If Work From Home becomes a thing...

PhilOssophy

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I understand that, but people jumping to conclusions like micromanaged hell hole or that it must be a p1ss hole call centre (which I would add I'm sure provide thousands of jobs to mainly young people who appreciate them to start them off in life on a career) was not sharing experiences.

I understand that places are different and I was just using it as an example of the type of thing management would use (if they had found out) to further their argument that WFH doesn't work, if that is how they feel about it to start with.

Our organisation is flexible and generally people are left to their own devices, but sometimes things crop up and are needed urgently. Cest la vie. Get on with it, if it was going to take 2 days the CFO wouldn't have just asked so ad hoc.

I'll leave the debate there.

I think the point people are making as that your thinking for why WFH won’t be adapted across the board would be reasons that wouldn’t apply in an awful lot of workplaces (that are suitable for wfh which are usually skilled to high skilled type roles).

That being said the person you tried to contact was being a bit foolish not having is phone on him. If I’m off away from my desk at a time I might be getting emails or on the very rare occasion a call I have my phone on me (who doesn’t have their phone on them 24/7 nowadays?) and push notifications on my emails etc not that they would be even urgent but I like to see what’s coming in email wise even across weekends and evenings etc.

storker

The Spider wrote: »

[...] and yes as has been mentioned middle managers will find it harder to get ahead not being in the office or they may become surplass to requirements as their teams carry on without much interference from them.

I understand the fear and need to get back to an office if you essentially aren't producing outputs but your team is

Electric Sheep

In my experience, confident managers are usually fine with wfh, it is the managers who lack confidence either in themselves, their teams or both that feel the need for bums on seats in the office.

ELM327

Electric Sheep wrote: »

In my experience, confident managers are usually fine with wfh, it is the managers who lack confidence either in themselves, their teams or both that feel the need for bums on seats in the office.

Agreed. Presenteeism is best left in the 90's where it belongs.

If I can do my day's work in 4 hours or 10, what difference does it make to the company, once my days work is done.
Many moons ago, I was hourly and made sure to clock out and leave at exactly 40 hours done.
Now (without micromanagement) I'm checking emails on my phone at midnight if I cant sleep. See the difference?

PhilOssophy makes a valid case for this scenario and I agree.

If people treat WFH as coming and going as everyone pleases, how can it possibly work.

In his scenario, what if PhilOssophy stepped away for an hour while his colleague was? Then the CFO has to wait two hours. If the CFO happened to go away just as the data was gathered, it could be three hours before he looks at it.

A three hour delay for something that could be retrieved in a few minutes if people were at their desks like they are supposed to is acceptable ?

beauf

You're implying its completely reasonable to expect someone to be at their desk all day with no breaks. Because that's the only way to find them and the only way to get the information with a few minutes of a request that can come at anytime day or night 24/7

Because as soon as you bring in breaks, holidays or any one of a hundred other possibilities etc this "communication system" is broken.

Not only does that not work for WFH it doesn't work even if you are in the office.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

You're implying its completely reasonable to expect someone to be at their desk all day with no breaks.

Away from your desk for an hour is not a break.
It's going awol.

People gets breaks at lunch time and usual scheduled times in the morning and afternoon.

People coming and going as they please throughout the day will make WFH not feasible for many organisations.

storker

salonfire wrote: »

Away from your desk for an hour is not a break.
It's going awol.

People gets breaks at lunch time and usual scheduled times in the morning and afternoon.

People coming and going as they please throughout the day will make WFH not feasible for many organisations.

It's not difficult to work around. I've never worked anywhere where you couldn't slip out to run an errand, take and extra long lunch or leave a bit early for some reason as long at the rest of the team was informed, including the team-leader or manager, and the time made up later or taken as a quid pro quo for something else. I treat WFH the same way - if I'm going to be away from my computer or uncontactable for more than a few minutes, I inform those who need to know - just like I would do in the office.

Electric Sheep

salonfire wrote: »

Away from your desk for an hour is not a break.
It's going awol.

People gets breaks at lunch time and usual scheduled times in the morning and afternoon.

Nobody on my team has scheduled breaks. We come and go as we lease as long as we are there for scheduled meetings.

I wouldn't work somewhere where I had to ask permission to take a break.

beauf

salonfire wrote: »

Away from your desk for an hour is not a break.
It's going awol.

