Will New Facebook Groups Compete with Yammer?
Colin's assertion that trust is a significant barrier for many corporations with regards to using Yammer is quite accurate. Many organizations prioritize internally hosted solutions due to comprehensive security concerns. This article aims to explore the potential competition between Facebook Groups and Yammer, considering the underlying factors that influence corporate decision-making.
Security and Trust
Security is a paramount issue for many corporate IT departments. When evaluating communication platforms, companies often require strict control over data access and usage policies. Traditional enterprise social networks like Yammer offer a secure, isolated environment that caters specifically to the needs of corporate users. Conversely, Facebook, while a powerful tool, is primarily designed for consumer use, which may not align with the stringent security requirements of many organizations.
The Achilles' Heel of Facebook Groups: Trust and Cultural Fit
It's increasingly likely that some companies with a culture that readily accepts social media platforms might find Facebook Groups a viable option. These organizations may appreciate the benefits of leveraging an existing and familiar platform, especially when it comes to keeping employees away from more time-consuming social interactions outside of work. However, for companies that maintain a no-interruption culture, where colleagues are not expected to engage on personal social networks, the adoption of Facebook Groups could be seen as a non-starter.
Furthermore, the reluctance to trust a platform like Facebook extends beyond mere security concerns. Trust is also about cultural fit. Companies that prioritize internal collaboration and communication often prefer solutions that align seamlessly with their existing workflows and values.
User Experience and Integration
For current Yammer users, the prospect of switching to a new platform with a different authentication and identity management system might seem daunting. However, offering seamless integration with an existing ID scheme or social graph, whether it's a company's internal LDAP or a third-party service, is crucial. This is where Facebook potentially falls short, as the company's strong market presence and broad consumer audience create additional barriers for businesses seeking a dedicated corporate solution.
Conversely, a broad-spread culture of no-interruption would heavily favor Yammer, as it is designed with corporate communication in mind. The ability to control conversations, ban certain words, and manage user interactions effectively aligns with enterprise needs, making Yammer a more attractive option.
Key Features and Manager's Perspective
Extra-features such as conversation control, statistics, and word banning are vital for decision-makers. These tools offer managers the ability to maintain a professional and productive work environment. While these features can be powerful, they also come with the responsibility of delegation and accountability.
Asana, another popular project management tool, competes with Yammer in certain areas, particularly in task management and collaboration. However, Yammer's strength lies in its ability to foster organic communication and community building within the corporation. This is why many managers might lean towards Yammer over Facebook Groups or Asana, despite the additional effort required for integration.
Conclusion
In summary, while Facebook Groups present an interesting alternative for companies with certain cultural and security requirements, the traditional corporate giants like Yammer continue to hold a strong position due to their tailored features and trust-building capabilities. The decision-to-switch often hinges on the specific needs and preferences of each organization, but it's clear that trust and culture play crucial roles in this ongoing debate.