The document summarizes the results of a survey on the use of Yammer within the CPWF network. Key findings include that most users check Yammer once per day and find it useful for updates but not discussions. Barriers to greater engagement include time constraints and uncertainty around appropriate content. Recommendations focus on having basin representatives post weekly updates, forming smaller topic-focused groups, and continuing to use email for critical discussions. The overall goal is to enhance Yammer's value as a peer network for researchers.

1. CPWF survey
April-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 from
others (35.3%)
Comments:
Useful for things that escaped our radar, and across basins
but needs more participants.
To some, feels like flooding people with comments

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%), Too many posts in a day (15.6%). Also long
messages and auto-congratulatory tone
Incentives:
 Better discussions (43.2%)
 More relevant content (37.8%)
 Training and improved usability not an issue nor request

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

11. Results (4) Alternative channels/uses
Comments received
 Too much 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 should provide 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 authorized to post on Yammer
 How does management see the use of Yammer?
Too many communication channels?
 How to make sense of what to post where?
Too few people provide inputs
 In order to work, Yammer needs everyone’s presence/inputs
Good (technical) content, lessons learned and stimulating
questions are needed to fuel good discussions
 How can we invest in this?
Have we explored all the uses of Yammer?
 Do we understand how to converse on Yammer?

14. Reflections:
Lessons learned CPWF-CRP5
Yammer works to share information, CPWF updates, links, ideas.
 Perhaps not so useful for discussions, feedback, personal updates
Rather than comms to researchers it should be seen as a peer
network: researchers to researchers
 Find champion researchers who are willing to post
Yammer etiquette matters:
 Post short, crisp, focused posts
Lurking is a normal phenomenon: many don’t post but read
Everyone should be on Yammer or it doesn’t deliver its potential
Training only required initially. Coaching might help afterwards
Emails and face-to-face contact still rule – 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
 Form smaller groups to kickstart discussions in trust / branch off into
specific basin networks (e.g. Nile/Andes BDC)
 Look for research/MT champions to post – see this as a peer network
not as comms dissemination network.
At global level:
 Tease out questions and issues that matter for all basins and post
them on Yammer
 Continue with targeted emails (E-letter)
 Organize webinars (outside of Yammer) to stimulate critical technical
discussions

17. Recommendations (1)
At everyone’s level:
 Invest in face-to-face contact to build trust among Yammer users
 More coaching (by comms) for better use of Yammer
 Encourage critical questions and lessons learnt? Turn CPWF Yammer
into a reflexive network
 Communication specialists to share information on ‘Comms4Uptake’
Yammer more, to avoid overcrowding the CPWF Yammer
 Give it a try before judging
 Share your opinion about how to use/improve Yammer in whatever
way, including… on Yammer ;)