Discussion on:
View:
Show:
but how do you ban it and still have the corporate page for followers?
you ban it company-wide, but then allow just the marketing department (who doesn't do any real work anyway) to access facebook and waste more time.
Mid-tech companies who jump on the me-too social bandwagon to scrape up a few bucks while simultaneously banning their employees from using these apps are the worst sort of hypocrites, like Eric Schmidt telling people to unplug. Set standards, set deadlines, and let the grunts waste their time if it keeps morale up.
Does that mean as a business you are opting out of cloud storage which is all the rage?
Would not allow data to walk out the door on work from home - BYOD Friday? 
I too am not overly happy yet with the idea of Cloud Storage - however from a data leakage perspective, I'd rather business data on approved cloud storage as opposed to e.g. Dropbox that may not be the business's partner.
A flash drive or other storage media type......
Maybe even email attachments...
Maybe even .......
maybe dependent on the type of data even ........
Delicate balance unless you are in a very (required) secure business.
Maybe even email attachments...
Maybe even .......
maybe dependent on the type of data even ........
Delicate balance unless you are in a very (required) secure business.
Valid points, however why add unapproved (by the company) cloud storage to the mix. So because it's possible for employees to smuggle sensitive date via email, flash drive etc. lets let them use their preferred/unapproved cloud storage of choice? :/
... basically says, "once it is on Dropbox, anyone else gets copyright to it". That alone is good reason to not allow Dropbox!
J.Ja
J.Ja
By using our Services you provide us with information, files, and folders that you submit to Dropbox (together, your stuff). You retain full ownership to your stuff. We dont claim any ownership to any of it. These Terms do not grant us any rights to your stuff or intellectual property except for the limited rights that are needed to run the Services, as explained below.
You were correct that at one time this was not the case, but I think the backlash with users fleeing caused them to rethink the rights issue.
Just be real careful if you sign up for a service and a few months down the road you get a "our terms have changed, click here to agree."
You were correct that at one time this was not the case, but I think the backlash with users fleeing caused them to rethink the rights issue.
Just be real careful if you sign up for a service and a few months down the road you get a "our terms have changed, click here to agree."
Its not really the rage you know, except in the media. Very few companies are willing to let their corporate data outside the network, Cloud storage might work for SME's with no internal infrastructure, but public areas like Dropbox are banned in most Large Corporations where protecting company data is valued higher than end user convenience
Certainly. I value my company's assets and will not rely on some ethereal third-party gambling with my data. Look at FaceBook for their almost total lack of security of personal data.
But I must point out we trust (or don't think about) second, third and fourth parties all the time with our data. E.G Who says the ISP or telco IMP isn't snarfing unencrypted e-mail?
i understand, that the article is based on a source, this does mean editing it without any thinking.
otherwise any item on the list should have gotten an extension. something like this:
"..... and all of the alikes"
this would have led to some regrouping (and left place for some additional categories, just to be able to show that the counter reaches the fabulous ten, which is mandatory, just because of the name of the blog)
(but yes, if a company issues an order with a list of applications to be blocked, that list certainly will contain named applications like this article does)
otherwise any item on the list should have gotten an extension. something like this:
"..... and all of the alikes"
this would have led to some regrouping (and left place for some additional categories, just to be able to show that the counter reaches the fabulous ten, which is mandatory, just because of the name of the blog)
(but yes, if a company issues an order with a list of applications to be blocked, that list certainly will contain named applications like this article does)
If it's not "business related" it's NOT ALLOWED SOFTWARE!!! (Within reason but that's the base rule).
It is now soooooo ridiculous in companies that the workers seem to expect that they have the "right" to be "entertained" during their workday! What the hell ever happened to working for a living???
If you don't like my corporate rules, then get off your dead butt and go work for Toys Are Us or the like if entertainment is your expectation! I pay for productivity and I expect an 8 hour period of labor from each employee. Even if I'm real lenient and allow you to squander 10% of my expected work day than I've lost 48 minutes a day to your chatting on skype, etc. In terms of $$$$ and/or productivity, then I've lost 10% of both.
I DO NOT think that it is even close to fair for the employer to be expected to give up 10% of his/her expected gain per employee just to provide them some sort of entertainment on the company computer assigned to them.
