The elements of a mobility strategy would include profiling mobile workers by roles, activities and distinct needs. A mobility strategy would also address the anticipated demographic changes in worker profiles and the provisions to provide physical support and other infrastructure requirements.
Organisations that are attentive to strategies that attract and retain key staff are doing so by providing broader choices in personal working patterns. This more flexible perspective means organisations must move away from a fixed-cost structure to variable cost models in order to reduce capital requirements and risk, while simultaneously increasing their agility and responsiveness to changing environments (Sellers and Thomas, 2007).
Cooperative environments for collaboration
Although collaboration is an increasingly vital feature of business life, companies often promote collaboration indiscriminately. Directive mandates to “just collaborate” create confusion and bottlenecks, diminishing organisational effectiveness (Cross et al., 2001). Creating a business case for exploring and creating cooperative workplaces seems to be more fitting. The word cooperative is defined as the engagement in joint economic activity. It also suggests an enterprise may be operated jointly by those who use its facilities or services.
In the past several years, many companies have shrunk their real estate portfolios to keep pace with declining headcount. Now, as the global economy shows signs of recovery, companies are starting to see revenue growth. However, due to increased productivity and outsourcing, the number of new jobs created may be less than experienced historically. Square footage requirements will grow even more slowly, if at all, as the trend toward mobile work continues (Conlin, 2006).
The role of corporate real estate needs to shift. Corporate executives must become leaders in the integration of space, technology policies, and practices. To achieve a sustainable competitive advantage, they will need to consider the social and behavioral aspects of the workforce, as well as current and optimal patterns of work, and create workplace solutions. Organisations should consider a thorough review of their typical space profile and reassign space in greater alignment with the needs and expectations of an increasingly mobile population. Supporting collaboration by creating cooperative workplaces can influence worker engagement and drive innovation for economic growth.
Global mobile worker research at Knoll, Inc
Knoll, Inc. has been focusing on long-term studies of the workforce and exploring how organisations can best support workers in professional environments in the digital age. In 2005, Knoll Workforce Research (2005) conducted the Flexible and Mobile work study with senior managers of human resources and real estate at Fortune 100 companies. The study focused on companies formally supporting new work patterns and found that flexible and mobile work strategies helped companies attract and retain employees, increase corporate agility, and reduce occupancy costs. The findings showed that flexibility and mobility are successful strategies from an organisational perspective. Employee responses in terms of individual workers' reactions to these strategies, however, were not part of the scope of the 2005 study.
The Knoll Workforce Research (2005) findings showed that, after companies conducted a workspace usage analysis and found a large percentage of workstations vacant, a common solution was to create unassigned space for a percentage of the workplace or for a portion of their real estate portfolio. Real metrics were produced and real dollars saved. However, the researchers also acknowledged that achieving projected value from the mobile workers' programs was elusive.
Unfortunately, workforce restructuring was often coupled with a move to unassigned workspace, which posed obvious obstacles and generated resistance because the mobile worker was isolated from the regular work group. The question remained: why is the unassigned space strategy having minimal success in supporting new work patterns or mobile work? This question begged for investigation into the drivers and influencers – not only of the mobile strategists and workspace designers, but of the workers themselves.
So, in 2006, Knoll partnered with Verna Allee Associates to focus on better understanding mobile work and the lives of mobile workers from the employee perspective. The resulting study surveyed mobile employees working for diverse organisations including; military, education, non-profit, government, healthcare and multinationals across various industries. The key goal of this study was to identify what is working well for mobile workers and what could be improved.
A critical issue facing organisations moving to mobile work arrangements is to understand how the mobile worker communicates, both socially and professionally. Questions were formulated to help understand:
- How to stimulate planned informal interaction and business communication?
- How to increase the collective learning and connectivity that is so valuable to the long-term success of the organisation?
- How to design the physical workplace as an important aspect that supports successful mobile work?
