Flexible Workplace Program – Brisbane Central …/media...flexible work arrangements. Almost 900...

Confidential & Proprietary • Copyright © 2009 The Nielsen Company

Flexible Workplace Program –Brisbane Central Pilot Report

September 2009

Nielsen was commissioned by the Department of Transport and MainRoads to conduct the Flexible Workplace Program - Brisbane Central Pilot research project and provide this report on the findings.

Confidential & ProprietaryCopyright © 2009 The Nielsen Company

Flexible Workplace Program – Brisbane Central Pilot Report

Overview of the Flexible Workplace Pilot 3

Research design 5

Executive summary 9

Setting the scene and stages of change 15

Pilot participants

Profile of participants and participating organisations 21

Paid overtime 27

Motivations for participation 30

Travel behaviour change 33

Experience with flexible workplace arrangements 45

Challenges and enablers 53

Demographic profiles 69

Appendices 78

Table of contentsTable of contents



Overview of the Flexible Workplace Pilot



Research background and Research background and objectivesobjectives

As part of the Queensland Government’s response to managing urban congestion, the Department of Transport and Main Roads launched the Flexible Work Program –Brisbane Central Pilot in 2009.

The purpose of the Pilot was to promote, encourage and support the use of flexible work arrangements with the aim of measuring the impact on travel behaviour change and peak hour congestion. The Pilot has also served as a research tool to gauge the barriers as well as the motivations and support needed for a wider implementation of flexible work arrangements.

Almost 900 employees from a total of 11 government agencies and 9 private organisations participated in the four-week Pilot, which was conducted from 1-26 June 2009.

Three types of flexible work arrangements were offered to participants:

• Flexible hours - Flexible hours allow the employee flexibility in distributing their working hours over a day, a week or, more commonly, over a month. It generally involves spreading the normal operating hours of an organisation to increase flexibility of start, finish and meal break times

• Compressed work week - Similar to flexible hours, a compressed work week will generally allow an employee to work their standard work week over fewer days. For instance, working approximately nine hours a day for four days with a day off every week, or working approximately eight hours a day with a day off every fortnight.

• Telecommuting - Telecommuting allows employees to work from outside the central workplace. This is usually at home or at a satellite office, and can be for all or a portion of a work week, done occasionally or regularly.

Nielsen was contracted to undertake the research on behalf of Department of Transport and Main Roads and to provide a final report on the findings of the Pilot. The research was designed to measure the attitudes towards flexible work arrangements from both participants’ and organisational perspectives. The research compared travel behaviour patterns of participants before and during the Pilot and captured attitudinal data on support and satisfaction with flexible work practices.

This report provides the research findings from the Flexible Workplace Program –Brisbane Central Pilot.



Research design



Summary overview of research Summary overview of research designdesign

• The research program involved a four stage process including both quantitative and qualitative research as demonstrated below:

Stage 1Online registration of participants in the Pilot

Stage 1Online registration of participants in the Pilot

Stage 2Online pre-Pilot survey of typical travel behaviour

before the Pilot began

Stage 2Online pre-Pilot survey of typical travel behaviour

before the Pilot began

Stage 3Online Pilot survey measuring the travel behaviour

of the last two weeks of the flexible work Pilot

Stage 3Online Pilot survey measuring the travel behaviour

of the last two weeks of the flexible work Pilot

Stage 4• In-depth interviews with managers and executives

• Focus groups with Pilot participants

Stage 4• In-depth interviews with managers and executives

• Focus groups with Pilot participants



Summary overview of research Summary overview of research design design -- quantitativequantitative

• The registration, pre and post survey were all conducted online.Methodology

Target audience

Sample size*

Pilot period

• 20 organisations agreed to participate with employee selection dictated by the business.

• Registrations: n=888• Pre-Pilot survey: n=770 • Pilot survey: n=630

– Compressed work week workers: n=238 – Telecommuters: n=139 – Flexible Hours: n=379

• 1 - 26 June 2009

Response rate• Pre-Pilot survey: 86.71%• Pilot survey: 70.95%

* Note: See appendix I for specific details on research design. There were 595 participants who completed both the pre and the post-Pilot survey.

• Meaningful sub-group differences are highlighted throughout the report and are presented as:

• These differences describe which particular sub-groups are more likely to believe, state or do relative to other sub-groups.

Statistical differences

Quotations• Respondents who participated in the study have been quoted

throughout the report. This is demonstrated as either quotations e.g. “verbatim comment” or as:



Summary overview of research Summary overview of research design design -- qualitativequalitative

• Focus groups as well as in-depth interviews were conducted once the online surveys were complete.

• Four focus groups were conducted on Monday 27 and Tuesday 28 July 2009.

• There were a total of 23 participants. A profile of each group is detailed below.

• A total of ten interviews were conducted with senior management over the phone and lasted approximately 20 minutes.

• The purpose of these interviews was to gauge senior support for flexible work arrangements and identify challenges for this level of the organisation. It was also an opportunity to understand how the decision-making process was conducted in terms of employee selection for the Pilot and flexible work arrangements.

• Out of the ten organisations that participated, seven were from the public sector and three from the private sector.

• Interviews were conducted over the week beginning 27 July 2009.

Focus groups

XXXTelecommuting

XXXCompressed work week

Type of Flexible Work Arrangements:

Organisational Type:

Employment Level:

XXXFlexible hours

XXPrivate

XXXPublic

XXXStaff/ employees

XXManagers

Group 4Group 3Group 2Group 1

In-depth interviews



Executive summary



Executive summaryExecutive summary

The Flexible Workplace Program – Brisbane Central Pilot has been successful in demonstrating that flexible work arrangements can reduce peak hour travel and result in an overall reduction in travel.

The Pilot:

• eliminated peak hour travel by 34% in the morning and 32% in the afternoon peak period amongst Pilot participants

“The main business benefit the organisation gained is having their staff arrive in the workplace less stressed and frustrated, after being stuck in traffic” (Post-Pilot survey

participant).

• enhanced the work-life balance of 87% of Pilot participants

“I am also able to be 100% focused for the time I am at the office because I know that I have a free day to run errands” (Post-Pilot survey participant).

• improved work productivity with 68% of Pilot participants reporting improvement and confirmation of this finding by interviewed employers

“Ability to achieve work more productively in a quieter environment in the morning…less stressed by transport delays and congestion” (Post-Pilot survey participant).

• received strong support with 92% of participants indicating they would like to continue their flexible working arrangements in the next three months

“I would implement flexible arrangements more formally through the business”(Depth-interview participant).



Executive summary, Executive summary, continuedcontinued

Transport-related findings

• Overall, the Pilot resulted in a reduction of 34% for the morning peak hour period (7am – 9am) and 32% in the afternoon peak period (4pm – 6pm).

• Demand for public transport travel amongst Pilot participants decreased by 33% in the morning and 27% in the afternoon peak period. Commuters who relied on public transport for their journey to work showed to be more likely to travel during peak hour (74% in morning and 81% in the afternoon). This may be due to the availability and frequency of public transport outside of peak hours.

• Car trips decreased by 43% in morning and 45% in afternoon amongst participants during the Pilot.

• With increased telecommuting amongst participants, the Pilot resulted in a 31% decreased in vehicle kilometres travelled for car trips and 19% decrease in public transport trips.

• Pilot participants contributed to an estimated saving of 6100km in vehicle kilometre travelled for private vehicle and a decrease of 848 public transport trips during the Pilot.

• During the Pilot, morning peak period trips decreased by 34% from 5486 to 3605. This represents a shift of 997 trips before 7am and 331 to after 9am and 553 eliminated trips.

• Similarly, comparing afternoon peak period trips made by participants prior and during the Pilot reveals that 1704 or 32% of peak afternoon trips have been either avoided (502) or shifted to before 4pm (832) or after 6pm (370).

• Those on flexible hours arrangements were more likely to start before 7am while those on telecommuting arrangements were more likely to start after 9am.




Flexible work-related findings

Overview

• The Pilot has shown that flexible work arrangements can result in personal and organisational benefits.

• Three flexible workplace arrangements were promoted during the Pilot: flexible working hours, compressed work week and telecommuting.

• Participating organisations had the option of selecting which of these to offer to their employees based on organisational and individual factors.

• Working flexible hours was the most popular practice out of the three offered with 60% of participants electing to work flexible hours.

• Compressed work week was the second most popular practice with 38% participants.

• Telecommuters accounted for 22% of the total Pilot participants.

• Many participants adopted a combination of flexible workplace arrangements during the Pilot. For example, nearly 20% of those who cited their primary arrangement as telecommuting also participated in flexible working hours.

Individual benefits and challenges

• Of those telecommuting, 93% reported improvement in their work-life balance; with 90% of participants adopting compressed work week and 83% of those on flexible working hours also claimed this.

• There seems to be a relationship between improved work-life balance and increased productivity at work. Telecommuters were more likely to claim an increase in productivity during the Pilot (81%) compared with 67% for people on flexible working hours and 66% for compressed work week.

• There was a general consensus among Pilot participants that organisations that offer flexible workplace arrangements are more likely to be able to attract and retain quality staff. Flexibility is seen as something of value that is provided in addition to an employee’s salary.

• The table over the page highlights the key benefits and challenges expressed by Pilot participants for each flexible workplace arrangement.




• Technical difficulties such as the availability of information and communication technology to facilitate telecommuting;

• Difficulty of scheduling commitments, such as meetings on telecommuting day;

• Management perception that telecommuting is synonymous to having a day off work.

• Improved productivity from a less distracting environment;

• Ability to attend to personal commitments during the day without the need to take time off work;

• Financial, environmental and time saving benefits from avoiding the need to travel during peak hour.

Telecommuting

• Does not suit some roles that require daily staff or client contact;

• Ability to meet work commitments prior to or after the rostered day off can be overwhelming;

• Difficulty of getting used to the change in working longer days in exchange for a rostered day off.

• Increased productivity and improved focus at work by having a rostered day off to attend to personal commitments;

• Financial, environmental and time saving benefits gained from eliminated trip to work on rostered day off;

• Ability to contribute more to work goals through increased productivity on longer days.