I used 10% as an arbitrary # but it seems close to accurate to me. Agreeably, there has to be exceptions to the rule that is certain. But what happened over time is the things folks were doing during their lunch hours, ended up carrying over into their break times, and their work times also... and now HAS BECOME AN EXPECTATION on their parts.
It all boils down to this: Work Time is work time, and Personal Time is personal time. During the assigned work times, work!!! I don't care what you do during your personal times just keep it withing the allocated time period.
I'd personally even recommend that the IT Dept. monitor email in the context of amount and type of emails sent from individual employees. This would cut down in the number of jokes and junk mail sent per day.
One last recommendation: Get of you butt and walk down the hall and talk to the other engineer, etc. and quit using email, and only use the phone if absolutely necessary!!!
Well that's my humble opinion. Let's see what kind of flac I draw from this post!!! lol
It is now soooooo ridiculous in companies that the workers seem to expect that they have the "right" to be "entertained" during their workday! What the hell ever happened to working for a living???
If you don't like my corporate rules, then get off your dead butt and go work for Toys Are Us or the like if entertainment is your expectation! I pay for productivity and I expect an 8 hour period of labor from each employee. Even if I'm real lenient and allow you to squander 10% of my expected work day than I've lost 48 minutes a day to your chatting on skype, etc. In terms of $$$$ and/or productivity, then I've lost 10% of both.
I DO NOT think that it is even close to fair for the employer to be expected to give up 10% of his/her expected gain per employee just to provide them some sort of entertainment on the company computer assigned to them.
I used 10% as an arbitrary # but it seems close to accurate to me. Agreeably, there has to be exceptions to the rule that is certain. But what happened over time is the things folks were doing during their lunch hours, ended up carrying over into their break times, and their work times also... and now HAS BECOME AN EXPECTATION on their parts.
It all boils down to this: Work Time is work time, and Personal Time is personal time. During the assigned work times, work!!! I don't care what you do during your personal times just keep it withing the allocated time period.
I'd personally even recommend that the IT Dept. monitor email in the context of amount and type of emails sent from individual employees. This would cut down in the number of jokes and junk mail sent per day.
One last recommendation: Get of you butt and walk down the hall and talk to the other engineer, etc. and quit using email, and only use the phone if absolutely necessary!!!
Well that's my humble opinion. Let's see what kind of flac I draw from this post!!! lol
the line gets blurred between work and personal hours. If an employer expects you to be on call 24/7, take e-mails and phone calls on your personal time, they should also be willing to give a little on your personal time creeping in to "traditional" work hours.
Let me introduce you to the new crop of workers that will be replacing your retiring Baby Boomers. They don't cotton too well to that kind of draconian management style.
True story: An old-school engineering manager, much like yourself, got tired of yelling to get his new hires' attention over their iPods, so he banned iPods. (There were other things, too--IM, Facebook, YouTube, extended lunches, chit-chatting, leaving early--you get the picture.) 25 new engineers banned together and turned in their resignations. HR had a fit (considering the cost to woo these bright young minds) and this got the attention of the CEO, who, to everyone's surprise, sided with HR, that "tolerance and flexibility" was called for in relating to this generation of workers. Of course, the veterans engineers, who had been working longer than these kids had been alive, were visibly miffed, to say the least. Well, rather than be the grandparent of unruly grandchildren, the manager decided to take early retirement. And continues still, are the iPods, iPhones, IMs, Facebooking, and YouTube.
It seems, not only do they have the upper hand at home, with their discipline-shy parents, they have the advantage at work, too, with bosses who failed to do adequate workforce planning. (But if it weren't for tolerance and flexibility, I wouldn't feel comfortable goofing off, right now, waiting for lunchtime!!)
True story: An old-school engineering manager, much like yourself, got tired of yelling to get his new hires' attention over their iPods, so he banned iPods. (There were other things, too--IM, Facebook, YouTube, extended lunches, chit-chatting, leaving early--you get the picture.) 25 new engineers banned together and turned in their resignations. HR had a fit (considering the cost to woo these bright young minds) and this got the attention of the CEO, who, to everyone's surprise, sided with HR, that "tolerance and flexibility" was called for in relating to this generation of workers. Of course, the veterans engineers, who had been working longer than these kids had been alive, were visibly miffed, to say the least. Well, rather than be the grandparent of unruly grandchildren, the manager decided to take early retirement. And continues still, are the iPods, iPhones, IMs, Facebooking, and YouTube.
