1

Author: Moellering, Christopher, L Title: Social Intranet Attitude Assessment The accompanying research report is submitted to the University of Wisconsin-Stout, Graduate School in partial

completion of the requirements for the

Graduate Degree/ Major: MS Technical and Professional Communication

Research Adviser: Matt Livesey, Ph.D.

Submission Term/Year: Spring, 2012

Number of Pages: 46

Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th edition

X I understand that this research report must be officially approved by the Graduate School and that an electronic copy of the approved version will be made available through the University Library website X I attest that the research report is my original work (that any copyrightable materials have been used with the permission of the original authors), and as such, it is automatically protected by the laws, rules, and regulations of the U.S. Copyright Office. X My research adviser has approved the content and quality of this paper.

STUDENT:

NAME Christopher L. Moellering DATE: May 9, 2012

ADVISER: (Committee Chair if MS Plan A or EdS Thesis or Field Project/Problem):

NAME Matt Livesey DATE: May 9, 2012

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

This section for MS Plan A Thesis or EdS Thesis/Field Project papers only Committee members (other than your adviser who is listed in the section above) 1. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE:

2. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE:

3. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This section to be completed by the Graduate School This final research report has been approved by the Graduate School.

Director, Office of Graduate Studies: DATE:

2

Moellering, Christopher, L. Social Intranet Attitude Assessment

Abstract

The Social Intranet Attitude Assessment was performed to determine whether or not vice

presidents at a Midwestern non-profit financial services company are likely to support adding

social media features to the company intranet. The researcher wanted to know which social

media features interested them the most and which ones concerned them the most. In addition,

do the vice presidents understand the risks and benefits of adding social media features to the

company intranet? For this project, the vice presidents at the financial services company were

given a seven-question survey asking them about their attitudes towards and perception of

adding social media tools to the company intranet. In the end, the results of the survey were

surprising with an overwhelming amount of support from the vice presidents. Therefore, when

the company begins its intranet redesign project, it should consider adding social media features

for most or all employees to use.

3

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge, in no particular order, the following for significantly

contributing to my graduate education: Giants Sunflower seeds, Stride gum, Mtn. Dew, Caribou

Coffee, Marlboro lights, the cast of MASH, XBOX, the Minnesota Wild, Matt Livesey’s

sarcasm, my car, my dogs, my fiancée, my mom and dad, my mortgage, my lawnmower, my

loud neighbors, my six years at Wal-Mart, Steve Buscemi, Steve Jobs, and Steve from the

Holiday station. Thank you all.

4

Table of contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 2

List of tables .................................................................................................................................... 5

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6

Chapter II: Literature Review ......................................................................................................... 7

Chapter III: Methodology ............................................................................................................. 19

Chapter IV: Interview Results ...................................................................................................... 21

Chapter V: Survey Results ............................................................................................................ 24

Chapter VI: Discussion ................................................................................................................. 31

Chapter VII: Recommendations ................................................................................................... 35

References ..................................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix A: Management Social Intranet Survey ....................................................................... 40

Appendix B: Intranet Questions for SAS Interview ..................................................................... 42

Appendix C: Complete Survey Results ........................................................................................ 43

5

List of tables

Table 1: Evolving to intranet 2.0 .......................................................................................................................9

Table 2: Breakdown of vice presidents’ interest in social media features .........................................................25

Table 3: Breakdown of vice presidents’ social media concerns ........................................................................26

Table 4: Vice presidents’ perceived risks ..........................................................................................................26

Table 5: Greatest perceived benefits ..................................................................................................................27

Table 6: Greatest challenges ..............................................................................................................................28

Table 7: Vice presidents’ likeliness to support social media features................................................................29

6

Chapter I: Introduction

One of the most important tools a company has is its intranet. In many cases, it houses all

the tools and resources employees need to perform their jobs effectively. In a way, it is like the

company’s phone system; it is a key tool needed to get the work done, but it is hardly ever

thought about because it is simply there.

The Internet has undergone an enormous change over the last eight to ten years—from

static pages of content meant for consumption to a fully collaborative and social space where the

users create the content, and the content is tailored to fit the individual’s wants and needs. The

company intranet, though late to the party, is now undergoing this same transformation. Unlike

the Internet, which underwent this change quite naturally, the company intranet faces many

challenges impeding its progress, such as executive support, employee adoption, and clear

business need.

This study addresses the executive support challenge. It seeks to find out if vice

presidents’ attitudes towards and perceptions of social media on a company intranet are

changing. Specifically, are they willing to support adding social media to a company intranet,

and if so, which social features interest and concern them the most?

There are a few limitations to this study. The first limitation is that it only looks at vice

presidents at one company, which happens to be in the financial services industry. The results of

the study can be applied to the financial services industry but not much more broadly than that.

The second limitation is that the study is not longitudinal. It would be more interesting to track

the vice presidents’ attitudes and perceptions over the course of a few years to see what, if any,

changes occur.

7

Chapter II: Literature Review

Over ten years of working in several different industries (retail, higher education, and

financial services), I have learned that most business processes have the same problem: poor

communication. And, ironically, most business process problems have the same solution: better

communication with a side of collaboration. Better communication and improved collaboration

is something companies are continually working towards. If a company communicates and

collaborates better they will in turn be more productive and create more revenue.

The latest trend to improve communication and collaboration involves adding social

media tools to company intranets. According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, social

media is defined as “Forms of electronic communications (as Web sites for social networking

and micro-blogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas,

personal messages, and other content (as videos).” Examples of social media tools include blogs,

wikis, and social networks.

When social media tools are added to a company intranet, the intranet becomes what

Ward, the founder and CEO of Prescient Digital Media, a leading intranet consulting firm, calls a

“social intranet.” Ward (2012) has defined a social intranet as “an intranet that features multiple

social media tools for most or all employees to use as collaboration vehicles for sharing

knowledge with other employees” (p. 3). The social intranet is the latest attempt to improve

communication and collaboration within companies. Ward (2012) has found, “Social media on

the intranet is a relatively new phenomena having only appeared behind the firewall in the past 4

or 5 years (with the exception of instant messaging and discussion forums which have been

around, in some form, since the late 1990s)” (p. 3).

8

Like the Internet, company intranets over the years have shifted from 1.0 technologies to

2.0 technologies that enable open communication and more collaboration. Ever since the Internet

started to take off in the early 1990s, it has steadily progressed towards a more collaborative

environment. In the early 1990s, web pages were static. A Webmaster would post content, and

visitors would consume it. Collaborative features were added to the Internet through the years.

There is a natural progression we can follow. This progression is detailed on the Webdesigner

Depot (2009) website. This is an outline of the progression:

Usenet

Online bulletin boards

Chat

Instant messaging

Discussion forums

Blogs

Wikis

Social networking

Media sharing

News sharing

Real-time updates

A similar progression is happening with company intranets as detailed in table 1 below.

