My friend and colleague, Matthew Hodgson, has suggested I was being timid in my last post for not delving into the business alternatives to Twitter for those times public conversation may not be appropriate. Not at all, my friend. Simply something I wasn’t delving into in that post. I think Matthew’s being deliberately challenging. That’s good. I’ll be interested to see the outcomes for the client work he’s doing where risk assessments along these lines are being conducted..
I think for a number of business conversations, Twitter isn’t appropriate. I’d be delighted if lots of businesses jumped on the Cluetrain and became radically transparent. But we know that’s not quite reality yet.
I’m pretty certain Matthew agrees. There are, however, many business conversations that can be conducted somewhere like Twitter.
For those conversations not appropriate for Twitter, tools like Laconica or Yammer that let you establish your own Twitter equivalent inside the wall (or hosted but closed access) facilitate those conversations in the same light, fast manner, but properly mitigate against some of the attendant risk. Companies like IBM, GetSatisfaction, SlideShare and Janssen-Cilag are already doing this, as well as others. It’s simply an evolution from internal IM use (an evolutionary step many Australian busineses are yet to take…).
It’s a matter of choosing the appropriate tool and channel. Enterprise 2.0 and corporate social tool use is a Pandora’s Box if not handled properly and the risks identified, addressed and mitigated – which is what Matthew is saying in his port and is what I say to every client that I have this conversation with.
