FT.com / Technology / Digital Business - How should organisations react to social networking tools? Embrace them, ban them, or …?

FT.com / Technology / Digital Business - How should organisations react to social networking tools? Embrace them, ban them, or …?

How should organisations react to social networking tools? Embrace them, ban them, or …?
By Dick Eve, Change Portfolio Director, for Atkins Group

Published: June 23 2008 14:02 | Last updated: June 23 2008 14:02

A truck driver approaches a bridge that has a weight limit of 5,000kg. He and his truck weigh 4,950kg so he would be able to cross it were it not for his 100kg cargo; a flock of pigeons loose in the back of the truck. He has the bright idea of banging on the side of the truck to scare all the birds into taking flight and then he quickly drives across the bridge. Does it work?

After long debate in the New Scientist one reader said: “The practical engineer’s answer is yes, of course the driver could cross! The surplus weight of 50kg translates to a 1 per cent excess over the bridge’s specified load maximum. An additional impulse force due to the truck bumping over a small stone in the road would be much greater than this 1 per cent, and any civil engineer who designs a structure of any sort with a safety margin anywhere near as small as 1 per cent deserves all the professional liability lawsuits he or she gets.”

Why do I raise this? Because it describes nicely two things about engineers: they are practical and they are (or have to be) risk averse. We are the UK’s largest engineering consultancy, and are involved in some of the world’s most high profile building, infrastructure and transport projects. The culture engendered by this – by taking on board every possible eventuality to ensure the products of our endeavours stand the test of time – inevitably puts safety and risk aversion at the heart of what we do.

What has that got to do with social networking? Well, the adoption (or not) of any software technology is more about the culture of the business than the technology itself. You cannot introduce new technology alone and expect it to be successfully adopted in any business, especially one that is resistant to change and risks.

As an example, Microsoft’s Communicator can be installed on everyone’s computer but without education and a business change programme this generates many mixed views, ranging from “I don’t know anything about it” through, “I already get too much e-mail – I am not using that too!” to users like myself who really embrace it. So I use this for communication with a small community of like-minded individuals but not the whole network. This is strengthening strong ties within my network. The next question is how far should that network extend, should I be allowed to communicate with customers or partners or should communication be restricted to internal users only?

So why would a business restrict this powerful tool to being an internal capability when more and more business is done with one or many partners?

It is probably the uncertainty of the outcome. Could it have a negative effect on the business either through someone spending all day chatting with their personal partner rather than their business partner? Maybe the risk of litigation when someone commits something to their business partner they shouldn’t. Written documents are much more formal: they are reviewed, rewritten and are clear records of events; conversations are transient and normally decisions are confirmed in writing. Social networking today sits in between. There is no real audit. What about records management? Decisions could be made with no record.

Of course, Communicator is just the tip of the iceberg. If we consider a wider range of social networking software (SNS) such as Facebook or MySpace, where I can publish a wide variety of information about my background, interests, skills and activities, there is an opportunity for even more abuse. Innocent or otherwise, the lack of regulation regarding such content could have legal ramifications. So maybe the risk outweighs the benefits.

But there seems to be evidence that weak ties and bridges between networks are increasingly important for innovation and knowledge sharing. A social networking approach can really help to develop these weak ties which will bridge the strong networks and spawn new innovations and approaches.

Our business works largely on the strong networks built over years. If you need advice or a resource you can call on a contact you worked with several years ago and be confident they will share their experience to your advantage. But are we missing a trick here? We will always get the same answers – can we use the weak ties and maybe get some new ideas and innovations, maybe SNS is a quick way to involve the new upcoming stars and help them shape the business.

And last but not least, doesn’t the next generation expect to use these tools in work as well as at home? There will come a day when new stars will not join dinosaurs who don’t offer these techniques.

So, when the business is ready and the culture is right, businesses will have to embrace social networking. Yes, of course we need to be prudent and put in the checks and balances for protection. Social Networking Solutions are now available that have been hybridised for business use which should take some of the pain away but when we do embrace it, let’s not get paranoid; too much restriction will stifle the advantages it can deliver.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008