1997 Telecommuting Survey
C a r e e r C o n s u l t i n g

The 1997 KPMG Telecommuting Survey
Over the past decade, the way corporations hire and use their workforce has changed significantly.
Downsizing, business process re-engineering, outsourcing, new technologies and other developments
have led to changes in how work is being processed.
There is a pronounced move toward a more flexible staffing environment in all functions. One area of particular
interest is the practice of telecommuting -- staff working off-site, usually from their homes. Management
journals and other business media have made much of this subject, especially in the last five years. KPMG's
Career Consulting offices have received many questions about telecommuting. How prevalent is this practice?
Are telecommuters considered, and managed as a category of personnel quite different from regular full-time,
on-site employees? What roles are telecommuters fulfilling, and in what functional areas?
In order to determine the current status of the telecommuting trend -- indeed to confirm whether it is a trend --
KPMG undertook a survey to determine how Canadian organizations use and manage telecommuters. We had
three goals:
to identify trends and changes in the approaches to telecommuting over the period 1993 to 1996;
to identify trends and changes that will take place over the period 1997 to 1999; and
to provide benchmark information to organizations examining their employment management practices.
The facts reported here represent the responses from organizations across Canada in diverse industries.
Of the 2,025 questionnaires distributed, 20% were completed and returned. For just over 30% of the
respondents, telecommuting is a fact of life and a new resource management strategy. More importantly,
more than 50% of the employers surveyed predicted an increase in telecommuting over the next three years.
We appreciate the depth of detail provided by the survey respondents, and hope that learning about their
experiences will be helpful in your human resources planning.

Contents
Executive Briefing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
About the Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Key Results by Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Overall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Financial Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Health Care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Manufacturing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Petroleum and Petrochemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Professional Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Retail and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
For Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
T E L E C O M M U T I N G S U R V E Y

Executive Briefing
We sent our survey to a total of 2,025 organizations selected
The most significant drawback or disadvantage of the
from KPMG's National Career Consulting database and the
practice is the lack of face-to-face contact. Logically, then,
Profile Canada database. We surveyed 1,600 large and
most respondents consider communication to be one of the
medium-sized companies in the private sector and 425
most important factors in managing telecommuters. The
organizations in the public sector. The response rate was 20%.
organizations employ a wide range of tactics to retain a sense
of community between the organization and the
Among the respondents, 4.5% reported having
telecommuter. Telecommuters are required to come into the
telecommuters on staff always, while another 26% reported
office on demand or weekly by 91% of the employers,
doing so occasionally. Telecommuters account for an average
and e-mail, teleconferencing and written materials are also
of 6% of the total workforce among those organizations. The
employed to keep the telecommuter connected with the
majority of those organizations employing telecommuters
on-site staff and current on organization issues. In addition to
reported that the practice has increased since 1993, and that
standard office equipment, the majority of employers supply
they predict increased usage of this practice over the next
communication devices such as cell phones, pagers,
three years.
telephones and modems.
Telecommuting occurs in almost all areas of the organizations,
Telecommuting presents few other management challenges.
and the telecommuters perform jobs at many levels, from
Employers reported no significant difference in performance
senior management to clerical and administrative roles.
management with respect to telecommuters as compared to
Respondents predict the greatest increase in telecommuting
on-site employees. Their compensation is handled in the
in the information systems and administration/finance areas
same way, including benefits, liability coverage and workers'
in the next three years. In terms of jobs performed by
compensation. The majority (77%) of telecommuters are full
telecommuters, the greatest increases are expected in
time employees, 13% are part-time employees, and the
professional, technical and middle management roles.
remaining personnel are independent contractors.
The leading reason for initiating the practice of
Although in the past telecommuting may have been initiated
telecommuting is to improve employee lifestyle. However,
in response to employee requests, the organizations
the respondents have discovered that the leading advantage
themselves seem to have an increasing interest in the practice
of the practice, once in place, is increased effectiveness in
as a management technique. Telecommuting is being actively
the use of time. Cost control and real estate reduction are the
promoted among 14% of the respondent organizations, and
lowest ranked motivators and results of telecommuting.
of those, 20% have embarked on formal pilot programs,
rather than dealing with the issue on an individual employee
basis.
T E L E C O M M U T I N G S U R V E Y
i