It seems, not only do they have the upper hand at home, with their discipline-shy parents, they have the advantage at work, too, with bosses who failed to do adequate workforce planning. (But if it weren't for tolerance and flexibility, I wouldn't feel comfortable goofing off, right now, waiting for lunchtime!!)
So employers should now pay employees to browse the web, look at lolcats, and research memes? What rwbyshe@... proposes isn't draconian management, it's responsible management. Tolerance is completely irrelevant here: we're not talking about disagreeing on ideals, we're talking about using work hours to screw around facebook.
Allowing employees to listen to music (your iPod story) is one thing, but allowing them to waste company time is totally different. Should cops be allowed to take a break from that high speed chase to answer that text? Should sport stars be able to call for a time out just so they can reply to their facebook fans? Extreme examples, yes, but they make my point: there's a time and place for these things, and it's not at work (unless you work on social media, and even then there should be controls).
Any employee that expects to be paid for roaming the interwebs on company time should be relegated to a career of flipping burgers and asking people if they want fries with that.
Also, I'm only 20, so your point about baby boomers doesn't really apply to me.
Allowing employees to listen to music (your iPod story) is one thing, but allowing them to waste company time is totally different. Should cops be allowed to take a break from that high speed chase to answer that text? Should sport stars be able to call for a time out just so they can reply to their facebook fans? Extreme examples, yes, but they make my point: there's a time and place for these things, and it's not at work (unless you work on social media, and even then there should be controls).
Any employee that expects to be paid for roaming the interwebs on company time should be relegated to a career of flipping burgers and asking people if they want fries with that.
Also, I'm only 20, so your point about baby boomers doesn't really apply to me.
Do you really think that the work force has changed? I'm not talking about what technology is available to them I'm talking about the people being people. Whether the person was born 40 or 50 years ago or if they are entering the work force just out of college today. There are inherent things in the make up of the individual. Some are professional and have impeccable integrity and many others have some set of professionalism and integrity that is much less than ideal and they are the ones that will waste 10% or more of the employers work day. That is what I'm talking about.
You seem to think that the evolving work force of today is somehow different because they have high end laptops, wifi, smart phones, etc. It's no different. The only difference is in what they are carrying with them.
Integrity is integrity and professionalism is professionalism and if ya aint got it then you'll never have it!
You seem to think that the classic work ethic has changed... it hasn't and it's time you realized that. Whether you have a smart phone in your pocket or an old 4 function calculator in your pocket the "work ethic" does not change!
Nuff said....
You seem to think that the evolving work force of today is somehow different because they have high end laptops, wifi, smart phones, etc. It's no different. The only difference is in what they are carrying with them.
Integrity is integrity and professionalism is professionalism and if ya aint got it then you'll never have it!
You seem to think that the classic work ethic has changed... it hasn't and it's time you realized that. Whether you have a smart phone in your pocket or an old 4 function calculator in your pocket the "work ethic" does not change!
Nuff said....
You misunderstand...I agree with you, but it appears those things that make up an individual are not inherent, after all, evidenced by having to blacklist these apps at all. The concept of classic work ethics hasn't changed, but the calibre of worker, actually adopting and adhering to these, has. Perhaps ethics and professionalism are taught--before entering the workforce?
My point was, there seems to be a sense of workplace entitlement now, that used to not be there before, to the point where some things are just "expected" and "assumed," simply because there isn't a rule against it. My executive management has instituted nameless/faceless polices to try to address these behavioral issues (as opposed to that manager being a focal point of conflict in his attempt to maintain discipline and order). But the fact that a specific policy HAS to be written that says, Thou shalt not e-Trade at work, is new and different. Whereas, before, employees themselves exhibited some measure of evaluating workplace appropriateness, now it seems the limits are being pushed, to where the trivial items on this blacklist has the Execs' attention, because company performance is being affected. 20 years ago, we (IT) would remove the games from Windows in order to make the image smaller for deployment. Today, with faster networks and larger drives, management is removing the games to keep people from playing them all the time.