An innovative approach: value network analysis
The premise
Most mobile worker research focuses on tasks and technology. The roles such workers play, the kinds of professional interactions they need to conduct, and the differences in their output are rarely examined (Becker et al., 1995, 1997; Booz Allen Hamilton and Insead, 2006; Deloitte, 2005). Recent applications of network analysis in organisational settings, however, have revealed that roles carry very different kinds of motivators and patterns of connection (Allee, 2000). The implication is that different roles can have very different needs when it comes to support for mobile work. Based on this reasoning, the 2006 Knoll survey used a network perspective to better understand the roles and interactions of mobile workers.
The study's premise is that mobile workers depend upon a web of relationships (i.e. a network) to fulfill their tasks. Astute managers today, however, are paying attention to both the formal organisation and informal organisation networks (Evans and Wolf, 2005; Laycock, 2005; Cross and Parker, 2004). Workers seek to be effective in the different purposeful, value-creating networks to which they belong (Allee, 2000). A value network is any web of relationships that generates economic or social value through complex dynamic exchanges of both tangible and intangible benefit. Such networks operate internally across the organisation and also extend externally to partners, stakeholders, and the industry (Allee, 1997).
The survey collected data that allowed insight into the roles mobile workers play in their internal and external value networks. The study also examined the interactions between workers' roles. The investigation was intended to clarify workplace solutions that support the real needs people have for maintaining healthy network relationships.
The value network perspective
Increasingly, knowledge and other intangible assets (e.g. human competence, the ability to form strong relationships, and a capacity for mutually beneficial collaboration) are the foundations for an organisation's success. Strong value-creating relationships support breakthrough innovation at the operational, tactical, and strategic levels. Consequently, we now are seeing a world of dynamic, rapidly adapting value networks that function as loose and complex configurations of industries, businesses, and business units within organisations (Allee, 2003). Tools used in the past to analyse business value creation, such as value chain and process models, are too mechanistic to address this new level of complexity.
Value network analysis attempts to determine the value of interactions between people in a network. Typically, people have both contractual exchanges and non-contractual exchanges involving knowledge, information, or other kinds of support and benefits (Allee, 2000).
With this perspective, it is possible to map the work as sets of roles and value-creating interactions. Value network analysis maps and measures the level of relationship between people and puts the emphasis on work roles and outputs, the makeup of the interaction, and the benefits or deliverables. This results in a whole systems view of the situation – the natural network pattern of organisation into which people move to make things work (Allee, 1997).
Key roles in the world of the mobile worker
People identify with different roles they play in getting work done. Sometimes, but not always, these roles fit formal job descriptions. People often play several different roles in an organisation, but they can usually identify a primary role.
The list of roles in the survey was developed from two sources. One was derived from examining typical roles and activities identified in the SAP Solution Composer 2003, an off-line web-based tool for planning design IT solutions oriented to a business process. This tool contains a special, but commonly used, taxonomy for business process roles and work activities. The second was derived from roles most commonly identified in a benchmarking dataset collected from relevant projects completed by the practitioner community affiliated with the ValueNet Works™ methodology developed by Verna Allee.
Identifying roles using the value network perspective brought some important advantages to the study. Specifically, role identification can:
- help determine what interactions are most strategic;
- help in priority setting;
- reveal actual patterns of people deployment;
- expose redundancies so that people can minimise rework;
- show patterns of interactions that rely on different technologies; and
- address both financial and non-financial value generated in interactions.
The responses to the value network questions allowed several patterns to surface regarding key roles, relationships, and network dynamics. By selecting their own role and those of three others with whom they interact, the participants defined the most important individuals in their own value creating network. The responses indicated what:
- Roles people identified with as mobile workers: leader (13.3 percent), consultant (13.1 percent), problem solver (8.2 percent), coordinator (7.5 percent), subject-matter expert (6.5 percent) (Figure 1).
- Other roles typically interact with mobile workers: client (15.1 percent), leader (11.1 percent), consultant (6.3 percent), service provider (5.8 percent), subject-matter expert (5.6 percent).
