Bring Your Own Device as Concept of Working - Literature review Example

Student Name here Student Number here Student Email here Course Code here Assignment Number here Assignment Due Date here Academic Referencing: Harvard Campus Lecturer here Course Coordinator here Table of Contents 1.0.Understanding of Bring Your Own Device 2 2.0.Bring Your Own Device Is Offering Big Productivity Gains 5 3.0.Cost Benefit Analysis for Comprehensive Bring Your Own Devices 9 3.1.Time Saving 10 4.0.Privacy and Information Security Risks and Findings 12 5.0.Summary of Recommendations 14 1.0. Understanding of Bring Your Own Device Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) has had multifaceted definitions from different scholars. However, there is consensus that BYOD is becoming a new mantra of employees who have been given opportunities in their places of work to become innovative with regard to the manner in which they work, using the technology tools they deem fit to accomplish a given task. This has been a growing trend that has in turn, been well documented in different scholarly materials. From the definition provided by Bradley et al. (2012) BYOD is a situation where employees are given the opportunity to use their electronic communication devices at work place. These tools are then used to carry out work for their employer through what can be termed as ‘remote accesses to the intranet of the employer. Based on the observation from Lee et al. (2013) this definition means that BYOD will enable an employee to be efficient and productive by selecting a device that best suits and fits his or her preferences and purposes of work, while at the same time making sure that protection and integrity of data in the organization is safe from loss or leakage. On the other hand Loose et al. (2013) defines BYOD in terms of Bring Your Own Technology (BYOT). They argue that many information technology departments in different companies have been struggling with the need to keep up with annual changes in technology with employees in such companies increasingly wanting to use their devices to access different information including company’s data. As part of this struggle, the author define BYOD as the process where organizations encourage their employees to bring their devices they choose at place of work so that these devices can be used to access information needed for productivity and execution of different activities in the work place. For instance, employees may choose to bring iPhone 5 or use Google Nexus 7 to view text documents. Bring Your Own Device is not a single concept or way of working. Instead, it is a representation of a wider spectrum of capabilities, devices and responses indicative of the developing and evolving role of technology in the relationship between personal lives and work. Each device therefore represents a different level of complexity when incorporating this into an enterprise information technology environment. On the other hand, there are different demand of BYOD which has often its early stages been carried by different employees sometimes incorporating with the employees and at some point not. This argument has therefore brought different understanding of BYOD especially among scholars who have been concerned with the theory of organizational behaviors. These scholars define BYOD as the process of allowing employees devices into the company’s system but ratified measures put in place to monitor employees’ behaviours with the devices so that responsibility of BYOD resides with the policy within the organization (Garba et al. 2015; Longo et al. 2013). Proponents of this approach argue that the definition of BYOD need to be restricted because it may not be right for every employee or every company more so in its applicability. Putting these definitions within the context of Telstra, the organisation which is the case study, BYOD would mean using employee-owned devices in the process of accessing enterprise content or networks. Telstra provides telecommunication and information services for customers in Australia as well as those across the borders of Australia. The Company provides communication access services to business, local, homes and long-distance call services. It has also been rivaling its competitor when it comes to internet service and such has included about 3.5 million broadband subscribers as well as over 15 million mobile telephony users (Telstra Environmental Guidance Document, 2013). The cornerstone of the company’s success is based on its mission---to improve the way people work and live. The vision is encapsulated in a number of ways. Therefore with BYOD, the company impacts ways in which its enterprises invest in assets, empowering employees and attract and retain different talents but within the spectrum of Longo et al. (2013) definition and applicability of BYOD. From evidence-based researches, opportunities and risks from BYOD have become a contentious. As a result, this report critically evaluates contributions of BYOD within Telstra, paying special attention to aspects such as data security and organisations’ approaches to determining competitive advantage with the implementation of BYOD. 2.0. Bring Your Own Device Is Offering Big Productivity Gains The process of implementing comprehensive BYOD makes companies improve when it comes to productivity especially in developed markets such as Australia, Germany and United States (Hong et al. 2016). This study further found that with BYOD, companies have been able to improve their cost of production thus increasing their productivity gains when they move from basic to comprehensive BYOD. Relating this finding within the context of Telstra, BYOD has been ratified by enabling mobile users innovate the way they work with their devices. Additionally, the Company uses theoretical models and modern management structures to achieve this mission (Hong et al. 2016). Due to competition from companies such as Optus Telecommunication, Telstra have adopted contingency theory where they have tried to