Compressed work week

• Difficulty of waking up early or getting home late;

• Workload and other commitments at work tend to impede the ability to leave work early and ultimately longer hours are worked than intended;

• Public transport services tend to be less frequent and available outside of peak period.

• Benefits associated with avoiding peak hour congestion including less stress and shorter commute time;

• Improved productivity from fewer distractions in the early morning or late afternoon as well as according to personal productivity levels;

• Increased work-life balance by being able to attend to personal commitments during the day.

Flexible working hours

ChallengesBenefitsFlexible workplace

arrangements




Organisational benefits and barriers

• The Pilot provided an opportunity to identify the key barriers relating to flexible working arrangements as well as incentives to facilitate greater uptake.

• The barriers and corresponding enablers are listed below.

• Employers reported significant organisational benefits from employees accessing flexible work arrangements as part of the Pilot. The key benefits reported are below.

Unaligned business systems that make uptake difficult.

Information and communication technology difficulties, which particularly hinders telecommuting.

Lack of knowledge and support amongst staff.

Unsupportive work culture.

Lack of senior commitment and leadership.

Barriers

Policies, procedures and processes that enable and are streamlined.

Facilitating technology, particularly to support telecommuters Web-based email is an option.

Education and training to increase awareness.

Examples of implementation for staff and managers to recognise value and practicality.

Senior role models are important for staff.

Enablers

Ability to manage and allocate staff availability to cover tasks throughout the day and operate longer spread of hours.

Enhanced public image through being considered a socially responsible organisation that contributes to positive community outcomes.

Opportunity to implement best practice people management and be perceived as the employer of choice. This can assist with reducing staff turnover costs and attract high performing staff.

Potential for financial savings such as overhead costs from staff working remotely.

More productive and happy staff that have a better work-life balance.

Benefits



Setting the scene and stages of change



EmployeeEmployee’’s view of flexible s view of flexible workplace arrangements workplace arrangements

• “Flexible Workplace Practices” – a tool, a way to manage life, a reward, a congestion solution

• It is also seen as a way to “manage life through crises that come along” and as a benefit for employees - “a reward of some kind”.

• The primary focus for many employees is around work-life issues and not necessarily the commute as some would expect.

• Workplaces that work a standard 9am – 5pm were perceived as:– “Like a factory/ rigid”.

• Time is like a highly valued “currency” and working flexible arrangements is a way to save time and avoid wasting time:

– Some employees/ commuters report time-savings of up to an hour a day in commuting;

– It also provides quality time that is focused and uninterrupted and allows them to get the “to do” things done;

– Many Pilot participants believe there is a perception “out there” that more time at work means increased productivity however they disagree with this. It is about quality time.

• Flexible work arrangements also provide organisations with the ability to reward employees with a “time” bonus rather than dollar bonuses.

• It also allows employees to avoid the peak hour congested road and transport network, and to participants this means:

– “Packed public transport/ will not enter as have to stand/ feel crowded”;– “Longer commute”;– “Missing personal deadlines such as picking up children at specific times”.

“Flexible is the word. You would have to sell it to them that they

would have to tailor it to suit the positions they have and the staff

that they have, a position of trust” (Focus group participant).

The qualitative research uncovered the following perceptions about flexible workplace arrangements:



Ability to participate in flexible Ability to participate in flexible workplace practices depends on the workplace practices depends on the organisation and its cultureorganisation and its culture• Organisational culture plays a big part in people’s ability to participate in flexible work

practices. While many organisations that participated in the Pilot have policies in place to enable flexible workplace arrangements, some lack commitment from managers. Resistance by managers to support adoption of these practices can be subtle and indirect.

• Criteria for adoption of flexible workplace arrangements include:– Whether the organisation has a mandate for flexible workplace arrangements;– The ability of commuters to compromise and be flexible to meet workplace

demands;– The ability of the organisation to allow employees to tailor the options to suit their

individual situation or needs;– The type and nature of the employee’s role and level within organisations;– The level of technological support, particularly to ensure that off site employees

have access and are contactable when required.



Flexible workplace arrangements Flexible workplace arrangements Pilot made flexible working Pilot made flexible working ““okayokay””

• In organisations with mandates for flexibility the Pilot provided more options for employees:

– Usual option was flexible working hours;

– Compressed work week and telecommuting seen as broadening out from this option.

• Prior to the Pilot, flexible workplace arrangements was likely to have been seen as most suitable for parents of young children only or for people with other significant family responsibilities. The Pilot opened up flexible workplace arrangements to all employees.

• Pilot gave casual flexible workplace arrangements legitimacy:

– “It (the Pilot) knocked the walls, the barriers down, got everyone on a better, leveled playing field.”

• Pilot started to create norms for flexible workplace arrangements practices/ arrangements:

– “It’s okay to do this.”

– “They were all there, they were all in the policy documents but no-one really pursues them.”

• In organisations without a mandate for flexible workplace arrangements the Pilot provided a structure and process in which to engage employers/ organisations.

• Pilot provided a language for employees to discuss flexible workplace arrangements.

• The messages about the Pilot were generated in a variety of ways:

– Generally through a bulletin email from HR;

– Some from senior management nominating the number of people they would like to see on the Pilot;

– Some via “shoulder tapping” i.e. managers selecting employees and gauging level of interest and willingness to participate.

• Some organisations required an individual approval process:

– In other organisations once approval was given at a senior level the Pilot was opened up to any employee who wanted to take part.



Perceptions that the Pilot Perceptions that the Pilot improved the productivity of staffimproved the productivity of staff

• The general sense from most participants was that the Pilot provided support for increased productivity:

– It allowed unbroken quality time for focused tasks and creative thinking.

• Flexible workplace arrangements support good health:

– Provides greater support to exercise regimes.

• There are also perceptions that satisfied staff are more productive.

“Personally when I was on the

Pilot, I was more productive

because I was there earlier,

before the majority of people got

in” (Focus group participant).



The stages of change modelThe stages of change model

• The stages of change model is a social marketing tool used to understand and explore how people move from pre-contemplation to action. This approach provides an understanding of where participants currently sit in terms of flexible workplace arrangements and ideally where they should be moved to.

• Pilot participants currently sit towards the end of the model as they have already contemplated participating in flexible workplace arrangements and have moved to the next stage.

• Non-participants need to be addressed to moved them through model, however this is beyond the scope of this research program.

Truly complying in last 6 months or

more

Taken some action in last 6

months

Considering what they need to do

Aware of issue and need to take

action

Not aware of issue. Not

thinking they need to do

anything – lacks relevance

Maintenance Action PreparationContemplationPre-contemplation

Pilot participants

Pilot participants

Pilot participants

Maintenance Action PreparationContemplationPre-

contemplation

Non-participants

Participants

Participants

Non-participants

Participants

Non-participants

Note: See appendix II for explanation of the stages of changes model



Pilot participants: • Profile of participants and participating organisations

• Paid overtime



Three profiles of Pilot participants Three profiles of Pilot participants explored explored

• Employees appear to have varying degrees of willingness and openness towards flexible workplace arrangements and also have differing abilities to change workplace practices.

• There are three distinct Pilot participant profiles which highlight the different motivations and ways of thinking towards flexibility at work.

• In addition, there are four hypothesised non-Pilot participant profiles which have also been generated. These are based on group participant feedback and developed to provide a sense of potential target audiences for flexible workplace arrangements and a holistic picture of where the Pilot fit in the workplace.

• As this latter group has not been researched, these non-Pilot participant profiles are not well formed and should be regarded as indicative only. These profiles can be found in appendix III.

• There are common needs of all participant employees, including:

– Responsible freedom;

– Balanced/ tailored work and life solutions.

Common needs used to profile Common needs used to profile participantsparticipants

“Not everybody is in the same mould. Everybody has different ideas about what they want to do

and how they want to do it”(Focus group participant).

“You have got a lot of flexibility in conjunction with your

manager, to agree on how you want to work” (Focus group

participant).

Balanced/ Tailored Work-life Solution

• Work pattern choices customised to suit individual circumstances and this is balanced with the needs of the organisation;

• Employee has ability to mix and match solution to suit work role and family demands;

• Organisations have the ability to provide a solution that meets role and business needs.

Responsible Freedom

• Freedom from work-life conflict where all employees participate in flexible workplace arrangements recognising the benefits provided by the organisation.



Dynamic 1: Open and willing to be Dynamic 1: Open and willing to be flexibleflexible

• Currently engaged in flexible workplace arrangements• Active considerers of flexible workplace arrangements• Active involvement in community, family life• Limited external customer facing

• Not currently engaged in flexible workplace arrangements• Struggle with workplace arrangements outside 9am to 5pm

norm• Influenced by current organisational culture to not adopt

flexibility

Higher Willingness

Less ability to adopt flexibility

More ability to adopt flexibility

Lower Willingness

Dynamic 2: Ability to adopt flexibilityDynamic 2: Ability to adopt flexibility

Less Ability

More Ability

• Likely to model actions on peers

• Not self-directed

• Anxious about presence at work

• Limited knowledge and skills

• Habit driven

• Not willing to trade-off benefits against costs

• Has knowledge of flexible workplace arrangements

• Self-determined and self sufficient

• Able to be different from 9–5 norm

• Growing organisational support

• Willing to trade-off benefits with costs e.g. lack of perceived career advancement



• The diagram below provides a holistic view of where Pilot participants and non-participants sit in relation to their ability and willingness to adopt flexible workplace arrangements.

• All focus group Pilot participants sit within the higher willingness and more ability arena

• The hypothesised non-participant profiles sit within the lower willingness and less ability quadrant and are considered indicative only.

• Detailed in the following pages is an explanation of each profile. See appendix III for an overview of the non-participant profiles.

Segmenting employees who Segmenting employees who participated in the Flexible participated in the Flexible Workplace PilotWorkplace Pilot

Farmers’ Attitudes to Risk

Less Ability More Ability

Higher Willingness

Lower Willingness

Job I Do

Legitimises Current Practice

Avoid Commute

Work-life Balance Seekers

EntrenchedWork Habits

Distrustful Resistors

Responsible FreedomBalanced/ Tailored

Solution

Not Allowed

Note: See appendix III for findings of hypothesised profiles of ‘Job I Do’, ‘Entrenched Work Habits’, Distrusted Resistors’, and ‘Not Allowed’



Legitimises Current Practice Legitimises Current Practice --Pilot gives authority to current Pilot gives authority to current flexible workplace practicesflexible workplace practices• Flexible workplace arrangements have generally been perceived for employees with

‘special needs’ such as those with young families:

– Pilot gives this practice legitimacy for all employees.