- Types of outputs are typical of mobile workers: when working from their home base, mobile workers responded that their primarily work tasks were computer-based teamwork and correspondence; creative thinking; planning/scheduling/coordinating; phone conversations; learning, research, and writing; creating presentations; and reading. When working at their traditional office location, mobile workers responded that their work tasks were the same tasks performed at home, with the addition of face-to-face meetings (face-to-face meetings 77 percent at primary location vs 4 percent at home). When working from other locations, mobile workers responded that their work tasks were mainly face-to-face meetings and e-mail processing.
The profile of organisations responding: MNL stands for one large multinational and ORGMX refers to the remaining 83 participating organisations from multiple industries.
Value creation by mobile workers
Perceived value is especially useful for surfacing assumptions – often unspoken or unconscious – about value and value flows. Simply because an interaction takes place does not mean positive value is being created (Allee, 2003).
The indicators of perceived value in the value network investigation assessed the level of value participants felt they received from other key individuals, and the way they and others perceived their own contributions. A number of patterns were determined from the responses:
- how valuable the inputs are from others with whom the off-site/mobile worker typically interacts;
- how they believe their work is perceived by others in terms of value;
- how valuable they think their work is to others;
- the pattern of value-creating relationships aggregated across all responses;
- patterns of reciprocity in value exchange; and
- overall, perceived value of key sets of interactions with mobile workers.
Research methodology
The sample
The challenge was to target a survey population that would include a representative sampling of mobile workers, not just those who were part of corporate mobile worker programs. Respondent recruiting involved both corporations and selective marketing to professional organisations that would be likely to have large populations of mobile workers. A total of 557 respondents, representing 84 participating organisations, participated in the study.
Two sample bases participated in the survey. The first was the value network practitioner community. This is a non-commercial and not-for-profit group, consisting of enterprise and institutional members who readily understood the goals of the research and could target potential respondents. A screening question made sure the survey reached the targeted mobile group for this research. The second sample consisted of corporate contacts. An invitation letter to participate in this research was forwarded to managers in organisations identified as having mobile workers.
The survey
Survey data collection was handled using the GenIsis™ Suite for Value Networks, which is a research tool co-developed by Verna Allee and Oliver Schwabe. The web-based survey tool for data collection was Survey Monkey®. All the findings were summarised in spreadsheets, documents, and graphs.
Most of the 70 survey questions focused on the physical aspects of the work being performed and the equipment and task needs of the mobile worker. One set of questions involved the work activities of mobile workers, including how they interact; communicate; collaborate; and use space, technology, and collaboration tools. A second series of questions involved the level of support they receive.
Responses to both sets of questions were compared with the worker's actual job responsibilities. Based on the roles and interactions defined by the six value network questions, the data were analysed to identify the type of value being created, the level of value as perceived by the worker, and the type of output generated. In other words, the study looked at what work typically was being produced, and the perceived value of that work to others.
The analysis
Responses were illustrated as value-creating network relationships using graph analysis and showing the relationships as nodes and links. Line weights between nodes and other visual indicators of type and level of value helped reveal significant patterns (Figure 2).
Reciprocity was analysed using a matrix of each participant with every other participant, indicating levels of perceived value. This is a validating measure of how recipients actually perceive value of the relationship (Table I).
Research findings
In essence, the survey uncovered the workplace needs of mobile workers. The study also validated these concerns as a solid basis for helping organizations optimise or architect measurable effective mobile work programs.
Myth busters
The data served to dispel three myths about mobile workers. First, there is a common assumption that mobile workers are either female or young technology workers and they are performing individual, lower skilled work tasks (Coplan, 2000; Naylor, 2006). The study found that most mobile workers were more than 40-years old and revealed a 65/35 male-to-female ratio in professional, managerial, and executive positions.
Second, it has been assumed that only specialist workers (e.g. salespeople, auditors, consultants) spend significant periods away from the office (Andriessen and Vartiainen, 2005). Although this was the case in the past, the study found that all levels of staff in an organisation were working outside the office, and were doing so with customers and business partners, either on the road or working from home.
