It's more that management here have a habit of requesting technological solutions to behavioural problems, which we can provide, but seldom work.
However I'm not really too bothered about removing these particular users' ability to change IM status. They are required to be able to take transferred calls at all times when logged in, so their presence status is vital. If they have anything in their calendar, or lock their workstation, or are inactive for five minutes, or log out, the status will change accordingly. No-one else has a problem with it - just the ones who'd learned to dodge work by abusing the software provided. I wouldn't take the same approach if I was in charge though, just for the record. 2009/11/20 Jonathan Link <[email protected]> > Your statement, "[a]s with all things, it is the actions of a few that > spoil it for many" isn't really accurate. Often times it is a failure of > management to discipline and manage employees, because people do not like > confrontation. So, in a passive agressive manner, they generate a > blanket policy to respond to the bad actions of a rogue employee because it > is expedient and solves the problem at the expense of other problems in the > future. > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:47 AM, James Rankin <[email protected]>wrote: > >> With regards to the blocking of IM status changes, this came down to a >> drive from the CEO for software-based presence awareness. People sitting in >> "Do Not Disturb" for two weeks were not making things easy for us to show >> presence awareness. As with all things, it is the actions of a few that >> spoil it for many. >> >> 2009/11/20 Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> >> >>> I think this really depends on the company you’re working for. Go work >>> for Microsoft, and you can pretty much do whatever you want to your laptop >>> (provided it’s legal). My company is the same. But I can understand the >>> other arguments being made here (which I largely agree with). >>> >>> >>> >>> In a large enterprise, IT is a productivity tool – a cog in a wheel. But >>> I disagree with some of the more extreme measures being mentioned here (like >>> disallowing people from changing their IM status). People can take the phone >>> off the hook if they need some uninterrupted quiet time to get some work >>> done – why shouldn’t they be able to be avoid being bothered on IM? >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Ken >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >>> *Sent:* Friday, 20 November 2009 9:37 AM >>> >>> *To:* NT System Admin Issues >>> *Subject:* Re: WSJ Reporter thinks IT departments should allow users to >>> install whatever >>> >>> >>> >>> When you've outsourced IT, there's no one left to torture or object. >>> >>> But, as with all other ill-fated trends, we'll see the pendulum swing >>> back the other way as productivity plummets. >>> >>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> *From: *"Alex Eckelberry" <[email protected]> >>> >>> *Date: *Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:27:46 -0500 >>> >>> *To: *NT System Admin Issues<[email protected]> >>> >>> *Subject: *RE: WSJ Reporter thinks IT departments should allow users to >>> install whatever >>> >>> >>> >>> The interesting and amazing thing is that this really is where some major >>> companies are going – giving their users stipends to buy whatever equipment >>> they want, etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:[email protected]] >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:13 PM >>> *To:* NT System Admin Issues >>> *Subject:* WSJ Reporter thinks IT departments should allow users to >>> install whatever >>> >>> >>> >>> Discuss: >>> >>> >>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703567204574499032945309844.html >>> >>> >>> >>> I believe this is more an indictment of the low quality of journalism >>> nowadays. It's little more than a rant on his employer's IT policies. In >>> no instance does he discuss the measured effect of IT policies might have >>> within an organization. He makes vague allusions to the productivity gains >>> users could acheive if allowed to use any software they felt necessary to do >>> their job. Near the end of the article he does finally discuss some of the >>> valid reasons for constraining users ability to install shiny new software >>> in order to be more "productive." >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> "On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into >> the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able >> rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such >> a question." >> >> http://raythestray.blogspot.com >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > -- "On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." http://raythestray.blogspot.com ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
