Engaging/motivating end users to use collaboration tools #motivation #collaboration


sj541 <stacie.m.jordan@...>
 

I am interested in discussing ways people are engaging/motivating
thier end users to use enterprise collaboration tools such as expert
profiles, communities of practices, discussion forums, etc. For
instance, reward/recognition programs, embedding collaboration
expectations into performance management, establishing key stakeholder
engagement, developing training modules, etc.


Bill Kaplan <bkaplan@...>
 

We currently are working on this inside our compnay and would be glad
to share with you

Bill


Stan Garfield <stangarfield@...>
 

Bill Kaplan wrote: "We currently are working on this inside our company and would be glad
to share with you"

 

Bill, if you are willing to share with all of the community members, that would be great.  Many of us are interested in learning more about your details.

 

Stacie Jordan wrote: "I am interested in discussing ways people are engaging/motivating their end users to use enterprise collaboration tools such as expert profiles, communities of practices, discussion forums, etc. For instance, reward/recognition programs, embedding collaboration expectations into performance management, establishing key stakeholder engagement, developing training modules, etc."

See my previous post on training modules at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/message/355

 

Here are the details on reward/recognition programs and embedding KM goals into performance management.

 

HP has rewards programs for those who submit 5, 10, ... knowledge briefs (internal white papers), publish or present externally, or submit patent disclosures.  Other rewards programs (e.g., for high billable utilization) have requirements that individual expert profiles have to be updated within the previous six months in order to win.

 

In HP Services Consulting & Integration, we are piloting a KM recognition program. KM Stars is a web-based application that assigns points to individuals for a variety of KM activities. KM Stars is designed to recognize and promote the smaller, day-to-day activities that cumulatively contribute to improve the knowledge environment within Consulting & Integration and HP as a whole.

 

Certain activities, such as posts into the forums, are automated and individuals do not need to report those tasks. For other contributions, such as publishing documents into shared repositories, individuals can report their own KM activities by specifying the contributions they have made to the Knowledge Network or the reuse they have achieved. In addition, KM leads can report on other types of contributions an individual may have made while participating in KM programs. No matter what, users who wish to participate in the stars program need to sign up for the program, which they can do when they report their activities through the KM Stars entry form.

 

Here are the ways that KM Stars is being used at HP:

 

1. Friendly competition – the top 10 point totals for the current week are displayed on the Knowledge Network home page.

 

2. Recognition – the top 10 point totals for each week are included in a weekly newsletter, Knowledge Sharing Weekly.  The top 10 point totals for each month are included in a monthly newsletter, Knowledge Network News.  The top 5 point totals for the previous year are highlighted in an annual message from the senior executive of Consulting & Integration sent to all employees

 

3. Personal goals – all Consulting & Integration employees are given three KM goals: actively participate in a community, contribute information on their projects to a repository, and reuse content from previous projects on all new projects.  KM Stars gives them data to demonstrate that they have achieved their KM goals.  Note: in the past, one of the three KM goals was to collaborate using a project team space.  This goal was achieved and is now routinely done, so we replaced it with another goal.

 

4. Advancement – two career advancement programs, the Technical Career Path and the Project Management Career Path, require candidates to demonstrate how they have shared their knowledge.  KM Stars gives them data to use in their submissions.

 

5. Rewards programs – some groups use the KM stars data to give out financial awards.  For example, a European sub-region reviews the list of the top 10 point totals each quarter and rewards anyone from their sub-region in that list.

 

6. Reports and feeds – program data is available in a variety of customizable reports for rewards programs and as RSS feeds for use in other web sites.

 

Current Point Allocations

 

10 - SME for Ask The Expert

3 - Participate in forum discussions

10 - Act as moderator for forum

1 - Enter a forum posting

1 - Have a subscription to a forum

Variable - Participation in KM program or initiative

5 - Sign up to participate in KM Stars

5 - Participate in KM pilot

10 - Presentation to internal or external audience

5 - Contribute Document to Knowledge network

5 - Resell existing IP as is or modified

5 - Reuse content

 

For a related example, visit the HP IT resource center forums at http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/home.do .  This site allows HP customers to award points to each other for help provided through the forums.  See "Top members – overall" in the right column, and the "Point System" FAQ at http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/helptips.do

 

Regards,

Stan

 



Don Kildebeck
 

Because KM is a fairly new concept to our company, with Sharepoint being deployed only about 6 months ago, our emphasis thus far has been on increasing awareness and understanding of the value of KM and the creation and deployment of simulation based training modules. The simulation modules cover most every aspect of the tools and techniques needed to practice KM within the Sharepoint environment. For those not quite sure of what simulation training & its methodology implies, it is a two step process in which the trainee first watches a specific step being performed (on-screen and EXACTLY as they will experience it back on the job). Once the trainee has watched the step be performed, he/she then has thev opportunity to actually practice the step itself (again on-screen, using their mouse and keyboard, performing the step EXACTLY as they will experience back on the job). Because my background is in Training and Development, I have been pro ducing SimTrains for over a decade. SIMDEV used to be a long, tedious, expensive process. But in the past couple of years, several tools have been developed which allow for the rapid, cost-efficient creation of simulations. These include the two most popular, Adobe (Macromedia) Captivate and Viewlet Builder. We are also in the process of developing, as an extension of SIMDEVs, what are called KM based Serious Games (SG's). SG's are are variation of a simulation which has the look and feel of a game, but involves non-gaming events leading to business operation outcomes. I don't think I need to elaborate on the value of SG's to an emerging workforce population basically raised on video and PC gaming.
Regards,
Don Kildebeck
 

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "sj541"

I am interested in discussing ways people are engaging/motivating
thier end users to use enterprise collaboration tools such as expert
profiles, communities of practices, discussion forums, etc. For
instance, reward/recognition programs, embedding collaboration
expectations into performance management, establishing key stakeholder
engagement, developing training modules, etc.


Kaplan Bill <Bill.Kaplan@...>
 

We have elected to use Tomoye Ecco v1.6. It works for our company
because communities are a major force in our success. The challenge is
being able to demonstrate value in their use and a constant awareness of
answering the WIIFM questions about participation.