People gets breaks at lunch time and usual scheduled times in the morning and afternoon.

People coming and going as they please throughout the day will make WFH not feasible for many organisations.

This is no longer about WFH its about archaic work practises in the office.

So how do you have meetings, go to someone else's desk to mentor them, or office, work off-site, meetings off site, travel if you can't leave your desk. We've also got Flexitime. Someone might be on a diet day anything.

My day today was pretty much all meetings. If I had been in the office I'd have spent less than an hour at my desk. I wouldn't have been near my work phone or my PC to get the email or call for hours.

Electric Sheep

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Nobody on my team has scheduled breaks. We come and go as we lease as long as we are there for scheduled meetings.

I wouldn't work somewhere where I had to ask permission to take a break.

So how is anyone supposed to schedule a meeting with you between your existing meetings and your going away from your desk as you please?

Of course it's handier for you to do what you want. But it's not effective way of working for the company or colleagues as the example illustrates.

If there is a junior you are working with and he takes his lunch at 12 and you take yours at 2, that's an hour's less of an overlap you have of working together. That's five hours less per week support time the newbie can call on you as he gets stuck.

Electric Sheep

salonfire wrote: »

So how is anyone supposed to schedule a meeting with you between your existing meetings and your going away from your desk as you please?

Of course it's handier for you to do what you want. But it's not effective way of working for the company or colleagues as the example illustrates.

You schedule meetings at least a day in advance and attendees work around it. It's considered pretty rude to just call a meeting on the day unless it's a production issue.

I presume you have heard of Outlook.

beauf

salonfire wrote: »

So how is anyone supposed to schedule a meeting with you between your existing meetings and your going away from your desk as you please?

Of course it's handier for you to do what you want. But it's not effective way of working for the company or colleagues as the example illustrates.

If there is a junior you are working with and he takes his lunch at 12 and you take yours at 2, that's an hour's less of an overlap you have of working together. That's five hours less per week support time the newbie can call on you as he gets stuck.

That's micromanaging in all its glory.

No one can function without being managed by the person above. No schedule, just constant unplanned interruption. No autonomy. Ticking all the boxes and then some. It's the opposite of efficient.

There's is no doubt however that some people are unable to work in any other way.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

That's micromanaging in all its glory.

No one can function without being managed by the person above. No schedule, just constant unplanned interruption. No autonomy. Ticking all the boxes and then some. It's the opposite of efficient.

There's is no doubt however that some people are unable to work in any other way.

That's nice, but you still haven't explained how to avoid the scenario as exampled in this thread.

beauf

salonfire wrote: »

That's nice, but you still haven't explained how to avoid the scenario as exampled in this thread.

Which scenario there's been more than one.

https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-01-15

Maybe you mean this one...

salonfire wrote: »

So how is anyone supposed to schedule a meeting with you between your existing meetings and your going away from your desk as you please?....

This seems to suggest your only form of communication is either person, or via their desk phone. Is that a genuine question?

thewolfisloose

krissovo wrote: »

I plan my weekly schedule and block book slots in dairy, if colleagues need to get me they will book a slot and I am available For them. I have never had an issue with being available as we all work in a similar way. The company trusts us to get the job done. If we struggle to book a meeting slot with the whole team for an important meeting we indicate it in the invite and most will make alternate arrangements for the kids. If they cannot make arrangements then often they will have a child on their lap for the meeting.

I think failing on these basic tasks is a dead giveaway as you suss the competency of a new colleague. If they've graduated into a manager/team lead role and can't book in a meeting via Outlook or distribute minutes of a meeting then chances are your team are in for a gruelling and directionless 6-9 months!

Banana Republic.

bilbot79 wrote: »

I'd be tempted to buy a little apartment in the Canaries and spend my winters there, in fact I'd probably

1/ Sell my Dublin gaff

2/ By a cheaper Irish gaff in the countryside

3/ Buy a place in the Canaries

4/ Buy another place somewhere in Europe, Hvar or somewhere like that

And just spend weeks and months in each place.

How would the rest of you exploit work from home if you had it permanently?

That all sounds great but I’m sure you need a permanent address then having one for 6 months and then somewhere else for 3 months then another for 3 months this sounds fanciful at best. WFH isn’t a free pass, that’s how WFH wouldn’t work for some companies and individuals cause they think it’s a holiday job then.