9

Table 1: Evolving to intranet 2.0

Evolving to intranet 2.0 Intranet 1.0 Intranet 2.0 Corporate news Submit news Executives speech Executive blog Taxonomy Folksonomy Quick poll Discussion forums Annual employee broadcast Regular podcast CMS Wikis Directories (A-Z) Tagging Sticky content RSS

When implemented properly and used widely by a company, a social intranet can create

many benefits for a company. In an article for ReadWrite Enterprise, Fulton (2011) has found,

“A social organization is able to be more agile, produce better outcomes, and even develop

entirely new ways of operating that are only achievable through mobilizing the collective talent,

energy, ideas, and efforts of communities.”

The majority of companies have already turned their intranets into social intranets. Ward

(2011) has found that 61% of companies have at least one social media tool available to some or

all employees. Ward’s study examined social media use on corporate intranets and the

magnitude, use, and popularity of social media by employees and executives. The survey was

completed by 1,401 participants in small, medium, and large organizations in all types of

industries, from all corners of the globe. Sixty-one percent of companies having at least one

social media tool on their intranets is significant considering that social media has only existed

behind the firewall for the last four to five years.

Better communication, collaboration, and productivity starts with more employee

engagement, which can be achieved through the use of social intranets. In a 2012 study, McGrath

and Freed have found, “Organizations using blogs, wikis and social networking tools achieved

an average year-over-year improvement in employee engagement of 18%, compared with 1% for

10

organizations that do not use social networking tools” (p. 3). There are many reasons why a

social intranet can improve engagement. McGrath and Freed (2012) have found, “High levels of

employee engagement occur when employees feel respected, feel they can contribute

meaningfully, and when employees feel part of a community at work” (p. 20).

Social intranets enable employees to contribute to the conversations at work and create

communities by building and fostering connections between coworkers. When managers trust

employees to share their opinions and communicate freely at work, it gives employees a sense

that their managers respect them and their ideas. McGrath and Freed (2012) also noted that

Gallup research shows that when employees have a friend at work, they are more likely to be

engaged employees (p. 10). When employees connect around shared interests on the company

intranet it can create friendships. McGrath and Freed (2012) have found, “Just being able to have

conversations with people on forums, and connect to people with similar interests makes it more

likely you will find someone to bond with at work’” (p. 11).

There is no better example of a social intranet that aims to improve employee

engagement than the intranet at SAS, a leading provider of business analytics software and

services. Lai (2010) has found, “SAS’s intranet has been designed as a completely collaborative

environment promoting a culture of trust and employee engagement.” SAS’s successful social

intranet did not happen on accident. The company set in place well-defined strategies to foster

employee engagement. Lai (2010) has found that SAS’s strategies include the following:

Allow users to comment on intranet content

Develop internal thought leaders by encouraging employees to blog

Set a positive, encouraging tone on your intranet

11

Get employees comfortable sharing on the intranet with low key interactive elements

(e.g., polls, surveys, quizzes, and contests)

Allow employees to customize their intranet experience

Each of SAS’s strategies listed above focus on employees. Their strategies aim to get

employees to connect and communicate in healthy and positive ways to create more engaged

employees, which in turn will lead to higher employee satisfaction. Certainly, SAS’s culture of

trust and transparency has led to its continual number one ranking in Forbes Magazine’s list of

best companies for which to work. Their social intranet is a driving factor used to create that

culture of trust and transparency. McGrath and Freed (2012) found, “Companies with successful

social intranets see them become much more than simply one more enterprise technology or an

internal website: they become the online reflection of the company’s culture and activity, the

center of the company’s online ecosystem” (p. 21).

Andy Jankowski, founder of the consulting firm Enterprise Strategies and global director

at the Intranet Benchmarking Forum, is quoted in McGrath and Freed’s (2012) study as saying,

“It is very difficult, if not impossible, to have engaged employees who are not, at some level,

happy” (p. 5). McGrath and Freed (2012) have found, “Social intranets can and do have a

positive impact on employee happiness, and help build trust and social comfort in employees –

when they are well implemented” (p. 6). SAS’s intranet is certainly well implemented with over

12,000 employees spread worldwide accessing the intranet everyday as it is the central location

for all company communication (Lai, 2010).

In their 2012 study, McGrath and Freed note Gallup research on employee well-being

that suggests people need as much as six hours a day of social interaction to have strong feelings

of well-being (p. 16). It is awfully difficult to get six hours of meaningful social interaction a day

12

when 8 to 12 hours a day are spent in a cubicle—plus the time spent travelling to and from work

and the time spent decompressing and sleeping. We are lucky if we get two to four hours of

social interaction a day. Social intranets enable employees to have more social interactions

throughout the day, which can lead to stronger feelings of well-being. McGrath and Freed (2012)

have found, “The relationship building and knowledge growth that mature social intranets foster,

and the volunteerism inherent in sharing knowledge with others on the intranet materially

contributes to employees’ happiness” (p. 16). McGrath and Freed (2012) go on to say, “The

opportunity to author something others in the organization might find useful – and that might

bring recognition of one’s unique abilities – has enormous implications for well-being, and for

building trust and comfort with coworkers” (p. 17). Social intranets give employees the

opportunity to author and share content that others might find useful. Sharing information gives

employees the opportunity to learn. McGrath and Freed (2012) have found, “When we are

learning and growing, chemical changes occur in the brain that produce feelings of well-being”

(p. 16).

So what is the benefit of having happy and engaged employees? Happy and engaged

employees tend to be more productive, which results in more revenue. McGrath and Freed

(2012) have found, “Studies of happiness in the workplace—perhaps less rigorously scientific

than Gallup’s Q12 meta-analysis—do show, however, that happy employees are generally more

productive” (p. 5). McGovern (2010) has found, “Moving from average to exceptional employee

satisfaction levels result in a 3.8% increase in revenue growth.” A 3.8 percent increase in

revenue might not seem like a lot, but consider a company that has annual revenue of one million

dollars. Its revenue would increase by $38,000—still not a lot, but enough to hire another

employee or several interns. Or better yet, pay for the social intranet the company implemented.

13

Ward (2011) has found that 38% of organizations spend less than $10,000 on their social

intranets and 34% spend somewhere between $10,000 and $99,000 (p. 5).

Surely, happy and engaged employees do not magically become more productive, but the

connections made through social intranets do help improve employee productivity. McGrath and

Freed (2012) have found, “Traditional intranets lack connections. Content is anonymous and

shows no social context, no connection between pages and specific people” (p. 7). Social

intranets, on the other hand, put names and faces to content, which enable employees to connect

with the content owner if they have questions, comments, or concerns. In an article in the Public

Relations Tactic Journal, Radick (2011) has found, “The intranet used to be focused on

connecting people to information; it is now about connecting people to people.” Radick (2011)

has found that connecting people to people is important because as information evolves,

traditional intranets and other information repositories become outdated. People turn to

traditional communication channels such e-mail and personal networks. The same principle

applies outside of work. When Google does not return the search results we want, we turn to our

friends for advice. We ask our neighbors and family instead of hunting aimlessly for information.

