Goodbye, CJ

Earlier today, the Twitter grapevine tweeted the news that UK construction industry weekly magazine Contract Journal (CJ) and its website, contractjournal.com, is to be shut down from the end of this month. The announcement by parent company Reed Business Information was made in an email (a tweet from Kirstie Colledge of Simply Marcomms prompted me to look in my old BIW inbox – bingo!), and – having written more than once about CJ’s online presence in my blog at ExtranetEvolution.com – I quickly cut and pasted the relevant paragraph into a blog post about the closure.

Contract Journal has been a fixture of the UK construction market for 130 years, but faced a double whammy. First, like many newspapers and magazines it suffered from dwindling circulation in the face of the digital onslaught (Laura Oliver’s Journalism.co.uk story points out that other RBI titles have also been forced into redundancies, in addition to the six at CJ; yesterday saw news of 100 redundancies at the Guardian media group). Second, CJ was also focused on an industry that has borne the brunt of the current recession. With too many firms chasing too few contracts at too tight margins, construction firms going bust daily, recruitment almost at a stand-still, and hard-pressed survivors cutting their marketing expenditure, it was perhaps inevitable that CJ – so dependent on advertising – would be at risk.

Not just the magazine

The closure also has repercussions for other CJ products. Brian Green’s almost unremittingly gloomy Brickonomics blog should, I think, survive, but other CJ efforts to embrace web 2.0 and build relationships with readers will probably disappear.

CJ’s two major awards programmes will also vanish from the calendar. Construction PR and marketing people will no longer spend hours each spring polishing entries for CJ’s Construction Industry Awards, or working out seating plans for the awards dinner each autumn (apparently the engraved trophies from this year’s event have just been despatched to the winners). And CJ’s Best Places to Work in Construction (which probably no longer include RBI) won’t be challenging AEC firms’ HR departments either.

The gut reaction from many industry PR and marketing people will almost certainly be one of sadness. We have lost a venerable title, six journalists (some of them long-standing friends and experienced industry-watchers and opinion-formers) stand to lose their jobs, and there will be one fewer weekly to which we can pitch our news stories and feature ideas, buy advertising space, or look for sponsorship and publicity spin-offs from events.

So where next?

Emap’s weekly Construction News clearly stands to pick up some of the advertisers but it is by no means clear how that publication is going to cope with the changing media environment. It is about to enter uncharted waters by imposing a subscription model on its online content, and UBM’s Building magazine’s recent reintroduction of reader registration hints that it may also bring down a paywall on some of its website content. Both publications are also investing in social media and in online and offline events and awards programmes.

But maybe, in the current media environment, now is a good time for us PR people and marketeers to rethink our focus on publishers and to augment some of the tools we have tended to rely upon (literature, events, hospitality, direct marketing, email, corporate websites, etc).

I would argue the recession makes this a good time to look at cost-effective ways of communicating our messages direct to customers, employees, influencers, investors, regulators and other publics. Instead of regarding the digital onslaught as a threat, perhaps we should see it as an opportunity to invest in social media tools and techniques, start conversations and take a more active role in helping people formulate their own opinions about us, our companies, products and services.

Not invented here

Large parts of the UK architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) sector have proved resistant to ideas of partnering, knowledge-sharing and integrated collaborative working (despite the efforts of Latham and Egan, while only time will tell if Wolstenholme’s Never Waste a Good Crisis fares any better). The IT departments of many AEC organisations similarly adopt a closed approach when it comes to some collaborative technologies. I learned this when marketing web-based project collaboration software at BIW, and I’ve heard the same view expressed about social media tools. Fellow blogger Julian Dobson quotes responses from people working for an environmental quango and a major civil engineering firm:

‘I’m afraid my government laptop is so locked down that I’m unable to install any software at all.’

‘I have to let you know that I can’t/won’t download the dropbox application onto [our] heavily firewalled and controlled network.’

