Perspectives & Strategy

By Peter B. Giblett
In his article in Baseline “CIOs Must learn to Deal With Social Networking” Art Johnson argues that ‘CIOs can’t turn their backs on (Social Networking) technologies, which can provide many benefits. For example, the use of instant messaging has been a valuable tool for our employees.’

I agree that business cannot turn its back on deployment of such technology. In my earlier Article on www.cio-perspectives.com I argue that ‘corporate officers (should) set… the usage policy’. and further that ‘Web 2.0 applications are no different than those before them; corporate officers must still be concerned that corporate resources are used effectively and do not negatively impact productivity or profitability’.

It may be argued that there is only a semantic difference, but I disagree. In this instance the CIO can only act in the business’s best interests.

The corporate best interest can only be defined when the corporate officers understand the impact of Web 2.0 technologies and set such policies. In his position on the board the CIO is in the respect only an advisor, not the person who should be setting policy – the issues are too important for any one officer to unilaterally set policy.

Much IT in corporations has in the past grown organically, without planning with limited design. CIO’s have had their hands tied not always having the right tools to define and implement a holistic and coherent architecture. Adding Social Networking and other Web 2.0 tools into the mix requires the corporation to understand the impact on it.

Social Networking and Web 2.0 tools have an impact beyond the office walls. It can be a great enabler for tele-working but it can also allow commercial secrets out of the door. A fine balance will need to be made.

In the absence of any corporate policy CIO’s will make decisions based on traditional norms of technology and usage patters that simply do not apply here. The CEO can be as keen as anyone to leverage this technology for the benefit of the business, yet leaves key decisions about its use in the hands of others.