Nielsen (2009) has found that social intranets have a “person-structured” information

architecture that is focused around individual users as well as other people on the intranet. The

person structure information architecture of social intranets helps employees connect with the

people they need when they need them.

When employees are able to find the information they need faster, it saves time, which in

turn saves the company money. The Ken Blanchard Companies (2009) have found, “Most

organizations are operating with a 5% to 10% productivity loss” (p. 2). There are many reasons

for productivity loss: overly complicated business processes, poor employee morale, difficulty

14

locating information, unproductive meetings, inappropriate systems and tools, and etc. In their

study, McGrath and Freed (2012) noted, “Gallup has estimated that lost productivity as a result

of employees being actively disengaged costs the US economy $370 billion annually” (p. 2).

Companies that have implemented social intranets have found that their employees’ productivity

has improved. Most of the improvement comes from saving time by providing employees with

quicker access to information. Burnham (2009) has found that for Avaya, an enterprise global

communications company, their social intranet “has been useful for onboarding new associates,

helping them make contacts more quickly and catch up on company news by searching through

past conversations.” It can sometimes take months for new employees to become comfortable

with their jobs and understand the company. The faster a company can get their new employees

working on their own, the more money they are going to save.

Motorola has found that their social intranet saves its salespeople time. In an article in

InformationWeek by Hoover (2007), Motorola has discovered that “Instead of developing a

different pitch for every client, salespeople can now reuse information that might be posted on a

wiki.” The Motorola social intranet is essentially a knowledge hub where employees can find the

information they need when they need it. Instead of duplicating work, employees can find and

reuse what others have already done, saving the company time and money.

The trick to increasing productivity with a social intranet is not to create an “online water

cooler,” but rather a place where people can get work done. Cavazza (2011), in an article in

Forbes, has found, “The best social intranet is not the one providing the most social features, but

the one which ties the most business processes and data to employee’s social behavior.”McGrath

and Freed (2012) echoed something very similar in their study. They have found, “In successful

intranets, social and business functions intertwine. Information starts to move laterally. Intranet

15

forums spring up to connect people in similar job functions or expertise areas but different

locations” (p. 13). In fact, in McGrath and Freed’s (2012) white paper the ThoughtFarmer Vice

President, Gordon Ross, is quoted as calling an intranet “‘an internal website that helps

employees get stuff done’, and a social intranet as ‘an intranet where all employees can author

content and connect easily’” (p. 6). It is the connecting that happens on social intranet that helps

employees “get stuff done,” which leads to increased productivity.

A social intranet enables employees to configure different elements to fit their own work

processes. For example, they can customize their homepage with tools and information they

access regularly. They can personalize their contacts, so they have faster access to people. Since

everything about a social intranet is tailored to fit the individual’s needs, it makes everything

they do faster. The more work employees get done; the more money the company makes either

through earned revenue or avoided costs.

There are many benefits to having a social intranet, but, of course, there also are several

challenges. There are three main challenges to implementing/operating a social intranet:

monitoring its usage, encouraging adoption, and managing change.

Nielsen (2009) has found, “Banning anonymity is one of the first governance steps that

all organizations should take when implementing social networking.” People are much less likely

to post negative comments if their name is attached to the post. In addition, Nielsen (2009) has

found, “When left to their own devices, communities police themselves, leaving very little need

for tight organizational control.” This is the “community watch” idea. Negative and positive

comments tend to even out and meet at a better place. A lot of negative comments happen simply

because people are not informed and do not have a clear understanding of what they complaining

16

about. With a social intranet, those that are informed and have the understanding can rein in

those that are not informed and lack understanding.

Of course a company’s intranet cannot become the “wild west” with absolutely no

oversight. The question is not really to govern or not to govern; but rather, how much oversight

is appropriate. Hoover (2007) has found, “A four person team manages Motorola’s entire blog,

wiki, and forum environment.” Hoover (2007) also points out that that number depends on

finding the right people such as an enterprise architect who understands information architecture.

On the other hand, Schillerwein (2010) found that the global bioscience company Chr. Hansen

A/S uses 130 editors from across the organization to manage the content of its social intranet.

But like Hoover’s article, Schillerwein (2010) has found, “Great care was taken not to just get

‘anyone’ appointed editors, but to really get the right people to contribute.” So basically,

monitoring social intranet usage is a balancing act between too much oversight and not enough

oversight. How each company decides to handle it is up to them and their company

demographics.

Of course, the success of a social intranet depends on people using it. A social intranet

that no one uses is essentially worthless. Unfortunately, lack of user adoption is fairly common.

Ward (2012) has found, “Often, 2.0 failures are simply a lack of use or adoption by users,

sometimes it is misuse of the tools – particularly blogs, discussion forums, and user comments;

but rarely is it the technology itself” (p. 14). There could be any number of reasons for lack of

user adoptions. Employees could perceive a social intranet as just another tool they are forced to

use. Maybe prior technology implementation put undue strain on employee productivity.

Employees may not completely understand how a social intranet could benefit them and the

17

organization. If that is the case, then it leads to the third challenge of implementing/operating a

social intranet: managing change.

Ward (2012) has found, “In short, intranet change management becomes an exercise in

‘selling’ or communicating not only the reason and purpose for the change, but especially

anticipating and directly addressing the spoken AND unspoken fears (or apathy) of employees”

(p. 12).” Employees need to be made aware of why the change is happening and how the change

will benefit them. It helps to show them how it will benefit them; as opposed to telling them.

It is not necessarily only the employees that need to change, but sometimes, management

and the whole organizational culture needs to change. Nielsen (2009) has found, “If people are

strongly committed to the ‘knowledge is power’ tenet and do not want to share, then sharing

technologies will obviously fail.” Organizations that are committed to this tenet need to shift

from a monologue culture where management just pushes information to staff to a dialogue

culture where management engages in conversations with staff. While management has to

change its attitudes, employees need to change their behavior. One of the hardest changes

Kemsley (2010) has found is that employees need to start seeing themselves as content creators,

not just content consumers. At first, employees might be uncomfortable contributing to a

company intranet because traditionally they have had information pushed to them. With the

social intranet they are expected to create the information to share. To help alleviate this

challenge, Nielsen (2009) has found, “You should design social tools that employees can easily

use without special training. In addition to following usability guidelines, you can achieve this

goal by emulating popular designs on the open Internet.” Basically, if the social intranet looks

and function like sites employees most likely use outside of work (e.g., Facebook, Twitter,

WordPress, etc.), chances are they will feel comfortable enough to use the internal tools.

