Belbey Blogs: Before you go social, check with Uncle Sam

Today’s post is a collaboration between Richie Etwaru, Director, UBS and Joanna Belbey, Social Media and Compliance Specialist, Actiance

It’s difficult to debate the value of installing enterprise social networks.

Richie Etwaru, a futurist and avid speaker, covered the current state, business value, and future thinking needed around the construct of what he phrases the #ENTSOCNET (an internal enterprise social network). Mr. Etwaru titled the piece Solving for building backlash of Enterprise Social Networks and covers the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd generation of the #ENTSOCNET. Installing an internal social network, driving, adoption and extracting business value as Mr. Etwaru describes, is complicated and difficult work. Leaders must ensure that said complicated and difficult work is being done under the auspices of regulatory guidelines.

There are regulatory compliance, corporate governance, and legal requirements organizations must address before deploying social. There however, is an impedance mismatch and some amount of misinterpretation between what the regulators consider enterprise social media, and what leaders in the enterprise consider to be enterprise social media. The spirit of the regulations suggest that whether an enterprise in installing an internal social network (what Mr. Etwaru describes as the #ENTSOCNET) for its employees only, or leveraging external social networks such as Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter; all communications, messages, inboxes, comments, endorsements, DMs, tweets retweets etc. are governed under the regulations.

What Regulators want

More than 2 years ago, regulators of the securities industries began to issue guidance on how to use social media. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC), National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and others view social media, whether it’s external or internal, as just another form of business communications, such as email or instant messages. They remind us that it’s the content that is determinative, not the platform. Regulators also expect that firms demonstrate that they are supervising, or reviewing, a pre-defined portion of these communications. Other more general legislation may also apply such as Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and the data breach notification laws (PCI, DSS).

What this all means

In short, whether internal or external, firms need to ensure that all business communications (or “business as such”) are captured, archived, supervised and made easily e-discoverable. There is nothing new here as this has been an evolution. First paper, then email, instant messages, now both internal and external social media, firms continue to be challenged to capture, retain and review a portion of all business records in whatever form they appear. As a first step, firms may use their existing email and instant message retention policies as a framework to develop policies for internal and external social media. Governing said policies is a separate and pronounced challenge.

Governance is key

Firms are increasingly committed to comprehensive corporate governance to avoid scandal and to comply with regulations. The development of sound policies and procedures before deployment is key, given the vast amount of data stored in most collaboration environments and the free ranging conversations among employees, contractors and even clients that can ensue, policies must be defined.

Specifically policies should address: records management (retention, litigation readiness, privacy), information management (making sure that records are tamper proof, and easily accessible), data deposition (disposal of data) and conflict management.  Where possible, firms should automate policies with technology to protect their intellectual property, prevent the creation and distribution of inappropriate content and provide an audit trail of all activity to ensure accountability.

It’s a serious legal matter

When learning of pending litigation, firms must be able to preserve all records  (“legal hold” or “ligation holds”) that may relate to legal action against the company, including records of social activity. According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures (FRCP), firms must meet discovery requests for paper as well as electronic documents (spreadsheets, slide decks), emails, posts, and conversations across social media in a timely fashion. Therefore, firms need plans and the means to retain and produce such data upon request. Email was new and difficult, social is not yet understood, complex and mindboggling.

Social, not my grandma’s email

Social media, due to its nature, adds complexity to these requirements as interactions occur over time. For example, a blog starts with an initial post, then readers may add comments, or change their minds and revise and delete their comments and the original author may respond. These interactions could go on for months in some cases. Firms should have the ability to produce all of these threads of posts, comments and replies “in context” to give meaning to the conversations. By providing context, firms may reduce litigation costs by reducing the number of hours required by attorneys to sort through records to determine the sequence of events and the true essence of the conversations. Preserving context requires intelligent software solutions.

What now

Enterprise-wide “social business” tools were designed to facilitate collaboration, not necessarily to meet the legal and compliance requirements of regulated firms or public corporations. They offer basic functionality to capture and archive communications, but not the reporting, contextual view of information, nor granular policy setting that may be desired. Firms are therefore advised that before deploying enterprise wide collaboration tools, they look to third party vendors to ensure their compliance requirements are met.

