To preface this post, be very clear that the participants are the owners of the community. I write this in context of who within an organization is spearheading and leading the community business program. This post is really aimed at those in the corporations who are leading the social media program from within and have to wrestle with confused management, doubtful colleagues, and the majority who want to keep status quo.
I’ve served in web teams in both IT and on the Business side, so I find this topic interesting.
IT or Business
Yesterday I had a call with a client who was leading the social media/community charge at his IT related company. Nothing unusual for me, but in this case, he was in IT. Most of the time, when we hear of customer facing community programs or social media programs they are being lead by Marketing. In any case, I’ve got to applaud him for taking the challenge, as for customer facing community programs they usually require a business sponsor.
Business Sponsors help things go smoother
Why is a business sponsor needed for community program today? At least two reasons:
1) A business champion makes it easier: Evangelizing a community program and launching it within an enterprise requires interface with many business units. Marketing, Product Development, Product Support, Communications, PR, and other client groups are often impacted. Having a business champion (that will convince each of these groups) that will address the business objectives, mitigate risks, and define how it’s aligning with the corporate objectives are key.
2) They often control a bucket of money: Most of the time, business units have the budget issued to them from the budget committee, which will fuel the spend for development with either a vendor or with IT. This is not to suggest that IT departments don’t have budget, but when dealing with a customer program like community, the plan will need to gather requirements from the business who understands customers.
The ‘relationship ownership’ plague
Everyone wants to feel protected and safe, and in many corporations, the ‘ownership of relationships’ are present to keep things organized and also to assert some control. PR ‘owns’ the relationship with the influencers like press, media, and analysts, support ‘owns’ the relationship with customers, and sales ‘owns’ the relationship with prospects. So who ‘owns’ the relationship of a community that consists of all of the above constituents?
What really matters
In the end, it doesn’t matter who runs the social media program (IT or a Business unit) what really matters is that the program is customer centric and designed around delivering an experience that lets customers self-support each other, or communicate with the company and other members. Not to forget to mention that the most sophisticated IT departments have become business units, not ‘technology support’.
When these tools normalize, the walls drop
Looking to the future, the argument of ‘community ownership’ will be moot, just as email has normalized as a communication tool present everywhere in the enterprise, the same will be true of the social media tools. just take a look at the youngest graduating class to see how ubiquitous these tools already are.
Being on the other side of the fence (I’m in IT)and also trying to kick start a social media movement withing the company, I am torn by both sides of the argument. Aaron, you hit one of the main issues that I am struggling with – “risk”. It’s no secret that risk and security are hurdles to overcome from the IT perspective. For example, MySpace and Facebook have both taken headlines for security related exploits and that needs to be taken into consideration. They are also a hotbed for social engineering and Facebook Apps doesn’t help things out either. IT has a responsibility to safeguard a companies data, property, brand, employees, etc, and ensurethat employees are enabled and productive.
I understand that there is a need to assume some of the risk in order to reap the benefits of Social Media, but where is the tipping point between acceptable risk and success? Is that something that can even be defined?
IT is traditionally considered an enabler. It allows the enterprise to function through the use of technology. Times are changing. IT needs to move away from being an enabler to being a contributer playing a key role in business strategy. Why IT? In my situation, all heads are turning to IT for the answers because the perception is that Social Media is married to the Web, information systems, various software and applications, etc, all of which are managed under IT. Generally speaking, users expect transparency from the IT organization. There is no desire to understand even at a fundamental level how IT and business strategy are coming together. Users just want the tools. I think this is another hurdle that needs to be overcome. As the separation between Business and IT continues to close, there needs to be a general understanding across the board of how it all ties in. Perpective: We all understand the value and benefits of our autos. We all also understand the risk of driving recklessly. We are not all auto mechanics, but we know enough about them to realize the risk and dangers when abused.
This is by far one of the most difficult challenges I have faced in IT, but also one that I am excited to face.
Excuse my rambling..
Ed Stafford @pixel8r
“Is the web really tied to technical systems? Or is it really just an easy to use platform for anyone to publish their thoughts and share with others.”
Maybe not in a direct sense. That’s why I say the “perception” of our employees is that it is. When you consider applications like google docs and MS Office Live that enable employees to work and collaborate outside the traditional isolated environment, and expect IT to adopt and support them, then yes, I think from that perspective the web does become a part of a technical system.
Good point on the HR comment.
Thank you for posting on a central issue in business – ownership. I have longed believe that it’s not about a department, but about responsibility. It shouldn’t matter which department or team “owns” the task. All that matters is that it is done in a responsible manner, that represents the company in the most accurate light to the message that all understand, in a way that the “market” understands. If the IT department understands the tools, and can do so, then they have a responsibility to use them to communicate. However, if the marketing department prefers to do this, and they have the udnerstanding, then working together, the IT department shold help them learn the ways.
Why do we always seem to fall back to territories? Isn’t it time we all grew up in business and learned that the most successful entities are those that harnassed the skills in a way where EVERYONE contributes and advances? When will some people learn it’s not about dogs marking their corners?
(Sorry – you touched on a frustrating issue in my professional life.) Thank you for bringing this up. I hope people will listen to the cooperative vocie.