1 / 17

CPWF survey April-May 2012

CPWF survey April-May 2012. Sophie Alvarez, Peter Ballantyne, Ruvicyn Bayot , Tonya Harding, Ewen Le Borgne, Ilse Pukinskis, Michael Victor. Outline. Rationale Results Reflections Recommendations. Rationale for the Yammer survey. ?. Rationale for the Yammer survey.

kenyon
Download Presentation

CPWF survey April-May 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CPWF surveyApril-May 2012 Sophie Alvarez, Peter Ballantyne, Ruvicyn Bayot, Tonya Harding, Ewen Le Borgne, Ilse Pukinskis, Michael Victor

  2. Outline • Rationale • Results • Reflections • Recommendations

  3. Rationale for the Yammer survey ?

  4. Rationale for the Yammer survey • A relatively significant network: 191 members and over 2000 messages in 2011 • Rationale: • How to understand the current use of this network and its members’ communication preferences? • How to improve the relevance of this network? • 39 survey respondents (20.4%) with many comments

  5. Results

  6. Results (1): Personal use • A majority (28%) check Yammer 1x/day. 13% never check it • 51% lurkers – 28% part-time and 13% active participants • Nearly half access Yammer on the web interface or (41%) via email digests

  7. Results (2) Others’ use of Yammer • (Very)useful: to get updates on activities (73.7%), for sharing info across CPWF (71.8%), to follow events (59.4%), to hear about links and ideas (69.5%). • (Really) not useful: to discuss issues (47%), to share what I’m doing (37.2%) to obtain feedback fromothers (35.3%) • Comments: • Useful for thingsthatescapedour radar, and across basins but needs more participants. • To some, feelslikeflooding people withcomments

  8. Results (2) Others’ use of Yammer

  9. Results (3) Barriers and incentives • 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%) • Training and improvedusability not an issue norrequest

  10. Results (4) Alternative channels/uses • 44.4% think Yammer is useful to share information – 66.6% when (very) useful • Most useful: • Face to face (97.2%), • Email (94.4%) • CPWF e-letter (75.6%) • Yammer (66.6%) And also Skype, Dropbox, FlickR, GoToMeeting…

  11. 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

  12. Reflections

  13. Reflections • We are time- and attention-starved • How to prioritize use of Yammer to show the value? • Some are not authorizedto post on Yammer • How does management see the use of Yammer? • Toomany communication channels? • How to makesense of what to post where? • Too few people provide inputs • In order to work, Yammerneedseveryone’spresence/inputs • Good (technical) content, lessonslearned and stimulating questions are needed to fuel good discussions • How canweinvest in this? • Have weexplored all the uses of Yammer? • Do weunderstand how to converse on Yammer?

  14. Reflections: Lessons learned CPWF-CRP5 • Yammerworks to share information, CPWF updates, links, ideas. • Perhapsnot souseful for discussions, feedback, personalupdates • Rather than comms to researchers it should be seen as a peer network: researchers to researchers • Find champion researchers who are willing to post • Yammeretiquettematters: • Post short, crisp, focusedposts • Lurkingis a normal phenomenon: manydon’t post but read • Everyoneshouldbe on Yammer or itdoesn’tdeliveritspotential • Training onlyrequiredinitially. Coaching might help afterwards • Emails and face-to-face contact stillrule – complementary in nature? • Building trust to share more confidently

  15. Recommendations

  16. Recommendations (1) • At Basin level: • Each basin (comms person?) to share updates once / week • Formsmaller groups to kickstart discussions in trust / branch off intospecific basin networks (e.g. Nile/Andes BDC) • Look for research/MT champions to post – seethis as a peernetwork not as comms dissemination network. • At global level: • Tease out questions and issues thatmatter for all basins and post them on Yammer • Continue withtargeted emails (E-letter) • Organizewebinars (outside of Yammer) to stimulatecriticaltechnical discussions

  17. Recommendations (1) • Ateveryone’slevel: • Invest in face-to-face contact to buildtrust amongYammerusers • More coaching (by comms) for better use of Yammer • Encourage critical questions and lessonslearnt? Turn CPWF Yammerinto a reflexive network • Communication specialists to share information on ‘Comms4Uptake’ Yammer more, to avoidovercrowding the CPWF Yammer • Giveit a trybeforejudging • Shareyour opinion about how to use/improveYammerin whateverway, including… on Yammer ;)

More Related