Collaboration, no pun intended

I reached out to Mr. Etwaru (whom I met a few years ago at a conference in NYC) and shared this perspective. His response is below.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi Joanna,

            Your thoughts are spot on. From the regulators (who are doing a great job) point of view social, email, chat, etc. all carry similar risk and hence are metaphorically bucketed from a guidance standpoint. In the enterprise however, the risk with social is multiples higher for a multitude of reasons. One reason is employees learned of social in their personal lives where regulations are by and large absent. Hence, when using social in the enterprise (or in a commercial manner) employees (fallible as we are) tend to assume the same “free range” comes with social. The policy, governance and education you suggested is paramount, I could not agree more.

That being said …

However daunting all of this may be, the biggest risk is not using internal social media to break down silos and to unleash the intellectual power of the enterprise while driving innovation.

BTW, love your diagram, I can help you make it pretty

Hope this helps,

-R

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Diagram above rendered by Mr. Etwaru,

-Joanna

Belbey Blogs: New Guidance on Using Social Media at Retail Banks

This week, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) released “Social Media: Consumer Compliance Risk Management Guidance.  The FFIEC is asking for comments within sixty days.  You can download the 31-page document here.

Its release has created quite a stir within the banking industry.  A comprehensive article appeared on TheFinancialBrand.com, “Regulatory Shocker on Social Media in Banking Coming Soon” that summarizes the guidance quite nicely.

But . . . what’s so shocking?

We’ve been having the same conversations in the securities industry for three years.  And in those three years, firms have learned that there are three major areas of risk that need to be mitigated before deploying social media:

• Security:  your IT department needs to prevent your firm’s proprietary and client information from being leaked out either inadvertently or maliciously from the enterprise.  They also need to ramp up malware protection.  That’s because social media users are susceptible to incoming threats as they view themselves as part of a tribe and tend to click on any link sent by a “friend.”
• Compliance and Governance:  your legal and compliance departments already know that there are thousands of rules and regulations that govern the communications and advertising of publicly held corporations, firms in general, and bank specifically.  Take the securities industry as an example – the banking regulators aren’t issuing new rules and regulations around social media.  Social media is viewed as just another form of written communications.  Your compliance department is therefore challenged to interpret existing rules as they apply to social media and to develop and enforce firm policies.
• Enablement:  your executive team is concerned about productivity and the bottom line.  Now that every employee can be the face of the business, you either have a powerful marketing tool or your worst nightmare.  Employees will need to be trained on how to use social media effectively to meet the firm’s goals, such as nurturing existing clients, attracting new business, recruiting, and brand awareness.

However, during the last three years, we’ve learned that all these risks can be mitigated by strong corporate polices, backed up with technology and training.

So far, so good.  Nothing new here.  Or is there?  In addition to what we’ve already seen from other regulators, the FFIEC specifically also calls for:

• Creation of policies to address negative feedback or customer complaints, even if a financial firm chooses not to actively engage in social media.
• Monitoring to protect the firm’s brand identity
• Due diligence and oversight for third-party vendors that firms may hire in connection with social media

And the one that I find most interesting:

• Processes and reporting to demonstrate how social media “contributes to the strategic goals of the institution.”

In other words, the FFIEC recommends that firms measure the ROI of social media.

It will be interesting to see the reaction that FFIEC gets from the industry.  I just hope that the banking industry can use some of the key learnings from the securities industry to streamline the processes to reap the benefits of “getting social.”

For more details on how to deploy social media within retail banking, you can also check out Belbey Blogs: Upcoming Guidance for the Use of Social Media for Retail Banking from FFIEC.

Farewell Live Messenger, Hello Skype

When I started my career, I couldn’t have imagined how social my online work world would become.

Things like LinkedIn®, Microsoft® Lync®, IBM® Connections, and Skype™ are so integrated into my workday that connecting, IM’ing, and blogging with colleagues are all as natural and effective as sitting face-to-face over coffee.

Just like new ways to keep in touch with my colleagues and friends have emerged, some headed for the sunset like long-time friend Microsoft Live Messenger. But don’t say “Bon voyage!” just yet. You can use your Live ID to move your Live Messenger account and contacts to Skype today.