The foundation for our communities of practice is grounded in a
strategic context that enables the communities to find a legitimate
place in the organization. Communities of practice are linked directly
to our corporate mission and values, balanced scorecard goals and tasks
to become a learning organization. Effectively introduced, facilitated,
and sustained, CoPs are providing the ability and capability to
efficiently and effectively leverage knowledge across our company to
help identify critical business problems and then make the best
decisions.












Fig 1










We don't reward participation per se since we have learned that this
will not provide the long term sustainment necessary to provide the
return on our $ investment as well as that of the time investment
individuals make in participating in the communities. The "reward"
comes from the value received by individual participation in the
"connecting-collecting-collaborating" and getting the tools and
knowledge they need to be successful and to enjoy working in this
environment. It works for us.



We have support from the managing partners down to the ops leaders and
the chiefs (CTO, HCO, CFO, etc) and this is resourced for success. I
actively promote and provide training on the application and its value,
it is discussed in team meetings, and we are gradually moving work
through the communities and using the space as a substitute for email.
We also have self-guided tutorials and quick reference sheets to make
this as easy as possible.



Hope this adds some perspective



Best regards



Bill Kaplan

CKO Acquisition Solutions, Inc







From: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Stan Garfield
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:53
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Engaging/motivating end users to use
collaboration tools



Bill Kaplan wrote: "We currently are working on this inside our company
and would be glad
to share with you"



Bill, if you are willing to share with all of the community members,
that would be great. Many of us are interested in learning more about
your details.



Stacie Jordan wrote: "I am interested in discussing ways people are
engaging/motivating their end users to use enterprise collaboration
tools such as expert profiles, communities of practices, discussion
forums, etc. For instance, reward/recognition programs, embedding
collaboration expectations into performance management, establishing key
stakeholder engagement, developing training modules, etc."

See my previous post on training modules at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/message/355
<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/message/355>



Here are the details on reward/recognition programs and embedding KM
goals into performance management.



HP has rewards programs for those who submit 5, 10, ... knowledge briefs
(internal white papers), publish or present externally, or submit patent
disclosures. Other rewards programs (e.g., for high billable
utilization) have requirements that individual expert profiles have to
be updated within the previous six months in order to win.



In HP Services Consulting & Integration, we are piloting a KM
recognition program. KM Stars is a web-based application that assigns
points to individuals for a variety of KM activities. KM Stars is
designed to recognize and promote the smaller, day-to-day activities
that cumulatively contribute to improve the knowledge environment within
Consulting & Integration and HP as a whole.



Certain activities, such as posts into the forums, are automated and
individuals do not need to report those tasks. For other contributions,
such as publishing documents into shared repositories, individuals can
report their own KM activities by specifying the contributions they have
made to the Knowledge Network or the reuse they have achieved. In
addition, KM leads can report on other types of contributions an
individual may have made while participating in KM programs. No matter
what, users who wish to participate in the stars program need to sign up
for the program, which they can do when they report their activities
through the KM Stars entry form.



Here are the ways that KM Stars is being used at HP:



1. Friendly competition - the top 10 point totals for the current week
are displayed on the Knowledge Network home page.



2. Recognition - the top 10 point totals for each week are included in a
weekly newsletter, Knowledge Sharing Weekly. The top 10 point totals
for each month are included in a monthly newsletter, Knowledge Network
News. The top 5 point totals for the previous year are highlighted in
an annual message from the senior executive of Consulting & Integration
sent to all employees



3. Personal goals - all Consulting & Integration employees are given
three KM goals: actively participate in a community, contribute
information on their projects to a repository, and reuse content from
previous projects on all new projects. KM Stars gives them data to
demonstrate that they have achieved their KM goals. Note: in the past,
one of the three KM goals was to collaborate using a project team space.
This goal was achieved and is now routinely done, so we replaced it with
another goal.



4. Advancement - two career advancement programs, the Technical Career
Path and the Project Management Career Path, require candidates to
demonstrate how they have shared their knowledge. KM Stars gives them
data to use in their submissions.



5. Rewards programs - some groups use the KM stars data to give out
financial awards. For example, a European sub-region reviews the list
of the top 10 point totals each quarter and rewards anyone from their
sub-region in that list.



6. Reports and feeds - program data is available in a variety of
customizable reports for rewards programs and as RSS feeds for use in
other web sites.



Current Point Allocations



10 - SME for Ask The Expert

3 - Participate in forum discussions

10 - Act as moderator for forum

1 - Enter a forum posting

1 - Have a subscription to a forum

Variable - Participation in KM program or initiative

5 - Sign up to participate in KM Stars

5 - Participate in KM pilot

10 - Presentation to internal or external audience

5 - Contribute Document to Knowledge network

5 - Resell existing IP as is or modified

5 - Reuse content



For a related example, visit the HP IT resource center forums at
http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/home.do
<http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/home.do> . This site allows
HP customers to award points to each other for help provided through the
forums. See "Top members - overall" in the right column, and the "Point
System" FAQ at http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/helptips.do
<http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/helptips.do>



Regards,

Stan


Bruce Karney <bkarney@...>
 

Stacie wrote: "I am interested in discussing ways people are
engaging/motivating thier end users to use enterprise collaboration
tools such as expert profiles, communities of practices, discussion
forums, etc. For instance, reward/recognition programs, embedding
collaboration expectations into performance management, establishing
key stakeholder engagement, developing training modules, etc."

Let's simplify and generalize this question to:

"A new tool is now available to employees. It is not being used as
much as those who introduced it hoped/predicted/promised. Why is
this happening and what can be done about it?"

When formulated this way, several hypotheses can be made, potential
solutions can be identified, and these solutions can then be tested
to confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis about why the tool isn't
being used.

