Community

How do you get people to share their knowledge?

April 14, 2010 by Jaap Linssen | 2 Comments

Screen shot 2010-01-13 at 18.27.00Internal communities help people within an enterprise solve problems faster and more effectively. A vibrant community, which brings together people from across the organisation will also generate more innovation.

A key component of the community is the ability of people to access knowledge already available within the company. Knowledge can be found by searching the community platform for stored knowledge or to locate the people that posses, or have access to it. Having immediate access to such knowledge leads primarily to a reduction in the (re)search costs incurred (you don’t need to hire external expertise so often). In situations where access to the shared knowledge of a community is not available, time to research a subject increases dramatically along with costs. In the communities we manage we have seen savings of hundreds of business research and analysis hours on a single subject.

Such a system provides great benefits both for the organization and for the individuals. This should be reason enough for people to contribute to the community. In reality, however, it proves to be tremendously difficult to motivate people to help colleagues and lift these constraints on sharing knowledge. There are many reasons that govern this reluctance. Many aspects are psychological, such as fear of not being taken seriously or fear of losing the monopoly on that knowledge. Such psychological factors are complex to manage and take time and trust, to change for the better.

There is one factor that has great impact on improving access to knowledge, that can be managed quite easily. Instead of asking people to actually answer a question, you describe your ‘knowledge need’ and ask people that could help you to make themselves known. By doing this you start to build a ‘knowledge network’. These knowledge networks are very powerful in giving people access to knowledge. You can think of them like hyperlinks on the web pointing to relevant sources, only this time the links point to relevant people. Besides being a powerful way to unlock knowledge this method also helps lift the constraints on sharing I described earlier. People no longer have to be scared of losing their monopoly on knowledge as they remain the gatekeeper. Further, the time investment to indicate you have such knowledge is negligible. In our active communities we also see signs that it actually encourages people to share as it’s a way to profile themselves as an expert within the organisation.

At one of our clients an employee was asked to work on search engine optimization (SEO) for the website of a specific division. She posted a request for help on the internal community asking who had experience implementing SEO for a website. Five specialists replied that they had experience and would be happy to help out. Recounting her experience, she reflected that access to the knowledge of these people had saved her at least two months work and she had no need to hire external experts to get her going. Furthermore, in the future anyone with questions about SEO just has to search for the term and will have access to the knowledge in an instant.

So how do you create the environment in which this can happen? You need to shift the paradigm in peoples’ minds that you do not have to share the knowledge itself. We find that the best way of doing so is to set the example by sourcing two or three knowledge requests and asking a number of experts to make themselves known. Once a few strong cases are visible people catch on very quickly.

Tagged , ,

Open Innovation at Crowdspring

December 23, 2009 by Jurjan Huisman | 1 Comment

In a true entrepreneurial spirit, quite a number of employees at Innovation Factory have their own side projects which they work on in the weekends and evenings. For one of those projects, Green at Work (in which I participate), a logo needed to be designed. It was done through Crowdspring, a crowd-sourcing platform. Even the seemingly simple process of having a logo designed by a crowd has many aspects of open innovation to it. I would like to share the experience with you and place it in the context of idea management.

Crowdspring

Clear question
First of all, the logo design contest was initiated on Crowdspring.com with a preset running time of two weeks. To start a contest, Crowdspring has a submission form to describe your briefing. Their template takes you through a number of steps: You need to supply background information, what you need, who your target audience is, what kind of designs you like, and things you absolutely do or don’t want to have in your design. Before we started we observed that good briefings at other contests resulted in higher quality contributions so we took our time to write a good briefing.

Good feedback
It is vital to give supportive feedback to the people that contribute to your challenge. This feedback results in a higher quantity and quality of new submissions. This stems from the fact that people enrich each other’s designs based upon your feedback. Imagine one specific designer submits a design at Crowdspring and gets feedback from you that a specific element is really cool but another element definitely needs to be changed. If this happens a couple of times with different designs, new entrants will be better directed towards the type of design that you like. So in the end, people build upon each other’s submissions to come to higher quality submissions. In the end we received 197 design submissions of which the quality kept improving during the process.