Third, there has been a tendency to think mobile workers are flying around in cyberspace or are working in the car or an airplane. According to survey respondents, the truth is that mobile workers need productive space just as much, if not more than, do traditional workers (Gogoi, 2005; O'Hara et al., 2001).
General findings
The survey data characterised mobile workers as mature (65 percent were more than 40-years old), family, oriented (82 percent were married/partnered), hard-working (75 percent were working more than 40 hours per week) professionals (more than 80 percent held professional, managerial, or executive positions) who had supportive infrastructure needs aligned with their assumed roles (e.g. problem solver, leader, subject-matter expert) rather than with the positions they held. A majority (67 percent) of mobile workers were employed in an organisation with a formal mobile work program and had long-term employment at their company; 30 percent had 6-10 years and more than 20 percent had 16-20 or more years at the company.
In large measure, mobile workers stated they were most productive at home and came into an office location primarily to meet with others and socialise (Figure 3). Three-quarters (75 percent) of those surveyed said they came into the office for face-to-face meetings. The survey results showed that mobile workers networked and collaborated inside the office, while other types of work tasks were generally performed at home. As much as two-thirds of their time was spent in individual or independent work.
The study revealed insufficiencies in mobile workers' stated activities and work patterns in relation to current thinking about workspace utilisation. Respondents' comments validated the perception that team rooms are sorely missing and often architecturally not enabled. Half (50 percent) of the mobile workers stated that they really needed conference room space at their employer's office, but were having trouble getting it. The survey revealed that mobile workers varied with respect to office infrastructure and technology needs, but had the same requirements for meeting space.
Many mobile workers expressed disenchantment with the value of their company's primary workplace and stated that their corporate office architecture was unproductive, underutilised, or misaligned with the needs of the evolving workforce. About 60 percent of the mobile workers surveyed said they had an assigned workstation at their employer's office, but reported they did not need this type of individual space. Mobile workers stated that they found other places, sometimes outside the office, to be more productive when they needed to get something done, and that the office usually was not well conceived with respect to the new roles it is increasingly being asked to support. A total of 90 percent said they needed mobile teleconferencing and collaborative technology capabilities and that laptops were their core technology. When asked about working collaboratively with others in their organisation a small percentage of respondents had a negative (2 percent) or neutral (10 percent) experience, however, working collaboratively was a positive experience for 88 percent of those surveyed.
Lessons learned
Organisations of all sizes are recognising that their investment in mobile workers is not creating the benefits expected. The ramifications of this disconnect are clear: if companies want to truly capitalise on the potential of the mobile workforce, they need first to understand them better.
These survey results lend powerful support to the assertion that the very role and value of the traditional corporate office have changed and that its physical and technological makeup must be reinvented. In the words of one respondent:
My company is not providing enough support for mobile workers. Although the mobile work program is supported on a corporate level, our site manager doesn't effectively reduce our office footprint, so he's stuck with the bill for the full footprint and reimbursement for home expenses.
This study also uncovered some fundamental reasons for the misalignment of resources, and for the gap between required work settings and types of individual spaces being provided. It offers specific suggestions to those responsible for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of mobile worker programs (Figures 4 and 5).
For example, Figures 4 and 5 show a disconnection between workers' needs and what they are actually provided. Figure 4 shows that mobile workers require share services and meeting space, common areas and team space. What the majority of workers are provided is assigned workstations or offices (Figure 5).
Part of the problem is that companies tend not to segment their mobile workers. They group them together, and still struggle with exactly how to classify their roles in the overall organisation. The Knoll research predicts that companies that offer one-size-fits-all mobile work packages would fail to maximize potential in their mobile work programs.