But I have found it can also be an attitude of mind held by the AEC professionals within firms. Call it inertia, arrogance, a “not invented here” syndrome, or maybe ’silo’ mentality, but resistance to consulting outside the organisation is certainly prevalent in some businesses. I spoke to an architect from a leading design firm at the RIBA recently, and he was adamant that a large multi-disciplinary consultancy had no need to interact with co-professionals from other firms through social networks – “our in-house resources are more than adequate,” he insisted.

This may be a common view within that firm. Soong M Kang, a university researcher at UCL, told me about a frustrating recent meeting with someone from the same company:

He brought two more guys to the meeting: one who deals with their web strategy and another who deals with their “community” efforts.  In essence, it seemed to me that they have their own internal system and are not willing to think outside of it. Especially the guy from web strategy was extremely hostile to my project, which is understandable if one sees his vested interests.

So in some AEC organisations there is almost an insular, anti-collaborative culture that pervades both the IT department and fee-earning professionals.

Social approaches to innovation

In other engineering design sectors, though, there appears to be more willingness to consider social computing solutions. I first wrote about social product development in this blog in July, and have just been reading an article by Tom Kevan in Desktop Engineering along similar lines. He argues that new economic realities (globalisation, increased competition, ‘mechatronic’ design approaches, and changing demographics) are forcing a rethink of how designers can achieve innovation.

No longer is it the product of one engineer’s genius or the skill of a company’s engineering team. Increasingly, the ideas of customers, suppliers, and outside experts are being tapped to create broader development networks. To enable the communication and collaboration needed by these networks, companies and technology providers are adapting social networking paradigms to the product design arena.

Kevan goes on to describe three pioneering technologies, including the crowd-sourced problem-solving InnoCentive.com (similar to ideabounty.com – post). Here:

“It is the diversity of the community that looks at these problems that matters most in ensuring that they get solved,” says InnoCentive’s Ritter, explaining that it is the social aspect of product development that makes it possible to find the one person in the world uniquely qualified to answer the specific question.

Having a closed mentality to problem-solving may satisfy the egos of old-school AEC design professionals (and will probably be supported by their IT departments), but I wonder if it could mean their firms inadvertently fail clients by not extending their search for innovation beyond the organisation’s firewalls?

Web 2.0 and construction collaboration

Incidentally, if anyone is interested in helping Soong with his research, please have a look at his outline (reproduced here) and get in touch with him. He is particularly looking for companies who want to test out the use of Web 2.0-type tools to improve their collaborative design efforts.

More cynical sniping at Twitter costs

Today’s Daily Telegraph has an article, Twitter costs Lord Mandelson’s department £3,175 a year, reporting the UK Department for Business’s calculation of the cost of its employees spent running three Twitter accounts (@bisgovuk, @digitalbritain, @BIS_Science), which have amassed a respectable total of 9,894 followers.

The tone of some of the article is reminiscent of the slightly cynical coverage given recently to a “survey” alleging that Twitter cost the British economy £1.38 billion a year (mentioned in the article; see my post), and also cites the government’s appointment earlier this year of a so-called ‘Twitter Tsar’ or Director of Digital Engagement.

However, at least the article also reports the Department’s view of the value of Twitter:

“We think it is very cost-effective. Twitter is no longer used just by kids. It is a great way of getting our message out to a different audience and it helps us respond to people’s queries quickly.”

(I was slightly concerned that the spokesman apparently believes Twitter was once the preserve of ‘kids’ – until very recently, most surveys showed adults were the major Twitter adopters with teenagers shunning micro-blogging and using texts and Facebook instead.)

Twitter? Tried it, didn’t get it, gave up …

“A cynic is a man who knows the cost of everything, but the value of nothing.” –Oscar Wilde

The revelations follows a question by the Conservative MP Adam Afriyie, shadow minister for science and innovation, according to Wikipedia founder of an IT company and surely bound to be something of a geek…. Not quite.

