1. Disruptive Technology and its Implications for University Information Services David Harrison, Cardiff University “Exploiting the Potential of Blogs & Social Networks” UKOLN Workshop: November 2007

2. Disclaimer  Everything I’m saying is informed by my employment at Cardiff and the networks I’m part of and have involved myself in whether real (UCISA) or virtual (Facebook).  Everything I’m saying is a personal view or reflection upon what I’ve learnt or experienced, unless directly attributed to another person or organisation.  I’m wholly responsible for the contents of this session; it does not represent the views or policies of either Cardiff University or UCISA.

3. Why the need for a disclaimer?  Talking about things outside the “service offering”.  Talking about “user-centric” rather than “organisation- centric” issues.  Talking about issues that transcend organisational boundaries.  Talking about issues that break the traditional security and privacy models.  Talking about different ways of visualising the way Information Services operate. … none of which have any substance in standards, services, or policies … yet!

4. Starting point …  Brian Kelly and John Heap presented at an earlier UKOLN workshop two viewpoints on “disruptive technology” as viewed from the user and the service perspectives.  Discussion document produced which set out the potential conflict between users who want to do “new things” and the central service that has issues of support and security amongst its top concerns.  Discussed at UCISA Exec and the challenge was taken up to produce guidelines.

5. Our response in Cardiff  A first draft authored by Dr Joe Nicholls appeared in January 2007, first released in April 2007 for comment within UCISA Executive. Part 1 of the Briefing Paper is available at http://insrvblogs.cf.ac.uk/roller/ disruptive. http://insrvblogs.cf.ac.uk/roller/ disruptive  No intention to go through this but it provides the background for the thought processes being followed by many in Cardiff University.  This presentation considers some of the issues discussed in Part 2 of the paper.

6. Preparation and engagement  Get the buy-in of “corporate compliance” … make the IT Regulations - institutional ones - NOT just ones that refer to the use of central facilities.  Establish the principle (through practice and “case law” if necessary) that there’s nothing the user can do with “disruptive technology” that is different from their use of traditional technology … the location might be different but the primacy of the AUP remains and the referral to existing disciplinary processes should not change.  Be prepared therefore to relinquish sole responsibility for IT Regulations – your first lesson in partnership.

7. Practicing Safe IT  Users need protecting against themselves – if email was comparable to sending a postcard, then social networking is comparable to a night out in the pub!  Guidance and advice on appropriateness of content, privacy and security is required … but not control.  Focus should be upon EDUCATION. http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/insrv/it/ help/safe/. http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/insrv/it/ help/safe/

8. Differing realms, identities and blogs  We work in different realms  Sometimes on our own and in a personal capacity  Sometimes in a way that shields our true identity  Sometimes in a work-related capacity  Sometimes as a member of an internal work group  Sometimes as a member of an external collaboration group  Sometimes as a member of an organisation  Sometimes as a contributor to someone else’s work  We work differently and use different language depending upon the context we find ourselves in

9. Corporate responses  IBM have taken a lead in encouraging employees to blog http://terranova.blogs. com/terra_nova/2007/ 08/ibms-virtual- wo.html http://terranova.blogs. com/terra_nova/2007/ 08/ibms-virtual- wo.html

10. IBM’s Guidelines  They have provided guidelines for blogging http://www- 128.ibm.com/developerw orks/blogs/page/jasnell?e ntry=blogging_ibm http://www- 128.ibm.com/developerw orks/blogs/page/jasnell?e ntry=blogging_ibm  And engagement in virtual worlds http://domino.research.ib m.com/comm/research_p rojects.nsf/pages/virtualw orlds.IBMVirtualWorldGui delines.html http://domino.research.ib m.com/comm/research_p rojects.nsf/pages/virtualw orlds.IBMVirtualWorldGui delines.html

11. Roo Reynold’s Webcast  Worth also looking at http://www.iet.tv/searc h/index.html?spres=5 723 http://www.iet.tv/searc h/index.html?spres=5 723

12. Different types of “blog”  Personal (but not corporate) – no need for this type of page to be hosted on corporate systems any more  Personal or Group (work-related) – corporate intranet for internal collaboration hosted on the corporate system  Group Internet Presence – for external collaboration with others of a “like mind” possibly hosted on an independent system  Corporate Internet – in support of the business hosted on the corporate system

13. Personal (but not corporate) no need for this type of page to be hosted on corporate systems any more

14. Personal or Group (work-related)  Corporate intranet for internal collaboration hosted on the corporate system – eg within Cardiff https://quickplace.cf.ac.uk

15. Group Internet Presence for external collaboration with others hosted on an independent system

16. It’s just common sense  Need to adopt suitable language, style and identity depending on where you are  Need to have guidelines on usage and on what type of collaborative tool is best for what purpose – this goes across the whole gamut from IM, through chat rooms, email, shared workspaces to blogs and wikis  Need to be supportive, rather than prevent

17. Concluding thoughts  There’s nothing different in Web 2.0 to what’s already being done – it’s just the medium that’s different  Users need protecting against their own foolishness – thus EDUCATION is the most important thing  Institutions should begin to trust their staff and students more but be also prepared to use existing disciplinary codes where the trust is betrayed  Must embrace and engage – to do otherwise would be counter- productive and make us look foolish – consider the concept of enablement  Should consider a partnership rather than service provider role and be customer-centric  Must consider where we’re going with work-life balance; for some they want separation – for others they want the flexibility at work that they give to work at home.