Social in Business: Rubber meet Road

In this next installment of Social in Business we focus on Strategy.

Hopefully the thesis of this post shouldn’t knock your socks off; in a nutshell, businesses need a social software strategy in order for the social in business to be successful at the firm.
Want to reach the holy grail of an e-mail free working environment? In reality what you’ll likely find, especially if you do the strategy legwork, is that the goal is not getting rid of e-mail. Rather, the goal is to improve e-mail usage so that it is not a drag on productivity. And yes, social tools can help with that. That goal, however, will never be achieved unless the firm puts in place a strategy with plans and guidelines for effectively mitigating e-mail stresses through social tools.

By strategy I mean a well-considered plan for selecting, deploying, managing, and educating users on the technology that will support social working activities. Social software options (e.g., vendors, tools, cloud, on-premise) options can become overwhelming very quickly. A good strategy considers the different options, how the business works, and then gauges success through identifiable metrics and milestones. It also means doing a fair amount of homework on the technology state, corporate governance, internal communications, cost factors, and operational requirements for deploying different options. Assessing this information and building a strategy that addresses these factors of the business not only aids in making decisions but also helps to identify viable solutions and (hopefully) documents the rationale for those decisions.

Why is this necessary? Because, like anything else in business, times and technology change. If the firm knows why it chose something in the first place, and documented what was successful and what failed, it will be a lot easier to modify and keep up with new trends as they come along. For example, knowing why the firm chose an on-premise solution over cloud-based solution is valuable information, especially if the reasons, cost, and rationale for that choice are documented and the plan is clearly defined on paper. It becomes much easier to recalibrate choices or make changes should a compelling reason for one choice become obsolete. Going back to the example, subsequent network upgrades might cloud-based solutions easier to support and more cost effective, hence the firm can quickly revisit the old rationale and decide if it applies any longer.

Strategies also help to communicate to the business and executives the nature of social software and that it takes time for success. Documenting the plan for development, deployment, and success metrics for social in business helps non-technical colleagues understand the cultural and working shifts that come with social software. It becomes much easier for the business to support new technology efforts if they know what to expect and when.

We all know that a good strategy and plan makes life easier with fewer gotchas when it comes to deployment. It can be hard to reign in enthusiasm for something new that will solve the “big” issues, but it’s worth the effort to take the time for strategy. No matter what the strategy is, the firm is better off with one. Even if the strategy is to let things grow organically and ad hoc, at least the consideration of the risks have been addressed, communicated and documented. What’s not to like about that?

Social in Business Series

Part 1 - What we are talking about
Part 2 - Build it and they will come (?)
Part 3 - What are we doing here anyway?

Enterprise Social Networking is More Than Facebook Behind a Firewall

More input from Brian Solis at Altimeter Group on the "you" in social in business:

Everything you see in social networks is unique to you because you are at the center of the entire experience. This is why I lovingly refer to social media as the Egosystem. By design, everything revolves around you. Your friends, co-workers, the businesses and organizations you support, are linked to by you. You have become the ringmaster of your personal connectivity and in many ways, serve as the IT department not only for yourself, but also the people who rely upon you to ease their way into the egosystem. You know better than anyone what it takes to engage you and also inspire you to take action.

The article highlights some current enterprise social media trends and some good action items for success.

Social in Business: What are we doing here anyway?

This is the third post in the Top Dog/Elguji Social in Business blog series. The first post was entitled "Social in Business: What we are talking about" and the second was entitled "Social in Business: Build it and they will come (?)".

Today we focus on Objectives.

So if you’ve followed my blog (or other similar minded bloggers) you’ve likely come across one of my occasional rants about the pitfalls of buying technology for technology’s sake. This is sort of one of those posts in this installment of “Social in Business”, Objective.