Scout the community for input
You should scout through the profiles of the community members to find people you think can make a good contribution. We did this soon after we started our design challenge. We went through other design challenges and looked for designs that we liked and sent messages to the designers to tell them we liked their previous designs and asked them to participate in our challenge. Our eventual winner was someone we found in this way.

Diversity boosts creativity
Another great aspect of a community like Crowdspring is the fact that it’s members come from all over the world and have different backgrounds. Sure, they all do something with design, but compared to one specific design agency it’s a very diverse group. The resulting creative contributions are absolutely amazing. We selected the following design from a Japanese designer named Kiona:

Green_at_Work

Self-regulation within the community
At a certain point in the contest, one Crowdspring member even sent us a message that he found a similarity in one of the design submissions. He noticed that one of the submissions in our contest was a slightly altered copy of a submission from a different designer at a previous project. Obviously, copying is a complete no-go in a design process. So the community even helps to keep the contest ‘clean’. This is something that is hardly do-able without those extra hundreds pairs of eyes.

Idea management
In general, when you ask a community a question you leverage the principle: nobody is as smart as everybody. Specifically when you involve a diverse group. But when an organisation sets up idea management one should realise that resources should be made available to coordinate the process. In a previous blogpost “Implementing Idea Management” we concluded that implementing effective idea management is about asking the right people the right questions. A significant amount of time should be spent getting the questions right. While supplying feedback to idea generators can improve the quality of a specific idea and motivates them to keep submitting ideas that constantly increase in quality. This feedback and motivation is part of community management, a crucial element within idea management.

An idea challenge normally runs for a specific amount of time (compared to open ended idea management) and is focussed around a specific subject.

Crowd-sourced design process in the context of idea management
Because of our experience at Innovation Factory with idea challenges we could see the potential upfront to leverage a community like Crowdspring where the diverse background of its members contributes to a very creative logo. I find it really interesting to see that the above mentioned crowd-sourced design process has a lot of similarities with an idea challenge:

  1. Clear question. It is very important to state a well thought out briefing as this gives direction. At an idea challenge the way you formulate your question is identically crucial. Also a set timing of two weeks helps the “sense of urgency” of contributors to submit a design quickly rather than postponing it. Idea challenges also run best for a set time.
  2. Good feedback. From our experience with idea challenges we know that it is absolutely vital to give constructive and fast feedback. As a result you get more and higher quality contributions.
  3. Scout the community for input. Part of the community management activities we perform at idea challenges consists of looking through member profiles to see if their experience and knowledge matches a specific idea. We then contact those people to ask if they can contribute to the idea. This proactive moderation activity was exactly what we did at the Crowdspring design contest as well by searching for designers that we thought could make a good contribution.
  4. Diversity boosts creativity. In general diversity helps to boost creativity. In that respect internet tools help to lower the barrier significantly to attract a broad public. This holds both for idea management software but also for the Crowdspring website.
  5. Self-regulation within the community. The self-regulation we saw at the logo design process, also happens in another form at idea challenges. People place corrective comments on ‘bad’ ideas and the community also acts as a first filter on which ideas are good and which are not. This is done by letting people vote ideas up or down and the commenting.

In the end it means that you definitely need to make time available to coordinate the whole process. It takes a lot of time to support the community in the right way, but you will probably be positively surprised by the good results you will get with open innovation.

Tagged , , ,

Roles in managing internal communities

December 21, 2009 by Jaap Linssen | 3 Comments

As our Community management practice is growing rapidly, we’ve spend some time at the end of the year to further professionalize our approach. One of the things we did was to describe the different roles and activities we see in managing internal communities. In moderating and activating communities we distinguish between 10 types of roles:

