Internal Communication and Knowledge Sharing

Internal Communication and Knowledge Sharing Vanessa Meadu & Michael Victor

Experiences from CPWF and WLE The good, bad and ugly

CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food

CPWF Internal Comms and Information Management • Limited program frame/did not want to create something new • Used existing systems • Decentralized approach: • Some mandatory tools program wide • Basin with their own strategies and systems • Aggregation

CPWF General Framework

Yammer (sharing opportunities and information) • 191 members and over 2000 messages in 2011. Survey carried out 2012. 39 respondents • Barriers: • Time!!! (56.8%) • Not sure what to write (21.6%) • Not confident in posting (16.2%) • Nuisances: Small talk/chatter (34.2%), Lack of focus in posts (30.3%), Toomanyposts in a day (15.6%). Also long messages and auto-congratulatorytone • Incentives: • Better discussions (43.2%) • More relevant content (37.8%)

Results (4) Alternative channels/uses • Commentsreceived • Toomuch information! • More guidelines to write on Yammer • More emphasis on technical / expert content • More updates from basins • Have smaller groups? • « For me the current yammer service is flawless. » • More people shouldprovide updates and basin leaders should encourage the use of Yammer

Reflections: Lessons learned CPWF-CRP5 • Yammerworks to share information, CPWF updates, links, ideas. • Perhaps not souseful for discussions, feedback, personal updates • Rather than comms to researchers it should be seen as a peer network: researchers to researchers • Yammeretiquettematters: Post short, crisp, focusedposts • Lurkingis a normal phenomenon: manydon’t post but read • Training onlyrequiredinitially. Coaching might help afterwards • Emails and face-to-face contact stillrule – complementary in nature?

Knowledge Tree Knowledge Tree (internal DMS)

Peer Assists Meetings amongst comms KM staff to solve problems in different basins. Good potential, along with webinars and short presentations

Thank you

Why internal communication is so important • Generating discussions • Documenting processes • Developing a 'program' culture • Sharing and managing program information • Collaboration (documents, events) • Sharing opportunities (grants, workshops, events, funding). • Improving learning, leveraging resources and knowledge, supporting each other

Wikis (coordination and collaboration) • Used both in CPWF (at Basin Level) and WLE (Program Level) as process documentation sites – a place to put workshop/event documentation, share intermediate files, etc. • Works very well as an internal sharing of documentation • Takes a lot of training/promotion/cleaning up • No levels of security so smaller groups cannot participate

Common blockages to effective internal communication • too much information • too many systems/too many passwords • too many conversations • training required • investment of time • buy in of senior management -- a core team to lead by example • The dream of the 'one-stop'. • Attitudes towards information and sharing

Areas where more thinking is needed • Document collaboration – Google docs does not just do it. • Webinars: This could be a potential area to share ideas and information • Peer Assists – carried out in CPWF to good affect.

Questions For discussion • What is the role of the program team in developing systems and providing support? • What level of conformity? • Who are we targeting internally, senior management, program management, project leaders, activity leaders, researchers (who are they), contact points? • How to support reporting, information management? • How to supporting knowledge sharing with projects, centers, researchers? • Capacity building of researchers? • Overlapping systems - what to develop? what to leverage? • Decentralization of communication to regional communicators - what advice and support

Internal Communication and Knowledge Sharing