November 22, 2004
(Computerworld)
You wouldn't believe how often this happens: A high-profile IT executive is on stage at a conference doing a presentation on some very cool project his company has just completed. Under the
glow of the huge PowerPoint slides that illustrate his message, he discusses the project in explicit detail, providing insights into the problems that had to be overcome and the benefits that were gained. The audience is riveted by the presentation because it provides the kinds of lessons that are solid gold for any IT organization that's looking at undertaking a similar project.
Then after the presentation, a Computerworld reporter approaches the speaker to ask for a few points to be clarified or elaborated upon. He's happy to oblige and begins to explain a particular point when he notices that the reporter is taking notes as he listens. And then the presenter drops the bomb. "You know you can't write about this."
Excuse me? You've just spilled your guts in a public forum in which hundreds of people from across the IT spectrum were given detailed knowledge of your project, and we can't write about this? From whom are you trying to withhold the information, and what on earth makes you think it's not already in the public domain? What are you thinking?
That last question was rhetorical. I know what he's thinking. He's thinking that if his company's PR people see comments from him in print that they haven't vetted, he's going to be chastised for failure to adhere to corporate communications policy -- regardless of how nonsensical and inconsistent the policy may be.
This is disturbing. The amount of bureaucratic red tape involved in making information from your peers available is threatening to tie our hands to a degree we all need to be concerned about. Ask any corporate IT professional to identify the most credible and most valuable sources of information, and he'll almost invariably name other corporate IT professionals. Not vendors, not analysts, not consultants, as important as all of them may be. So corporate policies that place restrictions on the free flow of information -- policies that often require people to get their PR and legal departments to sign off on their comments to the press -- limit your exposure to the information you find most valuable in order to do your job.
Especially disturbing is the threat that some government tech workers will be silenced even more resolutely than their corporate counterparts. CNN reported last week that the Department of Homeland Security is considering requiring all of its employees to sign "confidentiality agreements" that prohibit them from disclosing unclassified "sensitive" information. The problem is it's entirely unclear what constitutes sensitive information. And the concern is that anything that some DHS bureaucrat decides he doesn't want to see in print or have discussed at a conference will suddenly be determined to be sensitive.
The relative openness of the DHS has yielded some excellent Computerworld stories on IT consolidation and cybersecurity -- issues that are of paramount importance to IT professionals. It would be a shame to see that openness vanish in a wisp of sensitive-information smoke.
So what's an IT professional to do? If nothing else, question any corporate communication policies that restrict you from sharing professional information with your peers.
We call ourselves "The Voice of IT Management," but in truth that voice is yours. Whatever you do, don't lose it.
Don Tennant is editor in chief of Computerworld. You can contact him at don_tennant@computerworld.com.