Summary of Findings
T E L E C O M M U T E R S
--
W H O A R E
Respondents from the education and natural resource sectors
T H E Y A N D W H E R E A R E T H E Y ?
were the most frequent reporters of increased telecommuting,
Telecommuting is still a relatively restricted practice in
at 86% and 83% respectively, while transportation
Canada, but it is growing.
organizations, at 33%, reported increases least frequently.
Just under one-third (31%) of respondents reported that they
Telecommuting occurs in a wide range of functional areas
employ telecommuters. Only 4.5% always do so, while just
among the responding organizations.
over 26% do so occasionally.
Functional area
Reported by
Among those respondents with telecommuters on staff, those
Information systems
40%
individuals account for a small proportion of the payroll, an
Sales and marketing
40%
average of 6% of the total workforce of the organization.
Administration and finance
39%
Among industry sectors, agribusiness was notable in that no
Human resources
24%
telecommuting was reported at all, while the highest usage
Engineering and technical
19%
occurred in financial institutions, followed by professional
Production and distribution
13%
service firms.
Other
10%
There were varying rates of usage among organizations of
Of the variety of "other" functions reported, customer
different size, when measured by revenue as well as by
service and claims processing were the most common, at
number of employees.
15% each.
The education and hospitality and tourism sectors reported
Always use Occasionally use
Never use
the extremes in practice, with no hospitality and tourism
Under $50 million
3%
21%
76%
organizations reporting telecommuting in the information
$50 to $250 million
3%
28%
69%
systems area, contrasting with 71% of organizations in
Greater than
the education sector reporting usage in that function. No
$250 million
8%
33%
59%
telecommuting was reported in the administration and
Always use Occasionally use
Never use
finance function among hospitality and tourism organizations
as well, while the highest usage in these functions was
Under 500 employees 5%
21%
74%
reported from the health care sector.
500-1000 employees
2%
28%
70%
1001-5000 employees 2%
30%
68%
Telecommuters perform jobs at many levels in their
More than
organizations.
5000 employees
11%
32%
57%
Position level
Reported by
The most remarkable difference occurred in the proportion
Professional
54%
of telecommuters in the employee populations of user
Technical
40%
organizations.
Middle management
33%
Sales
29%
The largest telecommuting workforce (17%) occurred among
Senior management
27%
organizations of less than $50 million in revenue and the
Project management
15%
lowest (3%) was found in the greater than $250 million
Clerical and administrative
8%
revenue category. When examined by total workforce size,
Other
2%
organizations with fewer than 500 employees reported the
highest proportion of telecommuters on staff, at 10% of the
Consistent with the high incidence of telecommuting in
total employee population.
administration/finance among health care organizations, that
sector also reported the highest usage in management
The use of telecommuting has changed considerably over the
positions (63% in both senior and middle management
last three years.
roles.) The highest reported use of telecommuting by
The majority of survey respondents (62%) reported that the
professionals occurred in the communication sector (75%)
practice of telecommuting has increased since 1993. Another
and the lowest was reported by natural resource companies
35% reported that their use has remained the same, while
(20%). However, natural resource organizations led in the
only 3% reported a decrease.
use of telecommuting in technical roles, reported by 80% of
T E L E C O M M U T I N G S U R V E Y
1

respondents from that sector. Telecommuting in sales
positions was reported frequently by organizations in
retail and distribution (56%), transportation (50%), and
manufacturing (46%).
Although project managers are rarely telecommuters
overall, there were notable exceptions in the numbers of
organizations reporting this usage in natural resources (40%)
and professional services (38%).
More than three-quarters of the survey respondents (78%)
reported that there are some areas in which telecommuting
definitely should not be used.

The functional areas named most frequently were customer
service (26%) and human resources or similar confidential
functions (24%).
Opinions about the suitability of telecommuting for
administrative functions were widely divided, with 12% of
respondents suggesting that these areas are not appropriate,
while 14% expressed the belief that such jobs are among the
most appropriate for telecommuting.
Position level most suitable for telecommuting
Reported by
Administrative/clerical/data entry
14%
Sales
13%
Technical
11%
Management/executive/professional
10%
Finance/accounting
9%
Project work
8%
Other
35%
The "other" jobs described as best suited for telecommuting
included translation and editing, market research, computer
programming and telemarketing.
2
T E L E C O M M U T I N G S U R V E Y

M O T I V A T I N G F A C T O R S
As might be expected since the primary motivating factor for
The survey response strongly indicates that the trend toward
telecommuting is employee lifestyle, nearly two-thirds (64%)
telecommuting is being driven by employee-related issues as
of respondents reported that the practice was initiated at the
opposed to other business factors.
request of employees.
The number one reason for telecommuting is employee
Although employee lifestyle is the leading motivator, once
lifestyle, reported by 52% of the respondents, with very little
telecommuting was in place, the effective use of time was
variation across industry sectors. At the other end of the
the advantage most often reported. Several other advantages
scale, the least important motivating factor identified by the
were identified.
respondents was real estate reduction (9%).
Effective use of time
71%
Other significant motivating factors included:
Improved employee lifestyle
57%
Retention of staff who would otherwise leave
43%
Travel distance
39%
Quality of work
34%
Controlling overhead costs
30%
Compensating only for specific units
Benefit of a satellite office
18%
of performance
9%
Other (primarily the nature of the work/task)
43%
The survey respondents also identified a range of drawbacks
Among those respondents who chose to use telecommuting
or disadvantages.
for the purpose of controlling overhead costs, 46%
confirmed that the actual savings experienced matched their
Lack of face-to-face contact
76%
projections, while 7% reported that they did not meet their
Lack of direct control
46%
savings objectives, and 47% were unsure of the results. More
Technical difficulties or disruptions
36%
than half (54%) of the respondents seeking cost savings
Flexibility of tasks
19%
reported that they did not experience any additional
Rigidity of schedules
8%
unexpected costs as a result of telecommuting, while 9%
In answer to a question seeking concerns that may hamper
reported that they did experience such costs, and the
the employers' ability or willingness to encourage
remaining 37% were unsure.
telecommuting, there was very little consistency of response,
Of those experiencing additional costs, 60% identified them
revealing no common major concerns. In fact, the single
as related to equipment and training.
most common response was that there are no such concerns.
Respondents identified four important categories of benefits
Of the total survey respondents, 14% reported that their
that emerged from their use of telecommuting.
organizations are actively promoting the practice of
telecommuting. Of those, 20% had embarked on a formal
Staff empowerment/retention
38%
telecommuting pilot program, rather than dealing with the
Improved productivity/efficiency/quality
32%
issue on an individual employee basis.
Cost reduction/reduced overhead
18%
Flexibility
17%
T E L E C O M M U T I N G S U R V E Y
3

M A N A G I N G T E L E C O M M U T E R S
Three-quarters of the employers also provide third party
Overall, the existence of telecommuters has minimal impact
liability coverage for work carried out by the telecommuters
on the respondents' on-site staff.
in their homes.
More than half (54%) of the respondents who reported using
Most of the organizations (72%) reported that they provide
telecommuting, said that they had experienced no concerns
telecommuters with the equipment necessary to do their jobs.
or roadblocks with the practice. The remaining respondents
The equipment provided by the organizations includes
reported a few common concerns.
computers (88%) and printers (57%), fax machines (58%),
office furniture (29%) and technical tools (42%). The
Lack of control/trust
16%
majority of employers (85%) also supply communication
Cost of equipment
13%
devices such as cell phones, pagers, telephones and modems.
Technology
10%
Other
7%
Communication is one of the most important factors in
managing telecommuters.

In general, survey respondents felt that their managers had
coped reasonably well with telecommuting employees.
In addition to fax and modem transmissions, work is
physically transported to and from the telecommuters in a
Reported by
number of ways. In most cases, the telecommuter is
Successfully
27%
responsible for arranging this transportation, and the
Moderately well
28%
organizations are responsible for covering any related costs.
Fairly well
38%
Survey respondents reported a range of approaches to the
Poorly
7%
requirements for telecommuters to come into the office.
More than three-quarters (78%) of survey respondents felt
On demand
46%
that their on-site employees viewed the telecommuters as
Weekly
45%
equals, while another 7% actually viewed them as assets.
Every two weeks
6%
Only 8% of the respondents thought that their on-site
Monthly
3%
workforce viewed the telecommuters as outsiders, and even
fewer (7%) reported that their telecommuters were viewed as
The survey respondents reported that they employ a variety
a threat to the on-site staff.
of techniques to retain a sense of community between the
organization and the telecommuter.
For the most part, the employment status of telecommuters is
no different than that of the on-site workforce.
Office attendance
36%
Staff meetings
33%
Full time employees
77%
E-mail announcements
24%
Part time employees
13%
Telephone updates/teleconferencing
23%
Contractors
10%
Newsletters/memos/publications
15%
Employers reported no significant difference in performance
The majority (76%) of respondents also reported that
management with respect to telecommuters as compared to
working at home does not hamper the telecommuters' ability
on-site employees.
to network effectively for their careers. Very few (10%) of
The majority of employers (90%) reported that they manage
organizations reported that their telecommuters had reached
and evaluate telecommuters in the same way as they do their
career plateaus, and just over 88% reported that
on-site staff. However, some employers (37%) reported that
telecommuting has no effect on the employees' career
they set up contracts with the telecommuters detailing the
progress.
mandate, responsibility, costs, productivity and quality
From the survey responses, it would appear no special
standards for doing work at home.
security issues arise for telecommuters. Among respondents,
Vacations and illness are handled for telecommuters in very
45% said there were no security issues applicable or that the
much the same way that they are for on-site staff. Depending
respondents were unware of any, and 18% said that such
on the nature of the work or the length of the leave, the work
issues were the same as for on-site employees. Where
may wait for the telecommuter's return, or be reallocated.
security requirements do exist, the respondents report using
It is no surprise, then, that the majority of survey respondents
the same security management approaches for telecommuters
(80%) reported that telecommuters are covered by workers
as for on-site employees, primarily (39%) through the use of
compensation and that the employers cover that cost (98%).
passwords and system controls for network access.
4
T E L E C O M M U T I N G S U R V E Y

C O M P E N S A T I O N I S S U E S
I M P L I C A T I O N S F O R T H E F U T U R E
Consistent with their responses with respect to other
In general, the survey respondents had experienced either an
management issues, survey respondents reported that, by and
increased or stable rate of telecommuting in 1996 compared
large, compensation for telecommuters is handled in the
to 1993. Over the next three year period, they are predicting
same way as for on-site employees.
a slightly slower rate of increase.
The majority (92%) of telecommuters are paid as employees,
Telecommuting usage
Experienced,
Predicted,
compared to 8% who are paid as contractors. (Note that this
1993-1996
1997 over 1999
parallels the national findings of KPMG's 1996 Contract
Increased
62%
52%
Personnel Survey, which found that contract employees
Stayed the same
35%
44%
comprise 7% of the workforce.)
Decreased
3%
4%
Of those telecommuters who are contractors, 13% are
The least change is expected by transportation organizations;
required to be incorporated, exactly the same number found
the most change is predicted in the government sector.
in the Contract Personnel Survey.
There will be some minor changes in the use of
As employees, 95% of telecommuters are usually given the
telecommuters across functional areas over the next three
same benefits as on-site employees, including vacation pay
years.
(92%) and sick days (86%).
Functional areas
1996 experience
Predicted
Less than 2% of respondents reported holding back pay in
of usage
increase by 1999
relation to quality.
Information systems
40%
69%
Sales and marketing
40%
48%
Administration and finance
39%
58%
Human resources
24%
32%
Engineering and technical
19%
30%
Production and distribution
13%
13%
Other
10%
8%
Similarly, there will be changes in the nature of the positions
filled by telecommuters.
Position levels
1996 usage
Predicted
increase by 1999
Professional
54%
68%
Technical
40%
55%
Middle management
33%
38%
Sales
29%
35%
Senior management
27%
23%
Project management
15%
43%
Clerical and administrative
8%
9%
Other
2%
1%
The results of this survey indicate that the practice of
telecommuting is emerging as a significant factor in
Canadian organizations' move toward a more flexible
staffing environment in all functions.
T E L E C O M M U T I N G S U R V E Y
5

