IBM Indiana Telecommuting Project
IBM had been a leader in the computer industry for most of the 20th century, accounting for a staggering 70% of the computer market during the 70s. As the computer market and the information technology was on the rise during the 80s, IBM continued to grow as a company, expanding its overseas activities and increasing its revenue. However, starting with this period, IBM had also become "more bureaucratic and slow-moving." The company began to lose its market share and the profit margins began to drop as well. It was clear that there was a problem.
Studying the table in Exhibit 1, I noticed that IBM's revenues had continuously increased between 1985 and 1990, by as much as 10% (1989 to 1990) and only in the two last years had the company experienced a slight decrease in revenues. This proved that the company was still selling its products, it was still competitive, however, its profit margins were continuously slipping. The explanation had to be found elsewhere. If we consider the profit as a difference between what you make and what you spend, the diminishing profit margins could be explained by the increasing expenses that the company was accounting for.
Examining the case study, it was clear that the problem that IBM was facing was how to diminish expenses. Indeed, John Frank's testimony about the office in Indiana is edifying: the company had rented a beautiful building that was seldom used, because the company's business was always dynamic, employees had to work closely with their customers on the premises and spent less and less time in the office. This was a clear sign of inefficient and useless spending: you rented an entire building, spending millions of dollars annually for it, but you seldom used it. To the actual real estate cost involving rent, one also had to count the occupancy costs that such a building implied: utilities, taxes, support- for a large building, all these increase exponentially. Indeed, the estimated savings accounted for $2-3 million in the first year and $3-4 million a year from then on.
The increasing expenses that IBM was facing in the late 80s were thought to be dealt with through massive lay-offs, however, it had become quite obvious that this solution was not an adequate one. To deal with a problem, IBM had chosen the simplest way: firing people and had not considered that these employees were usually highly skilled workers, who were providing an increasing added-value to the company and that their dismissals would rather increase than decrease the company's spending (because the company would lose some of its productivity and efficiency in the firing process).
The two alternative solutions to the problem I have talked about in the lines above are firing personnel or finding some other ways of reducing costs. As I have explained, the firing solution is to be deemed inadequate because it would mean a downfall in the company's net added-value.
The solution that the Indiana branch came up with was telecommuting. This would mean that the employees who spend only 30 to 40% (or less) of their time in the office would relocate at home. This would have meant that only those who spent most of their hours in the Indiana office would not be relocated and the company could thus save up on office space and office facilities.
We need to examine this solution further, with its advantages and disadvantages. The idea of this solution was that much of the unused office space would be left through relocating the staff in their homes. As we have seen in the case study, it was obvious that the beautiful building that IBM was not using had a rather high inefficiency ratio, because it was not really used. The office environment provided at home would include the IBM machine that the employee was using in his office, two telephone lines provided my IBM with voice and data facilities,...
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now