Employers must understand the benefits of mobile work from the workers' perspectives, not just their own. The study revealed a clear contrast between the advantages of mobile work perceived by organisations and by workers. Organisations cited elimination or reduction of commute time, improvement of worker concentration, better control of workload, and better adherence to deadlines as key benefits. Individuals, on the other hand, cited a greater enthusiasm for work, increased commitment to the company, and better relationships with customers. Clearly, employers are still in a productivity mindset, while mobile workers are oriented toward innovation, loyalty, and customers. The better these differences are understood, the more likely a company will realise the true benefits from supporting mobile workers.
Workspace implications
Based on the results of the survey, organisations can undertake a thorough review of their typical space profile and reassign space in greater alignment with the needs and expectations of an increasingly mobile population. Based on respondents' answers to five fill-in questions in the survey, suggestions are outlined for creating a cooperative environment:
- Address requirements of older workers and younger mobile workers for greater effectiveness at their workplace and home; specifically:
- mobility resonates particularly with older workers; most older workers who say they want to extend the number of years they remain in the workforce state that the typical provisions offered by their employers are inadequate for properly working at home;
- mobility is a solution to increase productivity when employees are faced with temporary health issues or health restrictions related to aging (Hedge et al., 2006); and
- younger mobile workers view mobile work as directly correlated with improved quality of life.
- Provide workspaces that:
- allow for mobility of work and mobility of the workplace, not only the mobility of people; workplaces must be highly portable;
- allow work to be carried out collaboratively at any time and any place;
- enable mobile workers to work where and when they like, at any hour or day of the year;
- are more context-aware, enabling workers to switch easily between collaborative work settings with others and more individual, task-focused activities; and
- have plug and play capability both at the primary workplace and for workers' home workspaces; primary locations need high-quality workspaces for collaboration and (virtual) conferencing capabilities.
- Full individual mobility put attention on multi-location work, necessitating the provision of:
- on-demand collaborative workspaces for guest workers as well as for regular workers;
- priority agreements with service providers for like services at other locations, including residences; and
- better assurance of connectivity with corporate internet.
- Provide work settings and service centers in addition to workstations, including:
- spaces that are interruption-proof (this is both a culture and design issue);
- informal areas where people can meet and engage with each other;
- back-office services, making copy/print/mail easy;
- team communication centers, both physical and virtual;
- learning and development activities; identify and support people playing key knowledge network nodes;
- non-traditional areas (e.g. booths near coffee bars for informal meetings);
- concierge support services, dining areas, gaming areas; and
- teleconference capability; utilise new technology for video conferencing.
- Other ideas:
- design new work setting layouts that demonstrate the mobile worker survey findings;
- link findings to an application by developing a workspace questionnaire that helps utilise furniture strategically to support new work patterns;
- create a planning toolkit to support home office and mobile workers; and
- utilise a 3D office visualisation/simulation tool illustrating a work environment score that is relevant to worker needs.
Conclusions
Mobile worker programs must support the primary role an individual is assuming, which is not that of a “mobile worker”. When mobile workers can concentrate on assuming their primary roles, performance is highest. The formal organisation should be considered a resourcing model that supports key roles in identified work activities or value networks that “float” between the lines of the organisation chart.
Mobile workers need space on demand; supplies; technical support and training; and places to send mail and to meet and socialise with colleagues, customers, and clients. Social or organisational network analysis can be used to improve knowledge flows and locate expertise by focusing on individual communication flows. Value network analysis can help employers to better support key roles and organise projects and activities that cross internal and external boundaries. Providing the necessary infrastructure by evaluating mobile worker roles creates new business opportunities for infrastructure and technology providers and transforms the provision of space and services.
Questions for further research
The findings from this study are now being validated with various organisations and a second-year study has been launched. Key research questions for future research include:
- How do organisations meet the challenge of influencing employees they do not directly control, but on which they depend?
- How can workspaces become more people- and network-centric instead of focused on physical space, location, or work processes?
- As social and personal life, learning, and work aspects become more integrated, what will be the impact on organisations and workers?
- How can organizations effectively encourage collaboration among distributed competencies as well as address the emotional and social aspects lost to distance?
- How do organisations meet the growing emphasis on recruiting “on demand” independent experts?