* Many employees are simply unaware of the tool. <Inform them>

* Though aware, they don't believe the tool is better than existing
tools for doing the same job. <Persuade them>

* Though aware of the tool and its advantages, they don't know how to
use it. <Train them>

* Though well trained and capable of using the new tool, they revert
to using the old approach. <Remind them, incent them, or remove
access to the old tool>

* The tool requires some skill or other tool that many employees
don't have, for example, the ability to read English or connect to a
webserver via a high-bandwidth connection. <Adapt the tool to the
skills and circumstances that exist>

* For many employees, the new tool is, unfortunately, inferior in
important ways to the tools used previously. Inferiority could exist
in any of a dozen dimensions, including availability, reliability,
trustworthiness of results, etc. <Fix the tool so it is superior, or
stop expecting people for whom it produces no value to use it>

* The tool is expensive to maintain, and produces little measurable
value to the department that uses it or the organization as a whole.
<Modify the tool so it produces more value than it consumes, or get
rid of it to eliminate the ongoing maintenance expense>

* The tool is known, easy to use, and produces improved results for
the organization, but the employees themselves are no better off
whether they use the tool or do things the old way. <Modify the tool
or reward system so the employees experience a net benefit>

* The usefulness of the tool will be low until it is very widely
adopted within the organization, at which point it will be very
useful to everyone. <Demand that it be used and reward compliance or
punish non-compliance as you prefer>

Speaking as a guy who likes hardware stores more than any other type
of retail establishment, I know that new tools can be very seductive,
and when I get my hands on a new tool that solves a problem I've
previously struggled with, I feel like I've died and gone to heaven.
Will your new KM tools make those who adopt them feel this way? Or
are you trying to get them to adopt a tool that is demonstrably
different from what they have now without being demonstrably better?

The last major categorical advance in tools (from my perspective) was
the shift from powered electrical tools to cordless tools that
perform the same function. To be specific, electric sanders save me
lots of TIME and EFFORT, and the cordless version saves me even more
TIME on small jobs. Neither type of electric sander required me to
learn too many new concepts or skills. The QUALITY of results I
achieve is about the same that I got with a plain old sanding block.

If a new tool offers benefits of TIME, EFFORT, or QUALITY at a
reasonable cost (including acquisition cost, training cost, and
spoilage as I learn to use it), then it is something I will buy and
use. If not, it must sit on the shelf in the store and wait for my
mother or my wife to buy it for me as a Christmas present.

I hope you find this approach to the problem helpful.

Cheers,
Bruce Karney


sswarup44 <sswarup44@...>
 

Yes, based upon my experience, and to add Bruce's last comment:

Whenever a user says that he/she does not have time to use the new
tool, he/she is really saying that I don't see the value/benefit in
using the new tool.

Sanjay Swarup

--- In sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Karney" <bkarney@...>
wrote:

Stacie wrote: "I am interested in discussing ways people are
engaging/motivating thier end users to use enterprise
collaboration
tools such as expert profiles, communities of practices,
discussion
forums, etc. For instance, reward/recognition programs, embedding
collaboration expectations into performance management,
establishing
key stakeholder engagement, developing training modules, etc."

Let's simplify and generalize this question to:

"A new tool is now available to employees. It is not being used
as
much as those who introduced it hoped/predicted/promised. Why is
this happening and what can be done about it?"

When formulated this way, several hypotheses can be made,
potential
solutions can be identified, and these solutions can then be
tested
to confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis about why the tool isn't
being used.

* Many employees are simply unaware of the tool. <Inform them>

* Though aware, they don't believe the tool is better than
existing
tools for doing the same job. <Persuade them>

* Though aware of the tool and its advantages, they don't know how
to
use it. <Train them>

* Though well trained and capable of using the new tool, they
revert
to using the old approach. <Remind them, incent them, or remove
access to the old tool>

* The tool requires some skill or other tool that many employees
don't have, for example, the ability to read English or connect to
a
webserver via a high-bandwidth connection. <Adapt the tool to the
skills and circumstances that exist>

* For many employees, the new tool is, unfortunately, inferior in
important ways to the tools used previously. Inferiority could
exist
in any of a dozen dimensions, including availability, reliability,
trustworthiness of results, etc. <Fix the tool so it is superior,
or
stop expecting people for whom it produces no value to use it>

* The tool is expensive to maintain, and produces little
measurable
value to the department that uses it or the organization as a
whole.
<Modify the tool so it produces more value than it consumes, or
get
rid of it to eliminate the ongoing maintenance expense>

* The tool is known, easy to use, and produces improved results
for
the organization, but the employees themselves are no better off
whether they use the tool or do things the old way. <Modify the
tool
or reward system so the employees experience a net benefit>

* The usefulness of the tool will be low until it is very widely
adopted within the organization, at which point it will be very
useful to everyone. <Demand that it be used and reward compliance
or
punish non-compliance as you prefer>

Speaking as a guy who likes hardware stores more than any other
type
of retail establishment, I know that new tools can be very
seductive,
and when I get my hands on a new tool that solves a problem I've
previously struggled with, I feel like I've died and gone to
heaven.
Will your new KM tools make those who adopt them feel this way?
Or
are you trying to get them to adopt a tool that is demonstrably
different from what they have now without being demonstrably
better?

The last major categorical advance in tools (from my perspective)
was
the shift from powered electrical tools to cordless tools that
perform the same function. To be specific, electric sanders save
me
lots of TIME and EFFORT, and the cordless version saves me even
more
TIME on small jobs. Neither type of electric sander required me
to
learn too many new concepts or skills. The QUALITY of results I
achieve is about the same that I got with a plain old sanding
block.

If a new tool offers benefits of TIME, EFFORT, or QUALITY at a
reasonable cost (including acquisition cost, training cost, and
spoilage as I learn to use it), then it is something I will buy
and
use. If not, it must sit on the shelf in the store and wait for
my
mother or my wife to buy it for me as a Christmas present.

I hope you find this approach to the problem helpful.

Cheers,
Bruce Karney


Douglas Weidner <douglasweidner@...>
 

Sanjay, Bruce, et al
 
This expression comes to mind, with a little humorous twist.
 
Have you heard of the new FM channel, wii-FM?
 
Of course WiiFM means "What's in it for me?"
 
Douglas Weidner
Chairman, The International Knowledge Management Institute (KM Institute)
703-757-1395
douglas.weidner@...
www.kminstitute.org

----- Original Message -----
From: sswarup44
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 1:05 PM
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Engaging/motivating end users to use collaboration tools

Yes, based upon my experience, and to add Bruce's last comment:

Whenever a user says that he/she does not have time to use the new
tool, he/she is really saying that I don't see the value/benefit in
using the new tool.