About the Research
We sent our survey to a total of 2,025 organizations selected
The workforces represented by the responding organizations
from KPMG's National Career Consulting database and the
varied considerably in size, reporting employee populations
Profile Canada database. We surveyed 1,600 large and
as follows:
medium-sized companies in the private sector and 425
Under 500 employees
44%
organizations in the public sector. Responses were received
501 to 1,000
25%
from 403 organizations. Therefore, the response rate was
1,001 to 5,000
22%
20%. We divided respondents into major market sectors to
Over 5,000
9%
provide greater insights into the issues, efforts and concerns
of the different sectors.
Approximately 38% of workforces represented by these
responding organizations are unionized. Unions occur in
The percentages of respondents in each sector were:
30% of organizations that always employ telecommuters, but
Manufacturing
19%
in 43% of those organizations never using telecommuting.
Financial Services (including real estate)
11%
This may suggest that unionization is a barrier to the use of
Retail and Distribution
8%
telecommuting.
Health Care (including pharmaceuticals)
9%
The ownership of the majority of responding organizations
Government (including not-for-profit)
9%
was Canadian (71%), followed by American (15%),
Communications (including publishing and printing) 6%
European (7%), Asian (4%) and other (3%). Their head
Education
6%
offices were located as follows:
Natural Resources (including public utilities)
6%
Petroleum and Petrochemical
6%
Atlantic Provinces
6%
Transportation
6%
Quebec
17%
Professional Services
5%
Ontario
49%
Agribusiness
3%
Manitoba
4%
Hospitality and Tourism
3%
Saskatchewan
4%
Other
3%
Alberta
12%
British Columbia
5%
The participating organizations ranged in level of sales or
United States
3%
revenues, as follows:
Under $10 million in revenue
8%
$10 to $49 million
20%
$50 to $99 million
15%
$100 to $249 million
21%
$250 to $500 million
10%
Greater than $500 million
26%
6
T E L E C O M M U T I N G S U R V E Y

The summaries below do not include responses from
Key Results by Sector
agribusiness, hospitality and tourism and natural resources,
due to the low response rate on the specific questions.
O V E R A L L R E S P O N S E
C O M M U N I C A T I O N S
Employ telecommuters:
Employ telecommuters:
Always . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5%
Always . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.0%
Occasionally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.0%
Occasionally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.0%
Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.5%
Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.0%
Proportion of total personnel who are
Proportion of total personnel who are
telecommuters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0%
telecommuters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.0%
Since 1993, usage of telecommuting has:
Since 1993, usage of telecommuting has:
Increased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.0%
Increased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56.0%
Decreased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0%
Decreased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0%
Stayed the same . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.0%
Stayed the same . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.0%
Most important factors motivating the use of
Most important factors motivating the use of
telecommuting:
telecommuting:
Employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52%
Employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50%
Travel distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39%
Travel distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25%
Controlling overhead costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30%
Controlling overhead costs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13%
Benefit of a satellite office . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18%
Benefit of a satellite office . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0%
Real estate reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9%
Real estate reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13%
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43%
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75%
Principal advantages of telecommuting:
Principal advantages of telecommuting:
Effective use of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71%
Effective use of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
88%
Improved employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . .
57%
Improved employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . .
50%
Retention of staff who would otherwise leave 43%
Retention of staff who would otherwise leave 25%
Quality of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34%
Quality of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25%
Compensating only for specific units of
Compensating only for specific units of
performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9%
performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0%
Disadvantages of telecommuting:
Disadvantages of telecommuting:
Lack of face-to-face contact . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76%
Lack of face-to-face contact . . . . . . . . . . . .
69%
Lack of direct control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46%
Lack of direct control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31%
Technical difficulties or disruptions . . . . . . .
36%
Technical difficulties or disruptions . . . . . .
31%
Flexibility of tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19%
Flexibility of tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13%
Rigidity of schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8%
Rigidity of schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6%
Functional areas
1996 experience
Predicted
Functional areas
1996 experience
Predicted
for telecommuting
reported by
increase by 1999
for telecommuting
reported by
increase by 1999
Information systems
40%
69%
Information systems
38%
80%
Sales and marketing
40%
48%
Sales and marketing
25%
40%
Administration and finance
39%
58%
Administration and finance
38%
40%
Human resources
24%
32%
Human resources
13%
10%
Engineering and technical
19%
30%
Engineering and technical
50%
50%
Production and distribution
13%
13%
Production and distribution
0%
10%
Other
10%
8%
Other
13%
0%
Position levels
1996 usage
Predicted
Position levels
1996 usage
Predicted
occupied by telecommuters
increase by 1999
occupied by telecommuters
increase by 1999
Professional
54%
68%
Professional
75%
70%
Technical
40%
55%
Technical
38%
60%
Middle management
33%
38%
Middle management
25%
0%
Sales
29%
35%
Sales
25%
40%
Senior management
27%
23%
Senior management
13%
0%
Project management
15%
43%
Project management
25%
30%
Clerical and administrative
8%
9%
Clerical and administrative
13%
0%
Other
2%
1%
Other
0%
0%
T E L E C O M M U T I N G S U R V E Y
7