18

Change is never easy. Changing a company culture that is decades old could be near

impossible. Ward (2012) has found, “The degree of change, and the required change

management, depends on the type and culture of the organization (e.g., union or non-union,

small or large, etc.) and the intended value and power of the intranet (e.g., self-service, executive

communications, etc.).”

There is a fourth challenge to implementing/operating a social intranet, but I left it off my

list because there has not been enough research done to effectively address it. The fourth and

greatest challenge all organizations implementing/operating a social intranet face is determining

its return on investment (ROI). Prescient Digital Media (2009) found, “Measuring the precise

value of an intranet or portal is likely impossible. It is, at best, an imperfect science.” The reason

measuring intranet ROI is an imperfect science is because it depends on the type of company and

the type of tools the company implements. For some companies, cost savings will come from

moving paper-based processes to the intranet, which would translate into lower printing costs.

Other companies may see a return on investment from their intranet due to employees get more

work done because they have faster access to the tools they need to perform their jobs. Some

companies may see savings from less employee turnover due to improved employee satisfaction.

So, it is not that there is not a way to measure intranet ROI, there simply is not one single way to

measure it because it varies by company.

All in all, social intranets have shown the ability to improve employee engagement,

enhance employee communication, foster collaboration, and increase employee productivity.

When those four things work together, organizations benefit. They may see increased revenues,

or they may simply have more satisfied employees. Both are positive.

19

Chapter III: Methodology

The Social Intranet Attitude Assessment was conducted in April 2012 at a non-profit

financial services company in the Midwestern United States. Thirteen vice presidents at the

financial services company participated in the study. Participants included seven males and six

females with ages ranging from 40s to 60s. The vice presidents represented several different

departments within the company, such as corporate communications, human resources, legal,

finance, information technology, and more.

This was a point-in-time, observational study that sought to answer a descriptive research

question, which was “What are the vice presidents’ attitudes towards and perceptions of adding

social media tools to the company intranet?” Since the study focused on attitudes and

perceptions, I primarily used qualitative research methods in the form of a survey. The survey

consisted of seven questions: Four ranking questions, one multiple choice question, one likert

scale question, and one open-ended question. For a copy of the survey, please see Appendix A:

Management Social Intranet Survey attached to the end of this report.

The survey was distributed to the vice presidents in paper form during a recurring

monthly meeting. Nine vice presidents attended the meeting in person and four attended via

telephone. I started the meeting by giving a short presentation on the topic of internal social

media, so the vice presidents could gain a high-level understanding of what the study was about.

The presentation was completely informational and in no way affected the results of the survey.

Once the presentation was finished, I explained the informed consent form to the

participants and had them sign it. Once receiving their consent to participate, I handed out the

survey and asked them to complete it. The participants generally completed the survey in two to

four minutes. The participants who attended the meeting via phone were emailed the informed

20

consent form to sign and a copy of the survey to complete. They were instructed to return the

survey to me at their earliest convenience with no identifiable information attached.

The results of the survey were completely anonymous. I had an intermediary collect the

surveys and deliver them to me when completed. Once I received the surveys, I tabulated the

results in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

In addition to the surveys given to the 13 vice presidents, I also interviewed Becky

Graebe, intranet manager at SAS, an analytical software development company. SAS employs

roughly 12,000 people worldwide with only about 4,500 of them located at headquarters. I asked

Graebe to participate in the interview because I listened to her give a presentation about SAS’s

intranet for a Ragan Communication webinar. Her presentation was very educational, but left me

wanting more information, so I connected with her afterwards on Twitter of all places and asked

if she would be willing to be interviewed.

The interview was conducted over the phone. It lasted approximately a half hour and

consisted of ten questions. The questions focused on four categories: Implementing a social

intranet, benefits of a social intranet, managing and monitoring a social intranet, and technology

used to power a social intranet. For a copy of the interview questions, see Appendix B:Intranet

Questions for SAS Interview attached to the end of this report.

Before the interview took place, I emailed Graebe an informed consent form explaining

the study and her right to end her participation at any time and have her name withheld if

requested.

21

Chapter IV: Interview Results

Becky Graebe, intranet manager at SAS, was asked ten questions on the topic of social

intranets. The questions focused on implementation, benefits, challenges, and technology of

social intranets.

When asked what motivated SAS to implement a social intranet, Graebe said that they

felt it was the way the world was moving. She said that for them it was a valuable tool to help

recruit and retain employees. SAS wanted to attract employees who have been working in a

collaborative world most of their lives. SAS also faced the problem of having a dispersed

workforce with only about one-third of its staff located at headquarters. The social intranet

helped people connect no matter where they were located.

Graebe said that SAS has had a social intranet for six to seven years. It started as a

grassroots effort with several groups within the company using social media tools on their own.

She said that they took a “pieces and parts” approach in which they added different social

features to the intranet over the years. About four years ago they added the ability to comment on

news stories. When asked how they got company leaders to support the implementation of a

social intranet, Graebe said they would ask executives if they could pilot something for a few

months. From the pilot, they would find pieces that worked really well and present those

examples to the executives. Graebe explained that it did not take much to sell ideas to executives

since the SAS culture is one that is transparent and trusting.

As for getting staff to use the social media features, Graebe said they recruited active

bloggers to pilot and test the features. This approach helped create content and super users. In

addition, they would invite the executives to help pilot the tools, so they could see what the tools

had to offer. Since SAS already had groups using different social media tools in their individual

22

departments, they had to create an environment that was more attractive by offering better,

supported tools.

When asked what the most significant benefits the social intranet brings to SAS, Graebe

answered, “It helps people connect.” The social features enable employees to ask the crowd if

they do not know who to go to for help. In addition, Graebe said the social intranet has had a

huge impact on SAS’s employee retention rates, which are among the highest in the industry.

Graebe also mentioned that the social intranet actually makes employees more productive

because it gives them a mental break. She said to think about social intranets as an extension of

other well-being programs offered by the company, such exercise programs, at-work daycare,

and etc.

In reply to the assumption that social intranets will distract employees, Graebe said

“Employees are wasting time anyways. Anything employees can do on the intranet they can do

on their personal phones.”

When asked how many resources they need to manage the day-to-day operations of the

social intranet, Graebe said they have ten people on their internal communications team and two

people in the Information Technology (IT) department dedicated to the intranet. In addition, she

said they have a daily editor to find and monitor news; plus, one person dedicated to monitoring

the HUB, SAS’s social networking tool.

As for monitoring content, Graebe said they have the ability to turn off the commenting

feature but has never had to do so. They do not allow anonymous posting and have the ability to

check how much time people spend using the tools. Unless the employee has a performance

issue, they do not care how much time that employee spends on the intranet.

