
GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE
Remote And Hybrid Work In IndustryTop 10 Best IT Remote Services of 2026
Ranked it remote provider comparison for hiring teams, assessing TEKsystems, Concentrix, Globant and others for service fit and tradeoffs.
How we ranked these tools
Core product claims cross-referenced against official documentation, changelogs, and independent technical reviews.
Analyzed video reviews and hundreds of written evaluations to capture real-world user experiences with each tool.
AI persona simulations modeled how different user types would experience each tool across common use cases and workflows.
Final rankings reviewed and approved by our editorial team with authority to override AI-generated scores based on domain expertise.
Score: Features 40% · Ease 30% · Value 30%
Gitnux may earn a commission through links on this page — this does not influence rankings. Editorial policy
TEKsystems is the best fit when a distributed enterprise needs governed remote service desk execution with tight escalation control, whereas Concentrix suits enterprise IT teams that want predictable, SLA-backed remote support reporting with structured escalation.
Editor’s top 3 picks
Three quick recommendations before you dive into the full comparison below — each one leads on a different dimension.
TEKsystems
Tiered escalation management tied to standardized incident workflows across remote support teams.
Built for fits when distributed enterprises need managed service desk execution with strong escalation control..
Concentrix
Editor pickEscalation matrix execution across support tiers with service-level measurement tied to delivery.
Built for fits when enterprise IT orgs need governed remote support with predictable escalation and SLA reporting..
Globant
Editor pickService delivery governed by engineering ownership for end-to-end workflow consistency across support and change.
Built for fits when distributed teams need managed remote IT plus engineering-led delivery governance..
Comparison Table
TEKsystems
specialistIT staffing and services firm providing remote technology professionals.
Tiered escalation management tied to standardized incident workflows across remote support teams.
TEKsystems acts as an execution partner for help desk outsourcing where ticketing discipline, escalation matrix usage, and service-level agreement management matter. Remote desktop support workflows and endpoint troubleshooting are handled through structured intake, diagnosis, and handoffs rather than ad hoc remote fixes. The engagement model suits multi-site organizations that need consistent coverage and clear ownership across tiers. Integration and automation depth depend on the chosen client stack and the implemented ticketing and monitoring handoff points.
A key tradeoff is that TEKsystems service outcomes depend on the client providing usable runbooks, correct access scopes, and clean asset and identity inputs. One common usage situation is replacing an internal service desk during hiring delays while keeping ticket routing, escalation, and knowledge updates aligned to existing processes.
- +Large delivery staffing supports sustained coverage and tiered escalation
- +Clear remote support workflows reduce handoff variance across locations
- +Operational reporting supports incident throughput tracking and trend review
- +Experience with enterprise Microsoft 365 support improves ticket resolution
- –Client runbooks and access scopes heavily influence first-contact resolution
- –Deep automation and API integrations require alignment to the existing toolchain
- –Knowledge base quality depends on ongoing client and agent participation
- –Endpoint lifecycle tasks can require separate governance agreements
IT operations leaders
Replace internal help desk coverage
Reduced backlog and faster resolution
Service desk managers
Standardize ticketing and routing
More consistent ticket outcomes
Show 2 more scenarios
IT compliance teams
Audit-ready remote support workflows
Cleaner operational documentation
Delivery governance centers on tracked incident handling and escalation records for oversight.
Microsoft 365 administrators
Triage user issues in tenant
Lower time to service restoration
Remote troubleshooting supports identity and productivity incidents that need controlled investigation steps.
Best for: Fits when distributed enterprises need managed service desk execution with strong escalation control.
Concentrix
enterprise_vendorProvider of remote customer experience and IT technical support services.
Escalation matrix execution across support tiers with service-level measurement tied to delivery.
Concentrix is built for buyers who expect managed IT services with clear ticketing workflow control, consistent response-time targets, and documented escalation paths. Service delivery quality is driven by operational design such as intake controls, knowledge base usage in day-to-day handling, and escalation consistency across regions. The engagement shape is typically structured around service desk metrics and governance checkpoints rather than a self-serve integration-first model.
A key tradeoff is that deeper automation and integration depth usually depend on a defined implementation and operating governance, not on a plug-and-play experience. Concentrix fits when a large organization needs ongoing remote desktop support and operational oversight, and it does not fit teams that require rapid in-house customization of automation logic without a management layer.