O V E R A L L R E S P O N S E
E D U C A T I O N
Employ telecommuters:
Employ telecommuters:
Always . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5%
Always . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0%
Occasionally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.0%
Occasionally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.0%
Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.5%
Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.0%
Proportion of total personnel who are
Proportion of total personnel who are
telecommuters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0%
telecommuters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3%
Since 1993, usage of telecommuting has:
Since 1993, usage of telecommuting has:
Increased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.0%
Increased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
86%
Decreased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0%
Decreased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0%
Stayed the same . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.0%
Stayed the same . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14%
Most important factors motivating the use of
Most important factors motivating the use of
telecommuting:
telecommuting:
Employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52%
Employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71%
Travel distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39%
Travel distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29%
Controlling overhead costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30%
Controlling overhead costs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14%
Benefit of a satellite office . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18%
Benefit of a satellite office . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29%
Real estate reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9%
Real estate reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0%
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43%
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43%
Principal advantages of telecommuting:
Principal advantages of telecommuting:
Effective use of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71%
Effective use of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71%
Improved employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . .
57%
Improved employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . .
86%
Retention of staff who would otherwise leave 43%
Retention of staff who would otherwise leave 43%
Quality of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34%
Quality of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29%
Compensating only for specific units of
Compensating only for specific units of
performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9%
performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14%
Disadvantages of telecommuting:
Disadvantages of telecommuting:
Lack of face-to-face contact . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76%
Lack of face-to-face contact . . . . . . . . . . . .
75%
Lack of direct control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46%
Lack of direct control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60%
Technical difficulties or disruptions . . . . . . .
36%
Technical difficulties or disruptions . . . . . .
40%
Flexibility of tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19%
Flexibility of tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5%
Rigidity of schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8%
Rigidity of schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0%
Functional areas
1996 experience
Predicted
Functional areas
1996 experience
Predicted
for telecommuting
reported by
increase by 1999
for telecommuting
reported by
increase by 1999
Information systems
40%
69%
Information systems
71%
64%
Sales and marketing
40%
48%
Sales and marketing
0%
18%
Administration and finance
39%
58%
Administration and finance
29%
55%
Human resources
24%
32%
Human resources
29%
45%
Engineering and technical
19%
30%
Engineering and technical
14%
36%
Production and distribution
13%
13%
Production and distribution
14%
18%
Other
10%
8%
Other
14%
9%
Position levels
1996 usage
Predicted
Position levels
1996 usage
Predicted
occupied by telecommuters
increase by 1999
occupied by telecommuters
increase by 1999
Professional
54%
68%
Professional
57%
73%
Technical
40%
55%
Technical
29%
18%
Middle management
33%
38%
Middle management
14%
55%
Sales
29%
35%
Sales
0%
0%
Senior management
27%
23%
Senior management
29%
45%
Project management
15%
43%
Project management
0%
45%
Clerical and administrative
8%
9%
Clerical and administrative
0%
0%
Other
2%
1%
Other
0%
0%
8
T E L E C O M M U T I N G S U R V E Y

F I N A N C I A L I N S T I T U T I O N S
G O V E R N M E N T
Employ telecommuters:
Employ telecommuters:
Always . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5%
Always . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0%
Occasionally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.0%
Occasionally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24%
Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.5%
Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76%
Proportion of total personnel who are
Proportion of total personnel who are
telecommuters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3%
telecommuters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15%
Since 1993, usage of telecommuting has:
Since 1993, usage of telecommuting has:
Increased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54%
Increased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
80%
Decreased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4%
Decreased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0%
Stayed the same . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42%
Stayed the same . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20%
Most important factors motivating the use of
Most important factors motivating the use of
telecommuting:
telecommuting:
Employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55%
Employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67%
Travel distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55%
Travel distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11%
Controlling overhead costs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32%
Controlling overhead costs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22%
Benefit of a satellite office . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36%
Benefit of a satellite office . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11%
Real estate reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14%
Real estate reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22%
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45%
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44%
Principal advantages of telecommuting:
Principal advantages of telecommuting:
Effective use of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
70%
Effective use of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
78%
Improved employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . .
60%
Improved employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . .
89%
Retention of staff who would otherwise leave 75%
Retention of staff who would otherwise leave 44%
Quality of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50%
Quality of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67%
Compensating only for specific units of
Compensating only for specific units of
performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5%
performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0%
Disadvantages of telecommuting:
Disadvantages of telecommuting:
Lack of face-to-face contact . . . . . . . . . . . .
76%
Lack of face-to-face contact . . . . . . . . . . . .
62%
Lack of direct control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42%
Lack of direct control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48%
Technical difficulties or disruptions . . . . . .
36%
Technical difficulties or disruptions . . . . . .
52%
Flexibility of tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24%
Flexibility of tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29%
Rigidity of schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9%
Rigidity of schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10%
Functional areas
1996 experience
Predicted
Functional areas
1996 experience
Predicted
for telecommuting
reported by
increase by 1999
for telecommuting
reported by
increase by 1999
Information systems
32%
74%
Information systems
44%
76%
Sales and marketing
53%
52%
Sales and marketing
22%
24%
Administration and finance
47%
48%
Administration and finance
56%
71%
Human resources
32%
30%
Human resources
56%
53%
Engineering and technical
0%
11%
Engineering and technical
22%
47%
Production and distribution
16%
15%
Production and distribution
22%
18%
Other
26%
19%
Other
0%
12%
Position levels
1996 usage
Predicted
Position levels
1996 usage
Predicted
occupied by telecommuters
increase by 1999
occupied by telecommuters
increase by 1999
Professional
70%
67%
Professional
67%
75%
Technical
45%
63%
Technical
33%
63%
Middle management
35%
37%
Middle management
33%
44%
Sales
35%
41%
Sales
22%
25%
Senior management
20%
15%
Senior management
44%
50%
Project management
10%
44%
Project management
11%
69%
Clerical and administrative
5%
11%
Clerical and administrative
22%
19%
Other
5%
4%
Other
0%
0%
T E L E C O M M U T I N G S U R V E Y
9