23

Graebe advised, “Allow people to be themselves.” The internal communication team gets

notified when someone comments on a news story. They have over 800 internal blogs that they

do not monitor. About a one-third of the groups on the HUB are personal interest groups. This

hands-off approach must be working because Graebe said, “I can count on one hand the number

of times I have had to ask someone to remove a post.”

When asked about the technology they use to power their social intranet, Graebe said that

for the most part they bought their tools or used free ones. For the HUB, they use an external tool

called SocialCast.

Towards the end of our conversation, I had time to ask Graebe one more question, which

was not one of my original ten. I wanted to know if she had any advice for me. She replied by

saying, “Be cautious of putting too many tools out there at once.” Clearly, she was advocating

for the “pieces and parts” approach that SAS took. In addition, she advised to find ways of

working the tools into the daily approach and to measure the overall impact of the tools, not bits

and pieces.

24

Chapter V: Survey Results

The survey was distributed to 13 company vice presidents in April 2012 and was

completed by 11 of them—a response rate of 85%. The vice presidents that did not complete the

survey were ones that did not attend the April meeting in person. They were emailed the survey

to complete and never returned it. They were sent multiple reminders and still never returned it.

The results of this study are based on the 11 vice presidents that returned the survey. Even with

only 11 vice presidents responding, the results revealed some trends.

The first question of the survey asked the vice presidents to choose three social media

features that interested them the most for the company intranet. They were asked to rank their

three choices most interested, second most interested, and third most interested. The social media

feature that interested the vice presidents the most was “customizable home pages.” Six out of 11

participants chose “customizable home pages” as one of the top three features that interested

them with an average choice of 2.17.

The social media feature that garnered the second most interest from the vice presidents

was “discussion boards.” It was chose by four out of 11 participants with an average choice of

two. The social media feature that garnered the third most interest was “wiki pages.” It was

chose by four out of 11 participants with an average choice of two.

There were three social media features that did not interest the vice presidents at all.

“Social networking (Facebook-like features),” “video sharing,” and “content rating” did not

receive any interest. For a breakdown of how all social media features ranked, see table two

below.

25

Table 2: Breakdown of vice presidents’ interest in social media features

Which three social media features interest you the most for your company’s intranet?

Most interested Second most Third most Honorable mention No interest

Customizable home pages

Discussion boards Wiki pages Employee profiles Social networking

Content recommendations

Video sharing

Commenting on news Content rating

Other

Job opportunity visibility

Blogs

The second question of the survey asked the vice presidents to choose three social media

features that concerned them the most for the company intranet. They were asked to rank their

three choices most concerning, second most concerning, and third most concerning. The social

media feature that concerned the vice presidents the most was “video sharing.” Eight out of 11

vice presidents chose “video sharing” as one of the most concerning social media features with

an average choice of 1.63. The second most concerning social media feature was “social

networking (Facebook-like features).” Six out of 11 vice presidents chose “social networking” as

one of the most concerning social media features with an average choice of 1.83. It is not

surprising that these two social media features were ranked one and two most concerning since

they also did not receive any interest from the vice presidents.

The third most concerning social media feature was “blogs” with four out of 11 vice

presidents choosing it as one of the most concerning. It had an average choice of 2.25. There

were three social media features that the vice presidents were not concerned about. “Content

recommendations,” “wikis,” and “commenting on content/news” were not chosen by any vice

presidents as a concern. For a complete breakdown of how all social media features ranked, see

table three below.

26

Table 3: Breakdown of vice presidents’ social media concerns

Which three social media features concern you most for your company’s intranet?

Most concerning Second most Third most Honorable mention Not concerned

Video sharing Social networking

Blogs Employee profiles Content recommendations

Custom homepages Wiki pages

Job opportunity visibility Commenting on content

Content rating

Discussion boards

The third question of the survey asked the vice presidents what they perceived as the

greatest risk to adding social media features to the company intranet. They were asked to only

choose one item. The risk that the vice presidents chose the most was “distracted employees”

with five out of 11 vice presidents choosing it. The second greatest risk the vice presidents chose

was “loss of information control” and “productivity loss” with two out of 11 choosing each. All

other risks were chosen once including an “other.” For the other, the vice president provided

his/her own risk, which was “management acceptance and the ability to capitalize on the

valuable input received from a social intranet.” For a complete breakdown of risks, see table four

below.

Table 4: Vice presidents’ perceived risks

What do you see as the greatest risk to having a social intranet?

Risk Participants Total

Productivity loss X X

2

Distracted employees X X X X X 5

Negative comments from employees

X 1

Loss of information control

X X 2

Other X (management acceptance and the ability to capitalize on the valuable input received from a social intranet)

1

27

The fourth questions of the survey asked the vice presidents to choose three ways social

media features on the company intranet would benefit the company. They were asked to rank

their choices greatest benefit, second greatest benefit, and third greatest benefit. The vice

presidents saw the greatest benefit of adding social media features to the company intranet as

“enhanced communications.” Eight out of 11 vice presidents chose “enhanced communications”

as one of the greatest benefits with an average choice of 1.13. The second greatest benefit that

the vice presidents chose was “improved collaboration.” Seven out of 11 vice presidents chose

“improved collaboration” as one of the greatest benefits with an average choice of 1.71. For the

third greatest benefit, the vice presidents chose “more knowledge sharing.” Eight out of 11 vice

presidents chose “more knowledge sharing” as a one of the greatest benefits with an average

choice of 2.50.

There were three items that the vice presidents did not see as benefits. None of the vice

presidents chose “improved business processes,” “elimination of silos,” or “improved ability to

recruit and retain employees” as benefits. For a complete breakdown of perceived benefits, see

table five below.

Table 5: Greatest perceived benefits

What do you see as the three greatest benefits to having a social intranet?

Greatest benefit Second greatest Third greatest Honorable mention None

Enhanced communication

Improved collaboration

More knowledge sharing

More transparency Improved business process

Improved employee relations

Elimination of silos

Recruit and retain employees

The fifth question of the survey asked vice presidents to choose the three greatest

challenges to implementing/operating social media features on the company intranet. They were

28

asked to rank their choices greatest challenge, second greatest challenge, and third greatest

challenge. The vice presidents saw the greatest challenge to adding social media features to the

company intranet as “allocating resources.” Six out of 11 vice presidents chose “allocating

resources” as one of the greatest challenges to adding social media features to the company

intranet with an average choice of 1.33. The second greatest challenge, as perceived by the vice

presidents, was “assuring quality.” Seven out of 11 vice presidents chose “assuring quality” as a

one of the greatest challenges with an average choice of 2.14. The third greatest challenge, as

perceived by the vice presidents, was “changing the company culture.” Five out of 11 vice

presidents chose “changing the company culture” as one of the greatest challenges but with an

average choice of 1.6.