Going down stairs for a cuppa tea is fine but leaving the house and just generally doing whatever you want will kill any long term benefit & puts your job at risk WFH. The one thing it demands is personal responsibility and then it’s the best move ever. I still treat it exactly like I’m in the office. It’s the best way to approach it from the start otherwise it’s a slope.

I know of a guy who went into town for the afternoon and got caught after doing it numerous times. Tried every trick in the book to get wat with it but eventually got the heave ho.

So WFH can be the handiest job if done right no commuting and a far more relaxed self managed environment if you do it right.

beauf

Banana Republic. wrote: »

That all sounds great but I’m sure you need a permanent address then having one for 6 months and then somewhere else for 3 months then another for 3 months this sounds fanciful at best. WFH isn’t a free pass, that’s how WFH wouldn’t work for some companies and individuals cause they think it’s a holiday job then. .

But working say 3 days in the office and 2 days at home how about that. Because that's the same thing. Or working with an outsourcing you don't even know where there are. Or if you are off site or traveling for work. Maybe you think thats also a holiday?

Banana Republic. wrote: »

Going down stairs for a cuppa tea is fine but leaving the house and just generally doing whatever you want will kill any long term benefit & puts your job at risk WFH. The one thing it demands is personal responsibility and then it’s the best move ever. I still treat it exactly like I’m in the office. It’s the best way to approach it from the start otherwise it’s a slope.

I know of a guy who went into town for the afternoon and got caught after doing it numerous times. Tried every trick in the book to get wat with it but eventually got the heave ho.

So WFH can be the handiest job if done right no commuting and a far more relaxed self managed environment if you do it right.

I like the way these types of stories never mention metrics or tracking productivity. Only clock watching.

Banana Republic.

Banana Republic. wrote: »

................

I know of a guy who went into town for the afternoon and got caught after doing it numerous times. Tried every trick in the book to get wat with it but eventually got the heave ho. ..................

We all know of someone who got the heave ho ......... not doing your job doesn't go down too well with your employers in many cases, shocker.

Lumen

salonfire wrote: »

A three hour delay for something that could be retrieved in a few minutes if people were at their desks like they are supposed to is acceptable ?

From a productivity perspective you're conflating throughput and latency. More responsive does not mean more productive.

The classic case of this is the receptionist who is largely paid for attendance. He will be "unproductive" almost all the time. But this is OK, because that's the job.

Most people, particularly expensive people, are paid to produce things. The modern workplace operates asynchronously.

"Being at their desks like they're supposed to" is twentieth century thinking for many workers, but culture is slow to change.

ELM327

salonfire wrote: »

Away from your desk for an hour is not a break.
It's going awol.

People gets breaks at lunch time and usual scheduled times in the morning and afternoon.

People coming and going as they please throughout the day will make WFH not feasible for many organisations.

If you have scheduled breaks and lunches and consider 1 hour away "awol" you are not working in an adult organization.
That's micromanaged, crunch the numbers, rats on wheels hell.


I take my breaks, coffee, lunch whenever I want. I start work when I want. I finish when I'm done for the day. That could be 10am to4pm or 8am to 10pm.
I could take 2 hours at lunch or 15 minutes.
I could go for a ten minute walk every hour, an hour long walk at 3 pm, or work right through. I spend a lot of time on Boards during the day as it forms part of my thought process when working on a project or data problem.

(I should add, this was the same when we worked predominantly in the office. We had WFH as wanted before covid)

If someone needs me (or anyone on my team) we have phones with teams, outlook, whatsapp, slack, and a myriad of other ways.
Don't confuse contactability and presenteeism with productivity.

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

.............. productivity.

Lots of p1ssholes want more then productivity, the contact-ability and being at the desk is paramount to their cultures.
Many who work in these places buy into it of course, it pays the bills etc and playing ball results in satisfactory performance appraisals and possible promotions etc. Folk who don't see it for what it is are obviously happy enough to buy into it, in fact many thrive in such a culture.
Like, handing the head finance guy the info he wants, that you just got off someone else (as the head finance guy can't ask contractors in some places) must be some feeling, back of the net stuff

seamus

The "urgent demands require people at their desk" scenario details a perfect example of a business in chaos, and it's funny that people stand by it like it's the norm.