And if you’re a Skype user who works in a regulated industry like financial services, or if you work for a company that has other strict legal or corporate governance requirements, Actiance has great news! With Vantage™ for Skype, you can use Skype on your company’s network to stay in touch with the folks you need to get things done in a safe and compliant way.

It gives your company the tools it needs to meet strict requirements for regulatory, legal, and corporate compliance across a wide variety of networks, including Skype. And for a limited time, existing Actiance customers using Vantage or USG to support Microsoft Live Messenger can enjoy special pricing on Vantage for Skype.

So go ahead and start a Skype chat with a buddy in Santiago, share the latest product news with a colleague in Paris, or send a vacation photo to a friend in Vienna. With the trusted governance the Actiance platform provides, you can be sure you’re keeping the good stuff in while keeping the bad stuff out.

Belbey Blogs: “What are other firms doing?”

Today’s post comes from Joanna Belbey, Social Media and Compliance Specialist at Actiance.

Last month, I was asked by a new client:

“How are companies with technology solutions in place to monitor/moderate/archive posts treating Registered Reps’ and captive agents’ ability to share updates and links on social media sites? Are they allowing them to do this?  Are they pre-reviewing activity in advance or sampling post-review?”

The answer?  It depends.

There is no one approach. And every firm takes a different approach.  However, in general, we are seeing three general approaches:

Posting Corporate Messages: At the most conservative end of the spectrum, some firms create centralized libraries of pre-approved content, including a series of introductory statements (updates, tweets, etc) and even craft responses to updates. Because social media never “goes away”, these firms interpret all social media communications to be “static” advertising and hence they pre-approve everything. Although not strictly required by FINRA, as Joe Price of FINRA recently told the audience at the FINRA Advertising Regulation Conference, “Each firm bases its social media use policies its risk tolerance. And that’s fine”.

Personalization: The majority of firms also create centralized, preapproved content libraries with a series of introductory statements. However, they interpret the interactive portion of social media to be akin to a public appearance and hence allow their registered persons to interact on social media in real time without pre-approving each post. However, they put controls in place to block certain “trigger” words (such as stock symbols, “guarantee” “buy”, “sell”) and post review a pre-defined percentage interactive communications to demonstrate supervision.

Authentic Voice:  A smaller group of firms take the personalization approach a step further. These firms create centralized, preapproved content libraries, with introductory statements, and block certain “trigger” words (as above) to allow for interactive communications. However, these firms also encourage their registered persons to craft their own introductory statements to preapproved content as well as to post their own content with controls in place to block inappropriate “trigger” words. And like above, firms post review a pre-defined percentage interactive communications to demonstrate supervision.

Do firms use a phased approach?

We have found that firms tend to pilot social media with tight controls in place and typically don’t allow registered persons much latitude. However, once they begin to trust technology to safeguard their firms’ reputation and stay compliant, firms often begin to allow their reps to personalize content to varying degrees.

Different Use Policies- It’s also effective to create and enforce different use policies for different categories of users. For example, financial advisors with clean compliance track records and who have demonstrated appropriate use of social media, may be allowed a bit more freedom than those who are new to social media or have problematic compliance histories.

What works best?

We have found that reps achieve the most engagement when their firms facilitate allowing the reps’ “Authentic Voice” to shine through. After all, don’t we prefer to do business with people who share our common interest and passions? However, although this approach requires training in best practices, and perhaps a bit of hand holding, it yields better long term results.

photo credit

Captain Kirk’s Got the Lync Federation Blues

Today’s post comes from Norv Leong, Director of Product Marketing at Actiance.

Star Trek’s popularity has spanned several generations.  The captains’ names have changed (Kirk, Picard, Archer) through the years, but the fans’ devotion and passion have continued to chug along.  The show was premised on federations and how many beings of different colors, shapes, and beliefs could still get along (save for the Klingons).

The same concept holds for federation when it comes to real-time communications.  Gone are the days of closed networks where you can only talk or IM with folks in your own network (remember AOL back in the day?).  Now, Yahoo! Messenger users can IM with Windows Live Messenger (WLM) users, and unified communications platforms like Microsoft Lync can federate with public IM networks, such as the aforementioned Yahoo.

