Rules concerning internet access at work are not being communicated adequately to employees and are open to misinterpretation according to new research from CMG, the information & communications technology services group.

The CMG study of internet policy at major UK employers, in both public and private sectors, revealed a wide range of access regimes. More than 60 per cent of organisations permitted widespread internet access for employees. However, 80 per cent failed to adequately define or communicate clear rules about internet access but still monitored employee usage and, in some cases, took disciplinary actions.

The study assessed the policies of organisations on three different criteria: internet accessibility, freedom to use and clarity of access policies. The results showed a wide range of levels of both access and freedom to use the internet. The research revealed that no clear combination of access and freedom prevails within UK organisations.

One of the most common problems with access policy, according to CMG, is the subjective terminology. For example, one company disallowed access to websites that were "considered to cause distress" - but no definition of "distress" was given and no sites were specifically mentioned. This lack of definition practically guarantees misinterpretation of the policies and leaves both employee and employer on shaky ground for effective management of internet use.

CMG examined the policies of 30 different organisations, in various industry sectors and the public sector. It scored them on three different elements:

• Internet Accessibility - who and how many people were given any access to the internet (a low score meant few people could get access and only with a manual approval process, a high score meant that practically all users of the computer network had automatic access).
• Freedom to Use - how much freedom to use the internet was granted according to both policy and sites actually blocked by the firewall (a low score meant a very limited number of internet sites were accessible, a high score meant that no sites were blocked or explicitly prohibited).
• Clarity of Access Policies - how clearly the policy defined what was permitted and not permitted use (and the penalty for misuse).

Commenting on the findings, Owen Wilson, senior consultant at CMG, said: "What's missing, it seems, is clear and communicated rules about how everyone can get the most from the internet. CMG encourages all organisations to review their internet access policies to ensure that they are fair, clear and deliver manageable benefits to both the individual user and the organisation."

The organisations that scored highly for clarity did have definitive and explicit guidelines about their internet access policy. One organisation explained its access rules by clearly stating that employees could use the internet for personal business including shopping, travel and financial services. Prohibited sites were clearly described and blocked by the firewall. The study suggests that consumer oriented "dotcoms" may struggle to penetrate the workplace market until employees are explicitly permitted to shop online. Ironically, many of the organisations surveyed claim to be pursuing an eBusiness strategy themselves.

Anna Lagerkvist