My point was, there seems to be a sense of workplace entitlement now, that used to not be there before, to the point where some things are just "expected" and "assumed," simply because there isn't a rule against it. My executive management has instituted nameless/faceless polices to try to address these behavioral issues (as opposed to that manager being a focal point of conflict in his attempt to maintain discipline and order). But the fact that a specific policy HAS to be written that says, Thou shalt not e-Trade at work, is new and different. Whereas, before, employees themselves exhibited some measure of evaluating workplace appropriateness, now it seems the limits are being pushed, to where the trivial items on this blacklist has the Execs' attention, because company performance is being affected. 20 years ago, we (IT) would remove the games from Windows in order to make the image smaller for deployment. Today, with faster networks and larger drives, management is removing the games to keep people from playing them all the time.
...men stood around the water cooler, or in the hallways, or sat in each other's offices (remember those?) and TALKED, about women, sports, politics, women, current events, women, and oh yeah sometimes work. Then they went out for a smoke break. I'd venture to say that the average amount of time spent goofing off at work has remained fairly constant since the dawn of mankind (with occasional glitches up or down due to societal upheavals).
Also, managers forget that the "lazy slacker/hacker" who is always messing around on his computer is the same guy they go to when they desperately need computer expertise. The woman who's always "wasting time" on Facebook or Twitter is the expert they go to when they need to set up a company Facebook or Twitter account. (OTOH: Angry Birds???)
Also, managers forget that the "lazy slacker/hacker" who is always messing around on his computer is the same guy they go to when they desperately need computer expertise. The woman who's always "wasting time" on Facebook or Twitter is the expert they go to when they need to set up a company Facebook or Twitter account. (OTOH: Angry Birds???)
usually results in a friendly chat that could last 15 minutes to half an hour! Much better in that case to shoot off a quick email! The point: It's really easy to wast time if you want to. I use the internet to keep up on work related matters. And yeah, I might wast a few minutes here or there (Such as writing this response), but overall I'm here to improve the ability to do my job. This is at least part of what I'm paid to do: Be a better engineer. If you have time wasters, don't get rid of access, get rid of time wasters!
...if you can't trust the employee to get their job done, why'd you hire them in the first place? If things have changed, get rid of them.
I get the dropbox thing, and I get blocking the usual suspects: "Weapons, porn, hate speech". But I never understood the netnanny against youtube (unless you have a small pipe), and the like. If you employees aren't doing their job because you've "allowed" access to certain things, get rid of them. Generally all you end up doing is creating roadblocks that keep other people from getting their job done. Perpetuates the "us against them" mentality in the organization.
Just my opinion. I don't know how many times I've come across a youtube video that I'd like to watch, related to the project I'm working on, but can't because we've blocked youtube because teachers can't watch their children.
I get the dropbox thing, and I get blocking the usual suspects: "Weapons, porn, hate speech". But I never understood the netnanny against youtube (unless you have a small pipe), and the like. If you employees aren't doing their job because you've "allowed" access to certain things, get rid of them. Generally all you end up doing is creating roadblocks that keep other people from getting their job done. Perpetuates the "us against them" mentality in the organization.
Just my opinion. I don't know how many times I've come across a youtube video that I'd like to watch, related to the project I'm working on, but can't because we've blocked youtube because teachers can't watch their children.
"I don't know how many times I've come across a youtube video that I'd like to watch, related to the project I'm working on, but can't because we've blocked youtube because teachers can't watch their children."
As a computer and network tech, I come across this sort of thing from time to time. There are lots of good videos on youtube that are useful to me, particularly when I come up against problems that I haven't had to deal with in the past 2 or 3 years (I'm a Baby Boomer approaching retirement age). In the workplace I find that there are many workers who spend what I regard as excessive time, looking at social media, youtube videos, etc when they should be productively working. It is easier for the personel involved to block access completely, than have to set up separate rules for the users that will responsibly use these resources, which should also be monitored. I don't necessarily agree that this is the best way to do things, but it most definitely the easiest way.
