Discussion Forums on the Corporate Intranet?

WallyHartshorn asks: "We are about to implement discussion forum software on our intranet at work. In preparation for this, I have been given the task of writing up a policy document. I'm curious as to what kinds of experiences other people have had with discussion forums on their company's intranet. (Just to clarify, I'm not seeking software recommendations) How much do they get used? What types of discussion areas seem to be the most useful. Forums for specific committees? Forums for specific departments? When a discussion area is to be used for a specific committee, is it useful to make the discussion area open for anyone to participate, or does that disrupt the discussion among committee members and make them less likely to voice their real opinions?"

"We are also going to have a general discussion area for socializing and discussing topics unrelated to work (weather, sports, movies, whatever). Is this generally a good idea, or does it cause too many problems and result in too much wasted time?"

Companies that have an intranet may benefit from having such a system, however like any tool, these can be abused (loss of productivity and political infighting for example), and such issues should be taken into account before the system is deployed. What policies can be attempted on such systems which will mitigate some of the drawbacks of discussion forums without curbing the benefits?

Liability potential can be HUGE

[Raetsel]

If your discussion threads are purely professional, you don't need to worry. If you can get your users to do this, please let me know how you did it... you might even get a Nobel Prize for an achievement on that scale.

The liability of discussions groups and archives of such came out quite vividly with Netscape vs. Microsoft vs. The World. There was an internal news server, and two of the groups on that server gained Microsoft's attention: 'Bad Attitude' and 'Really Bad Attitude'. Microsoft subpoenaed the whole thing, and Netscape got a lesson in uniform application of their Document Retention Policy.

• (Jamie Zawinski's
• account of the fiasco [jwz.org])

The basic point here is...

• Discussion groups meet the legal standard for "written communication" They can be subpoenaed. You can go to jail for contempt of court if you try to refuse.

  So...

• Make a retention policy and stick to it!
• Certain topics/information have statutory retention lengths. Make sure you're legal, and going to keep whatever branch of the government happy (SEC, IRS, FBI, ATF, TLA...)
• On the other hand, if there is something ethically questionable or possibly criminal discussed, you can be held liable for destruction of evidence if you know the contents, and then erase the messages. If the CEO comes down and says "Erase everything in company.financial.off_shore_bank.secret_accounts", don't read it first.
• Similarly, be mindful of what's on your backup tapes, and where they are. If there is confidential intellectual property discussed, take the extra steps to safeguard it.

  Last thing,

• Remember that retention policy!

Well, that's my two cents. Good luck!

What I did...

[GreyyGuy]

I put together something similar for the company I work for. The topic of a specific policy for the discussion areas never came up, but then the company has a pretty simple electronic messaging policy which covers email and internet/intranet activity.

One other thing that I think keeps people on their better behavior is that they are required to sign into the webpage to post a message, and their name gets attached to everything they put out there.

Something that you might be more concerned about is getting people to use it. The areas I have setup are for this global company with probably around 1000 or so people reading the website and discussion area but there are usually only 3-5 posts a week. A discussion area needs a large population to get a lot of activity, or at least a small population of outspoken individuals who are comfortable using the website as a communication tool. The group I work with is just finally coming around to using the web as a means of communication but it has taken nearly a year for people to get interested in it and using it.

Good Luck with your effort!

Some groups should cross orgazinational lines.

[Louis_Wu]

I think that you should have some discussion areas which are purposefully cross-departmental, and don't restrict discussion areas to a department until it has been demonstrated that doing so is necessary to keep signal/noise high.

Let me illustrate my cryptic advise with a fictional example of a company which is trying to put together a website. Marketing sees the site as a big brochure, support sees a way to ease the burden on the phone jockeys, sales sees a way to sell ('Just like Amazon!'), tech support sees a new toy and a new set of computers to maintain, management sees a cost without much benefit, and engineering sees another way that the customers will be screwed. But the company is not one of these departments, but all/none of them.

The way a company is seen by the world, by its customers, should be in the light of what the customer wants. That website must be built with the user in mind, not tech support. The best way to do this is to involve all of the departments in the design and maintenance of the website. This way, the website users are more likely to see something useful.

Think of the setup of your discussion groups in a similar light. The website visitors correspond to the employees who use the discussion areas, and those employees need

• Information
• Insight
• Cooperation
• New Perspectives

which they can get from other departments, if they are actively encouraged to talk to people in those other departments.

Maybe general discussion areas for each product/product line. Marketing could see what questions support asks engineering, sales could hear about the problems manufacturing is having which engineering can't solve. Problems might be caught earlier, products might get better.

Of course, all of this requires that people actually post to and read these forums, but you might be able to solve that by having low level managers make some of their announcements in the appropriate working-group level discussion group instead of in emails.

Getting people to start using these groups will be a challenge, but I think that it can prove invaluable. Good luck.

Louis Wu

"One of life's hardest lessons is that life's lessons are hard to learn."

Re:What I did...

[caite]

A discussion area needs a large population to get a lot of activity [...]

If you get too many people using it, things get diluted until there is no content.

Accountability is key to maintaining some sense of decorum, and it is supposed to be work afterall. What I found the most useful was the regular news links posted regarding trends that were relevant to the industry. (It's actually how I got started reading slashdot regularly.) And it gets people thinking about how external news impacts the company, their jobs, and the technical decisions they make.

If you're planning to have separate forums, sorting by physical region seems to be key. People will put messages in the social groups about book signings and stuff nearby, and that gets irritating when "nearby" is actually a different continent. For actual business related groups, that's not as much of an issue.

Forums

[rednax]

I work for a major co. that has its own intranet which includes discussion forums. These are not regulated /moderated in any way,as the Co. believes that anyone who has access to the discussion groups has the right to post (very enlightened). There is however NO ACCESS to anyone from 'outside' the corporate network. (so I can not post a link here to non - corporate personnell)

So what does I mean - well to be honest I have submitted questiones several times on some other obscure questions and got relevant answers by which we allowed me top do what I wanted to go,

A few important points

[ClubPetey]

First, I've found that most people are happy with either a simple web BB like UBBS, or just with Public Folders in Exchange. Anything else is usually too compliated to bother with. If you are an Exchange shop Public Folders are great. You have them by default, and people need their corporate email account to use them, and thus are always identified (cutting down on lameness of posts).

Secondly, and more importantly, I would recommend AGAINST public chat folders/groups. This is a lawsuit waiting to happen for the company. All you need is one off-color joke and some money-hungry disgruntled worker will claim foul. Sad, I know, but that is today's court system. If you DO have a public area for general discussions, be sure you slap disclaimers ALL OVER it. Even then, it might not help you in the more liberal states (like the People Republic of California).

Something like the following should be fine for most sane states:
Note, the views, opinions, and remarks expressed in this forum are those of the individuals posting them. They are in no way the views or opinions of ABC Corp.

In my last company we standardized on Yahoo IM. This was great in that eveyone could have their own little conversations, and was not inteferring with the work day. Even better, the volume of E-Mail actually DROPPED due to people sending IMs to ask a quick question rather than an E-Mail. People used IM much more than Public Folders.
--
He had come like a thief in the night,