Sanjay Swarup

--- In sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Karney" >
wrote:
>
> Stacie wrote: "I am interested in discussing ways people are
> engaging/motivating thier end users to use enterprise
collaboration
> tools such as expert profiles, communities of practices,
discussion
> forums, etc. For instance, reward/recognition programs, embedding
> collaboration expectations into performance management,
establishing
> key stakeholder engagement, developing training modules, etc."
>
> Let's simplify and generalize this question to:
>
> "A new tool is now available to employees. It is not being used
as
> much as those who introduced it hoped/predicted/promised. Why is
> this happening and what can be done about it?"
>
> When formulated this way, several hypotheses can be made,
potential
> solutions can be identified, and these solutions can then be
tested
> to confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis about why the tool isn't
> being used.
>
> * Many employees are simply unaware of the tool.
>
> * Though aware, they don't believe the tool is better than
existing
> tools for doing the same job.
>
> * Though aware of the tool and its advantages, they don't know how
to
> use it.
>
> * Though well trained and capable of using the new tool, they
revert
> to using the old approach. > access to the old tool>
>
> * The tool requires some skill or other tool that many employees
> don't have, for example, the ability to read English or connect to
a
> webserver via a high-bandwidth connection. > skills and circumstances that exist>
>
> * For many employees, the new tool is, unfortunately, inferior in
> important ways to the tools used previously. Inferiority could
exist
> in any of a dozen dimensions, including availability, reliability,
> trustworthiness of results, etc. or
> stop expecting people for whom it produces no value to use it>
>
> * The tool is expensive to maintain, and produces little
measurable
> value to the department that uses it or the organization as a
whole.
> get
> rid of it to eliminate the ongoing maintenance expense>
>
> * The tool is known, easy to use, and produces improved results
for
> the organization, but the employees themselves are no better off
> whether they use the tool or do things the old way. tool
> or reward system so the employees experience a net benefit>
>
> * The usefulness of the tool will be low until it is very widely
> adopted within the organization, at which point it will be very
> useful to everyone. or
> punish non-compliance as you prefer>
>
> Speaking as a guy who likes hardware stores more than any other
type
> of retail establishment, I know that new tools can be very
seductive,
> and when I get my hands on a new tool that solves a problem I've
> previously struggled with, I feel like I've died and gone to
heaven.
> Will your new KM tools make those who adopt them feel this way?
Or
> are you trying to get them to adopt a tool that is demonstrably
> different from what they have now without being demonstrably
better?
>
> The last major categorical advance in tools (from my perspective)
was
> the shift from powered electrical tools to cordless tools that
> perform the same function. To be specific, electric sanders save
me
> lots of TIME and EFFORT, and the cordless version saves me even
more
> TIME on small jobs. Neither type of electric sander required me
to
> learn too many new concepts or skills. The QUALITY of results I
> achieve is about the same that I got with a plain old sanding
block.
>
> If a new tool offers benefits of TIME, EFFORT, or QUALITY at a
> reasonable cost (including acquisition cost, training cost, and
> spoilage as I learn to use it), then it is something I will buy
and
> use. If not, it must sit on the shelf in the store and wait for
my
> mother or my wife to buy it for me as a Christmas present.
>
> I hope you find this approach to the problem helpful.
>
> Cheers,
> Bruce Karney
>


David Snowden <snowded@...>
 

I have previously crossed swords with Douglas over the "What's in it for me" concept but for the moment just note that the assumption that people do things on the basis of a calculation of personal self interest is dubious morally, but also does not match what we know about human cognition.

There is however a more interesting question here, that is pragmatic in nature.

If a user is presented with a tool within a corporate context and asked to use it, I can sense the reaction that Sanjay and others reference.

However if a group of colleagues decide to collaborate and one suggests a tool, then the reaction is always very different.   In my IBM days I resisted any participation in a formal CoP. but took part willingly in several informal on line communities using the same technology.   If you look at the take up of blogs and the way people have learnt basic HTML to handle those, you can see that is the social structure is right participation will follow.

The basic switch that needs to be made is from an idealistic central design (deciding what is the best thing and getting people to do it)  to a naturalising design in which a variety of tools are put in place and we see what practices evolve.  Incidentally it is still idealistic if you consultant people extensively before you make the central decision.


and Nancy White has also picked up that blog and promises to build on it - something I am looking forward to
http://www.fullcirc.com/weblog/2007/01/snowden-natural-numbers-networks.htm



Dave Snowden
Founder & Chief Scientific Officer
Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

Now blogging at www.cognitive-edge.com


On 5 Jan 2007, at 18:19, Douglas Weidner wrote:


Sanjay, Bruce, et al
 
This expression comes to mind, with a little humorous twist.
 
Have you heard of the new FM channel, wii-FM?
 
Of course WiiFM means "What's in it for me?"
 
Douglas Weidner
Chairman, The International Knowledge Management Institute (KM Institute)
703-757-1395
douglas.weidner@kminstitute.org
www.kminstitute.org
----- Original Message -----
From: sswarup44
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 1:05 PM
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Engaging/motivating end users to use collaboration tools

Yes, based upon my experience, and to add Bruce's last comment:

Whenever a user says that he/she does not have time to use the new
tool, he/she is really saying that I don't see the value/benefit in
using the new tool.

