We are in the thick of adoption on a year old wiki/blogging implementation to 17,000 and as one of the two founders and project managers, I fought tooth and nail every time any one brought up the word Governance. We have been extremely successful so far by not forcing a rigid framework for usage, but instead leading by example. We find users who inherently understand the "proper" way to interact with corporate social media and encourage them to take on more responsibility. I suppose an organic governance model sort of emerges from that, but it is at the mercy of the users. Not IT, and definitely not me. The project was conceived by users, is administered by users, and users make up 99% of the rules. Sounds like a bit of a pipe dream, but it is possible if you focus on enablement and riding the wave wherever it may go, as opposed to governance.
True, it is an internal implementation. I tend to focus primarily on internal implementations for my clients and my company. I have a few thoughts on some of your questions though. Again these are for internal implementations...
Policy Setting - Went with the "Use Your Head" policy. There was some early discussion about stating which system (Doc Management, Intranet, Wiki) folks should use for various purposes. We scoffed stating that policy should not be a veiled attempt at tool bigotry. The usage matrix ended up being made but adherence is limited. Offer compelling tools and users will gravitate toward the ones they find easiest to use. Oh...and make sure you have a good search engine :)
Functional Group Turf Wars - We are a professional services firm. I think turf wars are SOP. We encourage them to happen in the open so that the wisdom of the crowds can determine who is right and who is greedy. More often than not, one side is not willing to do battle in the clear. The other side de facto wins.
Nate... thanx Helpful. Issue at SAP is that we're not so good at being out in the open, highly politicized environment. much back channeling of info and communication. We have a low social quotient: http://ablebrains.typepad.com/ablebrains/2008/07/whats-your-social-quotient-a-method-for-assessing-social-media-risk.html
Multi-level governance model:
-- 0th level: Terms of Usage posted with some very simple "guidelines" (not policy, not rules, etc.)
-- 1st level: community managers and/or helpful individuals
-- 2nd level: corporate platform managers
-- 3rd level: exec sponsor (me)
-- 4th level: ad-hoc committee of exec VPs (IT, HR, etc.) if we encounter something that requires some serious discussion
Levels 0 through 2 are open and transparent, e.g. anyone can comment and/or contribute.
Since Sept 07, we've only had a small handful of issues that haven't been solved at levels 0 through 2 -- very minor, just growing pains.
We have an E-governance Board. They consist of representatives from major stakeholder organizations (agencies). Most of them work in their organization's communications department. They make the high level decisions and provide guidance to the Clearspace implementation and the external facing website.
I'm the E-government manager who serves as staff to that committee along with my staff.
Each Agency has a high level space and Community Manager and sub community managers. We push down as much control as the Clearspace product will allow us to so they can support their space locally.
We have a support space that my group monitors to help the Community Managers and regular collaborators.
We have created a policy (ver. 1.0) around use for those who participate.
Hi,Hi,We are using the existing set of company policies that cover Blogging, code of conduce, harassment prevention, EEO & diversity, and the company values. We are starting to get the "we can not do this" speech from HR. There concern is about HIPPA and EOC protection. Do any of your company policies covering the communities address these? Have you seen any issues?ThanksMike
Here is the short version...if you want longer version let me know:
Program owner (me in this case)
Legal (partners with program owner on any risk issues)
Uber-community manager (oversight and information brokering)
Community managers (we have several for each channel community)
Director Web (senior resource for guidance and advice)
Tech strategist (owns technical issues related to governance)
Jive (consultation and best practices, when needed)
GEO partners (one rep from each geography acting as partner for community global issues)
This core team can address most strategic issues as they arise. As the program owner I schedule regular meetings and define escalation process.
Hope this helps a bit. This is a very short version in that we are a very large organization with many "channel communities" (all private--locked) and each requirement some level of customization.
Our channel communities have been operating globally for about a year, focused on about 200k resellers around the world.