As a computer and network tech, I come across this sort of thing from time to time. There are lots of good videos on youtube that are useful to me, particularly when I come up against problems that I haven't had to deal with in the past 2 or 3 years (I'm a Baby Boomer approaching retirement age). In the workplace I find that there are many workers who spend what I regard as excessive time, looking at social media, youtube videos, etc when they should be productively working. It is easier for the personel involved to block access completely, than have to set up separate rules for the users that will responsibly use these resources, which should also be monitored. I don't necessarily agree that this is the best way to do things, but it most definitely the easiest way.
I agree that many of these things can have a place in today's work environment. If I spend 1/3 of my life at work then it should be comfortable and enjoyable even if I'm working for someone else's bottom line. I expect to get my responsibilities taken care and go above and beyond that by looking for things to do, but I also may need a break before I "blow up" at all the seriousness. Humor and socializing are basic human needs - I'm not a computer (but if I were I'd be a PC - sorry Mac)
This is a BYOD article, right. So the implication is that I am supplying my own smartphone to basically check my corporate email on the go. If I can't use services like Evernote, which gets me through a work and personal day, then I might as well buy 2 phones (1 for work and 1 for personal use) or not participate in the BYOD program.
If you prefer that users not use social networks during work hours then create a User Agreement Policy and try to enforce it through training or even remedial action if necessary.
If you prefer that users not use social networks during work hours then create a User Agreement Policy and try to enforce it through training or even remedial action if necessary.
Although the source quoted is a BYOD specialist, I'm guessing the list of banned apps applies to company-provided systems.
On the other hand, the company is holding the keys to access. I can see mandating the removal of some of the ones on this list that could compromise security. However, Upset Avians isn't on that list.
On the other hand, the company is holding the keys to access. I can see mandating the removal of some of the ones on this list that could compromise security. However, Upset Avians isn't on that list.
If not BYOD, it is a company device with only company material, apps, connections allowed.
Kind of like a secure notebook.
Or a blackberry...
If it is that big of a security concern it should not be allowed.
If it is a concern then handle via training, agreements, accountable actions, etc....
Kind of like a secure notebook.
Or a blackberry...
If it is that big of a security concern it should not be allowed.
If it is a concern then handle via training, agreements, accountable actions, etc....
Since it is the company's network, the boss doesn't want the company enabling such time-wasters. Our company, has modified our Acceptable User and E-Communications Policy to extend the scope beyond the company network, to include "While on company property."
Yes, some idiot used his AT&T/Verizon whatever plan to surf smut on his own phone, and got caught. Management was not pleased with his logic of not violating company policy.
Yes, some idiot used his AT&T/Verizon whatever plan to surf smut on his own phone, and got caught. Management was not pleased with his logic of not violating company policy.
Unless your company is in the smut business he wasn't doing his damn job. Write him up or fire him for that, not make it a control issue over something he owns.
It's about employees not having appropriate control over their own behavior. BYOD does not mean an employee is exempt from the rules just because he bought the computer with his own money. Employees are not understanding that, because the alternative is to ban personal devices altogether. Now that would be draconian. What we all see as Common Sense apparently is so eluding, that it is not Common, and CIOs have to spell it out for it to make Sense.
Have you ever had a preacher, pause his sermon, to ask people to stop texting? A preacher. In church. On Sunday morning.
It's not just at work.
Have you ever had a preacher, pause his sermon, to ask people to stop texting? A preacher. In church. On Sunday morning.
It's not just at work.
The problem with our Preacher that does this is that 20% of us now have our Bible on our phones and most aren't texting but following along with the sermon and/or adding notes, bookmarks, highlights, etc. Perfect example of how some don't get the evolution and just assume from their old point of view that we're all doing something wrong with the devices.
behind the pulpit, you can tell who is paying attention and who is asleep. In the few times our pastor had to address the audience, he was speaking to the "youth section." (They were such a unique moments, maybe that's why it came to mind.) Another time, a phone rang. The pastor said, "Tell them you're in church. Where are they? Because you're holding a seat for them." Thunderous applause followed.
But you're right, these 15-20 year-olds could have been adding notes, bookmarks, highlights, etc. But all the muffled DINGs that Sunday were pretty distracting.
At our last staff meeting, our manager had to address 3 employees for tapping on their iPads during her and others' presentations. Yes, they were doing work-related tasks, but it never occured to them the inappropriateness of doing it right then and there. Again...the device isn't at fault, but the behavior of the individual using the device was the concern. If the boss sees a pattern of behavior at future meetings, she will have no choice but to banish the devices for the table.