Sanjay Swarup

--- In sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Karney" >
wrote:
>
> Stacie wrote: "I am interested in discussing ways people are
> engaging/motivating thier end users to use enterprise
collaboration
> tools such as expert profiles, communities of practices,
discussion
> forums, etc. For instance, reward/recognition programs, embedding
> collaboration expectations into performance management,
establishing
> key stakeholder engagement, developing training modules, etc."
>
> Let's simplify and generalize this question to:
>
> "A new tool is now available to employees. It is not being used
as
> much as those who introduced it hoped/predicted/promised. Why is
> this happening and what can be done about it?"
>
> When formulated this way, several hypotheses can be made,
potential
> solutions can be identified, and these solutions can then be
tested
> to confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis about why the tool isn't
> being used.
>
> * Many employees are simply unaware of the tool.
>
> * Though aware, they don't believe the tool is better than
existing
> tools for doing the same job.
>
> * Though aware of the tool and its advantages, they don't know how
to
> use it.
>
> * Though well trained and capable of using the new tool, they
revert
> to using the old approach.
> access to the old tool>
>
> * The tool requires some skill or other tool that many employees
> don't have, for example, the ability to read English or connect to
a
> webserver via a high-bandwidth connection.
> skills and circumstances that exist>
>
> * For many employees, the new tool is, unfortunately, inferior in
> important ways to the tools used previously. Inferiority could
exist
> in any of a dozen dimensions, including availability, reliability,
> trustworthiness of results, etc.
or
> stop expecting people for whom it produces no value to use it>
>
> * The tool is expensive to maintain, and produces little
measurable
> value to the department that uses it or the organization as a
whole.
>
get
> rid of it to eliminate the ongoing maintenance expense>
>
> * The tool is known, easy to use, and produces improved results
for
> the organization, but the employees themselves are no better off
> whether they use the tool or do things the old way.
tool
> or reward system so the employees experience a net benefit>
>
> * The usefulness of the tool will be low until it is very widely
> adopted within the organization, at which point it will be very
> useful to everyone.
or
> punish non-compliance as you prefer>
>
> Speaking as a guy who likes hardware stores more than any other
type
> of retail establishment, I know that new tools can be very
seductive,
> and when I get my hands on a new tool that solves a problem I've
> previously struggled with, I feel like I've died and gone to
heaven.
> Will your new KM tools make those who adopt them feel this way?
Or
> are you trying to get them to adopt a tool that is demonstrably
> different from what they have now without being demonstrably
better?
>
> The last major categorical advance in tools (from my perspective)
was
> the shift from powered electrical tools to cordless tools that
> perform the same function. To be specific, electric sanders save
me
> lots of TIME and EFFORT, and the cordless version saves me even
more
> TIME on small jobs. Neither type of electric sander required me
to
> learn too many new concepts or skills. The QUALITY of results I
> achieve is about the same that I got with a plain old sanding
block.
>
> If a new tool offers benefits of TIME, EFFORT, or QUALITY at a
> reasonable cost (including acquisition cost, training cost, and
> spoilage as I learn to use it), then it is something I will buy
and
> use. If not, it must sit on the shelf in the store and wait for
my
> mother or my wife to buy it for me as a Christmas present.
>
> I hope you find this approach to the problem helpful.
>
> Cheers,
> Bruce Karney
>




David Smith KM Specialist <david.smith@...>
 

Stacie,

We have concentrated out community of practice efforts to meet business needs. We currently have 25 communities that support a service organization of over 30,000 people. Each community is focused on a particular area of the business or a specific set of skills.

 

We do not attempt to reward people with anything of monetary value. However we do recognize the input that each individual makes to the collaboration system by automatically including their name & location along with the input. Additionally, many of our communities list the top contributors in a monthly update that goes to all potential community members via email. We have been known to hand out a few baseball hats to key contributors.

 

Collaboration has definitely gotten some folks noticed who would not have been globally recognized otherwise. One of our product lines looks at KM participation when they are considering people for promotion. We support voluntary participation rather than required participation as performance review expectations in past initiatives have generated a lot of data volume and no substance.

 

Our communities are successful because they are developed by community members rather than pushed from the corporate office. The community developers deploy the community and are responsible for the initial activity. Each community has a least one full time facilitator that ensures that questions are asked, answered and shared. If activity falls off, we start thinking about what to do. Many of our communities have changed over the years and intervention sessions are held to ensure we are meeting their needs.

 

I agree with Sanjay and Bruce, if users say they don’t have time they are really saying that it is not useful.

 

Training modules are needed, but if the system is not intuitive to the end users then it will be an uphill battle. If your users do not have computer skills then face to face events and conference calls become more important.  If they do not speak the same language then a facilitator is required to translate.

 

Most of all if the cost of the system is greater than the benefit, don’t do it.

 

David Smith

Halliburton Knowledge Management

281-575-4055

1NE16G - OakPark

 

 


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Bruce Karney
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:44 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Engaging/motivating end users to use collaboration tools

 

Stacie wrote: "I am interested in discussing ways people are
engaging/motivating thier end users to use enterprise collaboration
tools such as expert profiles, communities of practices, discussion
forums, etc. For instance, reward/recognition programs, embedding
collaboration expectations into performance management, establishing
key stakeholder engagement, developing training modules, etc."

Let's simplify and generalize this question to:

"A new tool is now available to employees. It is not being used as
much as those who introduced it hoped/predicted/promised. Why is
this happening and what can be done about it?"

When formulated this way, several hypotheses can be made, potential
solutions can be identified, and these solutions can then be tested
to confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis about why the tool isn't
being used.

* Many employees are simply unaware of the tool.

* Though aware, they don't believe the tool is better than existing
tools for doing the same job.

* Though aware of the tool and its advantages, they don't know how to
use it.
* Though well trained and capable of using the new tool, they revert
to using the old approach. access to the old tool>

* The tool requires some skill or other tool that many employees
don't have, for example, the ability to read English or connect to a
webserver via a high-bandwidth connection. skills and circumstances that exist>

* For many employees, the new tool is, unfortunately, inferior in
important ways to the tools used previously. Inferiority could exist
in any of a dozen dimensions, including availability, reliability,
trustworthiness of results, etc. stop expecting people for whom it produces no value to use it>

* The tool is expensive to maintain, and produces little measurable
value to the department that uses it or the organization as a whole.
rid of it to eliminate the ongoing maintenance expense>

* The tool is known, easy to use, and produces improved results for
the organization, but the employees themselves are no better off
whether they use the tool or do things the old way. or reward system so the employees experience a net benefit>

* The usefulness of the tool will be low until it is very widely
adopted within the organization, at which point it will be very
useful to everyone. punish non-compliance as you prefer>

Speaking as a guy who likes hardware stores more than any other type
of retail establishment, I know that new tools can be very seductive,
and when I get my hands on a new tool that solves a problem I've
previously struggled with, I feel like I've died and gone to heaven.
Will your new KM tools make those who adopt them feel this way? Or
are you trying to get them to adopt a tool that is demonstrably
different from what they have now without being demonstrably better?