The result when federation goes awry

This is great news for inter-planetary “keeping in touch,” but it also raises issues about security.  Safely connecting to these public IM networks is of paramount concern for folks in charge of IT security.  The old adage, “you never know who’s lurking out there,” couldn’t be more true.  Tasked with ensuring that the security of their enterprise communications and collaboration platforms are airtight, great pains have to be taken to make sure that opening up to public IM networks doesn’t flood the corporate network with malware, worms, viruses, and the like.

This is where granular federation controls come into play.  Being able to control which external parties can communicate with a given organization’s employees, groups, or networks is huge.  Furthermore, it could very well be that a large enterprise has a regulatory duty to separate its business functions or divisions.  Actiance Vantage enables organizations to control communications such that employees are blocked from contacting anyone (including external users) who might be on a blacklist.

This reduces the chances of malware infection, data leakage, and the potential to interact with another person outside of an ethical or regulatory boundary.  It also means that you won’t be at the mercy of another organization’s security policy.  Freedom to federate is great, but as Captain Kirk and his crew could attest to, you gotta be careful who you interact with because not everyone comes in peace.

“Get us out of here, Sulu!  Warp factor 8!”

Enterprise Collaboration: Debunking Common Misperceptions

Today’s post comes from Norv Leong, Director of Product Marketing at Actiance.

As social software becomes entrenched on the enterprise scene, now would be a good time to put to rest some common misperceptions and myths that have hung ominously over the space.  The Jive IPO and Microsoft’s acquisition of Yammer speak to the validation and adoption of social software as a viable means to enhance productivity and foster engagement.

So, with that as a backdrop, let’s take a look at some common misperceptions and see how we can’t allay these concerns:

Myth #1:  Social software isn’t subject to regulatory guidelines

Social media and social software may be new forms of communication, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be logged and archived for regulatory compliance purposes.  In the eyes of the regulatory bodies (think SEC, FINRA, FERC, and similar), social software is just another form of electronic communication to be treated no differently than email.  That means that content posted to social software platforms needs to be supervised, logged, and archived to ensure compliance with applicable recordkeeping and monitoring provisions.  Since social software greatly facilitates collaboration, it’s very easy for individuals to bounce ideas (sometimes sensitive or unauthorized information) off each other and exchange files.  That’s why the regulators are interested.

Myth #2:  No one cares about social software eDiscovery

Anyone who’s lived in the US for any length of time will quickly and vigorously nod their head when asked, “Do you think the US is a litigious society?”  That’s like asking the Pope if he’s religious.  People do care about social software eDiscovery, and over the last few years, we’ve begun to see several cases emerge involving social.  Lester v Allied and Crispin v Audigier come to mind as particularly relevant cases involving social media eDiscovery.

In fact, Duke University conducted a comprehensive study and found that the number of eDiscovery cases jumped from 7 in 2003 to 111 in 2009.  The study cited that the #1 reason for courts issuing sanctions was a failure to produce electronic evidence (social software included).  And, like litigation in general, there seems to be no end in sight.

Myth #3:  Corporate governance has nothing to do with social software  

Au contraire.  Social software has everything to do with corporate governance, especially in an era where news travels lightning fast via social channels.  You needn’t look further than the Arab Spring to see the speed and power of social in action.

Good corporate governance entails having the appropriate policies and procedures in place for records retention, information governance, and conflict management.  It’s wide-ranging with the objective of instilling a sense of accountability throughout the company.  And this includes social software communications.  People use social software to brainstorm, debate, and even vent.  Say or write the wrong thing, and all of a sudden, it becomes a corporate governance issue.

Myth #4:  Plain ol’ capture is sufficient

Well, not exactly.  Following on from the discussion above, responding in a timely fashion to discovery requests sounds easy but comes with some challenges.  When you think about the volume of data floating around out there (emails, social software content, Facebook posts, Skype IMs, etc.), you’ll get a headache right quick.  Those headaches are compounded by the manner in which this content is logged and archived.

Many of today’s archiving systems just capture the content without regard to context.  We all know that people like to respond to blogs or other posts on social media.  When you’ve got a couple dozen people chiming in with their thoughts, feedback, even deleted comments, it’s easy to see the importance of capturing conversations in context.  There are just too many regulatory, legal, and corporate governance issues at stake to risk a substantial sanction or fine.

Off my soapbox now…

So there you have it – this author’s version of Mythbusters.  Like with most things social, it’s all quite fluid and dynamic.  What I just wrote today may be old hat tomorrow.  But, given that old-school concepts such as law and compliance still hold valid today, I gotta believe that the myths debunked above has some legs.

What kinds of myths are you seeing in your enterprise?

What to do with IM & UC management post-Quest?

For those who already utilize tracking, monitoring and control solutions for IM and UC infrastructure, it can be a real blow when you find out that your solution isn’t keeping current, or doesn’t plan to in the future.

In this real-time world, ensuring that your solution maintains the security, management and compliance of these real-time solutions is key to ensuring the future of your business. So what happens when your selected solution doesn’t?

Take the announcement from Quest that Policy Authority for UC has come to end of life and end of support at the end of last year. The hard part for customers is going to be pulling the pieces back together. No doubt you’ve transitioned your entire organization onto a specific platform, now only to find that it’s not keeping up to date with industry changes, or your vendor plans to stop development.

What should you do in that situation?

First, you should identify the timing of the change. Do you have three months or 12 months? Understanding your timeline can help you prioritize your next steps.

The next step is identifying a new partner that you can work with. Here are a few things to look for:

–       Customer churn: How many customers have recently left them to work with a different vendor? This can also be indicative of the type of support you may receive

–       Product roadmap: Has it been a while since they’ve deployed a new version of their solution? Do they support capabilities like Group Chat? Are they compliant with Live Meeting? Do they support the new Microsoft Lync Server?  What about IBM Sametime Advanced? Skype?

–       Company’s primary focus: Is security merely a component of their product offerings? Or, is security, management and compliance for the new Internet their primary focus?

–       Social media capabilities: Do they support the big three (Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn)? What are the specific features for each they offer?

–       Partners: Who do they work with to get their updates? Are they members of industry organizations? Do they partner with platforms so they are the most up to date with new product and feature rollouts?

Why not  – if this affects you, join us on one of our webinars, and look at just how easy it is to move!

If there are any doubts in your mind or issues that arise, it’s important to take a closer look at your relationship with this partner and reconsider the engagement.

In this day and age, it’s too easy to miss one update and find your network compromised. It’s critical to partner with a company who will be dedicated to your organization’s safety and success in real time communications – and who makes it their entire business, so that you don’t have to.

Can I get me a lil’ context with my data, please?

We all know there’s a glut of information out there, what with all the social media sites, instant messaging (IM) networks, and unified communications platforms (think Microsoft OCS and IBM Sametime) being used to facilitate communications, so it should come as no surprise that making sense out of that mountain of data is no small feat.

This is the quandary many organizations face today.  They’re capturing all this data but are having a difficult time organizing it into actionable data (e.g., analyzing customer buying trends, market opportunities, etc.).  Many technology solutions today can capture social media content like Facebook Wall posts, LinkedIn status updates, and tweets, but nearly all of them capture only the individual post or tweet itself.  When exported out to an archiving platform, such as the popular Symantec Enterprise Vault, there’s nothing but headaches for eDiscovery and legal folks, trying to piece together related tweets and Facebook posts scattered throughout an archive.

What really separates the “men” from the “boys” is not only being able to capture the data in context, but also display that context in full when retrieving content for eDiscovery, regulatory, or legal purposes. Capturing data in context means not just capturing a single “missive,” but capturing the entire stream of messages posted throughout the day in a single, simple, easy–to-read transcript.  This simplifies reviewing by leaps and bounds.  It also makes for a more fluid eDiscovery process as legal teams, both in-house and law firms, can more easily find the information they’re looking for and, in turn, more quickly determine if a piece of data is relevant or not.  At the end of the day, man-hours and legal costs are driven down dramatically, and employee productivity is maximized.

Socialite from Actiance is one such platform that can capture data in context.  Capturing content posted to sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter and then being able to present it in transcript format makes it not only much easier for end users to find what they need and determine its relevance, but also shows the original message in its true format.  You can liken it to the ol’ “quality vs. quantity” debate:  what good is archiving a million different Facebook posts if you can’t make sense of it?

As the Web 2.0 and social media train screams along at breakneck speed, the chaos that data can become will only get worse and the need for that “calming” influence becomes more pronounced.  Socialite brings order to that chaos.

