Instant messaging is a convenient way to talk to colleagues, but
Colin Beveridge warns its universal introduction could erode both
bandwidth and productivity.
According to
advice from Gartner, every IT director worth their salt
should pilot the use of instant messaging within the organisation.
Apparently this new technology could be a critical enabler for a
responsive, fast-moving business.
Phooey! That's my view of that little pearl of wisdom. I can't see
how corporate instant messaging could ever deliver genuine value.
How could I justify the effort and expense needed to try and
promote this technology as a serious business tool?
Why am I so antipathetic? Because I know how real people work, and
their behaviour doesn't fit comfortably with the essential demands
of instant messaging.
For sure, the technology works well and instant messaging can be a
real boon to many people, providing easier interaction with friends
and colleagues while working online. Or perhaps, more correctly, a
distraction from working online.
The key to the success of instant messaging is that both parties to
a conversation are interacting, synchronously, through the use of
their computer keyboards.
The value of instant messaging disappears faster than an August
snowball when either party leaves their keyboard. It's no good
sitting there typing away furiously if the intended recipient is no
longer reading your output. Or if they were never there in the
first place
Let's face it, instant messaging is not a must-do technology.
Most companies already have a far more effective instant messaging
system - the telephone. This is a mature technology, the preferred
medium of communication for very many people - especially those who
hate keyboards and e-mail - and has a wide variety of readily
available backup processes, such as secretarial support, voicemail,
call forwarding/diversion and the good old answering
machines.
So why did we require this backup for our phones? That's simple.
Nobody wants to be tied to their desk, permanently available,
waiting for the phone to ring.
The same principles apply to instant messaging. Not many people
wish to spend their working life constantly exchanging endless
typed messages with unseen and unheard colleagues.
Neither do they want a never-ending stream of interruptions from
incoming instant messaging connections. At least with a phone,
there is an in-built filtering mechanism - most people will only
handle one call at a time - so we can focus on a particular topic,
rather than juggling a basketful of tasks.
I hope I have convinced you that instant messaging is not all it's
cracked up to be, because I think there are far better ways to
promote the use of new technology for real business value and
improve our standing.
Of course, if we did make instant messaging universally available,
I can guarantee that we would immediately see an enormous
degradation in our essential network services, as the flood of
desk-to-desk gossip and non-business chitchat swamped every last
available bit of bandwidth.
Don't believe me? Well that's exactly what happened when we first
implemented universal e-mail internally.
So let's show them that we have learned at least one lesson and not
jump willy-nilly onto the instant messaging bandwagon.
What's your view?
Is instant messaging a
potential boon or a bane for business?
Tell us in an e-mail >>CW360.com
reserves the right to edit and publish answers on the Web site.
Please state if your answer is not for
publication.
Colin Beveridgeis an independent consultant and
leading commentator on technology management issues. He can be
contacted atcolin@colin.beveridge.name