But you're right, these 15-20 year-olds could have been adding notes, bookmarks, highlights, etc. But all the muffled DINGs that Sunday were pretty distracting.
At our last staff meeting, our manager had to address 3 employees for tapping on their iPads during her and others' presentations. Yes, they were doing work-related tasks, but it never occured to them the inappropriateness of doing it right then and there. Again...the device isn't at fault, but the behavior of the individual using the device was the concern. If the boss sees a pattern of behavior at future meetings, she will have no choice but to banish the devices for the table.
Olive Tree NIV bible on my IOS devices.
The problem I'm having with your arguments is your perception of the employees as children and in need of guidance through blanket policy.
As I stated before if someone isn't doing their job, address the individual problem. Don't use a shotgun blast.
The problem I'm having with your arguments is your perception of the employees as children and in need of guidance through blanket policy.
As I stated before if someone isn't doing their job, address the individual problem. Don't use a shotgun blast.
Are these blanket guidance policies being envoked because our leadership views these gadgets as toys and the employees abusing them, as children?
Let me try to explain what I mean. The workplace has three generations of employees--60s, 40s, and 20s, we'll say. From my (unprofessional) observations of my own workplace, the 60s long ago set the "standard" for what constitutes appropriate workplace behavior, the 40s are trying to conform to that standard, but the zeal of the challenge-the-status-quo 20s is very appealing. The workplace is in an obvious state of change. You say to address the individual, but have to ask, how many individuals does it take before a policy is warranted? If CIOs are handing down new rules, then it stands to reason the issue has to be pretty widespread and/or of great concern to management.
What's so fasinating to me about this blacklist is, the 60s never had a problem with these kinds of distractions, like playing Angry Birds, for example, (assuming they even knew what that was), the 40s wouldn't have dared played it at work, but the 20s seem to love it every spare moment they can, even at work. So, if the 60s are still making the rules, and they see the 20s not falling in line, with Angry Birds being yet another example of that, could the perception be that of parents supplying guidance to wayward children?
Are the Pull Up Your Pants laws stupid? Well, yeah, but I can see the lawmakers' point. Are curfews really necessary? School dress codes? Anti-bullying campaigns? Sexting awareness? How many tickets had to be written, how many people had to die, before texting while driving was addressed through shotgun-blast state laws? And it just occured to me, when these people survive their youths and begin to enter the workplace, what new behaviors and influences will they bring?
I see where you are coming from, but I think we are way pass isolated incidents. Too many people are not doing their jobs, and there are too many individuals to address. It's just interesting what it is that is causing them to not do their jobs. It used to be too many smoke breaks and gossip around the water cooler.
Let me try to explain what I mean. The workplace has three generations of employees--60s, 40s, and 20s, we'll say. From my (unprofessional) observations of my own workplace, the 60s long ago set the "standard" for what constitutes appropriate workplace behavior, the 40s are trying to conform to that standard, but the zeal of the challenge-the-status-quo 20s is very appealing. The workplace is in an obvious state of change. You say to address the individual, but have to ask, how many individuals does it take before a policy is warranted? If CIOs are handing down new rules, then it stands to reason the issue has to be pretty widespread and/or of great concern to management.
What's so fasinating to me about this blacklist is, the 60s never had a problem with these kinds of distractions, like playing Angry Birds, for example, (assuming they even knew what that was), the 40s wouldn't have dared played it at work, but the 20s seem to love it every spare moment they can, even at work. So, if the 60s are still making the rules, and they see the 20s not falling in line, with Angry Birds being yet another example of that, could the perception be that of parents supplying guidance to wayward children?
Are the Pull Up Your Pants laws stupid? Well, yeah, but I can see the lawmakers' point. Are curfews really necessary? School dress codes? Anti-bullying campaigns? Sexting awareness? How many tickets had to be written, how many people had to die, before texting while driving was addressed through shotgun-blast state laws? And it just occured to me, when these people survive their youths and begin to enter the workplace, what new behaviors and influences will they bring?
I see where you are coming from, but I think we are way pass isolated incidents. Too many people are not doing their jobs, and there are too many individuals to address. It's just interesting what it is that is causing them to not do their jobs. It used to be too many smoke breaks and gossip around the water cooler.
