Back to top
Policy Guidelines
Podium: Eric Britton (Track Moderator)
Page ContentsIntroduction Policy Guidelines The Telework Research Paradox Next Steps
Introduction
The null hypothesis behind this track can be stated in a few crisp words:
More than Simply Transportation Substitution:The unambiguous, long term, net impact of the technologies that we are looking at here will be to reduce physical movements. In other words telecommunications can and will evolve as a net substitute for physical transportation. But there is more to our argument than just that. It also is going to serve further to reduce the negative impacts of transport on the environment in a number of ways (which of course is not exactly the same thing, making things yet more interesting in the present case).
Which brings us right up against the second leg of this claim - and that is that the evidence in support of this claim is, up until now, not at all clear.
Which in turn brings us to the third: and that is that this entire complex of technologies and activities is highly sensitive to policy. That is to say, if government (and others) get it wrong, a great deal can be done both to impede the developments in the sector that could be environmentally favorable, and perhaps even to drive them in the wrong direction (i.e., further exacerbate the physical travel side of things and their negative environmental impacts). This much we know for sure.
Back to top
Policy Guidelines
What is far less evident is what sort of policies should we be experimenting with, studying, arguing for and trying to implement, study, and fine tune in order to advance all of the good things that just might come out of this ongoing technological revolution. Here we have at least some help based on observation of what we have seen in the computer and communications fields in many countries and companies over the last few decades.
Probably the first and most important role of the policy maker is to ensure an absence or at least some acceptable minimum of bad policy. Now that is not quite as self-evident as it may appear. Moreover, there are several varieties of bad policies, some worse than others. Let me offer a couple of quick examples to see if we can reach some sort of working agreement on this.
A typical not so bad policy is one that is, perhaps not particularly well thought out, maybe a waste of taxpayer money, but does nothing to lock in a negative situation. Example: some enthusiastic agency decides that teleworking is easy and can be advanced through putting up some telework center here or there, which then more likely than not will languish and not be fully or properly used. To my mind that is a bit stupid, certainly avoidable, but no great catastrophe for the main thrust of development in the sector, or to the well-being of those who want and must use these technologies in their own daily work.
An example of a really poorly advised policy would be where government or some other actor will attempt to get in and dictate the speed or direction of developments in the sector as a whole. Premature regulation, for example, of either technology or practice, before the true dynamics of the sector have worked themselves out. Another example would be situations in which government or some other monopoly manage to get hold of one or more components of the technology or the activities and try to manipulate and control them through some sort of centralized authority. We have seen enough examples of this sort of pig-headed, arrogant technocratic, pre-emptive public decision-making in recent years to make this an easily avoidable trap (which of course is no guarantee at all). (Readers interested in pursuing this end of our topic are referred to the recent report on Barriers to Telework which is introduced here.)
There are thus many things that governments and others can do in this situation, of which two are critical. One is to do what can be done to encourage a better and fuller understanding of what is actually going on. This is, incidentally, a terrific 21st century challenge, that requires the blending of many skills and attitudes, far beyond those which have traditionally been relied on in most research projects. Thus, we can be sure that no meaningful progress can be made on the research front unless it builds in the skills of people as diverse as behavioral psychologists and cultural anthropologists (who are ready to look at not only the objective of the purported research but also the people who are doing it). To get a handle on where these technologies are going is not a job for engineers, physical scientists or transportation specialists. We need them on the teams, but they have to contribute, not dominate.
The second wrinkle in the 'new research' that is required for us to understand both what is actually going on and what can be made to happen, is that is must incorporate the object of the research - in this case the teleworker - directly into the research process. Why? Because this is a phenomenon which simply cannot be understood from the "outside looking in". You have to be there to understand what it is and where it might go (though this is of course no guarantee of wisdom. It is just a first necessary condition).
Back to top
The Telework Research Paradox
Thus, there is every reason for us to understand the true nature of what if going on. That however is not what is presently going on.
Contrary to what is often claimed, including by many of the most meticulous and respected observers, it is my considered belief that a careful inspection of the evidence suggests three perhaps surprising things: First, this thing we call "telework" (and which many American sources to this day continue to describe as "telecommuting") in fact extends far beyond most of the definitions which are generally accorded to it and is therefore not just one more detail or hyper myth, but a significant society-shaping instrument. That is something that is easy enough to say, but considerably harder to prove. Which brings us to our second surprise.
In fact, "proof" in the sense usually used in the scientific community may turn out to be quite difficult to assemble in support of this claim. What we are looking at here is, as you might well expect, a highly complex phenomenon and its path and impacts cannot really be reduced to a handful of handy equations or columns of information. There are trends, and counter trends, with the result that anyone looking to 'prove' a thesis or point of view is sure to encounter abundant evidence to support her or his view of things. Thus, and not surprisingly, there are claims and citations of 'evidence' that are, often as not, flagrantly contradictory.
As it happens, the impacts are not in the main broad or brutal one-foe-one substitutions of the sort most researchers appear to be looking for. Rather what we find out there in the real world are considerably more nuanced trends, often contradictory, inevitably indirect, occasionally "positive" (i.e., on occasion can lead to more travel and more emissions, at least for a while), often neutral (i.e., trips that are rather than being displaced once and for all merely moved in some way in space or in time.. though of course sometimes even such lateral displacement can have environmental advantages)), and above all part of a broad-based learning process involving individuals, groups and extended communities that does not manifest itself in neatly measurable statistical terms overnight.
Which brings us to the third and last leg of the claim that is this Null Hypothesis, and that has to do with the learning curve that we all are now on. On the one hand, we must understand that this process is one that is only now beginning to be engaged. No matter that 'telecommuting' has been a fact of life for some over the last two decades (ever since anyone would work at home with a 300 BPS modem and Apple II), the full range of technologies that are needed to make it really effective have only very recently begun to come on line. For many observers, however, this point has somehow not yet been registered.
The fact is, however, that successful human interactions are complex, and for them to be successful requires more than just the thin thread of contact that is about all that has been available until quite recently. For telework to be really viable from a broader social perspective, it must be multi-dimensional and satisfying, it must be able to go a long way to establish 'presence', which means it must involve multi-media (text, sound, images), which means intense and complex streams of information and signal exchange.. and speed. And if you know your way around the technologies and their use in real world situations, you will be aware that almost none of the necessary ingredients have existed until very recently. Too recently in fact to have entered into the data stream that is the stuff of most analyses in the field.
That's the technology, but there is also the human interface. This learning process is not something that is engaged and accomplished overnight. It is difficult, thorny, and there are a huge number of barriers and obstacles that keep it from occurring neatly and quickly. Not least among is our own human inertia and general unwillingness to embrace change - at least where it is so far-reaching and upsetting as those that we are now seeing in the fast changing world of work. But there it is: the process is engaged, and the results are slowly slowly beginning to drift in and make themselves clear to anyone who is prepared to look hard enough. Which brings us finally to the bottom line of our claim.
We have here an unambiguous overall sequence of technologies, human interactions, institutional adjustments and events that are indeed leading in a particular and precise direction. More specifically, I would claim that among its many impacts is this: that the long term trend of these technologies -- as yet not visible in the usually assembled statistical evidence -- is one that impacts favorably on the environment in general and the emissions situation in particular. That said, this is not an easy statement to prove. There are many interesting expert views to the contrary. And they are all in the final analysis wrong.
The present conference has been organized precisely to scrutinize this claim, to provide a clearer statement of it, and to see what kind of reaction it gets from those who know most about the sector. If we end up rejecting this null hypothesis, I will be most disappointed: not only because it represents a conclusion that I have come to after more than two decades of careful observation, study and active practice in the sector, but also because I am well aware that unless we get significant help from technologies such as these, technologies that are coming on line on their own at a considerable scale and accelerating rates, the goal of greatly reduced environmental emissions is one that is unlikely to be reached in the lifetime of anyone who might check into this conference.
Back to top
Additional Evidence & Next Steps
With this by way of opening statement, we can now open up the floor for discussion and debate. The above will be examined, extended, commented on and conceivably amended and even replaced as the discussion proceed over the next weeks. For the time being, I would bring the follow additional materials to your attention to round out this first presentation:
 Track Home |
 Author Bio
|
 Your Comments
|
 Send E-mail
|