|
|
2004-05-25Whose Company Is It?Socialtext -- Enterprise Social Software. Ross Mayfield comments on a report discussing Wiki's as disruptive technology, and pursues the "embrace change" theme. It is not surprising that IT organizations might first lock down user-installed or used web services that are unexpected. There are security and safety approaches that can provide more safety without preventing collaborative technologies within the enterprise.How to deal with miscreants operating from within the organization and using outbound HTTP in a dangerous way is the part that concerns me. I don't quite see how this can be handled if one also requires Web Access for research and coordination beyond the intranet. Both considerations matter for many businesses, and it is not clear what the middle ground is, especially with regard to benign use of external web sites. Meanwhile, Ross provides a suggested policy for the organization that wants to embrace change and encourage collaboration via Wiki usage. Jim Louderback in his 2004-05-24 eWeek article that is Mayfield's source does not consider any down side at all, until deeper in the article. Louderback uses the introduction of PCs into Chase Manhattan bank as an example of how employees subverted the strictures by corporate auditors there: "But just as predictably, many IT groups will resist—wrapping themselves in up in Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, application and network security and preserving the integrity of critical systems." Louderback then provides suggestions for employees operating under the radar! The areas of technology he explores include Wi-Fi, Instant Messaging, Blogging, Wiki, Peer to Peer, and Social Networks. It's the us-versus-them and the presumption that there is only an up side that I find disheartening.
Comments:
There is also an example of the tyranny of the technician here, with each one granting themselves the right to vote on what they get to add to the corporate systems and what is good for the business from their weenie perspective. In a place that has serious privacy, fiduciary, and other responsibilities, I would expect this to result in harsh treatment for offenders.
With regard to productivity benefits and work improvement, maybe even enhancements to the quality of work life, there must be a better way to recommend potential improvements. Bringing them in under the radar is not the way. It is unprofessional and raises serious ethical concerns, especially for anyone with claims to professional qualifications. I most definitely question the professionalism of advice that has people put themselves in harm's way along with a cover-your-ass recipe.
In the first paragraph of this entry, I say "There are security and safety approaches that can provide more safety without preventing collaborative technologies within the enterprise." What I meant by that is that one should work to find such win-win accomodations. That won't happen by bad behavior and adversarial approaches that then arouse predictable responses from the IT organization.
Post a Comment
|
|||
