An other question to this is the why of a policy and to me more of relevance.
Policies have the tendency of being undermined if they are not to the benefit of the people on who it has its effect. There for the management has to commit to the policies.
As long as the management does not commit to the policies there will always be the moves to go by them.
As example I may give that your policy, would it be implied to my company, would give a stir up you can't believe. Then our policy is it that everybody can login, on to the network, on whatever computer they like. The software made available to them will be the same. (Hence the wishes of top level management to work whenever/where ever they like). If they like to work from home or an other location outside the premises of the company we imply the use of tokens and biometrics control using secure (VPN) internet connections, beyond that are the normal security rules that will give them access to data, programs and all the other stuff they need for there work as if they work within the premises of our company.
Most of the employees but for sure all the managers do commit to this because they all see the benefits to the policy. And, to our IT-departments benefit, the policy?s that are combined to this to ensure that in future we are able to continue this.
This is the reason that we don?t have any trouble to impose these policies and they are widely accepted.
Generally it is my believe that the only policies that are accepted, and will work and not be imposed the hard way, are the one?s that contribute to the goals of a company. The one that does it al the time is: You will get this in return for doing it as I propose it to be done. But they have to be valid arguments based on substantiated wishes of the management.
How do you think about this, Arlado, or anyone else who wants to react on this.
Rob