It’s hard to pick a technology, even an everything-including-the-kitchen-sink type of technology as social software, if you don’t know what you need it for. Actually one of the drawbacks of technologies that offer many options, such as social software, is that it is the potential answer to many issues. Vendor’s sales and marketing like the Swiss Army Knife utility of social software because they can answer “yes” to many customer needs but it makes things that much harder to for the customer to figure out if it really needs the product or not. More specifically, with so many options it can be very hard to identify which parts of the product offer the most value to customer’s business.
Who knew the toothpick on the Swiss Army knife would end up being so handy? Taking the Swiss Army knife analogy a bit further, today there are many versions of the renowned knife on the market that customer’s really need to know what they want to carry around in their pockets and what is likely to be most useful; corkscrew or none? For me a corkscrew-less version would be virtually useless. And what about the semi-retired boy scout who might benefit more with a Leatherman. It’s all a matter of knowing which features will serve the greatest purpose for the unique needs of the customer. Regardless of which model the customer chooses, they will likely use some tools in the kit more than others depending on their needs.

The same applies when choosing social software for enterprises. Much depends on the firm’s needs and how it operates. In other words, if a firm has a strong hierarchy with lots of structure and formalized ways of completing work its social software needs are likely to be different from a de-centralized, cross-organizational firm that functions in more organic ways. Both are viable organizations but they have very different objectives and expectations for the social software technologies that they employ.

Before picking a specific social software technology, and more specifically a vendor, enterprises should look at the objectives for the technology. If it turns out that there are many objectives, pick the objectives that will provide the most value to the firm. Make these the leading objectives for the technology to solve and focus on how to achieve them. Some may be solved without any technology or simply by improving on existing technologies. But the key idea is that the firm must know what it needs to work on before picking a tool or technology.
Identifying the leading objectives for social software in the enterprise and how to meet them cannot be done in an IT vacuum and must include input from the business and operational sides of the firm. This will ensure greater success and adoption when the business is part of creating the solution. It is vital for enterprises to understand the working culture, needs, and goals for the social technologies they want to deploy prior to choosing which one to buy. Otherwise they might just end up with a giant, expensive brick in their pockets.

Social in Business: Build it an they will come (?)

This is the second post in the Top Dog/Elguji Social in Business blog series. Today we focus on people.

Social - tending or form cooperative and interdependent relationships with others.¹

By its very nature, the term social implies people. I particularly like this definition of “social” since it is open-ended enough to us to consider “others” as either people or information. After all, in the world of “social software” what we're really discussing here are technologies that foster relationships between people and other people, people and information, and information with other information. Bottom line is that social in business aims to tap into people and the human factors of how work gets accomplished. This is tricky stuff. There are so many subjective factors that a one-size-fits-all approach to social software in the enterprise is virtually impossible. What we can do is look at best practices and figure out if they support the specific business or process we seek to improve and then apply what makes best sense to succeed.

As noted in our first post, enterprises are moving beyond the "it's just a fad" opinion of social software to cautious optimism and beginning to formulate just what social software would look like at their firm and how it can improve business. The fact that social software in each business can mean different things is probably a blessing and a curse. On the one hand it's great to have many options but on the other hand it means more complexity in figuring out which options to implement first or which things will support the firms needs the best.

Understanding which options to pick means having a good idea on how people at the firm work and what tools will help them do their jobs most effectively. Today that's a moving target. With mobile, consumer tools (e.g., Facebook, Google Plus), globalization, telecommuting, and the changing workforces, not only are the lines blurred between work and personal business but also navigating the matrix of different working styles is becoming more difficult to quantify and address. For example, the fact that I’m siting in a café in downtown LA right now while writing this does not mean I am any more or less effective than if I were sitting at a desk in an office building. In other words firms need to address all of these “human” factors to keep up and make a productive working environment.

Since people are vital to social in business we are seeing HR, Operations, and departments other than IT initiating social in business. This makes a lot of sense, considering that we are talking about working with and impacting the culture of the organization and how it works.  It also makes sense that parts of the organization dedicated to its culture and operations are very interested in what happens with social technology.

IT has the power to make the enterprise more effective but IT has never been accused of being a social mover or shaker. Rightfully so, IT really should not be in the business of changing corporate working culture; it should be in the business of making sure that people work effectively and securely through the proper use and implementation of tools. IT’s role is to help the human factors side of the business succeed at social in business. This can only be accomplished through planning, implementing, and cooperating with the people parts of the business.

Social software in business isn’t just a matter of “build it and they will come.” Rather, social in business requires first, an understanding of how people work together with others (people and information) to conduct business. Only then can IT implement and create an ecosystem that will support the social business needs most effectively.

1. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social

IBM's Social Business Gambit - What do I think?

In my last post I outlined what I consider IBM’s Social Business gambit coming out of the Lotusphere/Connect 2012 conference this month. But I really didn't get into my opinions whether I think it will work. So, here goes...

Am I buying it?

Yes, the message. The IBM Social Business gambit and re-brand away from the Lotus marque is primarily a marketing message. Overall IBM clearly articulated and streamlined its message on the communications/collaboration tools market. I think this is a very good start. Quite frankly, given the current market and competition, it’s about the only option IBM had. The good news is that they are doing it.

To expand, IBM’s Social Business market strategy is a re-tooled perspective on where communications/collaboration has been heading for a long time. Bottom-line, the problems we trying to solve are not new; just there’s new technology to help us get things done. As Linda Stone explains we be been moving through evolutionary phases of technology changing how we work. Right now were evolving towards understanding our information by being able to use it more effectively:

Today, we are Knowledge Workers evolving into Understanding Workers.  Understanding Workers use technology to anticipate, judge and act.

This idea fits nicely with Sir Tim Berners-Lee’s Lotusphere keynote in which he spoke about being on the cusp of the semantic web. Longstanding technology that has served us well is fraying at the edges in a continually connected, multi- device, big data working world. Information management is going from find-ability to connect-ability.

The problem for most enterprises is how to provide for Understanding Workers and what it means operationally. That’s what IBM is attempting to address by shifting the conversation to Social Business and away from why e-mail stinks. Changing the topic reboots the conversation and refocuses the issues to the cultural shift that enterprises need to go through to get to the other side. So am I buying the changed conversation and the idea of the social business? Yes.

Will companies buy it?

Hard to say, but customers are looking for innovation, and that usually is a new conversation even if the problem is the same. Social software solutions are not streamlined today, although many are coming closer (e.g., Salesforce.com) or are well enabled to do so (e.g., Jive’s December 2011 $120M IPO).  But just when the business begins to take an active interest in the technological culture of the firm, the way workers access information and each other has exploded into a complex matrix of devices, technologies, and solutions.

Delivering a reassuring message about how IBM understands enterprise issues and providing understandable approaches to new technology complexities offer customers a sound starting point. IBM has got to feel confident about it, and it’s clear that they do.

However, it is a guarded IBM installed-based that IBM is running this by first. A market message is only good if it garners interest; the success of a strategy is in the technology execution and delivery. Redefining the conversation and demonstrating what life might be like only goes so far. Success depends on whether or not customers can comfortably replicate the experience being demonstrated to them.

Will IBM win?

They way I see it, IBM has three hurdles to clear in order for the social business gambit to pay off:

1.     Technology delivery

2.     Market disruption

3.     New competitors

Proof of the technology is in the execution. IBM needs to stay the course and execute its technology and delivery well. I didn't get to see the technical presentations at Lotusphere/Connect 2012. Combine that with IBMs increasing coyness to reveal the inner workings of its technology and it's hard to for me honestly evaluate whether the technology is sound. Given IBMs performance over the last 4 years I am cautiously optimistic.

In its last major communications/collaboration software change-up IBM effectively sold the message of a new beginning to many customers. The long awaited Domino 8.0 and the Eclipse-based client (delivered in August 2007) provided a B12 perception booster for customers eagerly awaiting improvements to a haggard code-base. The message worked, staving off customer defections temporarily, but the technology of the updated system was not as promised. This caused a lot of buyer’s remorse and IBM struggling to keep its customer-base intact.

Even the die hard, bleed yellow folks were exasperated. Attributed by some to the offshoring of development and the decimation of the US development and QA, the execution of the early Notes/Domino 8.0.x code stream opened the doors for competitors and other IBM Lotus technologies (i.e., Connections) to swoop in and displace the Lotus crown jewels. Note, general consensus is that the 8.5 release of Notes/Domino at the end of 2008 was much more stable as are subsequent releases, most recently version 8.5.3 released in October 2011.