  1. Strategy and tactics: There needs to be a clear vision for the development of the community. This vision needs to be translated to types of activities the members should be encouraged to engage with. You need to develop multiple scenarios because some activities catch on and others do not. If activities do not catch on one should be able to quickly shift into another scenario. It is important to take into account the ‘What’s in it for me?’ question from the participants perspective and to check if there are no barriers that get in the way of these activities.
  2. Change management: To many organizations, achieving a state where people openly share, connect with each other, collaborate, and innovate requires a significant change in culture. Even though we believe that culture does not dictate our behavior, but it is the aggregation of our behaviour that defines culture; you need to actively promote the right behavior and deal with barriers such as fear, hierarchy, and knowledge as power. Senior management plays an important role by setting examples and endorsing exemplar behavior.
  3. Reactive moderation: There are numerous standard tasks that need to be performed. Examples are: making sure people have a complete profile, contacting inactive members, managing login issues, dealing with unwanted behavior, etc.
  4. Proactive moderation: This role is what we often refer to as ‘the magic’. You need to constantly scan the community for activity that, often with some orchestration, can help you realize your strategic vision. This role requires to ‘see through’ a standard question or idea and envisage its potential. Then try and identify and connect participants that can contribute. If the activity has significant potential, we often co-opt a senior manager to publicly endorse the initiative.
  5. Relationships and stakeholder management: This role lies within the client organization. There needs to be a very well networked person to make the connections with relevant people within the organization or with senior management to find people to further activate initiatives selected through the proactive moderation.
  6. Role models: You need commitment from senior management to behave as a role model. They should endorse behavior that is in line with the vision of the community, activate people to take ideas they post a step further, and ask the community questions or challenge them from time to time.
  7. Content management: Communities are enriched by content. Interviews need to be sourced with members, senior management, industry experts or other interesting and engaging people. Content needs to be well planned and prepared in advance so it can be deployed at appropriate times, such as during lulls in platform activity.
  8. Technical management: A plan needs to be in place to role out functionality related to the maturity of the community. Technical management works closely with the other community management roles to create a road-map of functionality. A close coordination with the scenarios is needed to match the functionality to the scenarios being played.
  9. Project management: Moderating and activating a community typically requires performing a great number of tasks. These tasks are either dynamic or routine. Dynamic tasks are responses to what is happening in the community and routine tasks cover things such as contacting all people that have not completed their profile. Rigorous project management is a must to make sure all tasks are covered and completed. We have developed software tailored to managing communities and these tasks in particular.
  10. Champions management: Your community will have members that are more active and set the right example. It is important to build relationships with such users over time and involve them in activating the community. The most important role these champions have, is being an antenna for ideas, problems, or solutions that are worth sharing. They then convince people to take their ideas, problems, or solutions to the community.

If you are interested in how this ties into our methodology and vision, you may also want to check out these earlier posts:

  1. Successful implementation of communities part 1
  2. Successful implementation of communities part 2
  3. Successful implementation of communities part 3
  4. Community management in innovative projects
  5. Start hiring guy #3
  6. Stop pitching social media to management
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Successful implementation of communities 3

November 23, 2009 by Jaap Linssen | 1 Comment

In two previous posts I described exercises that will improve the chances of success for your community. During the first exercise you describe in great detail what activities people will engage in and think about barriers the way it adds value to them. In the second exercise you check for what activities the community software tools actually lower barriers to collaboration.

Barriers

During the third exercise you check the activities against 8 barriers that can hinder the community performing these activities. If the activities or the people involved in these activities are hindered by any of the barriers described below, it is best to find other activities that are less hindered. There are ways to deal with these barriers, but I will discuss these in a later post.

Freedom and time

In many cases engaging in online collaboration or knowledge sharing does not tie directly to peoples day to day work. This becomes more the case as the work people do is more standardized. The moment someone helps solve a colleagues problem in another part of the business, this will take up time without direct benefits to the helpers business. Of course on a larger scale this does add value to the company as a whole. However, we see many cases where management does not want to allow people time to engage in such activities because the results do not add directly to their bottom line. If people aren’t given enough freedom and time to engage you will be dependent on those that will engage in their own time. Ask yourself if that group is large enough to make your community vibrant.

Transparency

The use of enterprise 2.0 technology within your company will increase transparency in your organization. It will be more transparent who is competent in certain areas and who contributes. It will also be more transparent how decisions are made. There are many people within organizations that believe transparency will not benefit them. The resistance stems from the fact that people think they will be held accountable for certain actions or colleagues will think less of their competences than before. Because this barrier is so personal and threatening to people, you can expect them to put up a big fight against transparency.