Keep It Simple, Stupid

We’ve all heard this saying before and it’s easy to get lost in the bewildering array of communications channels available to us. There’s the usual email, instant messaging networks (Yahoo!, Google Talk), peer-to-peer networks (Skype), enterprise IM applications (IBM Sametime, Microsoft Lync/OCS), and social networks (Facebook, Twitter). And these are just the big boys. There are literally thousands of IM, P2P, and social networks, in addition to those listed above.

To give you an idea of the bevy of tools out there, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) uses over 21 different email systems, but they’ve recently decided to award Microsoft a contract to provide cloud-based email, Web conferencing, IM, and collaboration solutions. Similarly, the US General Services Administration (GSA) awarded an email contract to Google. What this goes to show is that messaging in large organizations (in this case, it’s the government) is starting to move to the cloud as companies look for ways to streamline their messaging systems, improve efficiency, and cut costs.

What with all these communications options available to end users, it’s all too common for folks to use Facebook, Yahoo!, or Skype while they’re at work on company-issued computers. Oftentimes, individuals use a combination of Web 2.0 (think Facebook or Skype) and enterprise (think Microsoft Communicator or Cisco Jabber) applications. The problem with doing so is that it opens up new vectors for malware to invade the corporate network. In other words, there are far more avenues for evil to infiltrate the corporate network these days than ever before.

Thankfully, platforms like Actiance Vantage make it easier to manage the proliferation of communications tools within the enterprise. From blocking virus attacks to managing file transfers to logging and archiving of all IM activities, Vantages provides end-to-end security and compliance coverage for an organization’s unified communications.

We can all learn a lesson from the government contracts cited above. Long ridiculed for being the poster child of bureaucracy and antiquated computer systems, it must be saying something to have two large agencies moving their communications applications to the cloud. Looks like the US government has taken heed of that old KISS principle after all.

What’s in a name?

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet” –

Juliet in Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare

Juliet knew that Romeo would be the same great guy even if he had another name.

And, this is what is occurring for us today…same great company, just with a new name.

But first, the why…

FaceTime’s business and offerings have changed dramatically since the turn of the century. We began as a provider of security and compliance solutions for public Instant Messaging networks, such as AOL, MSN and Yahoo. Today, we are a trusted partner to large enterprises, delivering platforms that enable them to cope with the explosion of new communications channels – from Unified Communications systems, such as Microsoft Lync Server, OCS, IBM Sametime or Cisco CUPS, to social networking channels such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.

Our current customer roster includes 9 of the top 10 banks, all 5 top Canadian banks, 3 of the top 5 independent energy companies and a myriad of large enterprises across all industries. These companies seek to leverage the New Internet to foster more collaboration internally and with partners, gain more customers and increase customer satisfaction. They rely on FaceTime to provide the security and compliance framework to ensure the safe use of these networks and channels.

Our promise to our customers is “You worry about the policy, we’ll worry about the channel.”

To deliver on this promise, we have greatly expanded our capabilities. Now our platform supports all the major IM networks, all the major Unified Communication platforms, popular VoIP networks, including Skype, widespread social networks such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter. We also support financial networks like Reuters and Bloomberg, and Web 2.0 channels, such as Youtube, webmail, blogs and Wikis, to name but a few.

We’ve evolved over the last decade. And, we’re not done yet – this year we will launch support for various collaboration platforms and even more Web 2.0 networks.  Because of this metamorphosis, we have changed our name. Oh, and there is this small company based in Cupertino, California that launched a video chat application by the same name (yes, we were aware of it in advance) and I hear that it’s catching on…

Few companies have the opportunity to select a new name for a thriving business and we wanted one that would better reflect what we do today and our vision for tomorrow.

Changing our name….

We started mid-last year by rebranding one of our two core platform offerings from IMAuditor to Vantage. The dictionary defines a vantage point as “…a position that affords a broad overall view or perspective, as of a place or situation.” Vantage and USG provide an overall view of all the communications in your enterprise. But more than just a view, they give you the ability to ACTIVELY ensure COMPLIANCE with your security, management and regulatory policies.

Mark the words: ACTIVE COMPLIANCE. That’s what we enable:  Thus we are Actiance.

Welcome to Actiance…it’s still a great company.