More recently IBM has placed its marketing focus on the front end and user experience of its communication/collaboration tools. This approach has been successful in capturing the attention of the business buyers, however, the once-bitten, twice shy effect of unrealized Domino 8.0 promises has left a degree of skepticism in customer’s minds that IBM continues to contend with.  

Which comes to market disruption. A frustrated customer-base makes for easy fishing by competitors, and both Microsoft and Google have been casting long lines with varying success. For IBM to succeed it needs to be disruptive enough not only to stop this feeding frenzy and but also for its competitors to stop writing IBM off.  IBM needs to make it a goal to get its competitor’s sales reps to start complaining about IBM disruption.

On the one hand IBM could simply write off the likes of Cisco, Google, Microsoft and Oracle as being behind the social times, however that would be short-sighted since these business have large customer bases in other areas that can be leveraged for new technologies, no matter how passé their messages seem.

It’s not only the usual suspects that comprise the social IT market. IBM, by changing the discussion, wittingly or not, jumped into a competitive pool that includes a new breed of providers. In addition to the known entities, IBM will need to fend off a variety of social software sharks including, Jive, SocialText, Salesforce.com, and Yammer.

The competition boils down to gaining the attention of customers – existing and new - enough to be disruptive. With this many players the market share will be diluted until acquisitions and dropouts consolidate the market place. Until then IBM will need to gain the attention of customers that have lots of choices and little (for now) internal direction on where to go.

Final words

Overall my analysis is, it depends. It depends on what IBM can and will deliver. It depends on whether or not IBM can become disruptive enough to gain new customers in a crowded market place. It depends on if IBM can compete against a new breed of competitor.

Ok, pretty wishy-washy, but here’s what I will say. IBM’s Social Business message is a good start to driving the mindset of the market, and if IBM manages to get it to trickle into its sales and development ranks, then IBM is on the right path to restoring customer confidence and sparking innovation. Since the social market is hardly a vacuum these days, IBM will need to get more down and dirty to influence things. Although I am doubtful about the likelihood of IBM doing this, a couple strategic acquisitions would go a long way to thinning the competition and is likely to gain customer confidence in IBM’s commitment to social business.

I predict that IBM will succeed in attracting business buyer interest with its Social Business message but it will likely stumble on the same hurdles that have challenged IBM in the past, including staying on message throughout the IBM organization; a cultural shift that IBM has yet to accomplish.

IBM's Social Business Gambit

Although I did not attend the IBM Lotusphere 2012 and Connect 2012 events in Orlando last week, I managed to wake up early enough (I'm in California) to watch the Opening General Session (OGS) and Keynote live-streams. These main "messaging" sessions are IBM's opportunity to tell its customer and partner base how it sees the current communication/collaboration/productivity IT market and what IBM plans to do about it. Largely the message includes a resolute - and not unexpected - re-branding strategy that shifts the discussion away from old themes to contemporary technology for business trends. Once again IBM is trying to keep at the front of the Business IT pack with the hope of driving the market and minds of business buyers. The idea is to start a new game, Social Business, and 2012 is the season opening.

The Gambit

gam·bit  (gmbt)
n.
1. An opening in chess in which a minor piece, or pieces, usually a pawn, is offered in exchange for a favorable position.
2. A maneuver, stratagem, or ploy, especially one used at an initial stage.
3. A remark intended to open a conversation.

It's clear that IBM has spent a lot of time considering its Social Business marketing strategy and how to dovetail a re-branding of the increasingly thread-worn Lotus marque. That consideration is showing up as a more focused IBM that is betting on a branding trifecta:

1. Social: more seamless integration of social tools with productivity tools and enterprise information
2. Mobile: consistent access and experience on different devices
3. Connect: information and people through a range of communication and collaboration experience

Not only is this a message customers (i.e., buyers) can hang their hat on, but it's competitively targeted at IBM's rival's weaknesses. This is most evident when looking at Microsoft's 2011 strategy that has been marked by an anemic social message, the inability to disrupt the mobile market (although WM 7.5 is getting some good press traction), and siloed productivity tools.

IBM's gambit includes the sacrificing of the Lotus brand; although not dead yet, it's been relegated to the back-seat with IBM Connections at the driver's seat. Notes Mail, Quickr, and Domino applications are now playing second fiddle to Social Messaging, Content Analytics, and XPages in the IBM Social Business strategy. It's as if IBM went to the spa and came out looking like a teenager.