Knowledge is power

There are people that hold their position because they have valuable knowledge. These people are often afraid to share because they believe it will make them obsolete. This barrier is also a fear barrier and hence very powerful.

Fear of stupidity or fear of being ignored

There is nothing worse than looking stupid or being ignored where everyone can see. This barrier has most impact in the initial stages of a community. If a community is not very vibrant yet, the barrier to engage with the community is larger than in situations with a lot of vibrancy. Have a close look at the people that are to engage in the activity to make sure the percentage of fearful people is not too large.

Negative marking of people

In many communities there is a small group of very active people. Especially in the early phases of a community you need to manage their activities a little bit. In the early stages the community often still has to prove its usefulness to the company. Skeptics and threatened people will be looking for ways to damage the initiative. An easy way to do so is to target enthusiastic people. In almost all communities I’ve seen, very active people are marked as “having nothing better to do.” Be prepared for this and subtly protect these people from themselves and the skeptics.

Confidentiality

The fact that confidential information could leak easier when using a community with so many people involved, is a valid concern but also an important weapon of the more skeptical people. It is the most heard reason for people not to engage.

Competition

Map out other community initiatives within the company and analyze if your community, when successful, will threaten them. Also talk to IT to establish if the platform you are likely to chose does not conflict with their plans. If so, plan to deal with it. There is nothing more deadly for a community than a change in technical platform for any reason other than an improvement for the community.

Management participation

As with everything you want to achieve within an enterprise, if management does not endorse the initiative, forget it.

If you are starting a community it is best to start the community with activities least hindered by the barriers described above. As the community becomes more vibrant and gains more trust you can start initiatives that have more barriers to overcome.

Of course there are strategies to deal with the barriers described here. I’ll write about these in the near future.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Stop pitching Social Media to management

November 18, 2009 by Jaap Linssen | 2 Comments

not-social-media-150x150Social media are HOT! However, the term does not catch on with management. Some say it’s because management is not modern enough. Maybe that is true. However, I recently heard a manager say: “Social? I’m running a business here. Let them socialize at home.” It’s a very understandable reaction. The question is if managers react to the results of well implemented 2.0 technology or to the fact that the word social insinuates that people engage in non work related activities. I believe it has a lot to do with the latter. So let’s stop calling it ‘social’ and tell them what’s in it for them.

We like the term ‘Connected Business’ as it better describes what this technology does. It is set of tools to break down silos in large enterprises and have their employees connect to one another. Employees that are connected to one another have access to each other’s knowledge, skills, and experience. This connectedness then leads to more problems being solved in less time and more innovative ideas being tested and enriched in less time. On the back off these advantages enterprises can save  money because there is less need to purchase knowledge through consultants and commissioned research.

So you become more operationally excellent because of the improved problem solving, you become more competitive because you become more innovative, and you get all this at lower costs. Yes, it’s as simple as that.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Successful implementation of communities 2

November 16, 2009 by Jaap Linssen | 2 Comments

communityThis post describes one of three key exercises you need to perform to improve your chances of having a vibrant (enterprise) community.

The key value gain for enterprises that engage with social platforms is that employees are enabled to solve more problems, improve their practice and test or enrich new ideas.  All without raising the costs of doing so.

The knowledge and experience of thousands of colleagues can be easily accessed through a social platform. If you have an idea or a problem you can search the community for shared knowledge or discussions on that topic or find experienced colleagues by searching profiles or discussions they participated in.

Many enlightened enterprises have recognized these benefits, however most struggle to create and maintain vibrant communities on social platforms.

I recently wrote a post on the importance of addressing the “what’s in it for me?” question for potential users of an online community. If potential participants do not clearly see what they can get out of participation, they will not engage. We regularly run workshops with participants to identify how collaboration would add value for them, with who they would collaborate, and on what subject collaboration and sharing would add value.

If you have answered the “What’s in it for me?” question. There is another factor that has great influence on the potential success of an internal enterprise community. It  is related to the fact that enterprise 2.0 technology, or social media, help overcome a number of important barriers.