- How can a better understanding of professional communities/networks change the way people develop during their careers?
The answers to these questions will help companies provide the necessary resources and workplace solutions to successfully support a mobile workforce and the healthy network relationships required to compete in the future.
Figure 1Identified roles of mobile workers
Figure 2Visualization map of primary roles relationships
Figure 3Mobile workers' most productive locations
Figure 4Group setting requirements at primary location
Figure 5Type of individual space provided at primary location
Table IA participant matrix of perceived value
References
Allee, V. (1997), The Knowledge Evolution: Expanding Organizational Intelligence, Butterworth-Heinemann, Newton, MA, .
Allee, V. (2000), "The value evolution: addressing larger implications of an intellectual capital and intangibles perspective", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No.1, pp.17-32.
Allee, V. (2003), The Future of Knowledge: Increasing Prosperity through Value Networks, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, .
Andriessen, J.H.E., Vartiainen, M. (2005), Mobile Virtual Work: A New Paradigm, Springer, Berlin, .
Beatty, R.M., Saratoga/PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Convergys Employee Care (2005), "Workforce agility study", available at: www.convergys.com/employeecare_worforce-agility.html, .
Becker, F. (2004), Offices at Work, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, .
Becker, F., Quinn, K.L., Callentine, L.V. (1995), "The ecology of the mobile worker survey", paper presented at Cornell University International Workplace Studies Program, Ithaca, NY, .
Becker, F., Tennessen, C.M., Dahl, L.M. (1997), Workplace change survey, Cornell University International Workplace Studies Program, Ithaca, NY, .
Booz Allen Hamilton and Insead (2006), "Innovation: is global the way forward?", available at: www.boozallen.com/media/file/Innovation_Is_Global_The_Way_Forward_v2.pdf, .
Conlin, M. (2006), "Square feet. Oh, how square!", BusinessWeek, July 3, available at: www.businessweek.com, .
Coplan, J.H. (2000), "Help for moms who want to work at home", BusinessWeek, August 23, available at: www.businessweek.com, .
Cross, R., Parker, A. (2004), The Hidden Power of Social Networks: Understanding How Work Really Gets Done in Organizations, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA, .
Cross, R., Parker, A., Prusak, L., Borgatti, S.P. (2001), "Knowing what we know: supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social networks", Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 30 No.2, pp.100-20.
Deloitte (2005), "Virtual workplace survey", available at: http://ias.deloitte.co.uk/Surveys/VirtualWrkplc.nsf, .
Evans, P., Wolf, B. (2005), "Collaboration rules", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 83 pp.96-104.
Gogoi, P. (2005), "Welcome to the Gen Y workplace", BusinessWeek, May 4, available at: www.businessweek.com, .
Hedge, J.W., Borman, W.C., Lammlein, S.E. (2006), The Aging Workforce: Realities, Myths, and Implications for Organizations, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, .
Knoll Workforce Research (2005), "Time as a new currency: flexible and mobile work strategies to manage people and profits", available at: www.knoll.com/research/downloads/KnollTimeCurrency.pdf, .
Laycock, M. (2005), "Collaborating to compete: achieving effective knowledge sharing in organizations", The Learning Organization, Vol. 12 No.6, pp.523-38.
Naylor, M.A. (2006), "There's no workforce like home", BusinessWeek, May 2, available at: www.businessweek.com, .
Nemertes Research (2007), "Nemertes benchmark: building a successful virtual workplace", available at: www.nemertes.com, .
O'Hara, K., Perry, M., Sellen, A., Brown, B.A. (2001), "Managing information on the move", in Brown, B., Green, N., Harper, R. (Eds),Wireless World: Social and Interactional Aspects of the Mobile Age, Springer-Verlag, The Hague, .
Sellers, B.S., Thomas, S.A. (2007), "Managing the cost of real estate", The McKinsey Quarterly, available at: www.mckinseyquarterly.com, No.1, .
Corresponding author
Camille Venezia can be contacted at: cvenezia@knoll.com