Business collaboration and knowledge creation are based on effective communication within a group. To share the information needed to create and distribute knowledge, group members must respect and trust one another.

A new breed of software is becoming popular with small and large corporations, and it may or may not enhance the trust needed for collaborative computing. It’s called monitoring software, and it is being deployed at a growing number of IT shops. Like most software, monitoring software comes in a variety of flavors, with differing functions and costs, but its overall objective is the same: to monitor the employees’ desktop activities. The functions range from monitoring email and Web site access to tracking each keystroke an employee makes. The goals of monitoring employee desktop activities are apparent: to improve productivity, to increase the company’s ROI, and to avoid legal problems due to employee malfeasance.

Monitoring employee behavior is, of course, not a new phenomenon. Many companies have always tracked employee phone calls, company mailings, and the use of copiers and fax machines. Email and Web access are controlled to some degree in most businesses. Products such as Disk Tracy (www.disktracy.com) have been available to track employee Internet use and abuse since the Web became a popular business tool. The question IT managers have to ask themselves is whether sophisticated monitoring software is worth its cost, in terms of both dollars and worker morale. Some packages, such as the newly released WinVista Pro (www.winvista.com), have a hefty price tag ($5,000 for a 25-client license) while less sophisticated software can be inexpensive; some monitoring systems are even available as shareware on the Internet.

In-depth employee scrutiny raises many troubling questions about the value of employee trust, the user’s privacy and rights, and the role an IT department should play in managing the group. Obviously, management must take a hard look at business issues to determine the appropriate level of monitoring for their enterprise. Well-defined company privacy and user policies will also help determine the level of scrutiny appropriate for specific businesses. While some executives, such as Robert Rubin, CIO at Elf Atochem North America, Inc., a chemical manufacturer, monitor phone use, Rubin draws the line at monitoring employee desktop operations. According to Rubin, “It’s up to an employee’s supervisor to determine if that employee is productive.” On the other hand, some

executives, such as Owens & Minor’s Paul Higday, have embraced activity-based management (ABM) to determine the cost of any given transaction by tracking the entire work flow process. Using Echoes from San Diego-based Keylime Software, Inc. (www.keylimesoftware.com), Higsday can see how each employee is using an application—keystroke by keystroke. Of course, there are added costs in dealing with such specialized software—someone has to decipher monitoring reports and make recommendations for appropriate action—but Higsday obviously thinks the costs are worth it.

Although some employers, such as Higsday, inform their employees before implementing monitoring software, other employers don’t, which brings up a bevy of legal and ethical questions. The legal ramifications of monitoring software will be decided on a state-by-state basis for the present, but the federal government will undoubtedly end up defining employees’ First Amendment rights surrounding this issue.

One thing is certain: Employee monitoring is not going away, and its effect on group collaboration is far from clear. It could actually enhance knowledge creation and sharing by pointing to weaknesses in certain group relations and help pinpoint employees that need special help and education. On the other hand, if employee morale suffers at the expense of productivity, any gain may be offset by the ensuing lack of trust in management.

Although there is no firm consensus about how many companies are monitoring their employees, The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that “two-thirds of U.S. businesses spy on employees.” While this may be an overly severe estimate, a survey by the American Management Association found that 27 percent of 1,054 responding companies store and review employee email: the mildest form of employee monitoring. The Los Angeles Times reports that 17 percent of Fortune 1000 companies now use “inexpensive and easy-to-use” monitoring software, probably to track Web access and email. According to the Times, “By 2001, 80 percent of large companies will be using such software.”

While monitoring email is obviously the most pervasive and least intrusive method of employee monitoring, this kind of snooping is by no means limited to the average worker. According to Adam Clayton Powell III, vice president of The Freedom Forum, “I have been personally present at a couple of meetings at large organizations, at which some senior managers were startled to learn that there were computer archives of everything they have ever done on their office computer.” Powell suggests, “It may not be just your boss who is monitoring what you are typing at your PC. It could be anyone who wants to keep tabs on you.” The fact that corporate entities, whether authorized or not, can monitor their senior managers as well as their average employees can certainly create an atmosphere of anticollaborative, rather than collaborative, computing.

However, not every company thinks monitoring its employees is a good idea. Shaun Brachmann, the manager of 3,500 computers at Wisconsin plumbing giant Kohler states, “I think you have to trust your people and treat them professionally. It’s just not good use of my time to constantly look over people’s shoulders.” I think wise IT managers will seek a balance between monitoring employee productivity and upholding their basic rights of privacy in order to foster an atmosphere of trustful collaboration.