There were three items that the vice presidents did not perceive as challenges to adding

social media features to the company intranet. “Getting people to use it” and “complying with

security policies” were both chosen once as the third greatest challenge. None of the vice

presidents saw “managing the costs” as a challenge. For a complete breakdown of the perceived

challenges, see table six below.

Table 6: Greatest challenges

What do you see as the three greatest challenges to implementing/operating a social intranet?

Greatest challenge

Second greatest

Third greatest Honorable mention None

Allocating resources

Assuring quality

Changing the company culture

Managing negative comments Managing costs

Getting people to use it

Monitoring usage

Managing the technical infrastructure

Complying with security policies

Finding a business need

29

Question six of the survey asked the vice presidents how likely they would be to support

adding social media features to the company intranet. They had five options to pick from:

“unlikely,” “somewhat unlikely,” “neutral,” “somewhat likely,” and “likely.” Seven out of 11

vice presidents chose “likely.” Two chose “neutral” and two chose “somewhat likely.” For a

complete breakdown of the vice presidents’ likeliness to support adding social media features to

the company intranet, see table seven below.

Table 7: Vice presidents’ likeliness to support social media features

How likely are you to support implementing one or more social media tools on your company’s

intranet?

Participants Total

Unlikely

Somewhat unlikely

Neutral X X 2

Somewhat likely X X 2

Likely X X X X X X X 7

Question seven of the survey was an open-ended question that asked the vice presidents

to share any thoughts they had about adding social media features to the company intranet. Six

out of 11 vice presidents chose to complete question seven. Below is a list of the comments they

had:

“Management acceptance; Using social media properly-with fresh content; mining

the information and data for company improvement; start slow and test acceptance”

“I really like the idea of being able to share information with staff and get their

feedback/input and being able to maintain an online record of the exchanges.”

“Very clear expectations of the use of social media need to be provided”

30

“I think there is an opportunity with the launch of the corporate culture employee

action team (focus on improving communication) to build some enthusiasm for social

networking and to have a direct line to employees for feedback.”

“We should take small incremental steps and not over analyze.”

“This is the last thing I ever thought we would do here.”

For all of the survey results, see Appendix C: Complete Survey Results attached to the end

of this report.

31

Chapter VI: Discussion

The results of the Social Intranet Attitude Assessment were actually quite interesting. The

vice presidents’ willingness to support a social intranet was much higher than I expected. If we

were to rank their willingness to support a social intranet on a scale of one to five with five being

the greatest, it would rank at 4.82. I expected more vice presidents to choose “neutral” when

asked about their willingness to support a social intranet because I figured they would need more

information before they could decide whether to support or not support the idea. This tells me

one of two things. Either the vice presidents understand the benefits of a social intranet and are

willing to accept the risks and challenges that come along with one, or they do not fully

understand the risks and challenges.

The vice presidents’ responses to the question regarding risks were pretty close to what I

expected with a few exceptions. I expected more vice presidents to choose “negative comments

from employees” and “productivity loss.” The low response to “productivity loss” can be

explained by vice presidents choosing “distracted employees” since distracted employees is a

form of productivity loss. As for “negative comments from employees,” perhaps the vice

presidents are willing to accept that negative comments on a social intranet simply come with the

territory.

While the responses to the question regarding risks were somewhat expected, the

responses to the question regarding challenges to implementing/operating a social intranet were

quite interesting. Not a single vice president chose “managing costs” as a challenge. Social

intranets can be fairly inexpensive to implement and operate; however, to have 11 vice

presidents not even consider managing costs as a minor challenge is staggering. Either they do

not fully understand the costs associated with implementing/operating a social intranet, or they

32

know there is money in the budget for an intranet project. Perhaps they feel that the money saved

through improved business processes and greater productivity will eventually even out the costs

of implementing/operating the social intranet.

Another surprising result in regards to challenges was that only one vice president chose

“complying with security policies” as a challenge. This comes as a shock because the company

that participated in the study is in the financial services industry and is very locked down in

regards to access to information. The company deals with a lot of personal identifiable

information (PII) such as Social Security and bank account numbers and has a very strict record

retention policy. These tight security measures do not really fit well with the openness and

information sharing ability of a social intranet. Again, maybe the vice presidents see the benefits

of having a social intranet outweigh the risks and challenges.

As for those benefits, the results of the survey were not surprising. Enhanced

communications, improved collaboration, and more knowledge sharing are precisely the benefits

that a social intranet can bring to an organization, and the vice presidents recognized that. The

only result that stood out is that none of the vice presidents chose “improved business processes”

as a benefit. Not entirely surprising though. Usually improved business process come from

moving paper-based processes to an electronic process (Prescient Digital Media, 2009). A lot of

the company’s business processes such as benefit enrollment and technology support have

already moved to electronic form. In addition, the benefits of enhanced communication,

improved collaboration, and more knowledge sharing lead to all the other benefits that were not

selected such as “improved employee relations,” “more transparency,” and “elimination of

silos.”

33

The results of the tool specific questions were somewhat surprising. “Customizable home

pages” was understandably the social media feature that garnered the most interest because of the

benefits it brings to employees by providing them with faster access to the tools and information

they need to perform their jobs. “Wiki pages” as the social media feature that garnered the third

most interest is not surprising either since it is a low-risk, low-cost collaborative tool that keeps

track of revisions. Its benefits are great with very low risk. The interest in discussion boards was

surprising because it also was one of the social media features that most concerned the vice

presidents. The lack of interest in employee profiles was surprising because the ability to have

profiles is basically what will make the social intranet function. Without employee profiles, there

is no way to know who is who—basically eliminating the social element of the intranet. This

shows a lack of basic understanding by the vice presidents about how a social intranet functions.

The vice presidents will need more education before proceeding with a social intranet

implementation. It very well could be possible that the vice presidents do understand the need for

employee profiles and did not choose it because they felt it was a requirement of the other social

media features. However, since vice presidents also were moderately concerned about employee

profiles that is most likely not the case.

The most interesting thing about the results of the tool specific questions is that the vice

presidents’ answers mirror the progression of the web that was mentioned in the literature

review. The vice presidents’ top choices were customizable home pages, discussion boards, and

wiki pages. These technologies are older and existed during the Web 1.0 era. The tools that

garnered some, but very little, interest such as employee profiles, content recommendations, and

blogs are getting a little newer and more social. But again, the vice presidents did not have much

interest in these tools. The tools that really power social intranets such as social networking,

34

video (media) sharing, and content ratings did not receive any interest. These results show that

the vice presidents are willing to move towards a more social intranet, but they are not willing to

take the leap towards a fully collaborative and social environment.

Other results in regards to tools that concerned the vice presidents also were interesting.