This isn't all bad but the proof obviously comes in how the strategy attracts customers and if the follow-through and technology meet IBM's ambition. As one attendee tweeted during the OGS: "The geek aspect of all this is great. But will non-geeks embrace the cultural implications of all this?" (@duffbert).

Raising Bars
No matter though, IBM is confident. The teenage awkwardness we've seen at previous Lotuspheres has moved into young adulthood. Although there were some rocky moments - especially around the Websphere versus everything else message - this is not the clumsy and seemingly confused IBM of the past. IBM raised many bars at this year's events that are likely to have a bolstering impact on its customer and partner base. Overall the quality level of the streamed sessions was a step up from events over the last several years.

I am pleased that IBM finally invested in live streaming of important sessions. The insular, "you gotta be here to get it" attitude, was quite frankly insulting, especially coming from a company that sold communications products. It's as if IBM really got what it means to be social. Not only that but also the quality of the IBM web sites for Lotusphere and Connect were easy to navigate and use.

IBM also brought in A-list guest speakers. Instead of parading in partner and customer honchos, although there were some, IBM also invited key industry thinkers and figures such as Sir Tim Berners-Lee, Guy Kawasaki, Manoj Saxsena (OK he's IBM but it's Watson), Bill Taylor (FAST Company). These talks gave the event a world-class feeling with TED-style lectures that inspired discussion on how new technology in business is changing how we do our work.

Lastly, as always, the IBM press and analyst team worked the media. And although there was the usual coverage with press announcements, twittering, and blog posts (ah hem), IBM managed to also get some well-timed ink with attention grabbing headlines, such as: "IBM Gives Birth to the Amazing E-mail-less Man*" (Wired) and "SharePoint is a 'document coffin,' says IBM"(Computerworld).

Game On
In the IBM realm it's "Game On!" challenging competitors to join the scrimmage with IBM's new rules.  Now let's see how, or if, IBM's competitors join or if they will start or continue their own game. In competitor's circles IBM Lotus customers have become installed base point fodder as they compete among themselves. Now that the new game has begun IBM needs to stay the course and make sure it delivers quality technology that will strengthen and grow its fan base. Should IBM catch the attention of business customers and revive ties to the IBM brands enough to unsteady the competition then the Social Business gambit may be just what IBM needed.

*Although it's really not true, more like the "amazing e-mail emancipated man"

Which company is more social?

Nice graphics and details on the use of social media at top firms. I find the IBM numbers low, probably because IBM has so many private social networks which would not be reflected in these charts. So does that mean that Microsoft personnel use public social networks more because the company hasn't establish strong private social networks? Or is IBMs lower use of public networks a sign of weaker ties to external connections?

Click here to full chart.

The Evolution of Privacy on Facebook

Seems that Facebook is the latest privacy poster-child highlighting the strains that come between a service provider seeking a way to cash-in on our desire to socialize and the responsibility the provider assumes to protect its users.

Recent blog posts and articles have recently come out on the (de)evolution of privacy on Facebook since 2005. Kurt Opsahl of the EFF provides an handy timeline of changes to Facebook's Terms of Service through the years. This posting prompted Matt McKeon at IBM Research's Center for Social Software to create a more specific timeline and interactive chart (click on image below for link to interactive chart and blog post).

Matt points out on his blog:

However, Facebook hasn't always managed its users' data well. In the beginning, it restricted the visibility of a user's personal information to just their friends and their "network" (college or school). Over the past couple of years, the default privacy settings for a Facebook user's personal information have become more and more permissive. They've also changed how your personal information is classified several times, sometimes in a manner that has been confusing for their users. This has largely been part of Facebook's effort to correlate, publish, and monetize their social graph: a massive database of entities and links that covers everything from where you live to the movies you like and the people you trust.

In a May 13th blog post, Ken Opsahl continues his coverage and urges Facebook to "follow its own Principles." According to Opsahl, Facebook's current privacy practices coupled with Elliot Scrage's (Facebook's VP for Public Policy) flippant responses in a recent NYT readers' question and answer piece, amount to a boatload of double-speak coming out of Palo Alto when it comes to user data privacy.