- Asking for urgent reports at the last minute
- Scheduling important meetings with less than 24 hours notice
- Requiring employees to drop what they're doing to help with an issue
- Needing an employee to be personally available to provide information

If these are common scenarios in your company, then you have a problem. These things should be the exception, once a month or less. Or, you should have a dedicated people whose job it is to manage these scenarios - such as a receptionist or secretary - while everyone else gets on with their day-to-day.

Ultimately it is as Lumen says - if being highly responsive is part of the job description, then there will be a trade-off. More specifically, highly responsive employees are less productive at complex, detailed or long-running tasks. Likewise, high-latency employees are less productive at short, simple, time-sensitive tasks.

If you have an employee whose main role is project work or complex tasks, then by persistently (more than once a week) bothering them with urgent requests and meetings at short notice, you are drastically reducing their productivity.

Urgent unforseen issues can't be avoided, but if it's a daily occurrence then you have to ask yourself whether it's really urgent & unforeseen or if it's just incompetence.

Cyrus

seamus wrote: »

The "urgent demands require people at their desk" scenario details a perfect example of a business in chaos, and it's funny that people stand by it like it's the norm.

- Asking for urgent reports at the last minute
- Scheduling important meetings with less than 24 hours notice
- Requiring employees to drop what they're doing to help with an issue
- Needing an employee to be personally available to provide information

If these are common scenarios in your company,then you have a problem

sounds exactly like my company, we made a 9 figure profit last year,

not a bad problem to have it seems

Lumen

Cyrus wrote: »

sounds exactly like my company, we made a 9 figure profit last year,

not a bad problem to have it seems

I think you have the causality the wrong way round.

Profitable companies can afford for people to be unproductive.

Cyrus

Lumen wrote: »

I think you have the causality the wrong way round.

Profitable companies can afford for people to be unproductive.

very small workforce, less than 500 people, people are very productive but organised we arent.

but would we make more money if we were more organised? maybe, but we would need a lot more staff as well!

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

very small workforce, less than 500 people, people are very productive but organised we arent.

but would we make more money if we were more organised? maybe, but we would need a lot more staff as well!

Generally if you are more organised you can do more with less. Doing more things with more , isn't really that impressive.

Saying you can run a business without email, or computers, doesn't invalidate that email or computers have value.

salonfire

salonfire wrote: »

Away from your desk for an hour is not a break.
It's going awol.

People gets breaks at lunch time and usual scheduled times in the morning and afternoon.

People coming and going as they please throughout the day will make WFH not feasible for many organisations.

I wouldn’t want to work for an organisation that doesn’t let you come and go as you please to do chores and other necessary things. To go for a walk to clear your head and to have lunch when you want (sometimes when you can). To own your own diary, as long as you get the job done and manage up and down and sideways as appropriate. I had no idea that there were still so many archaic office practices out there, focussed on presenteeism rather than productivity. It sounds truly awful, and I can see why these kind of companies are going to have a real problem with WFH.

Electric Sheep

:eek:

seamus wrote: »

The "urgent demands require people at their desk" scenario details a perfect example of a business in chaos, and it's funny that people stand by it like it's the norm.

- Asking for urgent reports at the last minute
- Scheduling important meetings with less than 24 hours notice
- Requiring employees to drop what they're doing to help with an issue
- Needing an employee to be personally available to provide information

If these are common scenarios in your company, then you have a problem. These things should be the exception, once a month or less. Or, you should have a dedicated people whose job it is to manage these scenarios - such as a receptionist or secretary - while everyone else gets on with their day-to-day.

Ultimately it is as Lumen says - if being highly responsive is part of the job description, then there will be a trade-off. More specifically, highly responsive employees are less productive at complex, detailed or long-running tasks. Likewise, high-latency employees are less productive at short, simple, time-sensitive tasks.

If you have an employee whose main role is project work or complex tasks, then by persistently (more than once a week) bothering them with urgent requests and meetings at short notice, you are drastically reducing their productivity.

Urgent unforseen issues can't be avoided, but if it's a daily occurrence then you have to ask yourself whether it's really urgent & unforeseen or if it's just incompetence.

"A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part"

bladespin

Electric Sheep wrote: »

:eek:

"A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part"

I love that quote, a friend of mine has it on a plaque on his office wall.

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

Generally if you are more organised you can do more with less. Doing more things with more , isn't really that impressive.