O V E R A L L R E S P O N S E
H E A L T H C A R E
Employ telecommuters:
Employ telecommuters:
Always . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5%
Always . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3%
Occasionally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.0%
Occasionally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22%
Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.5%
Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75%
Proportion of total personnel who are
Proportion of total personnel who are
telecommuters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0%
telecommuters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6%
Since 1993, usage of telecommuting has:
Since 1993, usage of telecommuting has:
Increased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.0%
Increased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67%
Decreased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0%
Decreased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0%
Stayed the same . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.0%
Stayed the same . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33%
Most important factors motivating the use of
Most important factors motivating the use of
telecommuting:
telecommuting:
Employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52%
Employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43%
Travel distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39%
Travel distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29%
Controlling overhead costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30%
Controlling overhead costs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43%
Benefit of a satellite office . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18%
Benefit of a satellite office . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14%
Real estate reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9%
Real estate reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0%
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43%
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57%
Principal advantages of telecommuting:
Principal advantages of telecommuting:
Effective use of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71%
Effective use of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50%
Improved employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . .
57%
Improved employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . .
40%
Retention of staff who would otherwise leave 43%
Retention of staff who would otherwise leave 50%
Quality of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34%
Quality of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30%
Compensating only for specific units of
Compensating only for specific units of
performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9%
performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30%
Disadvantages of telecommuting:
Disadvantages of telecommuting:
Lack of face-to-face contact . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76%
Lack of face-to-face contact . . . . . . . . . . . .
67%
Lack of direct control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46%
Lack of direct control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33%
Technical difficulties or disruptions . . . . . . .
36%
Technical difficulties or disruptions . . . . . .
20%
Flexibility of tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19%
Flexibility of tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13%
Rigidity of schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8%
Rigidity of schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17%
Functional areas
1996 experience
Predicted
Functional areas
1996 experience
Predicted
for telecommuting
reported by
increase by 1999
for telecommuting
reported by
increase by 1999
Information systems
40%
69%
Information systems
38%
74%
Sales and marketing
40%
48%
Sales and marketing
0%
13%
Administration and finance
39%
58%
Administration and finance
75%
93%
Human resources
24%
32%
Human resources
38%
60%
Engineering and technical
19%
30%
Engineering and technical
13%
20%
Production and distribution
13%
13%
Production and distribution
0%
7%
Other
10%
8%
Other
13%
7%
Position levels
1996 usage
Predicted
Position levels
1996 usage
Predicted
occupied by telecommuters
increase by 1999
occupied by telecommuters
increase by 1999
Professional
54%
68%
Professional
50%
56%
Technical
40%
55%
Technical
25%
38%
Middle management
33%
38%
Middle management
63%
44%
Sales
29%
35%
Sales
0%
13%
Senior management
27%
23%
Senior management
63%
44%
Project management
15%
43%
Project management
0%
56%
Clerical and administrative
8%
9%
Clerical and administrative
0%
6%
Other
2%
1%
Other
13%
6%
10
T E L E C O M M U T I N G S U R V E Y

M A N U F A C T U R I N G
P E T R O L E U M A N D P E T R O C H E M I C A L
Employ telecommuters:
Employ telecommuters:
Always . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8%
Always . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0%
Occasionally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24%
Occasionally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39%
Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
68%
Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
61%
Proportion of total personnel who are
Proportion of total personnel who are
telecommuters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5%
telecommuters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3%
Since 1993, usage of telecommuting has:
Since 1993, usage of telecommuting has:
Increased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6%
Increased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
78%
Decreased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4%
Decreased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11%
Stayed the same . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40%
Stayed the same . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11%
Most important factors motivating the use of
Most important factors motivating the use of
telecommuting:
telecommuting:
Employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40%
Employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60%
Travel distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28%
Travel distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10%
Controlling overhead costs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24%
Controlling overhead costs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30%
Benefit of a satellite office . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4%
Benefit of a satellite office . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0%
Real estate reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4%
Real estate reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10%
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44%
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50%
Principal advantages of telecommuting:
Principal advantages of telecommuting:
Effective use of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76%
Effective use of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60%
Improved employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . .
68%
Improved employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . .
70%
Retention of staff who would otherwise leave 20%
Retention of staff who would otherwise leave 70%
Quality of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24%
Quality of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30%
Compensating only for specific units of
Compensating only for specific units of
performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4%
performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10%
Disadvantages of telecommuting:
Disadvantages of telecommuting:
Lack of face-to-face contact . . . . . . . . . . . .
84%
Lack of face-to-face contact . . . . . . . . . . . .
84%
Lack of direct control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46%
Lack of direct control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26%
Technical difficulties or disruptions . . . . . .
30%
Technical difficulties or disruptions . . . . . .
42%
Flexibility of tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18%
Flexibility of tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26%
Rigidity of schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5%
Rigidity of schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11%
Functional areas
1996 experience
Predicted
Position levels
1996 usage
Predicted
for telecommuting
reported by
increase by 1999
occupied by telecommuters
increase by 1999
Information systems
42%
45%
Information systems
56%
88%
Sales and marketing
54%
65%
Sales and marketing
22%
75%
Administration and finance
38%
65%
Administration and finance
22%
63%
Human resources
29%
23%
Human resources
0%
63%
Engineering and technical
21%
26%
Engineering and technical
22%
50%
Production and distribution
8%
13%
Production and distribution
33%
38%
Other
4%
10%
Other
11%
0%
Position levels
1996 usage
Predicted
Position levels
1996 usage
Predicted
occupied by telecommuters
increase by 1999
occupied by telecommuters
increase by 1999
Professional
50%
67%
Professional
60%
86%
Technical
33%
47%
Technical
50%
71%
Middle management
33%
33%
Middle management
20%
71%
Sales
46%
57%
Sales
10%
57%
Senior management
29%
13%
Senior management
0%
14%
Project management
17%
30%
Project management
10%
57%
Clerical and administrative
8%
10%
Clerical and administrative
10%
0%
Other
0%
0%
Other
0%
0%
T E L E C O M M U T I N G S U R V E Y
11