Their number one concern was video sharing. I am not sure what aspect of video sharing

concerns the vice presidents. It could be the content of the videos, the time spent watching

videos, the lack of business purpose, the time spent creating videos, or the server space required

to host videos. There is no clear answer since the vice presidents were not asked to explain their

choices. The other social media feature that concerns the vice presidents was blogs. This was

surprising because blogs were one of the social media features that garnered a moderate amount

of interest from the vice presidents. It could be the case that the vice presidents see the benefits

of blogs but also see the risks, and are not willing to support them without a well-defined risk

mitigation strategy.

The results of the open-ended question were fairly positive with a clear theme of “let’s

start small.” The positive results of the open-ended question echoed the vice presidents’

willingness to support the implementation and use of a social intranet. However, their “let’s start

small” attitude shows a slight bit of hesitation or at the very least a sense of caution. The open-

ended response that really stood out to me was the vice president that said, “This is the last thing

I ever thought we would do here.” That response I feel speaks to the company culture and the

amount of change it will need to undergo to make a social intranet successful.

35

Chapter VII: Recommendations

Based on the literature review, the interview with Becky Graebe, and the management

social intranet survey results there are several recommendations for implementing/operating a

social intranet.

Start small

Graebe and the survey participants both emphasized starting small. Instead of launching

an intranet loaded with social media features, it is best to pilot one or two social media features

at a time. Perhaps start with a president’s blog that allows employees to comment on the

president’s posts. Then move towards allowing employees to comment on all news stories posted

on the intranet. Start by building a foundation and let the employees get comfortable with the

features.

Monitor but do not control

It is important to monitor the usage, but it also is important not to restrict employees’

ability to communicate. Given the chance, employees will police themselves. The negative

comments and positive comments will balance out. Also, don’t allow anonymous postings.

When the people’s names are attached to their posts, they are less likely to post negative

comments. In addition, make sure the right people are monitoring the social intranet. A team of

four will suffice if they are the right four.

Do not worry about distracted employees

Employees are going to waste time whether they have a social intranet or not. The choice

becomes would you rather have them wasting time talking with coworkers or wasting time trying

to find the tools and information they need to do their jobs? They may be distracted employees,

but at least they are distracted employees who are well informed. Also, keep in mind that

36

distractions are not always bad. Like Graebe from SAS said, they treat their social intranet as a

part of their employee well-being program because it gives employees mental breaks, which

make them more productive. After all, increased productivity is the goal since it will lead to

increased revenues.

37

References

Burnham, K. (2009, December 1). Twitter alternatives that are all business. CIO. Retrieved from

http://www.cio.com/article/509425/Twitter_Alternatives_That_Are_All_Business?page=

1&taxonomyId=3000.

Cavazza, F. (2011, November 30). From social intranets to collaboration ecosystems. Forbes.

Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/fredcavazza/2011/11/30/from-social-

intranets-to-collaboration-ecosystems/.

Fulton, S. M. (2011, October 17). Capitalizing on social to prop up intranets. ReadWrite

Enterprise. Retrieved from

http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2011/10/capitalizing-on-social-to-prop.php.

Hoover, J.N. (2007, June 20). Motorola’s IT department takes on enterprise 2.0.

InformationWeek. Retrieved from http://www.informationweek.com/news/199905701.

Kemsley, S. (2010, March 22). Wiki Tuesday: Wikis at RBC. Enterprise Irregulars. Retrieved

from http://www.enterpriseirregulars.com/15171/wiki-tuesday-wikis-at-rbc/.

Lai, R. (2010). Intranet lessons from fortune’s #1 company to work for. Intranet Connections.

Retrieved from http://blogs.intranetconnections.com/best_practices/intranet-lessons-

from-fortune%E2%80%99s-1-company-to-work-for.

McGovern, G. (2010, May 9). Time is still money: Increasing employee productivity (part 1).

New Thinking. Retrieved from http://www.gerrymcgovern.com/nt/2010/nt-2010-05-09-

Time-is-money.htm.

McGrath, C. & Freed, E. (2012). Social intranets & employee engagement: An HR solution for

meaningful morale building. OpenRoad. Retrieved from

38

http://www.thoughtfarmer.com/blog/2012/02/07/white-paper-social-intranets-employee-

engagement.

Nielsen, J. (2009). Social networking on intranets. Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox. Retrieved from

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/social-intranet-features.html.

Prescient Digital Media. (2009). Finding ROI: Measuring intranet investments. Retrieved from

http://www.prescientdigital.com/articles/finding-roi-white-paper.

Radick, S. (2011). The power of social networks: Reviving the intranet. Public Relations Tactics.

Retrieved from http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/Tactics/Articles/view/6C-

011108/1025/The_Power_of_Social_Networks_Reviving_the_Intranet.

Schillerwein, S. (2010, March 18). Intranet case study: Chr. Hansen A/S. Intranet Matters.

Retrieved from http://intranet-matters.de/2010/03/18/intranet-case-study-chr-hansen-as/.

Social media. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. Retrieved from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20media.

The Ken Blanchard Companies (2009). The high cost of doing nothing: Quantifying the impact

of leadership on the bottom line. Retrieved from

http://www.kenblanchard.com/img/pub/Blanchard_The_High_Cost_of_Doing_Nothing.p

df.

Ward, T. (2011). Social intranet study 2011: Business turns social. Prescient Digital Media.

Retrieved from http://www.prescientdigital.com/downloads/social-intranet-study-2011-

summary-report.

Ward, T. (2012). The social intranet: Key factors for intranet 2.0 success; social intranet success

matrix. Prescient Digital Media. Retrieved from

39

http://www.prescientdigital.com/downloads/social-intranet-whitepaper-prescient-digital-

feb2012.pdf.

Webdesigner Depot. (2009). The history and evolution of social media. Retrieved from

http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/10/the-history-and-evolution-of-social-media.

40

Appendix A: Management Social Intranet Survey

Which three social media features interest you the most for your company’s intranet: (Order your three choices 1=most interested; 2=second most interested; 3=third most interested)

_ Blogs _ Employee profiles _ Social networking (Facebook-like features) _ Customizable homepages _ Content recommendations _ Job opportunity visibility _ Wiki pages _ Video sharing _ Commenting on content/news _ Rating content/news _ Discussion boards _ Other: _________________

Which three social media features concern you most for your company’s intranet: (Order your three choices 1=most concerning; 2=second most concerning; 3=third most concerning)

_ Blogs _ Employee profiles _ Social networking (Facebook-like features) _ Customizable homepages _ Content recommendations _ Job opportunity visibility _ Wiki pages _ Video sharing _ Commenting on content/news _ Rating content/news _ Discussion boards _ Other: _________________

What do you see as the greatest risk to having a social intranet?

