On 5/18/07, Jesse Wilkins <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Sorry, Peter,
>
> Can't disagree with you more here regarding your assertion that IM == phone
> call. I am personally aware of at least a dozen broker-dealers that use IM
> to conduct trades - and if that ain't substantive I don't know what is. That
> is the only record of the trade order, and with the executed trade
> confirmation forms the definitive record of the deal.

Jesse all well and good to pick out one industry in which they have
determined that due to needs of their clients that they will use IM
has part of the business process. the stock market moves with
lightening speed and this requires the broker-dealers be in constant
contact with their client. But I believe that it does not disprove my
point. Broker-dealers are required under 17-b to capture and retain
all communications (no specific technology is mentioned) with their
customers. My brother works in the industry and his firm has a message
on their voice mail explicitly stating that they will not execute
trades instructions that are captured by the voice mail system.

>
> I also remember conversations ten years ago that argued for treating all
> emails like phone calls - in fact someone made that assertion to me as
> recently as this year. Anyone want to defend that position today?

Years ago most business folks would memorialize their phone calls by a
memo to file. What changed with regard to e-mails is that IT was
retaining all the emails no matter what. I remember another employer
where I tried and failed to get an email policy in place. And like
Cassandra my prophecies went unheeded. it wasn't until 18 months after
implementing the system and 3 servers did they finally realize that
they needed to set in place a policy and rules on how to use the email
system.

>
> As others have pointed out, there are other ways of capturing the
> information transmitted - but then we could do the same thing with emails as
> well, except that it would take longer to do so and increase the risk that
> something important was lost.

The problem is not so much with the technology but rather with the
business not establishing a policy (and enforcing it) on how to use IM
within the business environment. The policy can be as simple as "IM is
not to be used for business communications"

>
>  If the business, or in this case the school district, has found that
> IM meets their needs, so be it.

It sounded to me as if IM was already being used in an ad hoc manner
in the ISD and that they were now trying to gain control of the
situation.

I have no problem with IM/chat systems as long as it is one that is
fully supported by the organization ie a single system, but if
multiple IM systems are being used such as AOL, Yahoo etc then you
have a problem. at my currently employer we have access to an IM
system, we use it for quick contact and questions. I can IF I need to
create a transcript of the session, but there is nothing that says I
must.

The key thing to remember is that IM like VM, EM and Mr. Bell's
invention are nothing more than tools that we and our organizations
use to facilitate the decision making process. People need to learn
how to use the tools, when to use them and which is most appropriate
to use. Would you use a hammer on a screwdriver?


-- 
Peter Kurilecz CRM CA
Richmond, Va

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance