Recycled Green Tech News
Sorting truly sustainable tech from greenwash
Monday 11 June 2007, 12:52 PM
Mobile working is a myth
The Economist's latest tech quarterly makes for some interesting reading – especially a myth-busting piece about how we actually interact with communications technology. Although technology means that we have the infrastructure to work anywhere, anytime – it doesn't actually follow that people will actually do it. The technology for video-calls exists but so far it's had little to no uptake at all. And the same goes for the "hyper mobility myth" according to Stefana Broadbent, the academic cited in the Economist piece:
"…Ms Broadbent found that there is not, in fact, much appetite for working while on the move. Indeed, she calls this “the hypermobility myth”. After studying workers who spend more than half their time out of the office—salesmen, consultants, pilots, journalists and photographers—she found that they generally stick to communications while on the move, gathering information that they then work on when they get back to their desks. Hotel rooms and airports are, she says, “not seen as an appropriate environment for substantive work” and are mainly used for e-mail."
PreviousComments on this post
The Economist article is excellent, highlighting the often understated difference between mobile working (ie. short, under 1 hour, windows of time in temporary locations) vs remote working in 'dislocated' environments - to me this is periods of more than 1 hour spent out of the office, at home, on a different site, etc..
How do we manage work in this environment? The research confirms that we are creatures of habit, if we need to write a report or finish a presentation we seek a prolonged window of time to devote to this activity. Shorter periods of fragmented time do not aid concentration and are better suited to 'maintenance' ie. making calls or sending quick emails. How often do you leave the office thinking I will make that call or send that email from the cab, station or train? Allocating tasks to time slots based on their suitability.
The only area the research misses is the grey area, extended periods of time spent travelling which mobile workers have to use to complete the substantive work necessary for their job. For this I tend to seek a quiet corner in an airport, or get a table onboard a long distance train. My current schedule requires me to use these windows of time effectively or be forced to work in the evening or at the weekend to catch up - far less appealing.
What does all this mean for technology suppliers? they should invest more time in ergonomics and usability specifically for mobile workers - that is why we care SO much about keyboard quality, screen design, device weight, etc... Yet to me many devices seem to show a complete lack of empathy with the reality of mobile working...
Thanks for your response James.
It’s a really interesting point you raise about tech companies wanting to cash-in on mobile workers while not actually delivering the technologies they need. The fact that both studies cited in the Economist piece were carried out at the behest of vendors seems to indicate that want to understand the needs of mobile workers better which is a step forward.
I’d be really interested to hear from you and anyone else out there, maybe in the form of a top five list, about how specifically vendors are letting you down when it comes to the practicalities of mobile working?
The vendor-driven research in the Economist is probably indicative of a market reaching maturity, as use of mobile devices passes the early adopter stage tech vendors need to get smarter to adapt device to different user needs. Great to hear that they are pausing to draw breath in the development race.
Back to your request - here is my personal shopping list of vendor failings (improvements) - please challenge away!
- Power - mobile workers are often not in close proximity to a plug point and the need for extended battery life is key. Vendors seem to have forgotten this in their quest for integrated devices - the more functions the quicker they draw power. E.g. battery life on the BB Pearl is poor yet they load it with redundant features like a mediocre camera - why? why not build-in more easy to understand power management functions?
- Weight - slim down every device to minimum weight - remove all the 'nice to have components' and allow users to carry these as and when they need them
- Usability / Ergonomics - extended working on planes, trains, in hotels etc.. can truly reveal the usability of devices, e.g. why does my laptop touch panel below the keyboard pick up on movements of my hand whilst I am typing...
- Resilience - fact of life - mobile workers will drop stuff - I do not want a 5kg rubberised laptop with shock absorbers, but I would like a relatively robust machine where components do not move out of place when in a bag
- Optimal connectivity - out of the office we will use any comms platform at our disposal - so build it in to devices - wireless, 2G, 2.5G, 3G, Bluetooth, Microwave, Satellite, etc... And preferably without requiring numerous cards, dongles when manufacturers only supply 2 USB ports!! -
Overall - road test your equipment with relevant users.!
I'd also add to this the short sightedness of the mobile companies to make sure that key train routes are covered by data services. The train companies are still pretty un-enlightened when it comes to providing wifi access but there really is no excuse for the mobile operators to ignore the travelling business user.
As a regular user of the London - Nottingham Midland Mainline service it's all bar impossible to get a GPRS signal let alone 3G apart from when stationary in one of the three stations the train stops at en-route.
Surely the operators could work out that the business users will be trapped within a 12' wide, 100 mile corridor for the duration of that journey and make sure there was an adequate signal?
I can completely sympathise with the frustrations of data service use on-board the rail network. The operators can deliver this coverage - try the First Great Western line from London to Newbury (Vodafone HQ!) - the 3G coverage is seamless during the entire journey. So why is it not available on other lines?
The answer is not entirely consistent...
The West Coast line does have a unique set of problems, the new Virgin Pendalino trains use a specific lead compound in the glass train carriage windows, this repels mobile phone signals drastically reducing coverage quality. But more significant is that train lines often pass through remote areas where operators consider it is uneconomic to install 3G masts (based on local population levels).
However, a solution is on the way - Orange are installing repeaters on-board carriages on the Cross Country and West Coast line that will effectively amplify the signal within the trains providing much better coverage for data and voice, they have asked the other operators to contribute to the cost of installation (estimated to be less than £10m for the current fleet) but it is not certain that they all will. T-Mobile have jumped the gun, and have gone for a wireless service on-board the GNER line, free to first class passengers but expensive for standard passengers.
This may be scant consolation, as for the Midland Mainline I have heard of no plans to improve the coverage... Time to start lobbying the train companies....