- +SLA-focused operating model with defined escalation routes
- +Process-driven ticket triage that supports consistent workload handling
- +Endpoint patching and software deployment can be included in delivery
- +Service desk reporting supports ongoing governance reviews
- –Automation customization typically requires structured setup and ownership
- –Integration depth can lag organizations expecting direct API-first control
- –Knowledge base maturity depends on active content management involvement
- –Workflow changes may move slower than agile internal teams expect
IT operations leaders
SLA-managed remote help desk coverage
Lower variance in incident handling
Service desk managers
High-volume ticket routing and governance
Faster resolution for repeat issues
Show 2 more scenarios
Workplace IT teams
Remote desktop support with endpoint fixes
Reduced endpoint-related incident recurrence
Support engagements can include patching and software deployment actions for endpoints.
IT compliance owners
Audit-ready support operations reporting
More defensible operational controls
Managed delivery supports governance reviews tied to service performance metrics.
Best for: Fits when enterprise IT orgs need governed remote support with predictable escalation and SLA reporting.
Globant
enterprise_vendorDigital transformation company delivering remote IT development and services.
Service delivery governed by engineering ownership for end-to-end workflow consistency across support and change.
Globant is a fit when remote support needs to connect to larger transformation programs, because delivery teams often operate with structured governance, defined workflows, and engineering participation beyond ticket handling. Common remote IT responsibilities in engagements include incident intake, endpoint operations coordination, and support for identity and access processes that touch multiple systems. This design is most effective when stakeholders can specify how requests should route, how escalations should work, and which downstream systems must be updated.
A tradeoff is that Globant’s results often depend on upfront alignment on process ownership and integration responsibilities, especially when multiple IT tools and access systems are involved. It works best when an organization expects sustained managed services delivery plus periodic change work, such as adding new endpoints, rolling out access changes, or supporting migrations while keeping help desk operations stable.
- +Engineering-led delivery governance reduces handoff friction across support and change
- +Clear escalation approach supports predictable incident progression during peak load
- +Workflow-based support integration fits environments with multiple IT systems
- +Consistent operating model supports steady managed services over time
- –Requires disciplined setup of process ownership across IT and business teams
- –Integration-heavy environments can extend onboarding timelines
- –Remote support outcomes can hinge on upstream ticket quality and routing rules
- –Less suitable for organizations that only want break-fix help desk
CIO and IT operations
Managed support across multiple regions
Faster resolution through clear routing
IT service management leaders
Help desk tied to change programs
Fewer broken handoffs
Show 2 more scenarios
Identity and security operations
Access changes coordinated with support
Lower risk during access updates
Remote support activities are aligned with identity processes used for controlled access adjustments.
Workplace technology teams
Endpoint support during onboarding waves
More consistent device readiness
Endpoint operations are handled alongside ticket workflows during recurring device provisioning cycles.
Best for: Fits when distributed teams need managed remote IT plus engineering-led delivery governance.
Toptal
freelance_platformPlatform matching companies with freelance remote IT professionals and developers.
Role-based talent vetting that produces structured shortlists for rapid specialist provisioning.
Toptal is a remote IT services marketplace that differentiates through vetted independent talent and role-specific shortlists. Delivery centers on staff augmentation for engineering and IT work, including time-boxed project execution and ongoing support that can be staffed with named specialists.
The engagement shape emphasizes workflow continuity through managed candidate matching rather than ticketing integrations or service desk tooling. For teams needing remote IT delivery with tight talent matching, Toptal focuses more on human provisioning than operational automation.
- +Screened specialists mapped to role requirements for faster ramp-up
- +Shortlisted talent options reduce planning churn for new initiatives
- +Works well for project-based engineering and IT support staffing
- +Flexible team composition for niche skills and short engagements
- –Not a managed service stack for service desk or remote monitoring
- –Automation and API surface for IT operations is not a core delivery feature
- –Governance requires client-side processes to align with internal RBAC
- –Service-level targets depend on engagement scope and talent availability
Best for: Fits when teams need remote IT delivery via vetted specialists, not an end-to-end managed service desk.
Upwork
freelance_platformFreelance marketplace connecting businesses with remote IT contractors and consultants.
Milestone-based contracting with in-platform collaboration, which fits delivery managed around client-defined acceptance.
