Rhetorical question: do your employees already engage in conversations about your competing clients currently - either at the watercooler or via email? Jive is no less secure than those...
One way we dealt with this issue was that we of course supported the ability for people to create limited-access communities (spaces and groups) in our Jive instance. So if people wanted to make sure the conversations were limited they certainly were able to do that.
I brought up the same point in a meeting this morning. Right now we don't have much cross-client collaboration taking place though. Ironically it's one of the primary reasons we wanted to create the community in the first place. So although there is a possibility that some client information is being shared right now, it's very rare. The way the naysayers look at it is that the community is suddenly creating a direct pipeline.
1 person found this helpful
This is a tough one. One approach you could take - instruct employees to NOT use customer/account names when adding content into the community. The 'report abuse' link could be used for employees to help self-police the content. If a customer name is used, someone can click 'report abuse' to have the content flagged and reviewed.
This approach assumes that the client name is not critical to the knowledge being shared. In our employee community, we have a hybrid: in open areas, some folks will post 'I have a client...' We also use private groups to collaborate on specific customer accounts. The private group name does reflect the customer name - no easy way around that one. But only folks approved to work on that account are granted access. Yes, option can result in an unfortunate recreation/reinforcement of silos, but we have to protect data for some customers per legal requirements.
I hope this is helpful!
Oddly enough, I was just on a call where this topic came up...
We worry about confidentiality now when exchanging info via email - what if someone says something they're not supposed to, or reveals too much about a customer, or...? It's actually somewhat easier with Jive. First, you can create T&C (or internal 'social business' rules, whatever) that give guidelines on what you should/should not post in an internal forum.
The other thing is moderation. You can set it so that postings have to be approved before they go into the community, so all content has to be "approved." If that's too much overhead, don't forget that your CM/community owner also has the ability to remove content from the community if needed. And unlike email, once it's gone, it's GONE.
Agree with the others in that:
- this happens already today, you just don't have visibility to all the infractions
- you likely already have employment agreements or employee Rules of the Road that cover this, so employees may just need to be reminded that it applies in the community too
- you can't eliminate the possibility of this happening, you can only mitigate the risk. We do this by setting expectations with community managers and enabling the community to police itself with Jive's Report Abuse functionality.
Might you attempt to create an Avatar for clients such that their attributes are described sufficiently to understand their needs without revealing their names? Additionally sub-groups of specific attributes can be convened for in depth discussions. One top administration level may know the alias names but that person can monitor idea exchange to keep others on track or police revealing clues as to clients confidential information.
Never tried it as I do not have the need..................yet.