I am indebted to Paul Kunert, an old colleague of mine from MicroScope (in the dim and distant past), for highlighting an interesting stumbling block to the adoption of BYOD that is specific to the IT industry. Last month, Paul wrote a story for The Register arising from an interview with Eric Cador, HP EMEA senior vice president of the printer and personal systems business, in which Cador revealed the vendor did not offer BYOD within HP as a matter of policy and had no plans to do so.
"Why? It would be embarrassing," Cador replied. "More importantly, it would be embarrassing for our employees. Employees have to be proud of our products."
What, do you think, was Cador referring to when he said BYOD would be "embarrassing" for HP’s employees? Was it concern over the fact that some of them might have rather scraggly smartphones, tablets or laptops and be ashamed to show them to their work colleagues or to whip them out in front of customers? I don’t think so.
It seems pretty obvious that the embarrassment HP employees might be feeling would be on HP’s behalf because their BYOD devices would be manufactured by other vendors, probably Apple or Samsung. Even worse would be the embarrassment HP would feel, as a hardware vendor, if employees were to go around advertising another manufacturer’s products in their everyday working lives.
Aspirational
It doesn’t have to be this way, of course. There was a time when HP seemed on the cusp of developing products that would not only serve as potential BYOD devices but also be viewed by its employees as cool and trendy. I refer to HP’s purchase of Palm and webOS and the launch of the TouchPad back in 2011 (as well as the prospect of smartphones based on webOS). The TouchPad was pretty well received at the time and to gain an indication of what it meant for an HP employee (however exalted), it might be worth recalling what HP Ireland PSG country manager Marcus McKenna had to say to Irish Computer in December 2011, after HP axed it.
He described the decision to end webOS tablet and smartphone production in August 2011 as "a body blow to everybody… There were hopes and dreams and aspirations built around the product". He described it as the only time in his IT career, stretching back to 1984, that his family were interested in the products he was involved with.
Given the positive atmosphere around webOS tablet and smartphone production at HP, it’s probably fair to suggest that if the vendor had stuck with it, most HP employees would not have been "embarrassed" to come into work with TouchPads or webOS phones as part of a BYOD policy.
Still, the past is the past and we can’t change it. But it does mean that HP is in the conflicting position of being part of an industry touting BYOD to customers while, at the same time, dragging its feet over introducing something similar in its own business.
It’s worse when you look at the reason for its reluctance: that it would be embarrassing to have a BYOD policy. Well, if it’s embarrassing for HP, why isn’t it embarrassing for its customers? I can think of one reason. Customers can give their employees freedom to use devices such as the iPad and Galaxy tab, HP can’t. Why? Because customers aren’t in competition with Apple and Samsung, HP is. Maybe it isn’t in competition with them in areas like tablets and smartphones yet, but it plans to be.
You might say "well, doesn’t that go against the whole thrust of BYOD? Shouldn’t it be your own device rather than an HP approved and manufactured one?" And you’d be right. But that’s where BYOD becomes a problem for the IT industry. And it’s not just a HP issue. I’m sure Apple would look askance at an employee using a Samsung tablet and Microsoft wouldn’t be happy with a worker using an iPhone. It’s just as well for customers and their employees that the channel is in place to ensure they can use a device of their own choosing and integrate it with the corporate network rather than be forced to use something mandated by their IT vendor.
Subscribers 0
Fans 0
Followers 0
Followers