Upwork supports remote IT work by matching businesses with independent talent and service contractors through job posts, proposals, and milestone-based work. Work is managed inside the Upwork workspace with messaging, file sharing, and contract milestones that can translate into a measurable delivery workflow for IT tasks like fixes, deployments, and ongoing support.
The platform’s distinct value comes from its large pool of specialized roles and its ability to run multi-supplier delivery under a single hiring process. It does not replace dedicated service desk operations or managed monitoring, since contract work still relies on client-defined scope and acceptance criteria.
- +Strong contractor matching for specialized IT tasks and niche skills
- +Milestone workflows support scoped delivery with clear acceptance points
- +Centralized messaging and document exchange for remote execution
- +Flexible staffing for short projects and intermittent IT needs
- –Service-level delivery depends on contract scope and enforcement
- –Less governance depth than purpose-built help desk and IT ops tools
- –IT asset and incident workflows require external tooling integration
- –Requires careful requirements writing to avoid scope drift
Best for: Fits when hiring discrete remote IT specialists for scoped projects or limited-duration support.
Robert Half
specialistStaffing firm offering remote IT professionals through Technology division.
Staffing-led managed service delivery that couples recruiters with service desk operations for continuous remote coverage.
Robert Half brings IT remote support capability through managed service delivery that centers on staffing and service desk operations.
Delivery work is built around ticket handling, escalation paths, and documented support processes for resolving incidents and service requests.
Teams get access to professional recruiters and IT services delivery coordination, which helps when internal coverage is thin.
Operational fit is strongest when governance, response-time targets, and hands-on endpoint and user support are the priority.
- +Service desk operations built on staffed ticket intake and structured escalation
- +Delivery coordination supports continuity when internal coverage is inconsistent
- +Governance alignment through service-level commitments and process documentation
- +Hands-on remote troubleshooting workflows for end-user and device issues
- –Less transparent API and automation surface for programmatic workflows
- –Implementation depends on onboarding effort and agreed support boundaries
- –Reporting depth can vary by engagement scope and supporting tools
- –Endpoint lifecycle coverage may require additional contracting for advanced workflows
Best for: Fits when IT teams need staffed remote support with clear escalation and service-level targets.
Sutherland
enterprise_vendorGlobal provider of remote IT support and technical help desk services.
Runbook-driven remote support and service desk operations with quality monitoring and governance routines tied to delivery performance.
Sutherland provides managed IT remote services with a delivery structure designed for steady operational support rather than ad hoc remote help.
The service desk and remote support workflows emphasize ticket routing, defined escalation paths, and consistent handling across support volumes.
Endpoint and remote support coverage is delivered through process controls that align support work to enterprise expectations for ownership and resolution tracking.
- +Service desk delivery with defined ticket workflows and escalation handling
- +Managed operations model suited to multi-site support coverage and sustained volume
- +Quality monitoring and governance processes built around service performance
- +Process-driven endpoint and remote support handling for enterprise environments
- –Requires clear onboarding inputs to map incidents, ownership, and routing
- –Automation depth depends heavily on the client’s integration scope and tools
- –Desktop and endpoint coverage is operationally strong but not developer-first
- –Admin workflows can feel heavier than lightweight remote support tools
Best for: Fits when mid-market to enterprise teams need managed service desk operations with strong governance and structured escalation.
EPAM Systems
enterprise_vendorProvider of remote software engineering and IT consulting services.
EPAM’s integration-to-operations delivery model connects incident handling to controlled change execution for dependent services.
EPAM Systems delivers remote IT support through large-scale enterprise delivery teams trained for multi-site operations and controlled execution. It couples service desk and endpoint support workflows with consulting-led systems integration, which often improves fix accuracy when incidents touch custom apps, identity, or legacy integrations.
EPAM also brings engineering-grade automation habits, including documented APIs and integration patterns used in managed operations. For organizations that need both day-to-day support and deeper environment changes, EPAM’s delivery model can span from ticket intake to release-aligned remediation.