• Allows organisations who have a mandate for flexible workplace arrangements such as written policies and procedures to start to:

– Internalise these values into the workplace culture.

• Provides organisations with the ability to trial different flexible workplace arrangements options with their employees:

– Particularly telecommuting.

• Starts to challenge current discretionary engagement practices with flexible workplace arrangements.

Legitimises Current Practice

Avoid Commute Avoid Commute -- Commuting is a Commuting is a cost to be avoidedcost to be avoided• Participants have a strong desire to reduce the impact of commuting.

• Ideally, participants are looking to:

– Save on “wasted” commuting time;

– Find a seat on public transport;

– Lessen the stress of long commutes and driving in congested traffic.

• Employees who are motivated to avoid the commute appear more likely to take up the telecommuting option:

– They find the long driving hours stressful.

“I have been using the flexible hour system to its limit for the last 18 months or so…my boss was not comfortable with this arrangement so I suggested we enter this as a

trial” (Focus group participant).

“It’s not that much fun going to work in the morning and coming back in the traffic” (Focus group participant).

Avoid Commute



WorkWork--life Balance Seekers life Balance Seekers –– Able to Able to meet other life responsibilitiesmeet other life responsibilities

• Provides ability to fulfil parental and community responsibilities. The most valued aspects of this lifestyle are:

– Picking up children from school;

– Attending after school activities;

– Supporting other parents in the “morning rush”;

– Providing time for personal sport practices or exercise and are therefore able to meet health goals;

– Reducing stress by resolving work-life balance.

• Provides ability to gain uninterrupted and focused time to concentrate.

“The standard work week doesn’t fit with family, full

stop” (Focus group participant).

Work-life Balance Seekers



Pilot participants: • Profile of participants and participating organisations

• Paid overtime



During the Flexible Workplace Pilot

3%

97%

Typical travel behaviour (pre-Pilot)

3%

97%

Flexible workplace arrangements Flexible workplace arrangements have little or no impact on paid have little or no impact on paid overtime workedovertime worked

Worked paid overtime

Did not work paid overtime

Q8/ Q10. Base: All pre-Pilot survey respondents (n=770) and all Pilot survey respondents who worked during the final fortnight of the Pilot (n=628)

Did you work paid overtime in the previous fortnight?

Worked paid overtime

Did not work paid overtime



33%

1%

44%

30%

2%

51%

17%26%

0%

50%

100%

1-34 hours 35-39 hours 40+ hours Did not work

Pre-Pilot survey total sample Pilot survey total sample

How many hours did you actually work last week (i.e. week commencing 25 May (pre-Pilot survey) and week commencing 22 June (Pilot survey))/ previous week (i.e. week commencing 18 May (pre-Pilot survey) and week commencing 15 June (Pilot survey))?

Q4/ Q6. Base: All Pre-Pilot survey respondents (n=770), all Pilot survey respondents who worked during the final fortnight of the Pilot (n=628), compressed week workers (n=238), telecommuters (n=139), flexible hour workers (n=379)

Participants report fewer hours Participants report fewer hours worked during the Pilot, possibly as worked during the Pilot, possibly as a result of heightened awareness of a result of heightened awareness of daily start and finish timesdaily start and finish times

Pre-Pilot survey Pilot survey


Total Pilot (flexible workplace arrangements)

compressed work week

telecommuting flexible work hours

43%

27%

2%

46%

26%

1%

42%

32%

2%

29% 28%25%

0%

50%

100%

1-34 hours 35-39 hours 40+ hours Did not work



Motivations for participation



Motivations for participation relate Motivations for participation relate to workto work--life balance and barriers life balance and barriers relate to lack of cultural norms for relate to lack of cultural norms for flexible workplace arrangementsflexible workplace arrangements

From an employee perspective:From an employee perspective:

• Workplace lack norms for flexible workplace arrangements and employees are stigmatised for lack of presence...”the grave-yard shift has turned up”;

• Could be perceived as lacking commitment to the workplace;

• Commuter/ employee guilt when absent from work;

• Perceived lack of support from managers, e.g. arriving five minutes before leave time with extra workload demands;

• Fewer public transport options outside of peak hours;

• Perception that flexible workplace arrangements not perceived as for managers only for more junior employees;

• Barrier to career advancement;

• Obstacles to flexible workplace arrangements perceived as higher for senior managers due to their responsibilities for staff management and workload demands;

• Lack of social interaction on days not at work.

• Achievement of work-life balance;

• Time motivations (e.g. quality time, time savings);

• Greater productivity and work outputs;

• Cost savings (e.g. not commuting, not spending on work lunches etc.);

• Senior managers need to be the role models for flexibility;

• Test boundaries of what was acceptable practice in the workplace;

• Benefit to reducing personal carbon footprint;

• Congestion management (e.g. currently work in sustainable transport area);

• Contributing to society through participation and feedback;

• Testing if flexible workplace arrangements suit employees personal lifestyle;

• Ability to meet personal commitments at the time.

Barriers to Pilot participation:Motivations for Pilot participation:

“I really crave to have just a part of the time of the day where there’s no phone calls, e-mails or distractions”(Employee focus group participant).

“I think that people don’t see it…they see you leaving at

3.30pm and they go ‘look at that bludger’” (Employee focus

group participant).

Note: Findings sourced from qualitative focus groups.



Motivations for participation relate Motivations for participation relate to attracting quality staff and to attracting quality staff and barriers relate to challenge of barriers relate to challenge of technical supporttechnical support

From an employer perspective:From an employer perspective:

• Require technological support to ensure communication flows still occur

–Provide corporate electronic calendars to make earlier arrivals and departures to work more transparent and easier for everyone to see/ be aware of;

–Meetings by Skype;

–Remote access;

–Specialised software as required.

• Flexible workplace arrangements is a way to manage staff turnover as it producers happier staff

• To participate in an important government initiative on congestion

• To define the organisation as an attractive place to work

• To reward employees with time currency/ to add value to employees work packages

• To gain competitive advantage over other organisations for attraction and retention and attraction of quality employees;

• To be seen as a modern and up to date employer – seen as the way of the future

• Aligned with cost leadership in both time and money

• Reducing organisational carbon footprint

• Travelling during less congested times means the experience to/ from work is more pleasant which improves moral.

Barriers to Pilot participation:Motivations for Pilot participation:

“If this happened again in the future I would offer it to other

selected parts of the organisation” (Employer depth-

interview).

“Knowing which roles work and which are not suited.

Communication is also very important” (Employer depth-

interview).

Note: Findings sourced from qualitative focus groups and in-depth interviews.



Travel behaviour change



8 5

21

8

43

9

45

4

8

6

20 32

17

14

4716

23

29

8

23

41

73 1

5 4

624

9

30

21

50

0%

50%

100%

Typical travelbehaviour (pre-

Pilot)

Total pilot (flexibleworking

arrangements)

Compressed workweek

Telecommuting Flexible workinghours

1 to 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 to 14 days

Please indicate the number of days you worked over the past fortnight

Q7/ Q8. Base: All pre-Pilot survey respondents (n=770), all Pilot survey respondents who worked flexible work arrangements (n=628), compressed week workers (n=238), telecommuters (n=139), flexible hour workers (n=379)

Average9.23 days

Average8.58 days

Telecommuting and compressed Telecommuting and compressed work week eliminates some work week eliminates some journeys to workjourneys to work

Average8.39 days

Average7.76 days

Average8.79 days



Significantly less participants Significantly less participants worked in CBD while working worked in CBD while working flexible workplace arrangementsflexible workplace arrangements

During the Flexible Workplace Pilot

26%

74%


82%

18%

Worked from home or in a non-

CBD location

Worked from home or in a non-

CBD location

Worked in CBD

Worked in CBD

Q11. Base: All pre-Pilot survey respondents (n=770) and all Pilot survey respondents who worked during the final fortnight of the Pilot (n=628)

On which of the following days during the final fortnight of the Flexible Workplace Pilot did you…?

Amongst those who worked from home or in a non-CBD location, the following subgroups are significantly more likely to do this:

• Those aged 25 years or older (30%) compared with those aged 18 to 24 years (18%);

• Those working part time (56%) compared with those working full time (24%);

• Those who telecommuted during the Pilot (84%) compared with those who worked a compressed work week (11%) or worked flexible hours (22%).



Percentage changes in trips and Percentage changes in trips and kilometres travelledkilometres travelled

8% 8% Private vehicle

13% 12% Public transport

% of changes in trips

Public transport

% of changes in trips

Morning:

Afternoon:

39% 42% Active

9% 10% Private vehicle

12% 8%

14% 9% Active

• The following two tables provide an overview of the changed percentage of trips and kilometres travelled from working flexible workplace arrangements.

• Encouragingly, both the number of trips and kilometres travelled decrease, while activities such as walking and cycling increased as a result of working flexible workplace arrangements.

Note. Public transport includes bus, train and ferry; Private vehicle includes private car, truck, van and taxi; Active includes walking, cycling and travelling by wheelchair.