Social software wants to be open by nature. Which is crux of the current Facebook privacy kerfuffle. Without openness connections can't be made. However, with any social group there are implied rules for who can participate, what gets shared, and how. From a user's point of view, social wants to be open, but not that open.

A third party, who's purpose it is to facilitate, moderate, and monetize social activity, can be at odds to the purpose of the user. It is the third purpose of the service provider, making money, that creates the tailspin. Today Facebook takes the point of view that the act of registering for a Facebook account is implicit permission for Facebook to use any information a user posts for Facebooks own purposes (we're talking about making money here). Facebook is not just there to facilitate the connections that users want to make. After all, Facebook isn't free for Facebook.

If you look at Matt's interactive chart big changes happened between 2007 and 2009. Yea, I know a whole year, but I suspect 2008 would show some other interesting data, like jumps in numbers of users, increased numbers of applications, and even increased investment into Facebook. In other words Facebook's business changed and the opening up of user data provided the means for creating monetary value in Facebook.

Social networking has reached a tipping point where the "trust" levels are diminishing as usage rises. As more people and applications use the information we post in social networks, the more skittish we become. Not without reason, the rise in spam/malware attacks, bullying, "checking-up on" by employers/neighbors/creditors, and identity theft on social media is an indication of how valuable the social media dirt is to others. Of course users want more protections with consistent policies and experiences. But maybe we're gonna have to pay for that luxury.

State of the Internet

Nice reality check.

JESS3 / The State of The Internet from Jesse Thomas on Vimeo.

I've seen Buzz from both sides now

I know these are another one of those cheesy slide-deck articles - but the HuffPo recently posted decks for The 9 Worst Features About Google Buzz and The Best Features About Google Buzz. I found the rankings, especially of the worst things, quite interesting. The number #1 worst thing wasn't privacy but "No Chronological Feeds". It seems that in its attempt to make aggregating and filtering social media content a personalized experience, Google's launch version of Buzz fell short. Buzz did well to integrate with web technologies and offer nice interfaces to pictures, entering endless status posts, or navigate content. However, Buzz failed to make it a useful for individual preferences like privacy, collapsing comments, or creating lists. There are some contradictions (or seemingly) between the best and worst - such as Finding People to Follow ends up on both lists. The devil is in the details and as with all social tools the number of people participating. I suspect finding people will get easier if more people use Buzz.

Facebook Just Patented The Feed – What Does That Mean For Everyone That Uses Them?

How's this for timing?

Facebook in 2006 filed for a patent covering ‘the feed,’ as it is known among the tech world. That patent was just granted. Something to note, Facebook filed this before feeds were in vogue, before some social darlings were even born.

Next Web cites what the patent covers and has a link to the full patent. As the author points out, it remains to be seen what Facebook will do - likely something that involves royalties - but it's "probably going to get ugly."

How feeds are able to help people filter, sort, and keep up with multiple information channels is very timely. I recently linked to a Clay Shirky lecture on re-framing the information overload conundrum. Feeds seem to be part of the answer, witnessed by the recent launching of Google Buzz - despite it's not-ready-for-prime-time functionality. Considering these trends the timing of this patent award is uncanny.

I've found little commentary in the regular media but some bloggers have jumped in. All Facebook has some interesting details on the patent - that they are continuing to update - such as the patent does not include status feeds. I can hear the collective "Phew" coming from Twitter.

Facebook Just Patented The Feed – What Does That Mean For Everyone That Uses Them?

Hierarchy of digital distraction

Information is Beautiful is amazing site on visualizing information. Today's post is s a fantastic taxonomy on how we communicate based on the quality of the conversation. The author admits he did't include instant messaging in the mix - it's too distracting - although texting, twitter, and Skype messages suffice.

AP Reporter Reprimanded For Facebook Post; Union Protests | Threat Level | Wired.com

Remember when email flaming was all the ..er..rage? It took a while for people to learn to turn off the caps lock. Surely there is a learning curve with social sites. In the meantime the stakes are pretty high, like losing your job.