identify the situational variables which BYOD so that they can predict the most effective and appropriate outcome for a given circumstance. It is for this reason that in 2004 the Company invested A$ 210 million to upgrade its broadband asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) to conform to its mission statement (Faulds et al. 2013). Faulds et al. (2013) also note that a company’s mission statement can be justified and or aligned in accordance with transformation theory as they continue to apply BYOD in their management structures. To conceptualise this point, in March 2016, Telstra introduced 10GB Telstra Air Data to allow people with ‘BYOD’ to access their 10GB Telstra information centre for different functionalities (Pugliese et al. 2016). The relationship between the Company’s mission and transformation theory was conceptualized when it engaged in opening of its first national WiFi network hotspots by the end of August 2014 to further support BYOD framework (Dhingra 2016). As a result of these innovations, productivity gains have been possible especially in line with its ‘improve the way people work and live’ which enabled the company to launch its Next G platform and the 4G platform that now integrates its mission statement as it now covers about 70% of the population (Raths 2012). Recent survey by Buettner (2015) indicated that within Telstra, BYOD is a growing phenomenon that has been offering big productivity gains. The survey indicated that smartphones are the highest number of devices employees have managed to bring to work. This is followed by tablets and finally laptops. The figure one below shows percentage number of devices that have been brought by employees of Telstra between December 2015 and March 2016 for work related tasks. Figure 1: Percentage Devices Brought at Telstra in the last Six Months Source: (Cisco IBSG 2012) Telstra has been characterized by greater mobility especially with its employees who are supposed to carry some production related activities outside the company’s premises. BYOD has therefore enabled the company to have mobile employees execute their roles effectively (Kohne etl al. 2015). This approach has improved the productivity of Telstra in a number of ways. This report has already noted that there is still competition in the environment in which Telstra operates (companies such as Optus and Vodafone have been offering alternative marketing strategies to avert Telstra’s adoption of BYOD) Therefore it has been driven by such competition to re-structure its platform though BYOD so as to accommodate the ever dynamic demands of its customers. This includes allowing smartphones that are used to strengthen its broadband performance thus making the broadband have the market share of about 45.3% in the mobile segment (Kohne etl al. 2015). Additionally, through mobility Telstra is dominating fixed broadband market besides controlling about 78% share of the industry thus a large revenue base. Thirdly, the Company enjoys favourable and strong legal framework and such is underscored by the recent case with Optus over the shifting of billions of dollars in untaxed profits offshore. Researchers have noted that BYOD users are productive in organization because BYOD offers value and flexibility thus moving seamlessly between employees’ personal lives and work throughout working process (Shim et al. 2013). As a matter of fact, Shim et al. (2013) noted that BYOD which is nearly as essential as employees’ need for productivity. These productivities have included the freedom they (employees) get use services and applications that are not work related but help in achieving the organization’s productivity goals set. Connecting this point to the research conducted by Pugliese (2016) companies who have allowed employees to bring their devices have been productive because employees who use their devices at home and in the office have better chances of working at home thus stretching work hours. Relating the point to the case of Telstra, the Company has its operation penetrating other markets outside Australia, including India (Pugliese 2016). In such connectedness, it engages in value added and content services through single portal known as BigPond. It introduced long term evolution (LTE) for mobile internet. Subsequently, besides the successful stories of its 3G that was ahead of others, they grabbed the chance, due to its platform, high-speed 4G thus expanding the 4G coverage to more than 100 metropolitan and regional areas across Australia (Raths 2012). Dhingra (2016) report that there have been high penetration rates for other competitors but the Company seemingly signifies weaker prospects for it to report growth coming as a result of connections from other penetrators. From its principled perspective, applicability of BYOD has been offering big productivity gains in the following ways (Telstra Business Principles, 2013 as cited in Pugliese 2016): Advancing the national environmental interest by strengthening the ability of the company and the country’s telecommunications nerve centre Provision of the company’s foundation that ensures economic growth, sustainability prosperity, productivity improvement and global competitive advantage (in 2003/2004 and 2010/2011 Telstra used BYOD to assessed market demands and thus funded 18 and 23 projects respectively to the total value of $11.6 million in bandwidth allocation and cash in the areas of media, education, health, business and rural sector upgrades). Contribute towards resources; increasing technology, product services and people in employment to support the communities in which the company operate and the specific needs of community at large (it has been sponsoring the Sponsored Telstra Child Fight where an average of one critically ill child in NSW and ACT is transported on a daily for specialised treatment). 