A decrease is represented as:

An increase is represented as:

% of changes in km

% of changes in km



The Pilot reduced morning weekday The Pilot reduced morning weekday peak hour travel (prepeak hour travel (pre--Pilot fortnight Pilot fortnight vs. Pilot fortnight)vs. Pilot fortnight)

Note. Figures estimated using normalised survey values

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Before 7am 7am - 9am After 9amBefore 7am 7am-9am After 9am

Pre-Pilot trips: 6441Pilot trips: 5888

Eliminated trips: 553

Morning Peak

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Pre-peak hour travel for Pilot participants increased by 157%

Peak hour travel for Pilot participants decreased by 34%


To

tala

gg

reg

ated

trip

s

Pre-Pilot

Pilot



The Pilot reduced afternoon The Pilot reduced afternoon weekday peak hour travel (preweekday peak hour travel (pre--Pilot Pilot fortnight vs. Pilot fortnight)fortnight vs. Pilot fortnight)

Afternoon Peak

To

tala

gg

reg

ated

trip

s

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Before 4pm 4pm - 6pm After 6pm

Pre-Pilot trips: 6375Pilot trips: 5873

Eliminated trips: 502

Before 4pm 4pm-6pm After 6pm


Peak hour travel for Pilot participants decreased by 32%

Post-peak hour travel for Pilot participants increased by 77%

Pre-Pilot

Pilot

Note. Figures estimated using normalised survey values



Travel into the CBD before 7am Travel into the CBD before 7am attracts males, those working in attracts males, those working in private organisations, and car usersprivate organisations, and car usersThe following subgroups are significantly more likely to start work before 7am while working flexible arrangements include:

• Males (42%) compared with females (33%);

• Those working for private organisations (47%) compared with those working for public organisations (33%);

• Those who drive to work using a car, truck or van (42%) compared with those who use public transport (32%) or other modes (30%);

• Those working flexible hours (44%) compared with those working a compressed work week (29%) or telecommuting (26%).

The following subgroups are significantly more likely to travel into the CBD between 7am and 9am while working flexible arrangements include:

• Those aged 35 to 44 years (73%) compared with those aged 55 to 64 years (60%);

• Those working for public organisations (73%) compared with those working for private organisations (50%);

• Participants who take public transport to work (74%) compared with those who use personal vehicles to drive to work (66%).

Those working part time (49%) compared with those working full time (29%) are significantly more likely to start work after 9am.



Similarly to morning peak times, Similarly to morning peak times, afternoon peak attracts public afternoon peak attracts public transport usage over other modes transport usage over other modes The following subgroups are significantly more likely to finish work before 4pm while working flexible arrangements include :

• Those who work part time than those who work full time (64% compared with 47%);

• Those who drive to work using personal vehicles than those who take public transport (53% compared with 46%).

The following subgroups are significantly more likely to travel out of the CBD between 4pm and 6pm while working flexible arrangements include :

• Those working for public organisations than those working for private organisations (81% compared with 60%);

• Those who use public transport (81%) compared with those who use personal vehicles (75%).

The following subgroups are significantly more likely to finish work after 6pm while working flexible arrangements include:

• Those working for private organisations public organisations (49% compared with 25%);

• Those who travel by personal vehicle out of the CBD (37% compared with those who used public transport 27%).



Implementation of flexible workplace Implementation of flexible workplace arrangements reduced travelarrangements reduced travel

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Mon15/6

Tues16/6

Wed17/6

Thurs18/6

Fri 19/6 Mon22/6

Tues23/6

Wed24/6

Thurs25/6

Fri 26/6

On which of the following days did you travel into the CBD area between 7am and 9am?

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Mon15/6

Tues16/6

Wed17/6

Thurs18/6

Fri 19/6 Mon22/6

Tues23/6

Wed24/6

Thurs25/6

Fri 26/6

Q11. Base: All pre-Pilot survey respondents (n=770) and all Pilot survey respondents who worked during the final fortnight of the Pilot (n=628)

On which of the following days did you travel out of the CBD area between 4pm and 6pm?

Morning:

Afternoon:


Total Pilot (flexible workplace arrangements



Peak travel congestion tends to Peak travel congestion tends to reduce more on Fridays, especially reduce more on Fridays, especially amongst compressed week workers amongst compressed week workers and telecommutersand telecommuters

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Mon15/6

Tues16/6

Wed17/6

Thurs18/6

Fri 19/6 Mon22/6

Tues23/6

Wed24/6

Thurs25/6

Fri 26/6

On which of the following days did you travel into the CBD area between 7am and 9am?

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Mon15/6

Tues16/6

Wed17/6

Thurs18/6

Fri 19/6 Mon22/6

Tues23/6

Wed24/6

Thurs25/6

Fri 26/6

On which of the following days did you travel out of the CBD area between 4pm and 6pm?

Morning:

Afternoon:

Q11. Base: compressed week workers (n=238), telecommuters (n=139), flexible hour workers (n=379)


telecommuting flexible work hours*



On which of the following days did you travel to work by……?

On which of the following days did you travel home from work by……?

Q12/ Q13. Base: Data normalised to 805 participants. Note. Data based on mode priority. Public transport includes bus, train and ferry; Private vehicle includes private car, truck, van and taxi; Active includes walking, cycling and travelling by wheelchair.

Pilot shows flexible workplace Pilot shows flexible workplace arrangements are not linked to arrangements are not linked to modal use modal use -- longer term Pilot may longer term Pilot may see modal shiftsee modal shift

9%

34%

57%

5%

32%

63%

5%

26%

70%

7%

30%

63%

4%

30%

65%

Active

Private vehicle

Public transport

8%

33%

59%

6%

30%

64%

6%

22%

71%

7%

29%

64%

6%

29%

65%

Active

Private vehicle

Public transport

Private vehicle

Active

Public transport







Fewer participants visit a shop or Fewer participants visit a shop or pick up/ drop off others during pick up/ drop off others during weekday peaks while working weekday peaks while working flexible workplace arrangementsflexible workplace arrangements

9%

11%

8%

25%

9%

9%

9%

10%

23%

20%

11%

12%

5%

32%

4%

9%

11%

7%

27%

10%

11%

11%

10%

34%

12%

Other activity

Visit a gym or otherplaces for exercise/

recreation

Pick up or drop othersoff

Visit a shop

Pick children up fromschool

Q14/ Q15. Base: All pre-Pilot survey respondents (n=770) and all Pilot survey respondents who worked during the final fortnight of the Pilot (n=628), compressed week workers (n=238), telecommuters (n=139), flexible hour workers (n=379)





Visit a shop

Other activity

Visit a gym or other places for exercise/ recreation

Pick up or drop others off

Take/ pick children up from school

16%

16%

9%

7%

6%

12%

14%

6%

7%

4%

6%

18%

3%

8%

5%

26%

12%

6%

5%

4%

12%

13%

7%

7%

4%

Other morning activities include: “walking”, “visiting friends”, “dropped car off for service”,

and ‘sport’ (Pilot survey

participants).

Other afternoon activities include: “appointments”, “visiting family”

and “studies” (Pilot survey

participants).

When travelling between 7am and 9am did you…?

When travelling between 4pm and 6pm did you…?



Experience with flexible workplace arrangements



2

3

1

39

41

35

38

45

48

56

48

10

7

9

6

2

1

12

1

3

2

-100% -50% 0% 50% 100%


Telecommuting


Total sample (Pilot)

2

2

37

34

33

35

49

58

57

528

7

7

2

2

5

2

2

1

1

1

-100% -50% 0% 50% 100%


Telecommuting

Compressed workweek


Strong support from managers and Strong support from managers and colleaguescolleaguesDuring the Flexible Workplace Pilot…..

My managers and supervisors supported the flexible workplace arrangements

My co-workers supported the flexible workplace arrangements

Q21. Base: All Pilot survey respondents who worked during the final fortnight of the Pilot (n=628), compressed week workers (n=238), telecommuters (n=139), flexible hour workers (n=379)Note: Findings here are positive despite being identified as a barrier from focus group studies.

DisagreeStrongly disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agreeDon’t know

Those more likely to agree that their managers and supervisors supported the flexible workplace arrangements include:

- those working in public organisations (55% compared with 41% private);

- those aged 55 to 64 years (92% than other age groups).

Those more likely to agree that their co-workers supported the flexible workplace arrangements include

- females (89% compared with 82% of males);

- those working in public organisations (88% compared with 78% private);

- those working a compressed work week than those working flexible hours.



34

34

37

19

20

17

19

11

13

11

11

18

15

12

1634

16

21

22

1

1

1

18

-100% -50% 0% 50% 100%


Telecommuting



1

1

29

29

26

29

54

64

64

58

11

6

7

92

3

11

2

1

1

-100% -50% 0% 50% 100%


Telecommuting



Strong agreement that flexible Strong agreement that flexible practices improve workpractices improve work--life balancelife balanceDuring the Flexible Workplace Pilot…..The flexible workplace arrangements improved my work-life balance

My work commitments affected my ability to participate in flexible workplace arrangements

Q21. Base: All Pilot survey respondents who worked during the final fortnight of the Pilot (n=628), compressed week workers (n=238), telecommuters (n=139), flexible hour workers (n=379)

……workload affected some workload affected some participantsparticipants’’ ability to participateability to participate

DisagreeStrongly disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agreeDon’t know

Those more likely to agree that flexible workplace arrangements improved their work-life balance include those aged 25 to 34 years and 55 to 64 years (92% respectively).

Those more likely to agree that their work commitments affected their ability to participated in flexible workplace arrangements include:

- males (36%), and;

- those aged 18 to 24 years (45%).



1

2

42

46

45

43

25

35

21

25

30

18

32

291

1

1

1

1

2

-100% -50% 0% 50% 100%


Telecommuting

Compressed workweek


Telecommuters cite higher levels of Telecommuters cite higher levels of productivity during the Pilot than productivity during the Pilot than those who adopted other practicesthose who adopted other practicesHow would you assess your productivity during the Pilot?


Somewhat reduced

Significantly reduced

Had no noticeable impact

Somewhat improved

Significantly improved

Don’t know

Seven in ten participants (68%) believe that working flexible arrangements improved their productivity.

Those more likely to cite improved productivity include:

- females (72% compared with males, 63%);

- those aged 25 to 34 years (74% compared with those aged 45 to 54 years, 62%), and;

- telecommuters (81% compared to those working a compressed work week (66%) or working flexible hours (67%).



1

1

1

17

9

14

16

75

85

78

76

7

6

6

71

1

-100% -50% 0% 50% 100%

Flexible work hours

Telecommuting

Compressed workweek


The majority would like to engage in The majority would like to engage in flexible workplace arrangements in flexible workplace arrangements in the next three monthsthe next three monthsHow likely would you be to engage in flexible work arrangements in the next 3 months?


Probably would notDefinitely would not Might or might not Probably would Definitely would

Three quarters of participants (76%) definitely would like to participate in flexible workplace arrangements in the next three months.