Saying you can run a business without email, or computers, doesn't invalidate that email or computers have value.

i have worked in a lots of companies, large multinationals with 1000s of employees, large semi states with 1000s of employees, big accountancy firms, small plcs etc etc.

We get things done more quickly than anywhere else, if we want to go into a new jurisdiction we do it in weeks, some of the other places i worked in would take years.

We dont necessarily do it right and we encounter problems along the way and afterwards, but to do it properly would require more people, more functions, more specific skillsets.

And it doesnt appear to be an impediment to making money.

and what else is anyone in business for.

Lumen

bladespin wrote: »

I love that quote, a friend of mine has it on a plaque on his office wall.

Much as I sympathise and to some extent agree, in my experience the kind of people who would elevate that sentiment to a wall plaque are a right pain in the hole to deal with.

Fortunately when WFH I don't get to read people's wall plaques.

bladespin

Lumen wrote: »

Much as I sympathise and to some extent agree, in my experience the kind of people who would elevate that sentiment to a wall plaque are a right pain in the hole to deal with.

Fortunately when WFH I don't get to read people's wall plaques.

I can understand his position, responsible for outsourcing various services, always last minute due to poor organisation in other departments, think he was literally pushed to it.

I'll admit I see the same every day, customers imagine you're sitting by the phone waiting on their call, wanting work done tomorrow when I've a calendar full for the next month; then the drama begins all over again.

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

i have worked in a lots of companies, large multinationals with 1000s of employees, large semi states with 1000s of employees, big accountancy firms, small plcs etc etc.

We get things done more quickly than anywhere else, if we want to go into a new jurisdiction we do it in weeks, some of the other places i worked in would take years.

We dont necessarily do it right and we encounter problems along the way and afterwards, but to do it properly would require more people, more functions, more specific skillsets.

And it doesnt appear to be an impediment to making money.

and what else is anyone in business for.

Funny how so many places say the same thing. yet when they look back they'll see how they improved over time. The only difference is how slow or fast they are to embrace progress and how resistant they are to change. Some will always put institutional roadblocks to change. That is usually cultural, systemic, and usual driven from the top down. As in your own example of the CTO, or owner driving bad habits.

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

Funny how so many places say the same thing. yet when they look back they'll see how they improved over time. The only difference is how slow or fast they are to embrace progress and how resistant they are to change. Some will always put institutional roadblocks to change. That is usually cultural, systemic, and usual driven from the top down. As in your own example of the CTO, or owner driving bad habits.

absolutely its the owner and we work around it, things have changed a lot over the last 5 years re systems, processes etc

but there is only so much you can do when the owner doesnt buy in.

storker

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Nobody on my team has scheduled breaks. We come and go as we lease as long as we are there for scheduled meetings.

I wouldn't work somewhere where I had to ask permission to take a break.

I did once - in a call centre. It wasn't that bad, since the restrictions make sense in such an environment. In many other environments, of course, they wouldn't.

beauf

storker wrote: »

I did one - in a call centre. It wasn't that bad, since the restrictions make sense in such an environment. In many other environments, of course, they wouldn't.

There's a flip side to that....

Contact centers also have some of the highest turnover rates in the industry, ranging between 30-45%, more than double the average for all other occupations. And the average call center agent lifespan is just two years.

storker

storker wrote: »

I did once - in a call centre. It wasn't that bad, since the restrictions make sense in such an environment. In many other environments, of course, they wouldn't.

It sounds like many folk work in places where a call centre esque culture is both present and seemingly bought into by the employees. Mental.

seamus

Cyrus wrote: »

sounds exactly like my company, we made a 9 figure profit last year,

not a bad problem to have it seems

Many very profitable companies are poorly run. Profits are really only one measure of success. Many very profitable companies also go to the wall when times get difficult. Or they get really quickly beaten in their core market by a new competitor, because they cannot get their sh1t together quick enough to adapt.

There are people in all companies who pull of heroics. Who deal with interruptions and still get their work done. That doesn't mean the company is doing OK. Heroes burn out very quickly, they move to a new company. Eventually all your heroes will be gone

Lumen wrote: »

Much as I sympathise and to some extent agree, in my experience the kind of people who would elevate that sentiment to a wall plaque are a right pain in the hole to deal with.

It's a sentiment that one person cannot implement on their own. Otherwise they become the jobsworth who refuses to step when it's necessary.