O V E R A L L R E S P O N S E
P R O F E S S I O N A L S E R V I C E S
Employ telecommuters:
Employ telecommuters:
Always . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5%
Always . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11%
Occasionally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.0%
Occasionally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32%
Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.5%
Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58%
Proportion of total personnel who are
Proportion of total personnel who are
telecommuters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0%
telecommuters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7%
Since 1993, usage of telecommuting has:
Since 1993, usage of telecommuting has:
Increased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.0%
Increased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67%
Decreased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0%
Decreased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0%
Stayed the same . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.0%
Stayed the same . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33%
Most important factors motivating the use of
Most important factors motivating the use of
telecommuting:
telecommuting:
Employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52%
Employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71%
Travel distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39%
Travel distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
86%
Controlling overhead costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30%
Controlling overhead costs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29%
Benefit of a satellite office . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18%
Benefit of a satellite office . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29%
Real estate reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9%
Real estate reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0%
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43%
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29%
Principal advantages of telecommuting:
Principal advantages of telecommuting:
Effective use of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71%
Effective use of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63%
Improved employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . .
57%
Improved employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . .
38%
Retention of staff who would otherwise leave 43%
Retention of staff who would otherwise leave 50%
Quality of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34%
Quality of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25%
Compensating only for specific units of
Compensating only for specific units of
performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9%
performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13%
Disadvantages of telecommuting:
Disadvantages of telecommuting:
Lack of face-to-face contact . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76%
Lack of face-to-face contact . . . . . . . . . . . .
71%
Lack of direct control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46%
Lack of direct control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41%
Technical difficulties or disruptions . . . . . . .
36%
Technical difficulties or disruptions . . . . . .
29%
Flexibility of tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19%
Flexibility of tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12%
Rigidity of schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8%
Rigidity of schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6%
Functional areas
1996 experience
Predicted
Functional areas
1996 experience
Predicted
for telecommuting
reported by
increase by 1999
for telecommuting
reported by
increase by 1999
Information systems
40%
69%
Information systems
13%
40%
Sales and marketing
40%
48%
Sales and marketing
38%
50%
Administration and finance
39%
58%
Administration and finance
25%
30%
Human resources
24%
32%
Human resources
0%
10%
Engineering and technical
19%
30%
Engineering and technical
50%
40%
Production and distribution
13%
13%
Production and distribution
38%
20%
Other
10%
8%
Other
13%
10%
Position levels
1996 usage
Predicted
Position levels
1996 usage
Predicted
occupied by telecommuters
increase by 1999
occupied by telecommuters
increase by 1999
Professional
54%
68%
Professional
75%
90%
Technical
40%
55%
Technical
50%
30%
Middle management
33%
38%
Middle management
25%
40%
Sales
29%
35%
Sales
13%
20%
Senior management
27%
23%
Senior management
38%
30%
Project management
15%
43%
Project management
38%
30%
Clerical and administrative
8%
9%
Clerical and administrative
0%
0%
Other
2%
1%
Other
0%
0%
12
T E L E C O M M U T I N G S U R V E Y

