More and more organizations around the world are allowing employees to use their own mobile devices to work so that they can access company data from anywhere at any time, on any device. The BYOD began to gain traction around 2007, when executives and board members brought the first personal mobile devices (smartphones and tablets) into the workplace. Since then, the BYOD trend has gained traction as employees have begun to have the same demands for flexibility and employers have seen productivity increases after allowing employees to use mobile devices both at work and at home.
Employee and Employer Behavior
Cisco recently revealed that 95% of IT professionals and CEOs surveyed in the United States said their companies allow employees to own their own devices in some way. The survey continues, citing employees’ desire to use their favorite device anywhere, and the ability to conduct personal and professional activities at any time, as one of the top reasons BYOD policies are so popular. Executives seem enthusiastic about using their personal devices in the workplace, with more than 33% of workers between the ages of 20 and 29 saying they would not accept any rule that prohibits BYOD.
Despite years of BYOD’s rampant adoption, some employers are beginning to question the sustainable economic benefits. For example, Gartner’s technology analysis states that while BYOD can reduce costs, it typically does not. Gartner argues: “As enterprises increasingly leverage mobile devices, the costs of software, infrastructure, support, and related services will increase over time.”
On the other hand, some companies argue that implementing a BYOD policy can save businesses a lot of money and that they have the means to back it up. For example, VMware claims to have saved $2 million by switching to a BYOD policy that required employees to purchase their own devices and rely on their own mobile providers for customer support.
Does the company’s IT department need to play the role of the “bad” cop?
Despite the potential cost savings that BYOD offers, many IT professionals fear that allowing employees to use personal devices for corporate purposes will lead to increased privacy, property, and security challenges. This view often places them in the unenviable position of being the only ones arguing with other executives about the cost savings of adopting a BYOD approach.
In reality, alternative approaches present many similar issues to those of BYOD, so the risks and benefits of any mobile approach must be considered. For example, employers who do not allow employees to use their personal devices for work often provide them with proprietary systems as an alternative. Not surprisingly, employees almost always use these devices for both personal and business purposes (whether permitted or not), thus opening up many of the same legal issues around data security and risks.
A company-owned device policy can reduce the risk of privacy-based claims when access to them and their content is required by the employer. However, these risks associated with data loss and theft are not eliminated regardless of device ownership. This means that any further incremental risk reduction gained from an employer’s device policy must be weighed against the amount of money that could have been saved by implementing a BYOD policy. In other words, Legal counsel must understand that device ownership (employee vs. employer) is not the only factor to consider when determining a mobile device policy.
Today’s reality is that employees expect to be able to use mobile devices for both work and personal use, regardless of whether the device is owned by the employer or the employee. Similarly, many employers believe that providing employees with the flexibility to use mobile devices for both work and personal use increases employee productivity. Fortunately for legal counsel, new mobile technologies combined with internal policies from their organizations provide them with the flexibility to implement the mobile approach they believe is most cost-effective, without putting themselves at risk. In other words, legal counsel has the opportunity to become part of the organization’s solution and stop being seen as the “bad” cop when it comes to discussing the implementation of a mobile strategy.
By doing so, Although
decisions about when and how to deploy mobile devices are often secondary to IT departments, dealing with the implications of mobile devices is often left to legal counsel. Many times, these problems could have been avoided or at least minimized with proper planning and legal input.
Unfortunately, legal counsel is often overlooked as a non-participant in technology investment decisions. That’s why legal counsel should actively seek to understand and address the potential risks and costs associated with mobile devices as early as possible.
