The one part I do not understand about all of this comes when you have a company with multiple locations and work that crosses locations.
Say you have east coast and west coast facilities. If people only worked within their local facility, I can see the reasoning and advantages. What I don't understand is where the value is when the work crosses facilities.
What you would need to do to bridge the gap between the workers in the different facilities is the same thing you should do to bridge the gap between remote workers.
How is having people that need to work together in separate facilities any better than the people working remotely?
Funny thing is, the different facilities are probably more problematic than remote workers. It can be more prone to politics and the organisation as a whole pulling in different directions.
The exception is where the remote does have some well defined autonomous reason for existing, for example a sales office.
In comparison remote workers obviously are usually tied to a particular office.
Say you have east coast and west coast facilities. If people only worked within their local facility, I can see the reasoning and advantages. What I don't understand is where the value is when the work crosses facilities.
What you would need to do to bridge the gap between the workers in the different facilities is the same thing you should do to bridge the gap between remote workers.
How is having people that need to work together in separate facilities any better than the people working remotely?