Yes, @AdamAfriyie started using Twitter in late February and kept up a steady flow of not particularly interesting Tweets – 63 in total – mainly about his meetings and constituency duties through to 6 June. But what is striking about Mr Afriyie’s output is how there was almost nothing useful. It contains no links to information, no retweets and no replies to anyone – indeed, he follows just one other Twitter account (@Tweetminster). That he no longer tweets is probably a relief to his 462 followers (and if we are fixated on Twitter ‘costs’, I calculated his tweets ‘wasted’ the UK taxpayer about £17!).

For the sake of political balance, I looked to see if his Labour opposite number performs any better. Lord Drayson (@lorddrayson) is an altogether more accomplished Twitter user, amassing over 880 tweets to date and over 4,600 followers, with lots of retweets, links and replies to followers. The 488 Twitter accounts that Lord Drayson follows also say a lot about his Parliamentary responsibilities, including social media opinion-formers Mashable, WiredUK and TechCrunch and institutions such as NESTA; he also follows a certain Adam Afriyie….

Well, at least I now know which of these politicians has a firm grasp of the value of Twitter.

Will LinkedIn integration take the Twitter Blinkers off?

Today we learned that LinkedIn, probably the social networking site most widely used by professionals (for whom Facebook is just too, er, social), is going to integrate with Twitter so that users’ status updates could be shared between the two networks.

Straw-polls and anecdotal feedback from recent seminars and conferences for UK construction professionals that I’ve attended have confirmed that LinkedIn is often, albeit grudgingly, regarded as “just about OK” for business networking, but relatively few have so far extended their networking to include Twitter – despite a considerable amount of professional news, information and links being shared there. But perhaps this tie-up between the two platforms will show many of LinkedIn’s 50-million-plus members that they can take the blinkers off, show that their status updates also have a value to people who use Twitter, and maybe tempt them to start using the more mobile micro-blogging platform too?

It will almost certainly result in LinkedIn displaying more frequent status updates from people who already use Twitter. If my own habits are anything to go by, I use Twitter about 20-30 times more often than I do LinkedIn, but, relax, I won’t be reposting all my Tweets to LinkedIn – there is apparently an option to select which of one’s Tweets are displayed by LinkedIn.

Web 2.0 construction computing awards, anyone?

Tomorrow (10 November) is the last day to register online votes for the Construction Computing Awards 2009, promoted by BTC, the UK-based publisher of Construction Computing, CADuser and other magazines.

Back in August, when nominations opened I blogged on ExtranetEvolution.com about there being no category for Web 2.0 type applications. Since then, I have been thinking further about this, and I have come up with five reasons why we don’t yet have any awards in this field….

1. First, the fact that the Construction Computing website (and those of its sister publications) doesn’t have a blog, a Twitter account, an RSS feed, discussion forum or bookmarking tools might be a clue that social media isn’t really on BTC’s radar (see post). Other publishers targeting the business-to-business market – and the architecture, engineering, construction (AEC) and property sectors in particular (eg: Emap, Reed, UBM) – have all been revamping their websites and offering new online services to build stronger connections with their readerships, but we currently have no construction IT publication or organisation that ‘walks the Web 2.0 talk’.
2. Second, for Construction Computing readers to vote on Web 2.0 applications they really should be using them, and despite the enthusiasm of the leading media channels, individuals and companies in the AEC sector have not been the most enthusiastic adopters of the tools and technologies. Instead, some organisations have gone out of their way to restrict or even completely block access to some platforms. So, individual ignorance or scepticism, combined with corporate control freakery, might also limit meaningful voting.
3. Third, the success of awards often depends on capturing the interest and attention of the relevant industry organisations, companies, software vendors and other potential sponsors. At this early stage in AEC adoption of Web 2.0, few software vendors have emerged with marketing/PR budgets big enough to justify involvement, the effects of the recession are still being felt, and ongoing unease about Web 2.0 (see 2. above) may limit some corporate enthusiasm.
4. Fourth, forget anonymous judges, behind-closed-doors decision-making and closed voting processes. Web 2.0 awards should naturally be decided based upon the transparent “wisdom of crowds”. Open nomination of candidates would be a start, perhaps using online polls to decide upon a final shortlist. Publishing the names of those voting might deter some people from participating, but equally it could encourage others pleased to be associated with the company/application/product they’ve endorsed. And I think revealing the final voting figures during or immediately after any awards (so that we all know how much the winners won by, or how narrowly runners-up missed out) would be good. (The Webbys, for example, have a People’s Voice Award, which I think is a good model)
5. Traditional awards programmes often involve a lavish awards dinner: lots of tables of ten getting dressed up before sitting down to a three-course meal and getting drunk networking while watching a steady succession of awards being spread around many of the table sponsors (for the Construction Computing awards “Tables of 10 are available from £1695″ – ouch!). Perhaps new technologies deserve a new approach? Just as web 2.0 has adopted the informal ‘unconference’ type approach, perhaps we should be thinking about more informal awards ‘unceremonies’, maybe with an element of ‘tweet-up’, complete with live-blogging and other audience involvement?

