So when our chairman talked with me about Instant Messaging (IM) and why we are not using it, I believed that IM did not belong in the corporate environment and then embarked on a further fact-finding mission. The research yielded a change is opinion.
In addition, I found that an initiative for IM pushed by a non-technical executive is not uncommon. The reason is simple. With millions of users and billions of IM messages being exchanged every day, IM is anecdotally valuable and is therefore often included by presenters (and even sometimes technical people) at industry conferences.
Definition. Explaining what IM is, in contrast to the more common form of corporate electronic communication that we call email, can be summarized in a few distinct features.
- Collaboration versus correspondence. Email is an electronic means of the old-fashioned letter. I send it to you. You may make changes and send it back to me or you may simply response. But with email we are not really collaborating -- "working together." With IM, we are chatting with the near give and take of a voice or in person meeting and with some products introducing even more expanded collaborative software elements.
- Presence. In the true IM setting, there is a productivity gain by knowing that you can and do have the attention of those with whom you are communicating with. According to Joe Hildebrand, chief architect of Jabber Inc., the IM presence addresses two primary questions: (a) am I online? and (b) how available am I at this moment?
- Speed. IM is and must be instantaneous. You are no longer waiting for the email from the prodigal ISP –- more often than not AOL or one of the other big ones. That speed is not limited to just one recipient. You may communicate quickly with one or hundreds.
The stats. The statistics for adoption for IM are impressive and predictions of future adoption are overwhelming. While there are many flavors of IM, the three leading consumer-oriented products are available from three of the biggest names in technology: AOL, Yahoo and MSN. AOL alone exchanges over 25 billion messages a day. MSN has more than 75 million users using Messenger, as its brand of IM is called, in 26 languages.
The future of IM is also predicted to be equally awesome. IDC, a research firm, estimates that the IM market will reach 180 million users worldwide by 2004 and that by 2004 the number of IM messages will reach nearly two trillion annually. Gartner Group, another research firm, forecasts that 70 percent of all enterprises will use IM through 2003 and that by 2005 "IM will be part of 50 percent of applications that businesses use to interact with customers." Even with the margin of error associated with the hyperbole of technology forecasting, IM should be on every company's technology radar.
So what is the problem? If IM is a panacea to communicating in an always on world, why would Osterman Research find that 22 percent of all companies block all IM traffic from their networks? The answer lies in some of the realities of IM as it currently exists.
- Disruption. Mass adoption of IM is younger than any other means of communicating. Therefore, the etiquette for IMing is not as evolved. Furthermore, the potential for increasing workplace productivity by a further always on 24x7 availability for work can be significantly hampered by an always on 24x7 availability for social and personal communication. Your "roster" (called by the trademarked term Buddy List by one of the services) can misuse your presence to interrupt.
- Security. IM is yet another entry point to your private network from the public network. Thus, viruses and other intrusion vulnerabilities are introduced.
- Informational propriety. The casual nature of this medium increases the likelihood of leakage of confidential information or comments subject to legal liability. This issue is particularly important in industries where communication is regulated like the financial and health care fields.
- Lack of standards and interoperability. The three major services mentioned earlier and many smaller services do not interoperate. Like the early days of email, I must use an AOL client if I want to send a message to someone on the AOL network and a different one for the MSN network. In addition, there is no single set of features that IM includes and does not include.
- Impersonality. Despite the popularity of icons that are used to convey emotion in IM, the pace of IMing devoid of tone, nuance, and body language can further deteriorate the unspoken elements of communication. In a business setting, especially when talking with customers and vendors, this can undermine the development of relationships. This goes way beyond the coldness of hiding behind voice mail!
- Ownership of digital identity. With the consumer IM options, the IM identities of your employees and, by extension, of your company, is lost. The services probably know too much about your people. And your control of the process is nearly non-existent. The reason is that the services use servers and software to communicate, which you have no control over.
Despite my reservations, IM is one more tool in the arsenal of empowering employees to better communicate with each other, subordinates, and superiors. As with any tool, the real value will differ based on workforce behavior. With this foundation of issues, I will examine a corporate strategy for IM in a future column.
CHAIM YUDKOWSKY, CPA, is president of Byte of Success Inc., a technology consulting company specializing in helping small and mid-size business grow. He may be reached at 301-937-4555 or cyudkowsky@ByteofSuccess.com. Chaim is available to speak to your group or business on a variety of technology topics.