R E T A I L A N D D I S T R I B U T I O N
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N
Employ telecommuters:
Employ telecommuters:
Always . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6%
Always . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4%
Occasionally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21%
Occasionally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24%
Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73%
Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72%
Proportion of total personnel who are
Proportion of total personnel who are
telecommuters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18%
telecommuters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2%
Since 1993, usage of telecommuting has:
Since 1993, usage of telecommuting has:
Increased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60%
Increased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33%
Decreased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10%
Decreased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0%
Stayed the same . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30%
Stayed the same . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67%
Most important factors motivating the use of
Most important factors motivating the use of
telecommuting:
telecommuting:
Employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44%
Employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38%
Travel distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67%
Travel distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50%
Controlling overhead costs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33%
Controlling overhead costs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38%
Benefit of a satellite office . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11%
Benefit of a satellite office . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25%
Real estate reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0%
Real estate reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0%
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11%
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63%
Principal advantages of telecommuting:
Principal advantages of telecommuting:
Effective use of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56%
Effective use of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71%
Improved employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . .
22%
Improved employee lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . .
57%
Retention of staff who would otherwise leave
11%
Retention of staff who would otherwise leave 57%
Quality of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11%
Quality of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57%
Compensating only for specific units of
Compensating only for specific units of
performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0%
performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29%
Disadvantages of telecommuting:
Disadvantages of telecommuting:
Lack of face-to-face contact . . . . . . . . . . . .
67%
Lack of face-to-face contact . . . . . . . . . . . .
80%
Lack of direct control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43%
Lack of direct control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55%
Technical difficulties or disruptions . . . . . .
38%
Technical difficulties or disruptions . . . . . .
50%
Flexibility of tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24%
Flexibility of tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15%
Rigidity of schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5%
Rigidity of schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20%
Functional areas
1996 experience
Predicted
Functional areas
1996 experience
Predicted
for telecommuting
reported by
increase by 1999
for telecommuting
reported by
increase by 1999
Information systems
22%
81%
Information systems
38%
86%
Sales and marketing
67%
56%
Sales and marketing
50%
50%
Administration and finance
22%
50%
Administration and finance
25%
50%
Human resources
11%
13%
Human resources
13%
29%
Engineering and technical
11%
19%
Engineering and technical
0%
29%
Production and distribution
11%
13%
Production and distribution
0%
7%
Other
0%
0%
Other
0%
7%
Position levels
1996 usage
Predicted
Position levels
1996 usage
Predicted
occupied by telecommuters
increase by 1999
occupied by telecommuters
increase by 1999
Professional
22%
63%
Professional
33%
58%
Technical
11%
63%
Technical
29%
67%
Middle management
11%
25%
Middle management
33%
50%
Sales
56%
31%
Sales
50%
33%
Senior management
22%
19%
Senior management
17%
25%
Project management
11%
31%
Project management
17%
67%
Clerical and administrative
0%
13%
Clerical and administrative
17%
33%
Other
11%
0%
Other
0%
0%
T E L E C O M M U T I N G S U R V E Y
13

For Additional Information
KPMG's Career Consulting practice works with clients as
About KPMG
partners in transition. We offer a range of customized
services from which the client organization and the
individual candidates choose according to their needs
KPMG is Canada's largest professional services organization.
and specified budget.
The firm has 4,800 personnel in more than
60 locations across the country. Canadian-owned and
Together with the client organization, our consultants help
managed, KPMG delivers assurance, consulting, financial
assess the situation and develop a plan of action. In addition
advisory and tax services to individuals and business,
to career transition programs for departing employees, we
government and not-for-profit organizations.
provide value-added services ranging from termination
planning, manager training, survivor support, retirement
Through a global network of offices in over 800 cities in
planning and in-placement, to career planning.
140 countries, KPMG provides access to information and
insight into business issues around the world.
KPMG's career consultants act as facilitators, educators,
persuader/motivators, evaluators, strategists and introducers.
KPMG offices across Canada:
All of our consultants bring "real world" business experience
Abbotsford, Amos, Barrie, Bathurst, Brockville,
to their client organizations and candidates.
Burnaby/New Westminster, Calgary, Cambridge,
Chatham, Chilliwack, Edmonton, Fredericton, Guelph,
To request more information, or to discuss this survey, please
Halifax, Hamilton, Kamloops, Kelowna, Kingston,
contact Ron Scott at (403) 691-8340 or contact your nearest
La Sarre, Laval, Lethbridge, London, Markham/Richmond
KPMG office.
Hill, Mission, Mississauga, Moncton, Montréal, North Bay,
Vancouver . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Joan Harrison
(604) 691-3427
Ottawa, Pembroke, Penticton, Prince George, Québec,
Calgary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ron Scott
(403) 691-8340
Regina, Richmond, Rouyn-Noranda, St. Catharines,
Edmonton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Al Jacobson
(403) 497-3157
Saint John, St. John's, Saint-Laurent, Saskatoon,
Saskatoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wilf Hiebert
(306) 373-2670
Sault Ste. Marie, Sept Îles, Sudbury, Surrey, Sydney,
Timmins, Toronto, Toronto-North York, Toronto-St. Clair,
Regina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Joan Mucha
(306) 791-1286
Val d'Or, Vancouver, Vaughan, Vernon, Victoria, Waterloo,
Winnipeg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cam Mackie
(204) 957-2204
Windsor, Winnipeg, Yarmouth.
Toronto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tim Shaw
(416) 777-8250
Representative Firms:
Waterloo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bill Smith
(519) 747-8280
Charlottetown, Cranbrook, Fort McMurray, Portage la Prairie.
London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Brenda Lewis
(519) 663-2660
Ottawa . . . . . . . . . . . . .Luke De Sadeleer
(613) 598-3736
Montréal . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Robert Nadeau
(514) 840-2330
Halifax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Janet Rose
(902) 492-6000
St. John's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lloyd Powell
(709) 722-5593
Visit KPMG on the World Wide Web at http://www.kpmg.ca
While browsing through the KPMG web site, you can
research a wide spectrum of information on human resource
issues including employee compensation, pensions, change
management, training and development, and selecting the
The content of this publication is copyright with all rights reserved.
right candidate. In addition, The Human Edge is a newsletter
Portions may be reprinted with acknowledgement to the firm. We
developed for small and medium-sized employers. Some of
would appreciate being notified of any reproduction or reuse. Please
the articles online discuss benefits programs, employee
contact Ron Scott. Phone: (403) 691-8340 Fax: (403) 691-8304.
communications, pension plans, disability management and
Information is current to February 28, 1997.
performance management systems.
All information provided here is of a general nature and is not intended to be
The direct address to the Human Resources section of the
an opinion of the firm on any subject. Although we endeavor to ensure its
KPMG web site is http://www.kpmg.ca/hr/main.htm
accuracy and timeliness, no one should act upon it without appropriate
professional advice after a thorough examination of the facts of the
particular situation.
14
T E L E C O M M U T I N G S U R V E Y