In fact, I am beginning to think about organising some Be2camp awards….

Not all IT media people are Tweeting (yet)

Having worked in the IT sector of the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) sector, it is only natural that I should look at how AEC-oriented IT companies and the publications that cover them use social media tools such as Twitter. For example, back in January I blogged about the how the main UK AEC publications were deploying social media, and in July I wrote about the Web 2.0 presence of collaboration technology vendors; some (like Asite) were increasingly active, but most were – and are – still experimenting.

Opening the Twitter channel for media contact

Talking to AEC businesses about social media – either as a consultant or as a speaker – I point out that Twitter can be a good way for industry people to follow and receive insights from industry journalists, many of whom have become regular users of Twitter (a point echoed by my fellow PR Liz Male at Be2camp@WB, and by WorldArchitectureNews journalist Niki May Clark at the CIMCIG/IBP debate, both last month), and who may use Twitter as a source of ideas, to get feedback on news stories, etc – demonstrating how Twitter can open dialogues.

Not all journalists are on Twitter, though, even in some of the more IT-specific UK media outlets. For example, I couldn’t find a Twitterer at BTC’s Construction Computing or CADUser. Searches for editor David Chadwick found lots of other David Chadwicks but not the man himself (though he could quite possibly be using a different ‘nom de Tweet’!).

Everyone has to start somewhere though. And judging from her latest Editor’s patch article it seems Alison Jones, who edits the ITShowcaseNews newsletter, is learning about Twitter and taking a few tentative steps. When I spoke to her earlier today she explained it was still early days and the first ITShowcase Twitter account has yet to be properly publicised or resourced (just six tweets, only two followers – one me! – and not following anyone back – yet). However, she added, this will change very soon as the company integrates Twitter into its other communications.

10 ways social media can help your construction client

Many of the construction industry’s customers are major brands in their own right (Sainsbury’s, Barclays, O2, Network Rail, BAA, etc). Thus, any part of the supply chain delivering projects should be acutely aware that their goods and services could have a direct impact on the ultimate client’s reputation – and vexing that customer is not usually a good idea.

This applies from ensuring sensitive planning and design, through good health and safety and being a considerate contractor to providing equipment – fridges, lighting, windows, door-closers, lifts, plumbing, power and IT services, heating and ventilation systems, etc – that work efficiently throughout their service life, backed up by smooth operation and maintenance processes. Slip up and the facility’s users (workers, customers, residents, passengers, etc) could soon be complaining and their irritation will – more often than not – be directed at the facility’s owner/operator, not the provider of the goods or services at fault.

Therefore, in an increasingly connected world, construction people should start thinking of themselves as partners with their clients, perhaps identifying with their client’s core business (for example, urban regeneration expert Jackie Sadek told recently how she had to think like a retailer even though she considered herself “a regeneration practitioner” while working for Tesco’s).