- +Enterprise delivery discipline with strong escalation workflows and accountable ownership
- +Integration-first approach for incidents tied to identity, custom services, or legacy dependencies
- +Engineering-led automation patterns for repeatable remediation across client environments
- +Clear handoffs between support operations and implementation teams for change execution
- –Often best suited to larger programs with established governance and defined service boundaries
- –Automation depth can lag behind specialized IT managed service vendors for small standalone needs
- –Remote support engagement may require detailed environment mapping before consistent outcomes
- –Tight coupling to integration work can lengthen resolution timelines for simple ticket classes
Best for: Fits when enterprise teams need remote IT support plus integration and engineering-backed remediation coordination.
Foundever
enterprise_vendorGlobal provider of remote customer experience and IT support services.
Managed service desk operations with SLA-focused escalation matrix execution across remote IT support tickets.
Foundever runs a managed help desk and service desk operation that handles ticket intake, triage, and remote resolution steps under agreed service levels.
The delivery model centers on escalation paths and operational procedures, which helps support teams coordinate faster when incidents exceed first-line resolution.
Support work commonly extends into productivity administration tasks such as Microsoft 365 changes, which reduces handoffs for common access and configuration needs.
- +Service desk delivery with SLA tracking and escalation workflow control
- +Operational handoffs for incident triage and remote resolution work
- +Microsoft 365 administration support for access and productivity changes
- +Structured knowledge base usage to standardize repeat resolutions
- –Automation and API depth is limited compared with engineering-led platforms
- –Integration depth depends on established customer processes and tooling
- –Less suitable for highly customized endpoint automation without add-on coordination
- –Governance reporting emphasizes outcomes more than raw operational telemetry
Best for: Fits when teams need managed service desk execution with defined SLAs and guided operational governance.
CI&T
enterprise_vendorDigital transformation partner delivering remote IT and engineering services.
API-driven coordination that ties service operations to broader CI&T engineering and managed delivery pipelines.
CI&T is a strong match for hiring teams that need remote IT service delivery tied to enterprise systems and automation, not only ticket handling.
Integration coverage is the core differentiator, because CI&T delivery typically connects service workflows to identity, endpoint operations, and operational controls.
- +Integration-led delivery connecting service desk workflows to enterprise systems
- +Automation and API-centric coordination across ticketing, monitoring, and deployment
- +Governed operational execution with escalation paths tied to delivery controls
- +Strong fit for managed IT work that depends on identity and endpoint coupling
- –Customization depth increases onboarding effort compared with lighter service models
- –Some remote support outcomes depend on client-owned tooling readiness
- –Endpoint and infrastructure scopes may require additional architecture decisions
- –Admin and reporting workflows can be operationally complex for small teams
Best for: Fits when enterprises need remote IT operations integrated with existing identity, endpoint, and service management workflows.
Conclusion
After evaluating 10 remote and hybrid work in industry, TEKsystems stands out as our overall top pick — it scored highest across our combined criteria of features, ease of use, and value, which is why it sits at #1 in the rankings above.
Use the comparison table and detailed reviews above to validate the fit against your own requirements before committing to a tool.
How to Choose the Right it remote
This it remote buyer's guide compares TEKsystems, Concentrix, Globant, Toptal, Upwork, Robert Half, Sutherland, EPAM Systems, Foundever, and CI&T using delivery governance, automation and API surface, and escalation control.
The provider cards show that some offerings run as managed service desk operations with tiered escalation and governed ticket workflows, while others deliver remote specialists or engineering-led remediation tied to change execution. TEKsystems and Concentrix emphasize escalation matrix execution across support tiers, while Globant and EPAM Systems connect remote support to engineering governance for end-to-end incident progression.
IT Remote services that run staffed help desks and remote IT operations with governed escalation
IT remote services cover remote service desk execution for incident intake, ticket triage, and escalation across remote support teams, with governance that controls how issues move from first contact to higher tiers. TEKsystems differentiates with tiered escalation management tied to standardized incident workflows across remote support teams.
Concentrix also centers escalation matrix execution across support tiers, with service-level measurement tied to delivery so escalations align to SLA reporting. Globant and EPAM Systems shift differentiation toward engineering ownership and integration-to-operations delivery, connecting incident handling to controlled change execution for dependent services and identity or legacy dependencies.
IT Remote service capabilities to compare by governance and delivery control
IT remote buyers need more than ticket intake, because escalation behavior determines whether remote support resolves issues inside the targeted response window or pushes work into higher tiers. The provider cards show meaningful differences in escalation mechanics and how delivery governance shapes handoffs.