Those more likely to claim they would like to participate in flexible work arrangements in the next three months include those working in public organisations (93% than those working in private (87%).



13

4

3

4

1

1

7

6

4

29

27

44

42

43

42

21

25

33

35

39

43

13

12

13

8

7

148

6

1

4

422

20

3

-100% -50% 0% 50% 100%

Public transport availability

Congestion on the road network

Personal security when working and travellingoutside hours

Travel experience (to and from work)

The approval process

Access to your building and facilities

Thinking about your experience with flexible working hours, please rate your satisfaction with each aspect….

Q24. Base: Those who participated in flexible working hours (n=379)

DissatisfiedVery dissatisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Satisfied Very satisfiedDon’t know

Amongst those working flexible Amongst those working flexible hours, satisfaction high with access hours, satisfaction high with access to facilities, approval process, travel to facilities, approval process, travel experiences and securityexperiences and security

Those aged 18 to 24 years are more likely to be satisfied or very satisfied with the approval process (97%).

Females are more likely to be satisfied with congestion on the road network (57% compared with 44% of males). While around six in ten of those who drive to/ from work are satisfied with the level of congestion.



10

9

2

3

2

1

1

22

16

14

5

2

27

37

44

45

43

41

19

24

29

30

42

47

19

11

11

14

7

7

5

3

3

4

100 50 0 50 100

Congestion on theroad network

Public transportavailability

Personal security whenworking and travellingoutside core business

hours

Travel experience (toand from work)

Access to your buildingand facilities


Thinking about your experience with compressed work week, please rate your satisfaction with each aspect….

Q24. Base: Those who participated in compressed work week (n=238)

For those working a compressed workFor those working a compressed work week, satisfaction is high for approval week, satisfaction is high for approval process and building accessprocess and building access




Those aged 55 to 64 years are more likely to be satisfied with their personal security when working/ travelling outside core business hours (88%).



1

4

4

3

24

24

17

32

37

35

45

43

51

28

19

24

26

33

44

37

69

18

14

16

7

4

8

1

1

9

1

4

2

6

4

2

3

-100% -50% 0% 50% 100%

Cost of technology to facilitate telecommuting

Workplace health and safety assessmentrequirments of your home worksite

IT support and associated training available

Access to your email and files from home


Interaction with your manager, team and othersfrom your home worksite

Ability to concentrate and achieve work outcomes

Ability to concentrate is a key Ability to concentrate is a key benefit of telecommuting while benefit of telecommuting while technology is a challengetechnology is a challengeThinking about your experience with telecommuting, please rate your satisfaction with each aspect….

Q23. Base: Those who participated in telecommuting (n=140)




Those participating in telecommuting have a high level of satisfaction with most aspects. Access to email from home had the highest relative level of dissatisfaction (12% dissatisfied or very dissatisfied).

Females are more likely to be satisfied with interaction with their manager, team and others from home worksite (93% compared with 78% of men).



Challenges and enablers



Amongst employers, enablers Amongst employers, enablers related to role and level of related to role and level of experience and challenges relate to experience and challenges relate to trust and ability to plan workloadtrust and ability to plan workload

From an employer perspective:From an employer perspective:

• Perception of extra work involved for manager in terms of selecting employee and making sure they were supported:

–“It was another thing to do”;

• Communication is essential not just between manager and employee, but also within the team;

• Planning and being prepared for each day;

• Perception that flexible workplace arrangements are more suitable for organisations with a large number of employees;

• Require a level of trust to ensure work is being done and start and finish time are as agreed:

–It was felt that this would be particularly challenging for more senior managers as they were not used to working this way.

• Some concerns over the cost, time, spend, and technical requirements needed to participate in telecommuting.

• The role of the employee does not rely on

prompt and immediate feedback i.e. in

supportive or service areas;

• The employee has the ability to attend

meetings or meet deadlines given the

workload;

• Suitable to team members who perform

similar functions and able to interchange

roles or conduct tasks easily;

• Level of employee experience. This relates

to a combination of trust and ability to

conduct the work with little supervision;

• To achieve equity in the workplace – if it is

offered to some it must be offered to all;

• Employee performance;

• Ability to manage workload;

• Personal lifestyle i.e. those with families,

and those that live far from work;

• Usual working hours i.e. employee

preferred/ tend to work long hours (private

organisations).

Challenges when participating in flexible workplace arrangements:

Enablers for participating in flexible workplace arrangements:

“I didn’t think I would be like this but letting go and trusting that employees

were doing the right thing was a challenge” (Employer depth-

interview).

Note: Findings sourced from qualitative focus groups and in-depth interviews.



Enablers for participation relate to Enablers for participation relate to creating flexible workplace norm creating flexible workplace norm and challenges relate to managing and challenges relate to managing the unexpectedthe unexpected

From an employee perspective:From an employee perspective:

• Meeting workload commitments when unexpected requirements “pop up” which may require rescheduling and planning;

• Unpleasant commuting times because less public transport options available off-peak;

• Changing regime – waking up earlier or later;

• Perceptions of more work on agenda;

• Ability to get used to the change and developing a habit/ change in activities;

• Creating a workplace norm for flexible workplace arrangements “business as usual”;

• Individual managers and supervisors need relaxed and flexible attitudes which are supportive of actions;

• Technology to support remote access;

• Workplace engagement with flexibility to the point where it is supported with processes and structures;

• Ensure there are processes in place to cover absent commuters;

• Allow employee to tailor options to suit their circumstances, balanced with organisational needs.

Challenges when participating in flexible workplace arrangements:

Enablers for participating in flexible workplace arrangements:

Note: Findings sourced from qualitative focus groups and quantitative data.



Most common benefits relate to Most common benefits relate to better workbetter work--life balance, travel and life balance, travel and workplace experienceworkplace experienceWhat were the advantages and benefits for you when participating in the Flexible Workplace Pilot?

8%

4%

6%

9%

14%

18%

29%

33%

67%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Other

Support from managers/ colleagues

Physical benefits

Opportunity to participate/see if it would work

The flexibility

Psychological benefits

Improved workplace experience

Improved travel experience

Work-life balance achieved/enhanced

Q26. Base: All Pilot survey (n=630)Note: Please refer to appendix IV for a breakdown of the advantages cited.

Other benefits include: “Be part of a good cause”, “Felt better about taking time off!’, and “Opportunity to prove it does work”(Pilot survey participants).

Subgroups significantly more likely to agree with the advantage of “Less traffic/ shorter travelling times/ less travelling time” include those working in the private sector (35%), those who used a private vehicle to and from the CBD (34%), and telecommuters (40%).

Subgroups significantly more likely to agree with the advantage of “Increased workplace productivity/ more time to focus on specific issues/ able to structure and plan work more effectively” include females (28%), and telecommuters (33%).

There are no significant differences found for those who cited the advantage of ‘Work-life balance achieved/ enhanced’.



0%

6%

28%

1%

2%

3%

5%

6%

7%

7%

7%

10%

12%

14%

20%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Don’t know

Other

No disadvantages

Lack of information

Trying to accrue enough to take time off

No time for outside commitments

Workplace culture/ attitude

Lack of support from management

Technical issues

Issues related to not being in office

Getting used to the change

Worked extra

Getting up early/ leaving late meaning less timewith family/ to exercise as dark, cold or unsafe

Unpleasant travel experience

Workload/ work commitments

Disadvantages cited tend to relate to Disadvantages cited tend to relate to participantsparticipants’’ personal situationpersonal situation

What were the disadvantages, challenges or things that were difficult for you when participating in the Flexible Workplace Pilot?

Other disadvantages include: “Accessing files”, “Long hours”, and “Missing meetings” (Pilot survey participants).

Q27. Base: All Pilot survey (n=630)Note: Please refer to appendix IV for a breakdown of the disadvantages cited.

Those working a compressed work week (18%) are significantly more likely to agree with the disadvantage of “Workload/ work commitments” compared with those working flexible hours (11%).

Those working a compressed work week (14%) or flexible hours (13%) are significantly more likely to agree with the disadvantage of “Getting up early/ leaving work late which means less time with family or to exercise because it is dark, cold or unsafe” than telecommuters (2%).



Most popular benefits are workMost popular benefits are work--life life balance achieved, improved travel balance achieved, improved travel experience and improved workplace experience and improved workplace experienceexperienceWhat were the advantages and benefits for you when participating in the Flexible Workplace Pilot?

Q26. Base: All Pilot survey respondents (n=630); flexible working hours (n=380), worked a compressed work week (n=238), telecommuting (n=140)Note: Please refer to appendix IV for a breakdown of the advantages cited.

8%

4%

6%

9%

11%

20%

23%

21%

76%

9%

7%

8%

17%

11%

19%

41%

41%

59%

8%

3%

6%

10%

17%

17%

28%

37%

62%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Other

Support frommanagers/ colleagues

Physical benefits

Opportunity toparticipate/ see if it

would work

The flexibility

Psychologicalbenefits

Improved workplaceexperience

Improved travelexperience

Work-life balanceachieved/ enhanced





Nearly a third of those participating Nearly a third of those participating could not cite any disadvantages; could not cite any disadvantages; technical issues were the main technical issues were the main disadvantage for telecommutingdisadvantage for telecommutingWhat were the disadvantages, challenges or things that were difficult for you when participating in the flexible workplace Pilot?

Q27. Base: All Pilot survey respondents (n=630); flexible working hours (n=380), worked a compressed work week (n=238), telecommuting (n=140)Note: Please refer to appendix IV for a breakdown of the disadvantages cited.

6%

27%

2%

4%

4%

4%

6%

2%

8%

14%

6%

14%

11%

15%

9%

27%

1%

1%

2%

6%

6%

29%

11%

4%

7%

2%

6%

21%

6%

31%

1%

1%

3%

5%

5%

3%

6%

3%

11%

13%

19%

17%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Other

No disadvantages

Lack of information

Trying to accrue enough to take time off

No time for outside commitments

Workplace culture/attitude

Lack of support from management

Technical issues

Issues related to not being in office

Getting used to the change

Worked extra

Getting up early/ leaving late meaning lesstime with family/ to exercise as dark, cold or

unsafe

Unpleasant travel experience

Workload/Work commitments





Flexible working hours offers Flexible working hours offers additional time for personal additional time for personal commitments and responsibilitiescommitments and responsibilitiesWhat were your reasons for participating in flexible working hours?