3.0. Cost Benefit Analysis for Comprehensive Bring Your Own Devices There is consensus among scholars that benefits of BYOD far outweigh costs of comprehensive BYOD (Pugliese 2016). Within the framework or applicability of BYOD at Telstra, there have been myriad of benefits as compare to the cost the company has incurred for comprehensive BYOD. This finding in tandem with Cisco analysis that found that on average, a company with a typical BYOD implementation has completed about 20 percent of their productivity and value journey. The report further noted that with comprehensive BYOD strategies (this report considers comprehensive BYOD to be the case where companies allow all devices that can be effective in the attainment of different goals while typical/basic BYOD framework is a case where companies allow one line of device such as laptop or smartphone) companies can get up to 350 percent in terms of different benefits (Pugliese 2016). While these benefits may seem attractive compared to the cost of implementing comprehensive BYOD, cost benefits analysis for comprehensive BYOD at Telstra would more than quadruple their productivity, yielding net annual value of more than 120 percent. Cost benefit analysis that was conducted on major firms in Australia including Telstra indicated that introduction of BYOD in organisations are by 150 percent beneficial compared to the cost of implementing the approach. The figure below critically compares five companies who implemented basic and comprehensive BYOD. Figure 2: Annual Value Derived from Basic and Comprehensive BYOD Programs Source: (Cisco IBSG 2012) From the figure 2 above the benefits of using BYOD (basic or comprehensive) completely outweigh the cost of initiating the program within the organization. Just like Dhingra (2016) noted, BYOD provides elaborate access to corporate networks as well as applications. This means that workers will have comprehensive Information technology support. This is not to mention the fact that BYOD helps companies derive additional value from workers who use their own devices to take advantage of mobile working. 3.1. Time Saving Reports have indicated that the best approach in ascertain cost benefit analysis for BYOD in to evaluate time savings when such companies allow employees bring their own devices. Specifically, Buettner (2015) found that indeed BYOD improve productivity of workers. The average BYOD worker in companies that have adopted BYOD saves about 75 to 85 minutes per week. In addition to this employees have reported that with BYOD, they are able to be innovative thus reduction on productivity losses in emerging markets (Cisco IBSG 2012). This view was supported by Dhingra (2016) who found that about 40 percent of users can be hyper-productive when allowed to use their devices and as a result they have been found to be saving about 2 to 3 hours per week. A good case in hand has been time that companies spend training employees. With BYOD, companies have been able to save time training employees especially on applications already existing on their devices. Within the context of Telstra, report released by Cisco IBSG (2012) indicated workers at Telstra have often been familiar with their devices therefore any new software or applications the company installs on their devices will not be unfamiliar. In most cases, these employees have had some of the most up-to-date technology meaning that the company will not have to train employees on these software or applications. Still in time saving as far as training is concerned, once new technology such as 4G enters the market, its lifecycle is on average six months before the product moves from desired to required by customers (Cisco IBSG 2012). With BYOD already integrated with the company Telstra took about two to three weeks to make its strategic decision and implement the technology in its product portfolio. This short period in training and implementation of 4G networks within the Company is explained by the fact that the process of alignment and agreement between the departments was efficient because basic apps and software already existed in employees’ devices thus reduction on bureaucratic response to the market change. Given the growing ambitions and market penetration strategy, Telstra has considered moving from its functional model to a product design model, which enables better cross-departmental communication and alignment (Hong et al. 2016). There are several reasons that make this approach more appropriate for Telstra. First of all, the objective of the company in terms of strategic development is to reach even further improvement in service standards and network quality. The product design model allows focusing efforts and consolidating specific expertise around the product (BYOD) and not the function, which brings in a more focused set of skills and experiences thus time saving. 4.0. Privacy and Information Security Risks and Findings As already, effective BYOD strategy is a recipe for a number of benefits including but not limited to job efficiency, employee satisfaction and flexibility. Linking with the case of Telstra, the report has found that BYOD provides cost saving from initial purchase of device to on-going usage as well as information technology support as employees invest in their own devices. However, allowing this practice, especially where employees are given permission to access company information gives rise to a number of concerns as far as privacy and information security risks are concerned. The first issue that Bradley et al. (2012) argue about is ownership. According to his findings, companies have had implemented BYOD are faced by one characteristic of BYOD and that is; with BYOD, employees will be given the opportunity to own and to some level supports and maintains the device. As a consequence, the organization will have little influence or control over the employees devices in comparison to a device owned by the company. In some cases, organizations make tendencies of merging their data with employees’ personal data. The complication with this practice is that companies’ data may be at danger when employees lose the device or resign. Due to competition from companies