Technology leaders should not rush their return-to-work plans. Here’s why.

Perhaps you read it in Don Quixote, or attributed it to Napoleon, but I have always been a fan of the concept that says, “sometimes we need to slow down because we are in a hurry.” To me it says that the times we are in a rush, under pressure, and on a deadline are those where we can least afford mistakes!

Many business leaders are eager to open their doors and welcome employees and customers back in as the COVID-19 vaccine rollouts continue and we head towards herd immunity. You can count me in that group. After spending the last 14 months apart, it’s clear that we are better positioned to learn, connect, and build relationships and culture when we can come back together. It’s also evident that virtual meetings can’t wholly replace the creativity, collaboration, and innovation that happens when people are engaged face-to-face in-person.

Despite all of that, in my mind, technology leaders must be prudent and thoughtful about the way they help to re-open their organizations. Why? Because what’s true before the pandemic will be true afterwards: businesses that make better long-term, strategic decisions will see significant competitive advantages for years to come. How we enter the “new normal” is a strategic decision. 

Given the stakes, and the critical role technology has played in the last year for those in a virtual work environment, it’s incredibly important for technology leaders to actively partner with their company’s return-to-work decision makers to ensure smooth transitions and that choices will drive the best long-term outcomes for their organizations. Technology leaders should be among the first to say that “getting it right” may require some extra time: we’ve never managed a return-from-pandemic like this before.

I know there’s an urgent desire among some to predict how many people will be back in the office and how many will work from home – and then outfit all locations with technology accordingly. My peers from across the country have noted similar pressures bubbling up in their organizations. While we want to solve tomorrow’s technology needs today, unless you have a crystal ball, I think "getting it right” in a durable way right now is a roll of the dice. And, unless you have a limitless technology budget, acting too soon could be unwise.

We can see parallel pitfalls and challenges of a “scale-fast strategy” when we look to the educational sector. Leaders in K-12 and college education didn’t have much time to ready a return-to-work technology plan, nor did they have the luxury to test and learn. In 2020, K-12 districts alone spent $35.8 billion on EdTech resources, a 25 percent increase over 2019. In many cases, a “hybrid working model” and new technology was rolled out to teachers with tutorials that were not as comprehensive as their leaders would’ve hoped, and the technology didn’t deliver the experience that was promised. I share that experience to demonstrate the point of not rushing to a solution. Imagine if these schools could have employed a test-and-learn approach with pilots or staggered rollouts? What efficiencies in both staff time, educational outcomes, and funding could they have realized?

In my view, the first thing we should accept is that we have no way to know what returning to work will ultimately look and feel like at our organizations until more employees actually return to work.

Before an organization’s IT function begins spending capital to install new technology and tools at scale (in every conference room and laptop), we should try to first pilot, test, and learn. And our pilot data, along with others’ learning, should play a significant role in decision-making.

Pilots don’t have to be expensive or slow: for example, digital collaboration tools enable tech teams to see data on meeting camera usage, positioning and more so they can better understand the frequency and desire for video conferencing. On average at Northwestern Mutual, the data shows that our virtual meeting cameras are enabled about 60-70% of the time. However, the usage varies dramatically by area of the company. In some functions, they are not used at all: zero percent of the time! Should we spend countless days and dollars placing technology in conference rooms where data shows it won’t be used? Of course not... at least not at the outset. Usage data helps us see first-hand how different teams and departments engage with and use technology differently and creates a natural prioritization framework.

Survey data that identifies employees’ specific needs will enable us to understand what kinds of meetings will require additional capabilities and where there are gaps. For instance, how important – or unimportant – is it to have a camera focused on a whiteboard or elsewhere in a room?

The second step is to scan the external environment for relevant technology solutions and test their capabilities.

It’s important to take the time to understand what tools are strategically relevant, available, scalable, reliable, and affordable in the marketplace. There’s an incredible new array of products for technology leaders to choose from to retrofit their meeting spaces enabling the physical and virtual worlds to combine. For example, some of our enhanced conference rooms will be outfitted with multiple smart microphones, multiple cameras that pivot and zoom in on people who are speaking, and a new AI-driven video technology that automatically removes any person standing in front of a whiteboard as part of the virtual meeting experience. The goal of these technologies is to create a seamless meeting experience whether you’re in person or remote.

Beyond functionality, it’s increasingly critical for tech leaders to understand their vendors’ supply chain. Innovative technology can only be a good fit for your company if your orders can actually be fulfilled in a timely fashion. During the pandemic, there have been production shortages of laptops, desktop computers, webcams, and more. As demand for virtual meeting tools increases rapidly with more folks heading back to the office, it will be critical to pay close attention to the resilience of technology manufacturers and their ability to deliver product on time and on budget.

The third step is to consider practicalities.

As a technology leader, will you be able to fund all of your organization’s technology needs in a single fiscal year and still demonstrate expense discipline and meet budget targets? For many organizations, the answer will be, “no... at least not all at once.” For them, a stepwise return to work may be essential, especially public companies which are continuously scrutinized by the market.

A “rolling” return to the office is an exceptional opportunity to pilot, learn, and adjust. If your company is planning to bring people back to campus, I strongly recommend a progressive return so technology teams can address any unforeseen challenges, test new opportunities on a smaller scale, ensure employees are being properly trained to use new technology, and to manage expenses prudently.

The stakes are too high to proceed without meaningful analysis: we must slow down to speed up. For many, the pitfalls of choosing a wrong approach outweigh any advantages of picking an early path. Technology leaders who go all-in on scaled technology solutions that don’t stand the test of time will surely regret it. But, leaders who resist the urgent calls for a master plan, and instead take some time to test and learn, will find their organizations in a better long-term position, functionally and financially. You’ll be glad you took some extra time, and so will your stakeholders.