The last major categorical advance in tools (from my perspective) was
the shift from powered electrical tools to cordless tools that
perform the same function. To be specific, electric sanders save me
lots of TIME and EFFORT, and the cordless version saves me even more
TIME on small jobs. Neither type of electric sander required me to
learn too many new concepts or skills. The QUALITY of results I
achieve is about the same that I got with a plain old sanding block.

If a new tool offers benefits of TIME, EFFORT, or QUALITY at a
reasonable cost (including acquisition cost, training cost, and
spoilage as I learn to use it), then it is something I will buy and
use. If not, it must sit on the shelf in the store and wait for my
mother or my wife to buy it for me as a Christmas present.

I hope you find this approach to the problem helpful.

Cheers,
Bruce Karney


This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution, or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive information for the intended recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.


Douglas Weidner <douglasweidner@...>
 

Bruce,
 
Excellent thoughts.
 
Douglas Weidner
Chairman, The International Knowledge Management Institute (KM Institute)
703-757-1395
douglas.weidner@...
www.kminstitute.org

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 12:44 PM
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Engaging/motivating end users to use collaboration tools

Stacie wrote: "I am interested in discussing ways people are
engaging/motivating thier end users to use enterprise collaboration
tools such as expert profiles, communities of practices, discussion
forums, etc. For instance, reward/recognition programs, embedding
collaboration expectations into performance management, establishing
key stakeholder engagement, developing training modules, etc."

Let's simplify and generalize this question to:

"A new tool is now available to employees. It is not being used as
much as those who introduced it hoped/predicted/promised. Why is
this happening and what can be done about it?"

When formulated this way, several hypotheses can be made, potential
solutions can be identified, and these solutions can then be tested
to confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis about why the tool isn't
being used.

* Many employees are simply unaware of the tool.

* Though aware, they don't believe the tool is better than existing
tools for doing the same job.

* Though aware of the tool and its advantages, they don't know how to
use it.

* Though well trained and capable of using the new tool, they revert
to using the old approach. access to the old tool>

* The tool requires some skill or other tool that many employees
don't have, for example, the ability to read English or connect to a
webserver via a high-bandwidth connection. skills and circumstances that exist>

* For many employees, the new tool is, unfortunately, inferior in
important ways to the tools used previously. Inferiority could exist
in any of a dozen dimensions, including availability, reliability,
trustworthiness of results, etc. stop expecting people for whom it produces no value to use it>

* The tool is expensive to maintain, and produces little measurable
value to the department that uses it or the organization as a whole.
rid of it to eliminate the ongoing maintenance expense>

* The tool is known, easy to use, and produces improved results for
the organization, but the employees themselves are no better off
whether they use the tool or do things the old way. or reward system so the employees experience a net benefit>

* The usefulness of the tool will be low until it is very widely
adopted within the organization, at which point it will be very
useful to everyone. punish non-compliance as you prefer>

Speaking as a guy who likes hardware stores more than any other type
of retail establishment, I know that new tools can be very seductive,
and when I get my hands on a new tool that solves a problem I've
previously struggled with, I feel like I've died and gone to heaven.
Will your new KM tools make those who adopt them feel this way? Or
are you trying to get them to adopt a tool that is demonstrably
different from what they have now without being demonstrably better?

The last major categorical advance in tools (from my perspective) was
the shift from powered electrical tools to cordless tools that
perform the same function. To be specific, electric sanders save me
lots of TIME and EFFORT, and the cordless version saves me even more
TIME on small jobs. Neither type of electric sander required me to
learn too many new concepts or skills. The QUALITY of results I
achieve is about the same that I got with a plain old sanding block.

If a new tool offers benefits of TIME, EFFORT, or QUALITY at a
reasonable cost (including acquisition cost, training cost, and
spoilage as I learn to use it), then it is something I will buy and
use. If not, it must sit on the shelf in the store and wait for my
mother or my wife to buy it for me as a Christmas present.

I hope you find this approach to the problem helpful.

Cheers,
Bruce Karney


john_mcquary <john.mcquary@...>
 

Here are some lessons and concepts we apply in Fluor Corporation.

Early in our KM journey, we designed a program we called K-Points.
We recognized that giving points for submitting content would
generate a lot of garbage input, so the idea was that whenever a
piece of content was used, both the submitter and the consumer would
get one point. Someone who submitted valuable content used by
several people would get several pointe. Likewise someone who
reused content rather than reinvent content would also get
rewarded. The plan was to implement this approach and then later
modify the process so points were rewarded only when the consumer
provided feedback or improvement suggestions to the content that was
used. We presented this approach to our executive steering
committee. Their response was, "All your statistics show continued
growth. Don't implement a program until there is a need for one."
We never implemented this model.

What we did do was incorporate knowledge sharing behaviors into the
company performance management system. Expectations are defined for
all levels from new grads to executives. I believe strongly that
this is a much better approach as it contributes to moving knowledge
management away from being the "initiative of the year" toward being
a sustained part of the company culture.

Some of our communities have their own recognition programs. The
recognition is usually having your name/picture on the community
homepage, or being recognized in a leadership teleconference. These
types of recognition are things like Top Knowledge Submitter, Top
Forum Responder, Best Knowledge Object of the Month, etc.

A few of our communities gave out coffee mugs, tee shirts, etc. as
they were ramping up their activities. As one member
said, "Management by tokens doesn't work. I have a drawer full of
tee shirts that my wife won't let me wear even for yard work." My
central KM Team agrees with this concept, but we don't stop a
community if its leadership wants to give something away.