such as Optus Telecommunication a loss on company’s data may put Telstra in a precarious situation with its competitors. Secondly, with the implementation of BYOD, Bradley et al. (2012) note that companies may not be in control of the types and functionality of data that are exposed to third parties. Giving a case of a retail company that has deployed the use of BYOD that allows employees processing of credit cards on their personal devices, such company my lose their privacy and information security if measures such PCI-DSS compliance are not installed on the devices of employees. Additionally, the hardware part of BYOD has been linked with privacy and information security risks. Applications and operating systems all have effects on the total security state of a given device allowed in a company and these risks have been found to be increasing when employees bring possibly insecure or old devices into the company (Longo et al. 2015). For instance, with iPhone models that has been manufactured before the introduction of the 3GS may lack hardware encryption. Taking this argument to the BYOD case, this risk is accentuated since companies that fail to give employees minimum supported devices are likely to have insecure devices accessing their data and information. This report finds that with the introduction of BYOD in an organization the company’s planning, leading, organising, controlling and functioning will be within the requirements of telephony inputs and components in telecommunication. 5.0. Summary of Recommendations This report finds that BYOD remains critical production or marketing strategy needed for the success of a company. This report took a case study on Telstra and has noted that as far as its strategic position is concerned, planning and control policies are made on the basis of three major constructs: level of organizational maturity with regards to BYOD, vertical and horizontal integration, and quality of its control systems. It is therefore recommended that for the company to succeed in management and dealing with its competitor’s application of BYOD should address its dependence on mobile services. To achieve this, it is recommended to shift the focus of marketing efforts from mobile services to the benefits of fixed line and 4G technologies by allowing employees to bring devices that run different platforms of 4G applications. Owing to the security and privacy concerns that have been raised with the application of BYOD, the following are recommendations that companies can use to deal with security concerns; creation and enforcement of the right BYOD support as well as usage policy that conforms to privacy concerns of the company. Secondly, revamping existing support processes so that they can include secure provisioning as well as deprovisioning/wiping of devices. References Bradley, J., Loucks, J., Macaulay, J., Medcalf, R. and Buckalew, L., 2012. BYOD: A Global Perspective. Harnessing Employee-Led Innovation. Cisco. com. Buettner, R., 2015. Towards a New Personal Information Technology Acceptance Model: Conceptualization and Empirical Evidence from a Bring Your Own Device Dataset. Cisco IBSG, “BYOD: A Global Perspective,” September 2012, Accessed: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac79/docs/re/BYOD_Horizons-Global.pdf Dhingra, M., 2016. Legal Issues in Secure Implementation of Bring Your Own Device (BYOD). Procedia Computer Science, 78, pp.179-184. Faulds, M.C., Bauchmuller, K., Miller, D., Rosser, J.H., Shuker, K., Wrench, I., Wilson, P. and Mills, G.H., 2016. The feasibility of using ‘bring your own device’(BYOD) technology for electronic data capture in multicentre medical audit and research. Anaesthesia, 71(1), pp.58-66. Faulds, M.C., Bauchmuller, K., Miller, D., Rosser, J.H., Shuker, K., Wrench, I., Wilson, P. and Mills, G.H., 2016. The feasibility of using ‘bring your own device’(BYOD) technology for electronic data capture in multicentre medical audit and research. Anaesthesia, 71(1), pp.58-66. Garba, A.B., Armarego, J., Murray, D. and Kenworthy, W., 2015. Review of the information security and privacy challenges in Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) environments. Journal of Information Privacy and Security, 11(1), pp.38-54. Hong, S., Baykov, R., Xu, L., Nadimpalli, S. and Gu, G., 2016. Towards SDN-Defined Programmable BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) Security.’ Kohne, A., Ringleb, S. and Yücel, C., 2015. Bring Your Own Device. In Bring your own Device (pp. 7-23). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Lee, J., Crossler, R. and Warkentin, M., 2013. Implications of Monitoring Mechanisms on Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) Adoption. Longo, A., Zappatore, M. and Michelini, M., (2013). Exploring Acoustics in Middle and High Schools via BYOD and Inquiry-based Learning. Loose, M., Weeger, A. and Gewald, H., 2013. BYOD–The Next Big Thing in Recruiting? Examining the Determinants of BYOD Service Adoption Behavior from the Perspective of Future Employees. Pugliese, L., Woodriff, M., Crowley, O., Lam, V., Sohn, J. and Bradley, S., 2016. Feasibility of the “Bring Your Own Device” Model in Clinical Research: Results from a Randomized Controlled Pilot Study of a Mobile Patient Engagement Tool. Cureus, 8(3). Raths, D., 2012. Are You Ready for BYOD: Advice from the Trenches on How to Prepare Your Wireless Network for the Bring-Your-Own-Device Movement. THE Journal (Technological Horizons In Education), 39(4), p.28. Shim, J.P., Mittleman, D., Welke, R., French, A.M. and Guo, J.C., 2013. Bring your own device (BYOD): Current status, issues, and future directions. Telstra Environmental Guidance Document (2013). A Document to Provide Guidance to Staff on Environmental Policy, Strategy, Systems and Processes. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Weeger, A., Wang, X. and Gewald, H., 2016. It Consumerization: Byod-Program Acceptance and its Impact on Employer Attractiveness. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 56(1), pp.1-10. Read More