Q18. Base: Those working flexible working hours (n=343)Note: Please refer to appendix V for a breakdown of the reasons cited.

1%

2%

4%

5%

6%

6%

17%

36%

54%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Initiative was offeredfor participation

Support frommanagement

Others areparticipating making it

easier

Opportunity to testflexible practices/

arrangements

Already on flexiblehours

Facilitated by flexiblehours

Improved workplaceexperience

Improved travelexperience

Work-life balanceachieved



Pilot provides an opportunity for Pilot provides an opportunity for participants to trial other practices participants to trial other practices rather than just flexible hoursrather than just flexible hoursWhat were your reasons for not participating in flexible working hours?

Q19. Base: Those not working flexible working hours (n=250)Note: Please refer to appendix V for a breakdown of the reasons cited.

1%

1%

3%

10%

14%

17%

17%

41%

54%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Peer pressure to workstandard hours

Does not facilitateother felxible work

arrangements

Lack of support frommanagement/

company

Difficulty for transportarrangements

Already on some kindof arrangement

Work commitments

Personalcommitments

Other arrangementssuited better

Work-life balanceachieved



By starting work earlier they felt By starting work earlier they felt more productive and alert in the more productive and alert in the mornings but some felt obliged to mornings but some felt obliged to stay late due to workloadstay late due to workload

• Early starts perceived as enhancing their productivity:

– They felt that they were more alert in morning than afternoon.

• Daily workplace presence:

– In the office on a daily basis means not having to find people to cover;– Gives ability to interact with workplace colleagues.

• Quality time during the day to focus and concentrate.• Where ‘core hours’ of work are mandated so that employees have set hours when all

are available to meet.

• Early start times for cyclists means perceived greater safety on less congested roads.

• Perceived personal safety issues if working late.

• Perception that employee is “invisible” to other colleagues if at work before them or after they have left;

– Resulting in “stigma” that not committed to workplace.

• Feel that people doing a ‘favour’ by covering for worker when not there.

• Perception that may be an obstacle to career progression.

• Perception that in reality would be a longer work week:

– I.e. if choose the early start would be unable to leave early due to workload demands thus resulting in a longer work week.

Benefits

Challenges




A long weekend/ additional day off A long weekend/ additional day off attracts compressed work week attracts compressed work week participantsparticipantsWhat were your reasons for participating in compressed work week?

Q18. Base: Those participating in a compressed work week (n=229)Note: Please refer to appendix VI for a breakdown of the reasons cited.

1%

1%

5%

4%

4%

9%

14%

20%

22%

25%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Better workplace structure

Personal recognition for reducing impacts oftravel

Cost savings

Fulfil study commitments

Opportunity to test/ see if suits role/ able toachieve work-life balance

Ability to accumulate hours and use them

Improved transport experience

Convenient

Work-life balance achieved

Wanted a day off each week/ fortnight



Length of day and personal Length of day and personal commitments means not everyone commitments means not everyone is able to work a compressed weekis able to work a compressed weekWhat were your reasons for not participating in compressed work week?

Q19. Base: Those not working in a compressed work week (n=392)Note: Please refer to appendix VI for a breakdown of the reasons cited.

1%

2%

2%

2%

6%

9%

15%

17%

18%

21%

30%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Need for formalisationof arrangement

Part time worker

Concerns about safety

Lack of support frommanagement

Already on flexiblearrangements

Difficulty in accruingsufficient time

Workloadcommitments

Difficulty in transportarrangements

Need office presence

Does not suit personalpreference

Other options moresuitable



Benefit of reduced travel produces Benefit of reduced travel produces personal cost savings and positive personal cost savings and positive environmental impacts while environmental impacts while difficulties arise in finding suitable difficulties arise in finding suitable staff to cover days offstaff to cover days off

• Travel cost savings:

– Fuel/ train or bus tickets/ wear and tear on car.

• Reduce pollution and carbon emissions.

• If Monday or Friday taken off – offer a longer weekend:

– A quality day off from work.

• Same day off each week:

– Provides a routine that benefits employee and organisation.

• Gives employee the ability to take time off from work at a time when other services are available:

– E.g., can attend physio, doctors, dentist and other appointments.

• Finding people to cover employees when not at work– Not for employees with skills that cannot be replicated by others.– Finding employees willing to take off days other than Mondays and Fridays.

• Work places not supporting a longer working day:– Breaks, workplace access, scheduling of meetings, perceived inflexibility of day off

when trying to arrange meetings.• Personal safety if working late in evening.• Perception that this would mean a longer work week:

– I.e., in reality would be a longer working day and would be required to work on chosen day off.

• Lack of presence when colleagues are present at work.

Benefits

Challenges




Avoiding travelling during peak time Avoiding travelling during peak time attracts participants to attracts participants to telecommutingtelecommutingWhat were your reasons for participating in telecommuting?

Q18. Base: Those participating in telecommuting (n=137)Note: Please refer to appendix VII for a breakdown of the reasons cited.

1%

4%

5%

7%

11%

13%

26%

38%

59%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Already on agreement prior to Pilot

Availability and suitability of technology

Support from management

Convenient

Opportunity to test flexible workarrangements/ perception that arrangements

will extend beyond Pilot

Stability of current job/ office environment

Increased productivity

Work-life balance achieved

Improved travel experience



Nature of work and document Nature of work and document security prevent take up of security prevent take up of telecommuting telecommuting What were your reasons for not participating in telecommuting?

Q19. Base: Those not participating in telecommuting (n=490)Note: Please refer to appendix VII for a breakdown of the reasons cited.

12%

29%

29%

39%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Perception thattelecommuting is not

feasible/ notsupported bymanagement

Other flexible workingpractices more

suitable

Nature of work

Insufficient resourcesoutside of office



Working at home offers Working at home offers concentration, allowing increased concentration, allowing increased productivity, as well as less travel productivity, as well as less travel expenseexpense

• Provides sustained quiet time for concentration:

– “I have to read a lot of technical reports and I find that the day I have at home is the day that I read my reports and I will get a lot more done on that day than I would if I was in the office”.

• Travel cost savings and work related expenses on the day.

• Reduce pollution and carbon emissions.

• Providing an extra level of flexibility for very valued employees:

– Employee retention.

• Technology provides an office presence:

– Employees report that people who contact them are unaware of their exact work location and assume they are in the office.

• Appears to be the option less likely to be offered by organisations.

• Adds a layer of complexity with support required for this option

– E.g., technology, health and safety checks, cost of remote access, confidentiality of work leaving premises.

• Type and nature of role requires instant reactivity:

– Not for employees with heavy client contact; senior managers who are required to be accessible at all times

• Working from home carries a stigma in the workplace culture:

– Employees ensuring (e.g. through email) they have a a workplace presence; anxiety that time not at work will be viewed negatively; managers not believing that employee is productive when working at home.

• Only for people close to retirement, long commutes to and from the CBD, or for very valued employees for whom exceptions are made.

Benefits

Challenges

Telecommuting



Demographic profiles



A majority of participants had A majority of participants had access to flexible workplace access to flexible workplace arrangements prior to the Pilot arrangements prior to the Pilot –– but but these were not necessarily utilisedthese were not necessarily utilised

Q3a (pre-Pilot survey). Base: All pre-Pilot survey respondents (n=770)

Prior to the commencement of the Pilot, which of the following options best describes your working hours?

3

63

24%

1

13

8

2

11

71%

5%

1%

0% 50% 100%

I attend work to rostered shifts, with fixedstarting and finishing times across the day,

evening or night (roster set)

I did not work flexible hours prior to thecommencement of the Pilot

I work Monday to Friday and must be presentat work (weekday set)

I attend work Monday to Friday, but canaccess flexible start and finish times

(workday agreed)

Public organisations Private organisations



Flexible working hours were the Flexible working hours were the most popular practice offered to most popular practice offered to participantsparticipants

3%

33%

51%

76%

0% 50% 100%

Don’t know/Can’tremember

Telecommuting

Compressed workweek


Q16. Base: All Pilot survey respondents (n=630)

Which practices were you offered to participate in as part of the Flexible Workplace Pilot?

Those offered flexible working hours are significantly more likely to be those working in private organisations (90%) than public organisations (72%).

Those offered telecommuting are significantly more likely to be:

• Those aged 35 years or older (38%) compared with those aged 18 to 24 years (15%);

• Those working part time (53%) compared with those working full time (32%);

• Those working in public organisations (35%) compared with those working in private organisations (24%).

Those offered compressed work week are significantly more likely to be:

• Those working full time (54%) compared with those working part time (18%);

• Those working in public organisations (59%) compared with those working in private organisations (22%).



• Flexible working hours was the most common initiative participated in, followed by compressed work week, and telecommuting. A profile of those participating in each practice is as follows:

Flexible working hours was the Flexible working hours was the most popular practice, followed by most popular practice, followed by the compressed work weekthe compressed work week


19

36

43 60%

3

2

17

38%

22%

0% 50% 100%

Telecommuting

Compressed workweek

Flexible workinghours

Which practices did you actually participate in?Public Private

Those who telecommuted are significantly more likely to:• Be aged over 35 years of age (30%) compared with those younger (10%);• Work part time (50%) rather than full time (20%);• Work in public organisations (24%) rather than private (15%).

Those who worked a compressed work week are significantly more likely to:• Be female (40%) than male (34%);• Work in a public organisation (44%) than private (11%);• Take public transport home (42%) than drive home (34%);• Work full time (40%) rather than part time (5%).

Those who participated in flexible working hours are significantly more likely to:• Be male (65%) than female (57%);• Be working in a private organisation (86%) than public (54%);• Drive to and from work (65%) rather than use public transport (58%);• Work part time (80%) rather than full time (59%).



Participants that did telecommuting and flexible

work hours

Participants used a combination Participants used a combination of flexible working practicesof flexible working practices

• Of those who cited their primary mode as flexible working hours, nearly half also participated in telecommuting.

• Similarly, nearly 20% of those who cited their primary mode as telecommuting also participated in flexible working hours.

• Amongst those who participated in the compressed working week, there was a fairly equal split of those who participated in flexible working hours and telecommuting (14% and 11%, respectively).

• Below is a diagram indicating the number of participants that participated in each of the three flexible workplace arrangements.

Telecommuting (140)

Compressed work week (238)

6 17767

57 45

268

10

Flexible work hours (380)

Participants that did Compressed work week and Flexible work hours

Participants that did telecommuting and compressed work week

Participants that did telecommuting, compressed work week and flexible work

hours

18

14 11

48

7

23

0% 50% 100%

Telecommuting



Flexible work hours Telecommuting Compressed work week


Which practices did you actually participate in?



66%

34%


(n=238)

59%64%Female

41%36%Male

Flexible working hours (n=380)

Telecommuting (n=140)Gender

1%

99%


(n=238)

8%14%Part time employee

91%86%Full time employee


Telecommuting (n=140)Work Status

Telecommuting and flexible hours is Telecommuting and flexible hours is a viable option for some parta viable option for some part--time time workers; compressed work week workers; compressed work week does not appear to be an optiondoes not appear to be an option

Those aged 35 to 54 years are more Those aged 35 to 54 years are more likely to participate in telecommutinglikely to participate in telecommuting

1%

14%

27%

20%

29%

10%


(n=238)

10%11%55-64

0%-65 years or

over

26%30%45-54

27%40%35-44

28%17%25-34

8%2%18-24


Telecommuting (n=140)Age

The following tables provide a The following tables provide a demographic profile of Pilot demographic profile of Pilot participantsparticipants



Organisations who participated in Organisations who participated in the Flexible Workplace Program the Flexible Workplace Program ––Brisbane Central PilotBrisbane Central Pilot

n=6

n=8

n=1

n=19

n=1

n=8

n=7

n=15

n=3

n=4

n=58

n=20

n=10

n=9

n=254

n=40

n=22

n=8

n=24

n=30

n=83

Pilot participants (n=630)

Corrective Services

Shared Services Agency

Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland

Transfield Services

Sinclair Knight Merz

Currie & Brown

AECOM

Hyder Consulting

GHD

Dept of Premier and Cabinet

Dept of Justice and Attorney-General

Dept of Environment and Resource Management

Dept of Community Safety

Brisbane City Council

Mirvac

QUT

KPMG

Queensland Treasury

Public Service Commission

Dept of Transport and Main Roads

Dept of Public Works (including CITEC, QBuild)

Organisation

PU

BL

IC

PR

IVA

TE

Note: These are the number of participants who completed the post-survey and does not represent the complete number of participants to worked flexible workplace arrangements during the Pilot.



Majority of participants appear to Majority of participants appear to have office roles with greater than have office roles with greater than average independence and the average independence and the ability to manage their own ability to manage their own workloadworkload

10%

11%

12%

45%

21%

Pilot Participants

(n=630)

9%3%17%Advanced Clerical and Service Workers

14%14%8%Associate Professionals

46%48%43%Professionals

21%30%21%Managers and Administrators

11%


(n=238)

10%5%Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service Workers

Flexible working

hours (n=380)Telecommuting

(n=140)Occupations

Note: See Australian Bureau of Statistics for details definition of each occupation. ABS data captured from the 2006 census and covers a similar geographic area as to where Pilot participants live. Results are only a guide and should be interpreted as indicative only.



Birkdale/ Ormiston

Victoria Point

Redland Bay

Sandgate

Woody Point

Scarborough

Redcliffe

Griffin

Joyner

Cashmere

Lutwyche

Nundah

Strathpine

Brookfield

Kenmore Hills

Chapel Hill

Kenmore

Mango Hill

BardonPaddington

Mt Coot-tha

Hamilton/ Eagle FarmWindsor

Newmarket

Alderley

Everton Park

Everton Hills

Grovely

Mitchelton

Enoggera

Ashgrove

St Lucia

Pinjarra Hills

River HillsMoggill

Bridgeman Downs

Chermside

Brendale

Albany Creek

Brighton

Bracken RidgeShorncliffe

Nudgee

Boondall

Aspley

Clayfield

Rothwell

Clear Mountain

Ferny Hills

Samford Village

Ferny Grove

Camp Mountain

GoodnaGailes

Springfield

Forest LakeSpringwood

Rochedale SouthEight Mile Plains

Sunnybank

MacGregor

Upper MtGravatt

MtGravatt

Holland Park

Carina HtsCarindale

Priestdale

Rochedale

Bullimba

Hawthorne

East Brisbane

Most participants live in North Most participants live in North BrisbaneBrisbane



Appendices



Appendix I: Summary overview of Appendix I: Summary overview of research design research design -- quantitativequantitative

Margin of error

Average interview length

Survey field period

• Detailed below are the margin of errors associated with each of the below sample sizes at the 95% confidence interval.

• The margin of error indicates the degree of reliability of results. For example the margin of error associated with a sample size of770 is ±3.5% at the 95% confidence interval, this means that if the survey was repeated 100 times, the results would fall within±3.5%, 95 out of 100 times.

• The pre-Pilot survey averaged 15 minutes and the Pilot survey averaged 27 minutes.

• Pre-Pilot survey: 1 June - 12 June 2009 • Pilot survey: 30 June - 8 July 2009

Weighting• Travel behaviour and modal use are reported based on

normalised data (n=805), however the rest of the report contains unweighted data.

Response rate • Pre-Pilot survey: 86.71%• Pilot survey: 70.95%

±5.0%n=379- Flexible hour workers

±8.3%n=139- Telecommuters

±6.4%n=238- Compressed work week workers

±3.9%n=630Pilot survey

±3.5%n=770Pre-Pilot survey

Margin of error at the 95% confidence interval

Sample size



Appendix II: Stages of change model Appendix II: Stages of change model

1. PRECONTEMPLATION

• No awareness/understanding

• Not considered how action might be relevant

• No immediate drivers

• To move to contemplation need to acquire:

–Awareness/ understanding at some level;

–Motivation;

–Some level of knowledge.

2. CONTEMPLATION

• Aware

• Considering benefits and drawbacks

• Information seeking –actively or passively

• To start to change need to acquire:

– Conviction;

–Willingness/ openness to change;

–Effort;

–Pro-activity.

3. PREPARATION

• Decided action is appropriate

• Decide to take action

• Trying to make it happen

• To move to action need to acquire:

–Urgency;

–Confidence;

–Empowerment.

4. ACTION &

MAINTENANCE

• Take action

• To sustain action need:

–Achievement.

STAGES OF CHANGE

• The Stages of Change (SCM) model* can be used to understand where participants currently sit in terms of flexible workplace arrangements and where they should be ideally.

*Note: The Stages of Change Model was developed by Prochaska & DiClemente



Appendix III: NonAppendix III: Non--Participant Participant Hypothesised ProfilesHypothesised Profiles

Job I Do

• Employees who lack the ability to participate in flexible workplace arrangements as their jobs are deemed not suitable for flexible work practices:

– e.g. those required to be at customer counters.

Not Allowed

• Managers distrust employees when not present at work:

– Make individual decisions not to allow employees to participate or actively discourage participation.

Job I Do

Not Allowed

“We (in HR) picked people who would be appropriate to do it

on the basis of their roles; policy roles, HR roles, roles where

there’s limited client contact” (Focus group participant).

Entrenched Habits

• Employees do not engage with flexible workplace arrangements because of routine work and commuting practices.

• Not aware of benefits.

• Inertia to changing habits.

• Limited motivation for having personal time.

• Presence at work is seen as a requirement for productivity.

• Employees can be viewed as gaining the “flexibility” through throwing “sickies”.

• “I do think there is an ingrained way of doing work, a throwback to when we were hammering things out in the production line”.

• Senior managers seen as stuck in the status quo more than employees due to nature of their managerial role.

EntrenchedWork Habits


“We need to see you sitting at your desk…you know that type” (Focus group

participant).


• Colleagues or managers who are not trusting of employees unless present at their desk:

– Viewed as “old-school” and “backward” by Pilot participants.

• Employees who perceive their home environment as not conducive to working.



Appendix IV: Advantages and Appendix IV: Advantages and disadvantages of participating in the disadvantages of participating in the Flexible Workplace PilotFlexible Workplace Pilot

Q26. What were the advantages and benefits for you when participating in the Flexible Workplace Pilot?

• Work-life balance achieved/ enhanced: work-life balance achieved/ enhanced (25%), more time/ more quality time to spend with family/ friends (20%), able to attend personal commitments/ make appointments (without having to take a leave day/ use a lunch break) (15%), got to work/ home earlier (able to drop off/ pick up kids/ get dinner/ enjoy daylight hours at home) (13%), have enough time for household tasks/ errands (freeing up time in weekend for relaxation/ other pursuits) (7%), having a day to myself/ reduced working fortnight/ a longer weekend (7%), More time to exercise/ go to the gym (5%);

• Improved travel experience: less traffic/ shorter travelling times/ less travelling time (freeing up time for other things) (27%), trains/ buses less congested/ travelling more enjoyable/ comfortable (9%);

• Improved workplace experience: increased workplace productivity/ more time to focus on specific issues/ able to structure/ plan work more effectively (25%), improved workplace environment – less interruptions/ distractions (phones ringing/ other staff/ meetings)/ office is quieter (11%);

• Cost benefit: cost benefit (on travel/ parking/ childcare) (5%);

• Psychological benefits: psychological benefits – feel happier/ less stressed/ have better morale (feel valued and trusted by employer)/ better able to focus/ more satisfied with work (18%);

• The flexibility: the flexibility (including able to choose day off/ choose work hours/ fits in with family’s work/ travel arrangements/ better adapted to my body clock) (12%), opportunity to build up flexitime/ use banked time/ reduce accrued time off (2%);

• Opportunity to participate/ see if it would work: opportunity to show management/ other staff that flexible work arrangements can work (without adversely affecting work deliverables/ without detriment to the team) (3%), the chance to see if flexible work arrangements were suitable for me (3%), already had a flexible work arrangement in place/ helped formalise existing flexible work arrangement (3%);

• Physical benefits: physical benefits – feel less tired/ more refreshed (6%);

• Support from managers/ colleagues: that management/ fellow colleagues and other participants were supportive/ encouraging (3%).

Q27. What were the disadvantages, challenges or things that were difficult for you when participating in the Flexible Workplace Pilot?

• Workload/ work commitments: workload/ work commitments (including unexpected requirements/ some work practices/ meetings/ being called on RDO/ telecommuting day) (13%), organisation/ scheduling of commitments/ co-ordination/ communication with co-workers (8%);

• Unpleasant travel experience: unreliable public transport (3%), longer commuting times (slow public transport/ traffic congestion) (4%), trains/ buses less frequent/ not at times convenient for me (8%), crowded buses/ trains (1%);

• Getting up early/ leaving late: getting up early/ leaving late (less time with family/ to exercise/ dark/ cold/ unsafe) (12%);

• Worked extra: trying to leave work earlier (emergencies/ workload)/ tended to work extra hours (7%), extra work – getting prepared for RDO/ telecommuting day/ unanswered emails/ backlog of work (after RDO/ earlier finish) (3%);

• Getting used to the change: getting used to the change – working longer days (compressed week)/ different start/ finish times/ working from home (7%).



Appendix IV: Advantages and Appendix IV: Advantages and disadvantages of participating in the disadvantages of participating in the Flexible Workplace Pilot, Flexible Workplace Pilot, continuedcontinued

• Issues related to not being in the office: issues raised by staff shortages (leave/ sickness/ lack of trained staff) (2%), not being visible/ there in person/ readily accessible to staff (including unable to supervise/ attend meetings/ answer emails) (3%), feelings of isolation/ disconnection from the workplace (2%);

• Technical issues: technical issues (problems with remote access/ slow network/ lack of IT support) (7%);

• Lack of support from management: lack of management’s full support of the arrangement/ management’s perception of “flexible” (6%);

• Workplace culture/ attitude: workplace culture/ attitude – stigma attached to people leaving earlier/ arriving later than normal/ perception of reduction of responsiveness/ availability (5%);

• No time for outside commitments: not having time/ trying to find time for outside commitments (personal/ family/ social) (3%);

• Trying to accrue enough to take time off: trying to build up the time/ accruing enough hours to take a dayoff (2%);

• Lack of information: lack of information/ communication regarding the trial (including to others in the workplace also) (1%).



Appendix V: Reasons for Appendix V: Reasons for participating and not participating in participating and not participating in the Flexible Workplace Pilot the Flexible Workplace Pilot ––Flexible HoursFlexible Hours

Q18. What were your reasons for participating in flexible hours?

• Work-life balance achieved: additional time for personal commitments/ family responsibilities and lifestyle/ personal suitability (54%);

• Improved travel experience: avoid the need to travel during peak hour/ on a congested network/ more comfortable journey (less stress and more personal and/ or work time) (31%), save on travel cost and help the environment/ alleviating congestion by avoiding peak traffic (4%), ability to find a parking space at train/ bus stops (1%);

• Improved workplace experience: improved productivity due to increase in focus, commitment and less distractions outside of core business hours and being able to adapt workloads to staff requirements (11%), suitability of current job responsibility/ office environment/ business needs to undertake flexible hours during the Pilot (compared to compressed work week or telecommuting) (6%);

• Facilitated by flexible hours: flexible hours facilitated compressed work week (4%), help promote flexible work practices (2%);

• Already on flexible hours: already on flexible hours arrangements prior to the Pilot (6%);

• Opportunity to test flexible practices/ arrangements: opportunity to test whether current job scope/ personal suitability is suitable for long term flexible hours arrangements (5%);

• Others are participating making it easier: others (spouse, flatmates, colleagues) are participating (in some form of shift work or flexible arrangements) making it easier to organise car pooling and extra motivation afforded to each other (4%);

• Support from management: active encouragement and support from management (2%);

• Initiative was offered for participation: initiative was offered for participation during Pilot (1%).

Q19. What were your reasons for not participating in flexible hours?

• Other arrangements suited better: opportunity to participate in other flexible work practices/ other arrangements suited work-life balance or business requirements better (41%);

• Personal commitments: unable to start early/ finish early or start later/ finish later due to personal reasons (personal commitments and lifestyle) (17%);

• Work commitments: unable to start early/ finish early or start later/ finish later due to business needs/ nature of work/ workloads (17%);

• Already on some kind of arrangement: already on some kind of arrangement for flexible hours prior to the Pilot (14%);

• Difficulty for transport arrangements: unable to start early/ finish early or start later/ finish later due to the lack of suitable public transport/ car park at stations (5%); difficulty in transport arrangements (such as car pooling with friends and spouse) (3%), unable to start early/ finish early or start later/ finish later due to long travel time (2%);

• Lack of support from management/ company: unsupportive HR policies and tools (time sheets, spread of hours, access cards into building and facilities) (2%), the lack of management support and encouragement to work flexible hours (1%);

• Does not facilitate other flexible workplace arrangements: does not facilitate the adoption of other flexible work arrangements (1%);

• Peer pressure to work standard hours: peer pressure to work the standard hours (9am – 5pm) (1%).



Appendix VI: Reasons for Appendix VI: Reasons for participating and not participating in participating and not participating in the Flexible Workplace Pilot the Flexible Workplace Pilot ––compressed work weekcompressed work week

Q18. What were your reasons for participating in compressed work week?

• Wanted a day off each week/ fortnight: wanted a day off each week/ fortnight (benefits of a long weekend) (25%);

• Work-life balance achieved: better work-life balance – ability to pursue personal responsibilities/ tasks (18%), spend more time with family (4%);

• Convenient: convenience/ most suitable option – personal and professional (16%), flexibility of practice (4%);

• Improved transport experience: travel time savings/ avoiding travel and congestion (13%), easier public transport options (1%);

• Ability to accumulate hours and use them: ability to accumulate hours and use them (9%);

• Curiosity/ support team members: curiosity/ support team members (4%);

• Fulfil study commitments: fulfil study commitments (4%);

• Cost savings: cost savings (1%);

• Personal recognition for reducing impacts of travel: personal recognition for reducing congestion/ environmental impacts of travel (1%);

• Better workplace structure: enables a better structured approach to workplace operations (1%).

Q19. What were your reasons for not participating in compressed work week?

• Other options more suitable: other options more suitable for work-life balance (30%);

• Does not suit personal preference: length of standard day required does not suit personal preference (21%);

• Need office presence: a need to be present in the office/ type of role not suitable/ nature of work and responsibility necessitates presence (18%);

• Difficulty in transport arrangements: difficulty in transport arrangements (such as car pooling with friends and spouse) (7%), travel time is too long (on top of normal working hours) (7%), public transport availability (outside of peak periods) (3%);

• Workload commitments: workload too high to use the accumulated time (15%);

• Difficulty in accruing sufficient time: difficulty in accruing sufficient time (sick days, outside appointments, family responsibilities, etc.) to maintain the arrangement (9%);

• Already on flexible arrangements: already doing this prior to the Pilot or think it may be a better option for them (3%), already on other flexible work arrangements and compressed work week does not facilitate or accommodate other arrangements (3%);

• Lack of support from management: lack of management support (2%);

• Concerns about safety: concerns about safety (travelling in the dark) (2%);

• Part time worker: part time worker (2%);

• Need for formalisation of arrangement: the need for an approval process and formalisation of arrangement (1%).



Appendix VII: Reasons for Appendix VII: Reasons for participating and not participating in participating and not participating in the Flexible Workplace Pilot the Flexible Workplace Pilot ––telecommutingtelecommuting

Q18. What were your reasons for participating in telecommuting?

• Improved travel experience: avoid need to travel during peak/ on congested network/ long commutes (less stress and more personal/ work time) (48%), reduce carbon footprint from commuting/ alleviate congestion on road and public transport network (5%), save on the cost of travel (4%), avoid the need for travel for safety reasons (reduced risk of injury and lower insurance premium) (2%);

• Work-life balance achieved: assists with family (kids, errands, tradesperson and contribute to work (avoid need for day off) (25%), provide better work-life benefits (13%);

• Increased productivity: increased productivity from working from home (no interruptions, more efficient and able to start when want to) (26%);

• Stability of current job/ office environments: stability of current job/ office environment to undertake telecommuting during the Pilot (compared to others) (13%);

• Opportunity to test flexible workplace arrangements/ perception that arrangements will extend beyond pilot: opportunity to test if current job/ personal life suitable for long-term telecommuting (existing technology and other initiatives) (10%), perception that telecommuting arrangements will extend beyond the Pilot’s period (1%);

• Convenient: appeal of general convenience afforded (opportunity to work from home at least one day a week) (7%);

• Support from management: active encouragement and support by management (5%);

• Availability and suitability of technology: the availability and suitability of current technology to support arrangements (able to contact colleague and emails) (4%);

• Already on agreement prior to Pilot: already on agreement prior to Pilot (1%);

• Avoid the need to be at work during injury/ illness: avoid the need to be at work during recuperation period from an injury or illness (1%).

Q19. What were your reasons for not participating in telecommuting?

• Insufficient resources outside of office: inability to access resources at home (laptop, high speed internet, email, files network) and to use PC to access and work on files (21%), the lack of space dedicated for work (quiet place free from distractions and inadequate workspace at home) (5%), difficulty in setting up a telecommuting arrangement and the administrative paperwork that is involved such as WH&S (5%), the difficulty in bringing home resources for a short time (laptop, heavy files) and security (4%);

• Nature of work: nature of work (confidential documents, client/ manager contact) does not allow/ not suited (workload, meeting, manager’s requests/ responsibility) (29%);

• Other flexible working practices more suitable: other flexible working practices more suitable (29%);

• Perception that telecommuting is not feasible/ not supported by management: perception that telecommuting is not feasible and would not achieve business objectives/ prefer to have traditional face-to-face interactions for maximum efficiency (8%), perception that telecommuting is not supported by management/ organisational culture (4%);

• Not offered as option for Pilot: it was not offered as an option for the Pilot (1%).

Flexible Workplace Program – Brisbane Central …/media...flexible work arrangements. Almost 900...

Documents

Transcript of Flexible Workplace Program – Brisbane Central …/media...flexible work arrangements. Almost 900...