But as a company attitude; as a goal to strive for - "do not make your poor planning someone else's emergency" - it's the kind of thing that can make a work environment great. Rather than being dragged off your nromal work and having orders barked at you because of an emergency, instead the instigator is contrite for their failure, appreciative of your fast help, and as a result will make efforts to prevent this emergency occurring in future.

beauf

Augeo wrote: »

It sounds like many folk work in places where a call centre esque culture is both present and seemingly bought into by the employees. Mental.

A lot of people don't have experience of alternative ways of doing things. Some are unable to learn new things. They will literally do the same thing every day for years. Same route to work regardless how long it takes. Same lunch etc. They do the same with work.

Cyrus

seamus wrote: »

Many very profitable companies are poorly run. Profits are really only one measure of success. Many very profitable companies also go to the wall when times get difficult. Or they get really quickly beaten in their core market by a new competitor, because they cannot get their sh1t together quick enough to adapt.

There are people in all companies who pull of heroics. Who deal with interruptions and still get their work done. That doesn't mean the company is doing OK. Heroes burn out very quickly, they move to a new company. Eventually all your heroes will be gone

It's a sentiment that one person cannot implement on their own. Otherwise they become the jobsworth who refuses to step when it's necessary.

But as a company attitude; as a goal to strive for - "do not make your poor planning someone else's emergency" - it's the kind of thing that can make a work environment great. Rather than being dragged off your nromal work and having orders barked at you because of an emergency, instead the instigator is contrite for their failure, appreciative of your fast help, and as a result will make efforts to prevent this emergency occurring in future.

curious to hear what your other measures of success are?

storker

beauf wrote: »

There's a flip side to that....

True but I wouldn't just put that down to the restrictions. There's low pay for a start, and a workforce that tends to be quite young and will move on to something else quickly enough.

I might be biased, though be cause it was 20 years ago and the centre I worked in was quite well-run.

Cyrus

storker wrote: »

True but I wouldn't just put that down to the restrictions. There's low pay for a start, and a workforce that tends to be quite young and will move on to something else quickly enough.

I might be biased, though be cause it was 20 years ago and the centre I worked in was quite well-run.

i worked in one one summer when in university, the main issue is the people calling in you get dogs abuse, work enviroment was fine for what it is. the majority of my colleages at the time were studends as well tho, so a pretty transient work force.

beauf

storker wrote: »

True but I wouldn't just put that down to the restrictions. ...

Kinda defeats the purpose of industry wide statistics on it then doesn't it.

Cyrus

Cyrus wrote: »

curious to hear what your other measures of success are?

It depends on the industry............. a large (or small for that matter) construction company could be tremendously profitable but if they had a number of lost working time accidents than that would taint the success graph quite badly as they might struggle to get future projects, that's ignoring the human element as there's no such thing as an accident really, someone's always done something wrong these days the experts claim.

In the likes of medical device manufacturing there might be great profit but if a large percentage of the customer base (hospitals who have patients as customers) are waiting on devices and backorder etc is frequent, the company itself would look at the back order metric as well as the overall profit.

Companies can also be considered to be acting unethically if they are making more than what's considered a fair and reasonable profit..... Along other lines, would a profitable company be considered successful if folk weren't comfortable working there, if there was a bullying culture, a high turnover of staff, lots of folk on sick leave due to stress/burn out.

It's all quite subjective........... the bottom line ultimately is crucial but it can't be the only important/crucial metric

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

curious to hear what your other measures of success are?

There are lot of organisations which don't generate a profit. Even those that do they might be some years before they do generate a profit. So it's logical that there have to be other types of metric of success.

Kevhog1988

Back to the office 2 days a week next week. Happy with that as im in a startup and welcome it to build a rapport

ELM327

beauf wrote: »

There are lot of organisations which don't generate a profit. Even those that do they might be some years before they do generate a profit. So it's logical that there have to be other types of metric of success.

Look at Amazon for instance. Or Netflix. Loss making for years
Same as tesla.

storker

beauf wrote: »

Kinda defeats the purpose of industry wide statistics on it then doesn't it.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

There are lot of organisations which don't generate a profit. Even those that do they might be some years before they do generate a profit. So it's logical that there have to be other types of metric of success.

they may never generate profit, lots of tech companies in that category down the years, when everyone ultimately realises the music has stopped (wework for example) are the previously identified metrics of success still valid or were they only valid when people assumed profits were to come