The Management and Use of Social Network Sites in a Government Department

In this paper we report findings from a study of social network site use in a UK Government department. We have investigated this from a managerial, organisational perspective. We found at the study site that there are already several social network technologies in use, and that these: misalign with and problematize organisational boundaries; blur boundaries between working and social lives; present differing opportunities for control; have different visibilities; have overlapping functionality with each other and with other information technologies; that they evolve and change over time; and that their uptake is conditioned by existing infrastructure and availability. We find the organisational complexity that social technologies are often hoped to cut across is, in reality, something that shapes their uptake and use. We argue the idea of a single, central social network site for supporting cooperative work within an organisation will hit the same problems as any effort of centralisation in organisations. We argue that while there is still plenty of scope for design and innovation in this area, an important challenge now is in supporting organisations in managing what can best be referred to as a social network site ’ecosystem'.

💡 Research Summary

The paper presents an in‑depth qualitative case study of social network site (SNS) use within the UK Home Office, a large government department, and situates the findings within broader discussions of Web 2.0 adoption in the public sector. Drawing on more than thirty interviews with senior managers, frontline staff, and external partners, three site visits, analysis of internal documents, and systematic collection of publicly posted content on various platforms, the authors adopt a multi‑method approach to capture both the technical and organisational dimensions of SNS deployment.

The literature review highlights a gap: most prior research focuses on a single SNS (often Facebook or LinkedIn) or on a single internal platform, thereby overlooking the reality that large organisations typically operate a constellation of both internal and external networks. The authors therefore introduce the notion of an “SNS ecosystem” – a set of heterogeneous, overlapping platforms that coexist, interact, and compete for users’ attention within the same organisational boundary.

Empirical findings reveal that the Home Office runs at least two distinct internal social networking solutions. The first is Microsoft SharePoint, an enterprise content‑management system that has been retro‑fitted with social features such as user profiles, blogs, wikis, RSS feeds and connection tools. SharePoint enjoys the advantage of being already approved, centrally managed, and widely installed, which circumvents the strict security controls that prevent staff from installing new software. However, its use is highly fragmented: individual business units adopt ad‑hoc configurations, resulting in a lack of a department‑wide social‑networking strategy. One unit (the counter‑terrorism team) champions SharePoint’s profile and expertise‑finding capabilities to locate internal subject‑matter experts, thereby reducing reliance on costly external consultants.

The second internal solution consists of bespoke, department‑level social platforms that have been built to address specific workflow needs. These are typically small‑scale, pilot‑type systems that emerge from local initiatives rather than from a centrally coordinated programme.

Externally, the Home Office maintains a presence on several public platforms – Facebook, Twitter, Bebo, Habbo – primarily for public outreach, policy communication, and youth‑targeted campaigns. While these channels have proven effective for rapid information dissemination and engagement with citizens, the department imposes strict restrictions on staff use of public SNS for official work because of security, confidentiality, and reputational concerns. LinkedIn is an exception, being allowed for professional networking.

Across all platforms, the authors identify four key tensions: (1) Boundary blurring – the line between work and personal life becomes porous when staff use public SNS for informal collaboration; (2) Control vs. visibility – internal platforms offer higher managerial oversight but lower public visibility, whereas public platforms provide the opposite; (3) Functional overlap – many SNS provide similar capabilities (e.g., micro‑blogging, profile directories), leading to duplication and user confusion; (4) Infrastructure dependency – adoption is heavily conditioned by existing IT infrastructure, security policies, and procurement processes, which can slow or block the introduction of newer cloud‑based services.

The authors argue that the common managerial aspiration to install a single, centrally governed social network to “cut across silos” is naïve. The Home Office’s experience shows that silos are not merely technical artefacts but are reinforced by organisational culture, legacy systems, and regulatory constraints. Consequently, a monolithic SNS would encounter the same resistance and implementation challenges that have historically plagued centralisation attempts in the civil service.

To address these challenges, the paper proposes a governance framework for an SNS ecosystem. This framework emphasises: (a) Mapping the functional and security characteristics of each platform; (b) Defining clear usage policies that align platform choice with specific collaboration goals (e.g., expertise finding, public engagement, rapid alerts); (c) Empowering business units to adopt the most suitable tool while adhering to overarching security standards; and (d) Facilitating interoperability through APIs, single sign‑on, and shared metadata so that information can flow between platforms without creating new silos.

In conclusion, the study underscores that the principal obstacle to effective social networking in large government organisations is not the lack of technology but the difficulty of managing a diverse set of tools within a complex, security‑sensitive environment. Design and innovation should therefore focus less on creating new “social” platforms and more on developing policies, integration mechanisms, and organisational practices that enable a coherent, flexible SNS ecosystem. This insight has relevance for any large, regulated institution seeking to harness Web 2.0 technologies for internal collaboration and external citizen engagement.