Finally, each year, we have a special program we call our Knowvember
celebration (follows OctoberFest). We have a peer recognition
program called KM Pacesetters that emphasizes knowledge sharing
behaviors. Anyone can nominate anyone else. This year (2006) we
had 304 nominations and 36 winners. The other recognition part of
the Knowvember celebration is a success story contest. We collected
80 success stories this year. My team narrows the success stories
down to a manageable handful, and then we have an executive panel
(typically CEO direct reports) provide the final judging. Since
each story is a collaborative effort, we don't reward any
individuals, but the winning submitters get to choose a charity of
their choice and the Fluor Foundation makes a small donation. The
success stories are then used to communite the value of our KM
program to our clients and internally. By engaging the executive
judges, we also better inform them of how pervasive our KM
capabilities have become.


Jack Vinson <jackvinson@...>
 

I stripped Bruce's nice sequence of questions to ask oneself and left
Sanjay's. These are excellent answers to Stacie's question.

In an effort to head these problems off at the pass (collaborative tools or
not), I have been applying a set of questions that I've learned from my work
in Theory of Constraints...

1. What is the power of this tool?
2. What is the problem(s) or limitation(s) to be fixed by this new tool?
("We don't collaborate enough" is not a sufficient statement of the issue.
What is the thing you are trying to fix with collaboration? How will the
power of this tool remove or reduce your limitations?)
3. What old rules did we follow because of the limitation?
4. What new rules need to be put into place now that the limitation has been
removed/reduced?

Could these be helpful in planning a change?

Jack

-----Original Message-----
From: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of sswarup44
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 12:05 PM
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Engaging/motivating end users to use
collaboration tools

Yes, based upon my experience, and to add Bruce's last comment:

Whenever a user says that he/she does not have time to use the new tool,
he/she is really saying that I don't see the value/benefit in using the new
tool.

Sanjay Swarup


lbusby2000 <lbusby@...>
 

--- In sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com, "sj541" <stacie.m.jordan@...> wrote:

I am interested in discussing ways people are engaging/motivating
thier end users to use enterprise collaboration tools such as expert
profiles, communities of practices, discussion forums, etc. For
instance, reward/recognition programs, embedding collaboration
expectations into performance management, establishing key stakeholder
engagement, developing training modules, etc.
Based on several years of experience observing different organizations
within IBM deploy tools and programs to increase knowledge sharing and
collaboration, we have formed some conclusions about what works and
what doesn't. These include:
• IBM Alumni Dave Snowden and Larry Prusak are correct. Dave has
often said "Knowledge cannot be conscripted, it can only be
volunteered." Larry Prusak said long ago (paraphrasing), "You can't
make me share what I know . . you can make me perform a task with a
paycheck, but you can't make me freely share with you what I know
about anything." We encourage collaboration and sharing, but haven't
tried to make it part of the performance management system.
• In a technology company like IBM, there is always a group of people
eager to try cool new tools. We have been successful at deploying
some new collaboration tools using viral marketing. Find early
adopters who will tell two friends who tell two friends and so on.
You can definitely create internal buzz. The key is to find
stakeholders who "get it" and can then show the way to others.
• A lot of people are leveraging and playing with collaboration and
knowledge sharing applications outside the enterprise - wikis, blogs,
myspace, etc. They are increasingly comfortable with the internet 2.0
environment. Employees familiar with these applications and
environments will readily try out and perhaps adopt similar internal
tools. But as everyone has emphasized, the tools *must* help them
with their job (the wiifm).
• To the extent possible, new collaboration or knowledge sharing tools
should be embedded in the processes and work flow that people are
executing now to do their job. They should not be separate. You
should mask the complexity of the various tools from the users as much
as you can.
• Invest as much as you can in making the internal search application
powerful and effective. Everyone is familar with Google. Employees
will expect that internal search should work as well. It can be a
challenge for a corporate search tool to search unstructured knowledge
repositories and databases. But you will hear about user
dissatisfaction if they don't find what they expect to find!


At IBM, different organizations are using different approaches, but
below are some of our lessons learned:

Using expert profiles
More and more of our applications are integrating with our master
"Blue Pages" directory so that the more that people seeing Blue Pages
used, the more they are interested in having their own profile kept up
to date which in turn makes the whole system more valuable.
Additionally, we have a "Technology Adoption Program" (TAP) for the
bleeding edge players who make use of such things as user tagging
(folksonomy) – again to tie more things together. Having people
post their own photo took a long time, but now it is common to include
photos in Instant Messages, in group meetings via teleconference, with
speaker bios, etc. which helps people to get to know each other a bit
easier which leads to better collaboration.

Communities of Practice
Though we talk a lot about the value of CoPs, we don't typically have
the kind of support to make them really click – i.e. a full time
facilitator to see that all questions receive responses, that there is
maintenance on the content of associated intellectual capital, etc.
We have tried making it mandatory to join a community, but that only
yielded higher membership numbers, it did not really get the people to
engaged. The key ingredient to making a CoP work is a passionate
leader. All the tools in the world (and IBM has them) won't work if
there isn't a body with passion about the knowledge domain in the picture.

Discussion Forums
Some CoPs have been very successful with email broadcasts to solicit
help from community members. Some use a wiki with RSS to allow users
to subscribe to post questions and answers. Some use a Sametime 7.5
(Instant messaging) broadcast plug-in to send group instant messages.
In all cases, what works depends largely on the people driving it.
e.g. if a wiki is created, but no one monitors it to see that all
questions get answered, it dies.
(Internal) Blogs are allowing some of our best brains to spout off to
anyone who wants to listen. That has been very good – a more informal
method to communicate – which begets collaboration. Via blogging,
people have connected around areas of common interest that would
likely not have happened otherwise.

Training
Training is a must, but it is simply covers the mechanics of sharing –
of the tools to help enable knowledge sharing and collaboration.
The best tools need the least training. They are intuitive and dare I
say even fun. We had a rogue program called Notes Buddy that was
widely adopted via the underground because it added fun to Instant
Messaging and one person told another and another, etc. Word of mouth
is still the best advertising.

Lynn Busby & Mark May
IBM


stacie.m.jordan@...
 

Thank you everyone for all of the ideas coming in – I’m looking forward to reviewing them/generating further discussion!