Ten ways to use social media to support your construction client

Adopting this perspective also, I think, offers potential for all supply chain companies to differentiate themselves and to use social media to support their work for the client – particularly where the client may be keen to stress its corporate social responsibility (CSR) credentials. For example:

1. client, planners and designers can engage and consult more closely with local residents or the end-users of a proposed new facility (using web-based tools such as discussion forums, YouCanPlan, Second Life, etc)
2. deploy blogs, wikis and collaboration platforms used to encourage joined-up thinking and problem-solving by the supply chain to plan, design and build a better facility for the client more quickly and efficiently
3. use online materials exchange services (eg: EarthExchange, BuilderScrap) to recycle surplus materials, minimise waste and reduce transport movements
4. use online carbon calculation tools (eg: AMEE) to monitor energy use associated with construction delivery: travel to site meetings, delivery vehicle movements, on-site power generation, etc
5. build social media into the PR and marketing effort by monitoring blogs, bulletin boards, Twitter, etc to see what people are saying about the proposed development, the client and the project team, and continue the monitoring throughout design and, especially, during construction when local antipathy can be at its strongest if the work is seen as noisy or dirty, creating traffic problems, etc
6. use the appropriate social media (see point 5) to respond directly and promptly to any perceived problems
7. apply blogs, wikis and collaboration platforms (point 2) to capture best practice from each scheme so that the client’s future developments benefit from past lessons learned (blogging is something that Hull-based contractor Hobson & Porter has been doing – see this Be2camp presentation) – both at a project level and for safety, CO2 and waste reduction objectives)
8. incorporate environmental sensors (eg: Pachube) that provide real-time data on building performance (effectively, a real-time Energy Performance Certificate!)
9. contribute details of the development to OpenStreetMap so that this open-source mapping resource is kept accurate and up-to-date
10. think how ‘hyper-local’ social media (eg: ResidentsHQ, Howzee, BuildingBulletins – see post) can be used by the client, designers and facilities managers to get post-occupancy feedback from building users, and also add value to the facility itself by improving communications among its users

Future-gazing construction ICT

This morning I discovered a SCRI Research Report, Future Generation of IT (PDF), published in June and reporting on discussions held at a ‘vision planning workshop’ hosted at Salford University back in January (2009). The aim of the event was to “identify possible futures that the construction industry might face and to start developing a construction IT vision for the year 2030“.

I have attended a number of SCRI events over the year, and have always enjoyed the exchange of ideas between academia and industry participants (though this event looks like it was heavily dominated by the former). At first glance, I felt the 28-page report had overlooked the potential impact of ‘social media‘ (neither that term, nor ‘Web 2.0′, feature anywhere in the document), but reading the document, I think the tools and techniques we currently associate with social media are implicit in a lot of the discussion and recommendations. For example, the executive summary talks about more flexible and holistic approaches:

People will have more time to do creative work and the new technologies such as ubiquitous computing, collaboration tools, [and] decision making tools will enable a more flexible working style. Integrated, flexible and adaptable IT which was implemented with a holistic view was also another vision for 2030. (p.2)

Four different scenarios sketched out in the report included one called ‘Lean and Mean’. Here:

The teams involved in the design can be globally dispersed. Free access to information will start to emanate from society and from the industry. Collaborative workspaces will enable sharing knowledge between people with the knowledge throughout the world. (p.18 – my emphasis)

For people, a more connected, collaborative future of ICT in construction was envisaged (these are just a few extracts):

… Home working, remote working, mobile working will be much more possible and feasible.  … Technologies like second life might provide the means for the interaction of the whole supply chain and design teams. … In future, IT will naturally become a part of the life of end-users. IT tools will become much more ubiquitous, pervasive and intuitive. … (p.20 – my emphasis)

Other future-gazing

The SCRI report represents the distilled views of just 28 individuals and yet provides a surprisingly wide-ranging – and, in my view, optimistic – forecast of the future of construction ICT. For me, it makes additionally interesting reading as the SCRI workshop was conducted almost entirely separately to a similar exercise undertaken for the National Platform for the Built Environment.

I was part of a working group that produced a scoping study on ICT and Automation (PDF) in late 2007. Following the completion of two other parallel reports, the National Platform published a revised Strategic Research Agenda (PDF) in July 2009, but in the meantime, members of the working groups had been engaged in a further workshop session in London in March 2009 – leading to several potential projects being identified for further research – many of which (thankfully) parallel recommendations made by the SCRI study, and two even mention social media/Web 2.0.

Schneider Electric builds climate change community

I have just been looking at the website of Schneider Electric, a Danish French manufacturer of electrical equipment, including building management systems and whole host of other products. It wasn’t the main corporate website, but a community website, ActiveBE.com.

I have looked at a couple of businesses in the architectural, engineering and construction (AEC) industry that have embraced social media to develop conversations with their employees, customers, end-users, potential recruits and other stake-holders – architect HOK and software vendor Asite, for example. However, their focus has been on their community, not on wider issues.

ActiveBE.com is a company-endorsed campaign site focused on climate change in the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference (COP15) in Copenhagen this December. Its mission is to highlight the contribution of the built environment to global warming:

Energy is the number one cost of operating a building, and buildings are the number one consumers of energy on the planet. We feel these two facts hold the key to solving the climate change problem.

Buildings contribute more to global warming than all the cars, planes and factories in the world combined. The good news is that we have the technology to reduce the energy use of most buildings by 30%. The better news is that we can make it highly profitable for building owners to do this.

The website invites people to make green pledge videos (for ever pledge uploaded, Schneider will donate $20 to a scholarship fund for a deserving student of architecture or engineering), aiming to reach 1000 videos by 31 December 2009 – 40 were uploaded in the first week.

The site is using social media; it has a blog and forums, and there is an ActiveBE Facebook Page (153 fans to date), a My Green Message Group (also on FB, with 73 members to date), a YouTube Channel (147 views), a LinkIn Group (28 members) and you can follow ActiveBE on Twitter (226 followers to date). (I think some of the ActiveBE messages are supposed to be displayed on the site’s Buzz page but it didn’t load up when I tried it – [update (02 November 2009): Stefan from ActiveBE tells me "There was a glitch on the Buzz page but it is working now. We're using the Twitter API and sometimes they have problems with their feed"].

The aim is directly relevant to the AEC industry. As the ActiveBE blog says:

We need to open up conversations and make some noise leading up to COP15. The more people we can make understand that we have to change the way we run our buildings, the more likely it is that change will happen in time to save our planet. Before you know it, building architects and engineers will only build energy efficient structures.

Of course, Schneider’s interest in ActiveBE is not purely altruistic – some might even dismiss it as a publicity gimmick. Of course, Schneider will be looking for architects and engineers to specify its products in new, more energy-efficient buildings, but it is also aiming to inform the climate change debate (the site has facts about climate change, COP15 – its assessment of the conference venue is a nice touch – and potential solutions) and to build a conversation with other industry professionals. Can’t fault them for trying.

(NB: thanks to Jim McHale of Memoori for the link.)

Going to the toilet puts UK economy down the toilet

• Watercooler conversations undermine UK plc
• Crosswords and Sudoko waste UK businesses £2bn a year
  

These are just made-up headline, of course, but I expect if you commissioned a survey into the time individuals spend not working, but chatting with their mates, reading personal emails, etc, etc, you would soon come up with some tasty headlines to support your cause. Instead…

• Twitter ‘costs businesses £1.4bn’ (BBC)
• Twittering workers cost business £1.4bn (FT)
• Twitter ‘costs British economy £1.38bn’ (Telegraph)

These were a few of the headlines shouting at me from my RSS feed-reader on Monday, and I also noticed the content of the articles provided convenient ammunition for more than one sceptical member of the audience at the RIBA in London (post – I spoke to one man from a well-known multi-disciplinary design consultancy who plainly didn’t believe that social media should be available in the workplace).