Automation and integration also determine how consistently remote operations behave across locations. TEKsystems and Concentrix emphasize standardized escalation execution, while CI&T and Globant emphasize integration-to-operations coordination tied to broader engineering workflows.
Tiered escalation execution with measurable routes
TEKsystems runs tiered escalation management tied to standardized incident workflows across remote support teams. Concentrix executes an escalation matrix across support tiers with service-level measurement tied to delivery.
Governed ticket triage workflow across tiers
Concentrix uses process-driven ticket triage designed to keep workload handling consistent as tickets move across tiers. Sutherland runs runbook-driven remote support with defined ticket workflows and escalation handling.
Engineering-led delivery governance across support and change
Globant governs service delivery with engineering ownership to keep end-to-end workflows consistent across support and change. EPAM Systems connects incident handling to controlled change execution for dependent services.
API-driven coordination between service desk and operations pipelines
CI&T delivers API-driven coordination that ties service operations into broader engineering and managed delivery pipelines. TEKsystems expects automation and API integrations to align to the client’s existing toolchain for deeper workflow control.
Structured escalation plus staffing-led coverage continuity
Robert Half provides staffed remote service desk operations with recruiter-driven staffing coordination for continuous remote coverage. Foundever provides managed service desk operations with SLA-focused escalation matrix execution for remote IT support tickets.
Choose an IT remote delivery model by escalation control, automation surface, and governance fit
The first decision should be about how escalation is run when incidents do not resolve at first contact. TEKsystems and Concentrix focus on governed escalation mechanics across support tiers, while Globant and EPAM Systems focus on engineering governance tied to change execution.
The second decision should be about how much automation and API-driven coordination the provider can operate without slowing down onboarding. CI&T and TEKsystems are explicit about API-centric coordination, while Toptal and Upwork fit specialist provisioning or scoped delivery where service desk automation is not the primary delivery engine.
Select the escalation philosophy that matches incident ownership
If the operating model depends on standardized escalation routes across remote support teams, TEKsystems is built around tiered escalation tied to standardized incident workflows. If the operating model depends on SLA reporting and governed escalation matrix execution across support tiers, Concentrix aligns to predictable escalation and service-level measurement.
Pick engineering-governed incident progression when change execution is tightly coupled
Choose Globant when support and change need consistent end-to-end workflow governance via engineering ownership. Choose EPAM Systems when incident handling must connect to controlled change execution for dependent services, especially identity and legacy dependencies.
Decide how automation and APIs need to fit into existing tooling
Choose CI&T when remote service operations must integrate via API-driven coordination into existing identity, endpoint, and service management workflows. Choose TEKsystems when deeper automation and API integrations are expected to align with the client’s existing toolchain and governance boundaries.
Choose specialist hiring models for scoped work instead of managed service desk execution
Choose Toptal when remote IT delivery must come from role-based vetted specialists and not from a full managed service desk or remote monitoring stack. Choose Upwork when milestones and in-platform collaboration need to drive acceptance for discrete remote IT projects.
Validate staffing and onboarding dependencies against internal readiness
Choose Robert Half when staffing-led operations and continuous remote coverage help bridge internal coverage gaps. Choose Sutherland when runbook-driven delivery can be mapped using clear onboarding inputs for incidents, ownership, and routing.
Who should buy IT remote services from these providers
Remote IT buyers should match the provider delivery shape to how incidents are owned across tiers and how much coordination is required across tooling and engineering teams. The cards show different strengths in escalation governance, engineering-led remediation, and API-driven coordination.
Some buyers need staffed managed service desk coverage, while others need specialist delivery for scoped remote work. The provider set includes both managed service desk operators and staffing or milestone-driven delivery vendors.
Distributed enterprises managing remote service desk coverage across locations
TEKsystems supports sustained coverage through large delivery staffing and uses standardized incident workflows to reduce handoff variance across locations.
Enterprise IT orgs that require governed escalation and SLA reporting across support tiers
Concentrix runs an SLA-focused operating model with defined escalation routes and process-driven ticket triage designed for consistent workload handling.
Teams that treat engineering change execution as part of incident resolution
Globant and EPAM Systems both connect remote support progression to engineering governance, with Globant emphasizing engineering ownership across support and change and EPAM Systems emphasizing controlled change execution for dependent services.
Enterprises with an existing operations stack that must integrate service desk workflows programmatically
CI&T coordinates service operations via API-driven integration with enterprise identity, endpoint, and service management workflows, while TEKsystems supports automation and API integrations when toolchain alignment is planned.
Organizations hiring remote specialists for scoped projects instead of ongoing managed service desk delivery
Toptal provides role-based vetted specialists for rapid ramp-up, while Upwork structures delivery around milestone acceptance for limited-duration remote IT tasks.
Common IT remote buying mistakes that misalign governance, automation, and delivery scope
The biggest buying failures come from assuming all IT remote vendors behave the same during escalation and resolution. The cards show that escalation mechanics vary from standardized tiered workflows to engineering-governed change execution and API-centric coordination.
Another common failure is picking a specialist delivery model when managed service desk execution is required, which creates gaps in operational governance during sustained ticket volumes. The provider set includes vendors designed for specialist provisioning and vendors designed for managed remote support.
Selecting a specialist staffing model when the program needs tiered escalation and governed ticket workflows
Toptal and Upwork support specialist provisioning and milestone-based acceptance, but they do not deliver the managed escalation execution described for TEKsystems and Concentrix.
Assuming automation and API integration will succeed without toolchain alignment
TEKsystems requires client runbooks and access scopes to influence first-contact resolution, and it calls out that deep automation and API integrations require alignment to the existing toolchain.
Underestimating onboarding inputs required for runbook-driven governance
Sutherland depends on clear onboarding inputs to map incidents, ownership, and routing, which can limit outcomes if internal incident routing is not specified upfront.
Ignoring the difference between escalation-only workflows and engineering-governed change execution
Concentrix and TEKsystems focus on escalation matrix execution across support tiers, while Globant and EPAM Systems tie incident progression to engineering ownership and controlled change execution.
How We Selected and Ranked These Providers
We evaluated TEKsystems, Concentrix, Globant, Toptal, Upwork, Robert Half, Sutherland, EPAM Systems, Foundever, and CI&T on features that map to governed escalation behavior, operational workflow consistency, and the presence of automation and API-centric coordination. Features accounted for 40% of the scoring and focused on tiered escalation mechanics, ticket triage workflow governance, and how delivery governance is enforced during incident progression.
Ease and value each accounted for 30% and reflected how quickly onboarding can map to the provider operating model and how predictable service-level execution remains when incidents require escalation. TEKsystems separated at the top by combining tiered escalation management tied to standardized incident workflows with large delivery staffing that sustains remote coverage and reduces handoff variance across locations.
Frequently Asked Questions About it remote
How do TEKsystems and Concentrix structure remote service desk ticket routing and escalation?
Which provider is better for remote support integrations when identity and endpoint operations span multiple systems?
What breaks if access provisioning data and RBAC inputs are inconsistent when remote support is outsourced?
When do Globant and EPAM Systems typically require upfront alignment on process ownership for remote IT delivery?
How do Sutherland and Foundever handle escalation when first-line resolution fails during remote troubleshooting?
Which provider fits when remote IT support needs to connect to ongoing change work, not just ticket closure?
How does Toptal’s remote delivery model differ from managed service desk execution for remote IT support?
When should hiring teams choose Concentrix over TEKsystems for enterprise remote support oversight?
What onboarding artifacts typically matter most for TEKsystems and Robert Half to start remote support without workflow drift?
Tools reviewed
Primary sources checked during evaluation.
Referenced in the comparison table and product reviews above.
- Remote And Hybrid Work In IndustryTop 10 Best Employee Remote Work Services of 2026
- Remote And Hybrid Work In IndustryTop 10 Best Fully Remote Tech Services of 2026
- Remote And Hybrid Work In IndustryTop 10 Best Cloud Migration Remote Services of 2026
- Remote And Hybrid Work In IndustryTop 10 Best Computer Remote Software of 2026
- Remote And Hybrid Work In IndustryTop 10 Best Manager Self Service Software of 2026
Keep exploring
Comparing two specific tools?
Software Alternatives
See head-to-head software comparisons with feature breakdowns, pricing, and our recommendation for each use case.
Explore software alternatives→In this category
Remote And Hybrid Work In Industry alternatives
See side-by-side comparisons of remote and hybrid work in industry tools and pick the right one for your stack.
Compare remote and hybrid work in industry tools→