The minidrama is an increasingly familiar one as companies and workers navigate the landscape defined by sites like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. Firings and reprimands over postings to social networking sites have become commonplace over the last year.

Surely, as individuals, we'll eventually learn to balance who we "let in" to our social networks, how we reveal our thoughts, and consider who might see what we say or do. I wonder how tolerance levels for "past deeds" will play out in the future. I think we'll become more tolerant when just about everyone has had the experience of putting too much out there. It's like traffic in LA (I get to say this cause I'm from LA); the best excuse when you're late for a meeting is to blame it on traffic, everyone commiserates with you especially if there was an accident on the freeway. For an interesting read on putting stuff out there take a look at this New York Times article from 2007 (funny how this article keeps coming up).

But the answer does not solely lie with the end user. Companies need to frequently communicate with their employees on what they will tolerate and not just rely on draconian measures after the fact. What's the phrase, "an ounce of prevention..."? Most companies have some sort of policy on cyber-flaming; although it's probably obtusely named something like Electronic Communications Agreement that employees my need to sign (but not re-read) once a year. Usually the agreement includes broadly written rules that only do well to serve as blunt instruments when it's needed or is useful. Typically signing the agreement is made part of employment terms but the rules are dictated rather than communicated. When was the last time you read the entire licensing agreement when you installed a piece of software? And do you think of it every time you use the software? Same idea. If a company wants to avoid embarrassment and leaked information then it should take measures to help employees understand what is tolerated and help them to do the right thing.

AP Reporter Reprimanded For Facebook Post; Union Protests | Threat Level | Wired.com

Bosses and Workers Disagree on Social Network Privacy - Digits - WSJ

A very interesting article on the battle between the bosses and the employees. I suspect there would be different results outside the US where privacy laws and attitudes are very different than in US firms - favoring more or less employee privacy and tolerance depending on where you go.

The survey was conducted in April with about 2,000 U.S. adults. Of the 500 respondents with managerial job titles (vice president, CIO, partner, board member, etc.), 299, or 60%, agreed that businesses have a right to know how employees portray themselves or their companies on sites like Facebook and MySpace.

But 53% of employee respondents said their profiles are none of their employers’ business, and 61% said that they wouldn’t change what they were doing online even if their boss was monitoring their activities.

It's a hard reality to consider that the boss thinks they have every right to monitor all data that you produce and perceive the employee as a liability - especially in these days of record breaking layoffs. It's true, the Internet's lowered opportunity costs for individual global self-expression poses a huge risks to companies in forms of safety, lost information, and disclosed secrets. The relationship of employer and employee becomes increasingly adversarial.

Both employer and employee play a part in solving this problem. As the article points out in a quote by Sharon Allen, rather than draconian rules, employers should communicate "guidelines focused on company principles and ethical behavior, and to offer to help workers understand privacy settings on these sites." Yet, according to the Deloitte survey, "roughly a quarter (26%) of employees said they knew of specific guidelines as to what they could and couldn’t post."

Employees aren't off the hook either and need to recognize that usage policies are conditions of employment and should be mindful to follow those guidelines. That may mean more work on the individual to make clear distinctions between what they represent about their jobs in personal social realms. Which is increasingly harder to do; as we create stronger bonds with people through channels that help us to keep in touch over time and distance the line of who's a colleague and who's a friend becomes more blurred.

Since this is all social there's plenty of nuance for conflict and mis-communication. As Ms Allen points out there is the potential conflict of employer versus employee "branding" and is open for broad interpretation. It's a fine line to walk. When so many people identify themselves with what they do for work it's very hard to separate the dos and don'ts.

Despite all the risk, keep in mind that the boss actually likes social software. The last paragraph of the article demonstrates that while employees currently find social software more burdensome, employers see a benefit:

Another difference of opinion expressed in the survey was how social networks affect work-life balance. Less than a third of employees (31%) agreed with the statement “Using social-networking sites helps me achieve better work-life balance,” with 19% strongly disagreeing. More than half (56%) of executives said a little Facebook time improves work-life, however.