 

Stacie

 

Stacie M. Jordan

Global HR/Capability Development - Knowledge Mgmt

Accenture, 1345 Ave of Americas, NY, NY 10105

Direct: 917-452-3018, Octel: 45/23018

eFax: 270-512-4943

AIM: staciemjordan, MSN/email: stacie.m.jordan@...

 

This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited.


Matthew Moore <matthew.moore@...>
 

Agree with a lot of what's been written so far. But to emphaize something implicit in many of the posts: collaboration tools are not an end in themselves. They are tools that allow collaboration.
 
So rather than focusing on getting people to use the tools, identify potential cross-LOB projects or existing collaborative groups and offer the tools to them as an adjunct.
 
And also ask, apart from technology, what are the impedients to collaboration? Is our culture competitive or secretive? In which case, no amount of training or incentives will help.
 
When I worked at IBM, the problem was - we had too many tools. Every other week, some guys in the Research Labs would come up with a spliffy new tool and say "Bow down and worship our new collaboration tool, verily it will revolutionise our organisation!!!" and then 3 months later it would be dead. On the other hand, one of the most successful global communities in first PW then PwC then IBM was based on a massive email cc: list. Any attempts to get them to move platform were refused point blank - yet that group added tremendous value.
 
So your organisation probably has multiple collaboration tools already. From a requirements perspective, interoperability should be more important that total functional range.


Tom Short <tom.short@...>
 

These are great points, Matthew.  I think some folks get too enamoured of a given technology-based capability, and forget what the actual business reasons for using it are or could be.  Ever make a tin-can telephone as a kid?  The fact that you could use it to talk to your buddy across the street (or in their bedroom in the house next door) made it fun.  But you could have just as easily opened your window and yelled (or even used a normal voice)!

The geeks love their tin-can telephones.  Communities and work teams, however, tend to be more pragmatic - and will definitely open the window and yell if that's more efficient.

--- In sikmleaders@..., "Matthew Moore" wrote:
>
>   Agree with a lot of what's been written so far. But to emphaize something implicit in many of the posts: collaboration tools are not an end in themselves. They are tools that allow collaboration.
>   
>   So rather than focusing on getting people to use the tools, identify potential cross-LOB projects or existing collaborative groups and offer the tools to them as an adjunct.
>
>   And also ask, apart from technology, what are the impedients to collaboration? Is our culture competitive or secretive? In which case, no amount of training or incentives will help.

 

 

 

 

 

 



--- In sikmleaders@..., "Matthew Moore" wrote:
>
> Agree with a lot of what's been written so far. But to emphaize something implicit in many of the posts: collaboration tools are not an end in themselves. They are tools that allow collaboration.
>
> So rather than focusing on getting people to use the tools, identify potential cross-LOB projects or existing collaborative groups and offer the tools to them as an adjunct.
>
> And also ask, apart from technology, what are the impedients to collaboration? Is our culture competitive or secretive? In which case, no amount of training or incentives will help.
>
> When I worked at IBM, the problem was - we had too many tools. Every other week, some guys in the Research Labs would come up with a spliffy new tool and say "Bow down and worship our new collaboration tool, verily it will revolutionise our organisation!!!" and then 3 months later it would be dead. On the other hand, one of the most successful global communities in first PW then PwC then IBM was based on a massive email cc: list. Any attempts to get them to move platform were refused point blank - yet that group added tremendous value.
>
> So your organisation probably has multiple collaboration tools already. From a requirements perspective, interoperability should be more important that total functional range.
>


stacie.m.jordan@...
 

Hi everyone – just a quick note to let you know I will be summarizing this feedback and highlighting key learnings – I will post them once complete.  Thanks again for your input on this. 

 

Stacie

 

Stacie M. Jordan

Global HR/Capability Development - Knowledge Mgmt

Accenture, 1345 Ave of Americas, NY, NY 10105

Direct: 917-452-3018, Octel: 45/23018

eFax: 270-512-4943

AIM: staciemjordan, MSN/email: stacie.m.jordan@...

 

This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited.


stacie.m.jordan@...
 

Hi everyone – here is a good summary of the feedback to my question around engaging/motivating end users to use collaboration tools.  Thanks for all of the input.

 

Overall summary:

Rewards and Recognition:

  • HP and Fluor companies have “knowledge sharing incentive” programs that seem to be valuable
  • Mixed feedback regarding whether individuals should be rewarded for knowledge-sharing (or if contributing and reusing knowledge is a reward in and of itself).  2 responders indicated his/her company did while another responded that they did not support that.
  • Can’t make submitting knowledge mandatory since it will yield “garbage” entries.
  • Many companies recognize those who contribute knowledge through newsletters, collaboration tracking tools, etc.

Integrating expectations with performance mgmt

  • Mixed feedback on this – 3/7 responders view it as a way to integrate KM into company whereas 1/7 responders say you can’t force people to contribute what they know

Key stakeholder engagements

  • 1 responder indicated this was crucial for success

Training

  • Needs to be intuitive; best tools need very little training
  • 1 company uses training simulations to promote knowledge sharing and other KM concepts

CoPs Best Practices

  • 1 individual reported that company links CoPs to company mission and values
  • 2 other individuals reported that their communities are only successful when developed by community members, they have a full-time facilitator and when there is an impassioned individual leading them.

Expert Profiles Best Practices

  • Integrate applications with “expert profile” directory
  • IBM employs “user tagging” (e.g., “folksonomy”) to further tie people together
  • 1 company won’t allow individuals to be recognized with high utilization rates without an expert profile

Discussion Board Best Practices

  • Success with wikis, RSS feeds, internal blogs

Other

  • Make collab tools similar to blogs, wikis, myspace since people are familiar with them.  Also, collab tools need to make a user’s job easier for them to realistically use it.
  • Include photos in IM, have speaker bios with tele-conferences, etc. to promote communication and collaboration
  • Invest in making internal search engine as good as possible

 

 

Stacie M. Jordan

Global HR/Capability Development - Knowledge Mgmt

Accenture, 1345 Ave of Americas, NY, NY 10105

Direct: 917-452-3018, Octel: 45/23018

eFax: 270-512-4943

AIM: staciemjordan, MSN/email: stacie.m.jordan@...

 

This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited.