Aside from this article being a blatant plug for Microsoft, not bad. Id really like to see more balance in these articles. This article is not about what IT has to do but more about how the author can do some MSFT product placement at the Application layer, while almost ignoring the underlying layers that make or break the whole usability of WFH and mobile office.
I'm a big fan of WFH and use it as often as is possible, especially if I want to minimise the walk-by distractions in the office, or have to work at odd hours due to telephone or video-conference calls with the other side of the world.
Why is IM important and useful? Since we started abandoning our Blackberries for iPhones and Androids, messages don't arrive instantly any more. IM with Presence lets you send or receive a quick message and have a high degree of confidence that the other person will see it... if their presence is set to "available". If you don't want to be disturbed, set your presence status to "Busy" or "Do Not Disturb". Compliance issues? That's why you use a corporate platform for IM and presence, for logging and archiving. IM and presence without integration to corporate voice and video is just another way of sending messages, but is really useful when you can make a voice or video call with a couple of taps/clicks.
As for younger teleworkers demand, we are reaching a point where many of them are becoming managers and influencers, so we need to adapt, improvise and overcome (to plagiarise Mr Eastwood).
My organisation uses Cisco unified communications and networking products for "Work from Home" or Teleworking, and we easily move between the office to mobile to home office. We use a mix of PCs and Macs for desktop OS, and allow staff to choose whether they use iPhone, Blackberry or Android phones and tablets. Its not that hard if you have the right network infrastructure, device management and security profiles in place.
If you need to federate your IM and presence with other organisations/agencies or use videoconferencing outside of your organisation, ask MSFT how they do this and remind them that H264svc is NOT an open interoperable standard. Skype... for business, really?
VDI looks promising but there are challenges in terms of using it as unified communications (voice and video) end-point. There are ways around this too, but I dont want to sound like I'm bagging MSFT too much. I just get a bit annoyed when journos and MSFT fan-boys espouse the virtues of technologies like UC, Server Virtualisation and VDI as if MSFT invented them... from a guy who has made a good living off building MSFT solutions for 20+ years. Yeah, I did notice the Lync 2012 typo.