Bosses and Workers Disagree on Social Network Privacy - Digits - WSJ

Defending with Social Software

Last week I had the pleasure to read this new study, Social Software and National Security: An Initial Net Assessment, by Mark Drapeau and Linton Wells II from the National Defense University. It was refreshing to see such clear headed thinking on these topics. What's more useful is that while some of the information was government oriented much of the assessment applies to non-government use.

The study is a bit Twitter heavy on the examples, however, an interesting pattern emerged. In most examples Twitter was the primary tool for situational awareness and communications, followed by the use of visual media (photos or video) as supporting material. The other parts of the social network, profiles, chatting, blogs, etc. became secondary tools for more in-depth collaboration and coordination, but in general microblogging ruled the examples.

I think one item that wasn't stressed enough in this study is the need to get Identity right early on. This is especially true for government where administrations and posts change so rapidly, but in general it's a big concern with social software overall. In the social world who am I? Karen Hobert of Boston University, Karen Hobert of Top Dog, or Karen Hobert? In general, social software revolves around identity and a user profile. If I move from one position to another I am still Karen Hobert and would want to take my identity with me for many reasons such as reputation, login consistency, and maintaining my social network. Yet many social solutions are being built as grassroots efforts creating walled identity gardens that don't allow users to take their identity with them.

I went through an "identity crisis" when I left my last company. For many sites I couldn't reuse my login since it was tied to a dead email address so I had to create a new login (not easy in some cases), obliterating all my previous social network and work. In some cases that's good - like a corporate network - but in more public networks it's resource intensive and defeats the whole purpose of joining a social network in the first place.

Another interesting facet of social software was highlighted in some of the examples, that is how social software disrupts the middle management of hierarchies. Many middle managers serve as go-betweens disseminating information to and from the ranks and the upper management. It can be a powerful job acting as a filter and a buffer of information. I’ve found that many in middle management fear social tools since they reduce the barriers of communications and collaboration. Some managers have gone so far as to deliberately prevent use of tools because it waters down their power. I imagine this would be a problem for government, especially when it comes to rigidly hierarchical groups like the Department of Defense. Yet it also seems from the examples, that breaking some of those barriers (with safety in mind) has proven extremely helpful.

Which brings me to the one of the most realistic points of the report; government workers will use social software no matter what. Why? Because social software exists in the commercial world and they like using it, especially since it comes at such a low transaction cost. This spins the technology development equation on it's head compared to how things operated in the 20th century. Until now the USG has been accustomed to buying proprietary systems to support their IT needs, usually because nothing else existed. Today we're in a post-military industrial complex where commercial off-the-shelf solutions supersede proprietary solutions not just because they are more cost effective but that they inter-operate with other systems using standard technologies. This is a powerful paradigm shift that is still being worked out in Washington, D.C.. At least now there's some more awareness of the benefits of this change.

Moderation in Moderation?

I moderate my comments, mostly to ensure that there's no spam getting through. But sometimes I end up in a quandary about whether to publish a comment that does not participate in the conversation and is aimed to incite or sell some other service. I tend to not publish these types of posts. Maybe I should (more later).

Here's an interesting case in point. Last night a comment came in on a post I made about LotusLive Engage last week. The comments were more of an anti-IBM and LotusLive rant and went into a Silverlight endorsement. I decided to think about publishing the comment since it was a week late and borderline off-topic. Then I looked at the comments to my friend Volker's excellent blog post summarizing LotusLive, Microsoft Online, and Google Apps pricing. Lo and behold an identical comment to the one I received, word for word from the same author, was on Volker's post.

I mean if your going to troll the Internet for blog postings on a certain topic and write negative comments about the product and/or vendor, you might as well have some imagination and make each comment unique. Otherwise, what a boring job? Needless to say, people following blogs that talk about specific topics and vendors are likely to see duplicated commentary and consider the comment author a fool or at least someone not to pay attention to.

This is not in defense of IBM or LotusLive, that is better done elsewhere and through a community that is interested in the product and the discussion. It's about any commentary on any vendor or topic that serves no purpose. In general I don't want to have my blog become fodder for off-topic sniping, and I have the inclination to control it. However, this is the sort of stuff that comes with free-range social software and I should probably let nature take its course. What do you think?

For the record, I'm not going to post the comment since it clearly isn't serious.