The news stories are based on a survey by yet another IT services group, this time Morse (see their news release), who surveyed 1460 office workers, of whom over half (57%) said that they used social networking sites during the working day for personal use. On average those people were spending 40 minutes on these sites each week (tellingly, none of the reports broke this down to eight minutes a weekday). Some reports (eg: the FT) went so far as to suggest that this equated to  ‘just under a full working week being “wasted” each year’, and most quoted Morse consultant Philip Wicks’ emotive talk of a “productivity black hole”.

The desired reaction is plainly to get more organisations restricting Twitter and Facebook in the workplace (see my recent post Why social media bans won’t work about the Portsmouth City Council example, and ‘Over half of US workplaces block social networks’) – and thereby, of course, create more demand for IT services companies like Morse.

IT companies feeding on corporate paranoia

This is an argument recently put forward by Michael Neubarth in an article Social Media in the Workplace: Boon or Bane?, where he takes a detailed look at several such surveys. Neubarth points out that “research studies in general should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism“, quoting analyst David Linthicum who suggests vendors who pay for research generally expect such surveys to “come up with the findings they are looking for“.

To be fair, the Morse survey does make some good points. For example, it says organisations need to provide more specific guidelines and usage policies regarding Twitter (agreed); “social networking can be a cause for good when it is used professionally” (Telegraph); and some reports pick up on Morse’s detailed observations regarding URL shorteners as a potential security hole.

However, I wonder if Morse (or its survey company TNS) asked questions about how and when people accessed these social networks. If they are accessing Twitter or Facebook in their own time (during their shrinking lunchtimes – as eConsultancy points out – during tea-breaks or – ahem – comfort breaks, etc) and using their own mobile devices, then where’s the problem? And the quoted examples of incidents at Curry’s, PC World, etc, will not be prevented by workplace bans – disaffected workers will simply wait until they get home before abusing customers (and perhaps also their ‘Big Brother’ managers and their evil partners in the IT department).

What about the other time sinks?

Is such a controlling approach recommended for other office worker habits? The Daily Telegraph report quoted Wicks:

“It is the sort of thing people constantly use which means that its not quite the same as doing a crossword, where you spend half an hour on it and it is finished.”

Sorry, so spending 30 minutes on a crossword is OK but eight minutes on Twitter isn’t?! Where are the demands to manage those answering personal emails or taking personal calls during company time? What about chatting with colleagues by the water cooler or coffee machine, or popping out for a cigarette?

Accentuate the positives

Thankfully, some publication offered some alternative perspectives. For those who ‘chill out’ by a quick dip into social media: “allowing people a few minutes of relaxing downtime might actually enhance their overall productivity” said the Guardian’s Media Monkey, while recruitment firm Office Angels MD David Chubb told the Telegraph:

“As younger generations join the workplace, I believe UK businesses will, inevitably, have to embrace social networks, recognising the benefits of providing staff with well deserved downtime, but also their potential for business networking.”

This point was also made at the end of Jacqui Bowser’s article in Brand Republic: “The study did not take into account the positive effects of social networking use for UK businesses”, and by Charles Arthur in today’s Guardian.

On this point, for example, even in the deeply conservative world of commercial architecture, anyone who saw Su Butcher present at RIBAforum09 on Tuesday must have realised that social networking can deliver some powerful business benefits:

• identifying business opportunities, sales leads
• getting the latest industry news
• crowdsourcing ideas
• getting early warning of what people are saying about you, your company, your project
• opening new relationships with other industry professionals
• driving traffic to your website
• etc

(Suw Charman-Anderson made very similar points too). Meanwhile, have a look at Su’s presentation:

Finally, I am lucky in that I work as a freelance consultant and so have none of the constraints that come from working within a larger organisation with ‘issues’ about social media availability. Being small and agile could well be to my advantage. And former BBC executive Euan Semple agrees:

On a daily basis I am reminded just how constrained people still working in corporate environments are compared to what is possible, and indeed easy and cheap, for me as a freelancer. This is not only in terms of technology but also in terms of use of time and productivity.

It is madness that we burden the clever people in our organisations in these ways and the bigger the organisation the worse it gets!