My boss literally REQUIRES that I be logged in to Skype at work.
My wife's employers require her to use DropBox (for something, I've never been entirely clear on what). I used to have to use the similar-in-concept Box.Net (before we got tired of them changing the API without telling us and then simultaneously denying that they'd done so and saying "and it's backward compatible anyway").
The point is that at least some of these can be useful tools for doing work, not just wastes of company time and resources. Blocking TechRepublic (while it's technically not an "app") is at least as justifiable as blocking most of these. (Sorry, but it's true. Most of the stuff I read here is not directly useful to my job, it's just interesting to me personally.)
My wife's employers require her to use DropBox (for something, I've never been entirely clear on what). I used to have to use the similar-in-concept Box.Net (before we got tired of them changing the API without telling us and then simultaneously denying that they'd done so and saying "and it's backward compatible anyway").
The point is that at least some of these can be useful tools for doing work, not just wastes of company time and resources. Blocking TechRepublic (while it's technically not an "app") is at least as justifiable as blocking most of these. (Sorry, but it's true. Most of the stuff I read here is not directly useful to my job, it's just interesting to me personally.)
Next thing we know the Governor's office set up a streaming media server and started doing Real audio broadcasts.
One person's banned app is another's critical business platform!
One person's banned app is another's critical business platform!
Pretty comprehensive list.
I don't see LinkedIn, Google and Email on the list. Certainly these conceivably could be time-wasters too. So can taking more than 30 minutes for lunch, and taking more than 3 minutes in the lavatory, for that matter...
On the glass half-full side, many of these tools actually promote productivity.
However productivity is not the top priority in some archaic, paranoid and poisoned work environments.
I don't see LinkedIn, Google and Email on the list. Certainly these conceivably could be time-wasters too. So can taking more than 30 minutes for lunch, and taking more than 3 minutes in the lavatory, for that matter...
On the glass half-full side, many of these tools actually promote productivity.
However productivity is not the top priority in some archaic, paranoid and poisoned work environments.
I agree with most of the apps listed here but have to say that the small business I work for was able to slash our international calling charges drastically by switching all of our international callers to Skype. We deployed Skype business edition with Skype Manager so that we can apply credit from a single interface and control who gets how much credit. We can generate reports of what calls are made and when credit is applied.
The amount of credit we purchase for our entire group of users is 60% less than what we were paying to our telephone service provider over a 3 month period.
The amount of credit we purchase for our entire group of users is 60% less than what we were paying to our telephone service provider over a 3 month period.
The title says "apps" but 7 put of the 10 are websites. I know some of these websites like Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are available as apps but they are natively still websites.
I'm pretty sure you get the gist of the article, regardless of whether they are apps or websites. Be honest.
I got the gist. However as any IT Practitioner knows, use of wrong terminology in IT could lead to mistakes. I've heard many users refer to any problem with their machines or software as a "virus". We may understand it is a problem, but not the same thing. I expect better accuracy from Tech Republc writers.
I read the article with interest. The point of contention is what should be banned and the responses seem to suggest how such a ban will work. Changing the frame of reference will provide a solution. Instead of banning, categorize your apps and websites into "work" and "personal", based on individual's function. Please see solutions such as Prohance - www.prohance.net. These can be deployed without banning any apps or sites. It just tracks how much time was spent on work and how much on personal without intruding on privacy.
So what's next? Ban people from discussing sports at the water cooler or when getting coffee? People are social animals and the Internet is just another way of communicating.
Productivity isn't about banning, it's about setting goals and sticking with them. If an employee has specific objectives to be met ... and meets them, who cares what else occurs during that employee's day? It's an old-manager-mindset: Ebenezer exacting specific hours of 'work', instead of looking at tasks as entities. The punch-clock mentality. So, you'll see people who *never* get on FB or check for messages on their phone or anything else and do the rock-bottom absolute minimum, but because they are "working", the boss is happy.
Needs a re-think, don't you reckon? Define your tasks and objectives first. The rest: who cares. Your objectives are met... does that other stuff even enter into the equation?
Needs a re-think, don't you reckon? Define your tasks and objectives first. The rest: who cares. Your objectives are met... does that other stuff even enter into the equation?
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
