Post COVID-19: Hybrid Remote Utility Workforce

Old Normal, Modified Normal, New Normal. Que Sera, Sera (what will be, will be). In the last newsletter, I wrote about the potential lifestyle changes for us in a post COVID-19 world (work, home, other). A few calls have come in as to what this means for large businesses and utilities (just added a behavioral specialist to our team). However, this article is restricted to utilities.

 Remote interaction is not new to a utility. Thirty years ago, we would walk into a customer center to pay our bills, till it disappeared into direct banking. The (remnant) customer care service at those centers then disappeared into remote call-centers. Twenty years ago, a meter reader would come to our homes to read the meter, till that too disappeared into AMR and then AMI. Fifteen years ago, internal field staff interactions went remote, under a new asset management model, which saw field districts/circles relegated to a just a “ticketed maintenance service” from a more responsible “asset maintainer/operator” role. The (remnant) network operations was centralized into single grid control center for the entire utility.

 It is not clear how quickly the post COVID-19 work environment would return to the “old normal”. Many are estimating 2 years (several resurgence cycles, herd immunity builds and effective vaccines). Others are speculating that we may never return to the old ways, but will settle on a “new normal” with revised social distancing, people-people interactions, less travel, and a redefined work structure. New technologies could become a catalyst for such changes. For sure, people behavior will be the final determinant of the new work structure. In some areas, this transformation could be radical. 

 Not knowing where the chips will fall, utilities should have contingency plans for such a re-defined hybrid remote workforce. It is better to be ahead of the curve and understand what/whom/how will these changes impact and which work segments are likely to see major changes. Utilities also bear unique policy/regulated service mandates and therefore their strengths/weaknesses (people/processes) cannot be easily compared (apples-apples) with other large business organizations. 

 In a utility today (despite past reorganizations/clustering), most teamwork is performed in physical proximity. In-house training and close supervision are still central in all its three verticals (Asset Management, Field Services and Customer Care). They all have a common emphasis towards (a) worker/public safety, (b) asset preservation and (c) good customer relations. However, each utility workforce is trained “culturally” different due to its local service territory focus (language, customs). Utilities serving larger geographies, may have several such workforce cultures. This cultural aspect needs understanding.

 Mandated social distancing will need a hybrid team structure (local/remote). The remote team members may themselves be remote from each other (e.g. work from home). While such remote work is not new in many IT industries, their effectiveness model is built on work cultures, staff qualities and tools (people/process/systems) that makes such remote working productive. In other words, the team selection is picked around this trust (confidence) that each worker is capable of doing his/her job satisfactorily alone and with remote supervision. This aspect conflicts with utilities whose staff have been picked/trained to work in close proximity, close supervision and now need to be “re-purposed” for remote work/supervision.

 For a utility, the question is, how can this hybrid model be planned and executed “in-flight” with existing staff? Can supervision and culture training be re-programmed for remote work? This is not a simple task as soft skills, behavior and aptitude of each candidate needs to be assessed (for such remote work) and selections made accordingly. Not all staff can (or are suited) to work independently with remote supervision. A second issue is, how can work quality be assessed from remote? This transition to hybrid remote work with existing staff is extremely difficult. Utilities do not have the luxury of starting afresh.

 So, in designing this transformation, a new set of people/attitude/aptitude requirements (for remote work trustworthiness) needs to be created through critical behavior tools and formal staff assessment. This would include (a) creation of soft skills criteria, remote supervision requirements and aptitude assessment; (b) mapping of current work, tools, specialization and supervision into this new remote requirement; and (c) identifying gaps, mitigation measures and new training methods. Each of the three organizational verticals (and their hierarchy) will need such new criteria. In doing so, tough questions will need to be asked as to (a) how will staff motivation be assessed (what tools) to retrain; (b) elements of remote supervision success metrics (team trust); (c) training process and content; (d) rollout across verticals (with ongoing work); and (e) changeover timelines

 In my view, one needs to undertake a careful pareto analysis based on divisional /departmental /section /location work content, team interactions and schedules. A good change management team will need to be created. The following rollout phases may be considered:

1.     First would be Customer Care (billing, collections, call center). They are the most congested in seating, highly computerized, repetitive transactions and have a good scripted customer response with well-established escalation process. However, they are the most closely supervised group due to lower education requirements and ensuring good customer experiences. Models could be adapted from travel, telecom, and other services industry, where first levels operate from home.

 2.     Second would be Asset Management/Planning. They are head office centric, congested seating, highly computerized, use technical tools (albeit not so repetitive) and have a good engineering rule book with an established escalation process. However, despite their higher levels of education, they are closely supervised due to the complexity of technical work and high cost of mistakes. The tools used by them are expensive, so arrangements for remote access would need to be enabled. Models could be adapted from the EPC and Project Management industry where such teams operate in clusters. Due to content complexity, work from home may not be possible, so small team clusters may need to be set up off-site with periodic visits to headquarters.

 3.     Last would be Field Services. Their trades-oriented team structures and close work supervision pose challenges for remote unsupervised work. However, this has been accomplished in developed countries where systems training levels are high, such as in metering/relaying/telecom functions, but not in core trades (mechanical, civil, electrical). A benefit could be that if they are spread across many dispersed field centers, social distancing could be achieved through task scheduling (office and at job sites). Small urban utilities may have some issues here. Models could be adapted from multinational O&M and renewable energy service companies.

 The hybrid remote workforce model will vary by a utility’s staff size and service territory. There are no stock methods to success, but transforming work cultures with existing staff is very difficult universally. So, if the “new normal” is to hold true, then utilities have no choice but to be better prepared.