O Productivity loss O Distracted employees O Negative comments from employees O Loss of information control O Other:__________________

41

What do you see as the three greatest benefits to having a social intranet? (Order your three choices 1=most beneficial; 2=second most beneficial; 3=third most beneficial)

_ Enhanced communication _ Improved collaboration _ More knowledge sharing _ Improved business processes _ Improved employee relations _ Elimination of silos _ More transparency _ Improved ability to recruit and retain employees _ Other: _____________

What do you see as the three greatest challenges to implementing/operating a social intranet? (Order your three choices 1=most challenging; 2=second most challenging; 3=third most challenging)

_ Finding a business need _ Monitoring the usage _ Managing negative comments _ Getting people to use it _ Changing the company culture _ Assuring quality _ Managing the technical infrastructure _ Managing costs _ Allocating resources to maintain it _ Complying with security policies _ Other: _______________

How likely are you to support implementing one or more social media tools on your company’s intranet? (1=Unlikely; 2=Somewhat unlikely; 3=Neutral; 4=Somewhat likely; 5=Likely) 1 2 3 4 5 Please share any thoughts or questions you may have about implementing internal social media tools:

42

Appendix B: Intranet Questions for SAS Interview

Implementation

1) What motivated your organization to implement a social intranet? Was there a business issue you were trying to solve? Was there employee demand for it? How did you know?

2) How long did it take to implement and how many resources were involved?

3) How did you get your company leadership to support the implementation of a social intranet?

4) Once you implemented, did you experience any change in the culture of your company? If so, what kind of changes did you experience? (Greater sense of community, more engaged, open and honest).

5) How much effort did it take to get employees to adopt/use the social intranet? Benefits

6) What are the most significant benefits the social intranet brings to your company?

7) We have identified several pros and cons to having a social intranet. Cons include Productivity loss, distraction, and place to complain. Have you experienced any of these or other cons?

Managing and Monitoring

8) How many resources does it take to manage the day-to-day operations of the social intranet?

9) How is the content of your social intranet monitored? Technology

10) Did you build your social intranet or buy a solution, and what drove your decision?

43

Appendix C: Complete Survey Results

Key In the participants column

Number one choices were given a score of 3 Number two choices were give a score of 2 Number three choices were given a score of 1

Total column = total after being scored Pre adjusted column = total before being scored (used to calculate the average choice) Rows highlighted green are positive results Rows highlighted red are negative results Which three social media features interest you the most for your company’sintranet?

Participants

Total

Pre adjust

ed Times chose

Average Choice

Times 1st

Times 2nd

Times 3rd

Blogs 3

3

1

7 5 3 1.67 2 0 1

Employee profiles 2

1

1

3 7 9 4 2.25 1 1 2 Social networking (Facebook-like features) 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0

Customizable homepages 1 2 3 2 2 1 11 13 6 2.17 1 3 2

Content recommendations

1 1

3

1

6 10 4 2.50 1 0 3

Job opportunity visibility

3

2

2

7 5 3 1.67 1 2 0

Wiki pages 1 3 1 3 8 8 4 2.00 2 0 2

Video sharing 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 Commenting on content/news

2

3

5 3 2 1.50 1 1 0

Rating content/news 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0

Discussion boards 1 3 1 3 2 10 10 5 2.00 2 1 2

Other:

2

2

4 4 2 2.00 0 2 0

44

Which three social media features concern you most for your company’s intranet?

Participants

Total

Pre adjust

ed Times chose

Average choice

Times 1st

Times 2nd

Times 3rd

Blogs 1 2 2 2 7 9 4 2.25 0 3 1

Employee profiles

3

1

4 4 2 2.00 1 0 1 Social networking (Facebook-like features) 2 3 1 3 3 1 13 11 6 1.83 3 1 2

Customizable homepages

3

3 1 1 1.00 1 0 0

Content recommendations 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0

Job opportunity visibility

3

3 1 1 1.00 1 0 0

Wiki pages 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0

Video sharing 3 3 2 1 3 2 2 3 19 13 8 1.63 4 3 1

Commenting on content/news 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0

Rating content/news 2 1

1

4 8 3 2.67 0 1 2

Discussion boards

2

3 1

6 6 3 2 1 1 1

Other:

0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 What do you see as the greatest risk to having a social intranet?

Participants Total

Productivity loss X X

2

Distracted employees X X X X X

5 Negative comments from employees X

1

Loss of information control

X X

2

Other X (management acceptance and the ability to capitalize on the valuable input received from a social intranet)

1

45

What do you see as the three greatest benefits to having a social intranet?

Participants

Total

Pre adjus

ted Times chose

Average choice

Times 1st

Times 2nd

Times 3rd

Enhanced communication 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 23 9 8 1.13 7 1 0

Improved collaboration 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 16 12 7 1.71 2 5 0

More knowledge sharing 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 20 8 2.50 1 2 5

Improved business processes 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0

Improved employee relations 2

1

1

1

5 11 4 2.75 0 1 3

Elimination of silos 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0

More transparency 1

3

1 2 7 9 4 2.25 1 1 2 Improved ability to recruit and retain employees 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0

Other:

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 What do you see as the three greatest challenges to implementing/operating a social intranet?

Participants Total

Pre adjust

ed Times Chose

Average choice

Times 1st

Times 2nd

Times 3rd

Finding a business need

2

1

3 5 2 2.50 0 1 1

Monitoring the usage

3 3

3

2 11 5 4 1.25 3 1 0 Managing negative comments

1

2

1

4 8 3 2.67 0 1 2

Getting people to use it 1 1 2 6 2 3.00 0 0 2 Changing the company culture 3 2 3 2 2 12 8 5 1.60 2 3 0

Assuring quality 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 13 15 7 2.14 2 2 3 Managing the technical infrastructure

2

2 2 1 2.00 0 1 0

Managing costs 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 Allocating resources to maintain it 2 3 3 3 3 2 16 8 6 1.33 4 2 0 Complying with security policies 1 1 3 1 3.00 0 0 1

Other:

0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0

46

How likely are you to support implementing one or more social media tools to the company intranet?

Participants Total

Unlikely

Somewhat unlikely

Neutral

X

X 2

Somewhat likely

X

X 2

Likely X X X X X X X 7 Please share any thoughts or questions you may have about implementing internal social media tools:

“Management acceptance; Using social media properly-with fresh content; mining

the information and data for company improvement; start slow and test acceptance”

“I really like the idea of being able to share information with staff and get their

feedback/input and being able to maintain an online record of the exchanges.”

“Very clear expectations of the use of social media need to be provided”

“I think there is an opportunity with the launch of the corporate culture employee

action team (focus on improving communication) to build some enthusiasm for social

networking and to have a direct line to employees for feedback.”

“We should take small incremental steps and not over analyze.”

“This is the last thing I ever thought we would do here.”