Firstly, space and time. If you have people in several different locations it is difficult and costly to bring everyone together to collaborate. It also makes it difficult for employees on different continents to know what their colleagues are up to. By having rich personal profiles, listing your projects, and having technology for online collaboration, you can lower the barrier of space and time significantly.

A second barrier has to do with the fact that, without tools, people are only capable of effectively networking with about 150 people. This phenomenon is often referred to as Dunbars’ threshold. Online networked communities can help overcome Dunbars’ threshold by what is called ‘loose ties’. An on-line community with loose ties and search capability can let you access a multitude of other peoples skills and experience, beyond the scope of your physical network of 150.

Imagine you have a problem or an idea; you can enter a community and do a very focussed search on profiles within the community, quickly identifying relevant people to talk to. You can also ask the community an open question and the people with the relevant knowledge will reply. Finally, and Linked-In is a good example of this, you can have loose connections with a large number of people. The platform then updates you periodically of all the activities of the people in your network.

For the third barrier we go back to Dunbars’ threshold. It is the reason why small companies are able to have successful collaboration and large enterprises struggle. W.L. Gore is an example of a company that is very collaborative and innovative. To maintain this level of collaboration they cut up any business unit that grows over 150 people.

The traditional answer of most governments and enterprises to this issue has been hierarchies. With hierarchies Dunbars’ problem can also be solved. When it comes to collaboration and innovation hierarchies also have a number of significant downsides. The main reason hierarchies hold back collaboration is that communication needs to travel great distances, up and down the ranks, to reach it’s destination. Add to that the fact that there is a lot of internal competition, power play,  politics and there is a big barrier to surmount if collaboration (and innovation) is to occur. Communities can help get around this barrier because the participants interact directly without having to work through the hierarchies. We call this the democracy of participation.

When companies plan to start a community, the barriers are often overlooked. Having defined the “What’s in it for me?” question and created a list of things people will do together on the platform, you need to test all of them to see if they actually lower one or more barriers. The more barriers are lowered, the better your chance of creating a vibrant community.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Successful implementation of communities 1

October 20, 2009 by Jaap Linssen | 3 Comments

Communities, by definition, need to be valuable to all its participants. Enterprises in many cases only deal with the ‘What’s in it for me’ question from their own perspective. They often fail to truly address this question from the participants perspective.

If it isn’t clear to an employee how he or she will benefit from collaborating with others on an internal community, most will simply not engage. Add to that the fear of asking a ‘stupid question’, not giving the ‘right answer’, or being ignored when asking a question and internal communities often quickly grind to a halt.

We use a simple slogan when we help enterprises set up communities: ‘People Doing Things Together.’ When setting up a community, you need to go into a great level of detail defining this and make sure they valuable. The definitions can be generalizations or actual examples. The more focused, the easier it will be to show potential users ‘what’s in it for them’ and get them engaged.

People Doing Things Together

Some examples:

  • Product managers ask for available market research for a new concept they have.
  • Marketeers test a new proposition amongst peers.
  • R&D tests the market potential of a new application with marketing and sales colleagues all over the world.
  • Controllers share and discuss their annual budgeting spreadsheets to get best practices for next years budgeting rounds.
  • HR searches the community for a person suitable for a certain role based on expertise and experience shown in peoples’ community activities.
  • A product manager wants to make a manufacturing investment but his market will not give him sufficient revenue to justify the investment. He asks product managers in other markets for their potential revenue. Their combined markets may justify the investment.
  • An insurance product manager in Belgium asks his colleagues in The Netherlands if they have implemented a specific coverage in their insurance, and if they have how it was done and what the result was.
  • Before testing his new campaign in an expensive survey, a marketeer tests the campaign, at no costs, in his own organization.
Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Start hiring and training Guy #3s

October 16, 2009 by Jaap Linssen | 1 Comment

I was writing an article on bottom up innovation and I decided to discuss the definition of bottom up innovation in a social media group on LinkedIn. One of the participants came back with a tip to take a look at a blog post of Seth Godin about guy #3. Seth’s blog post gave me an interesting insight I would like to share with you.

The post is about a film someone sent him.

Seth writes: “My favorite part happens just before the first minute mark. That’s when guy #3 joins the group. Before him, it was just a crazy dancing guy and then maybe one other crazy guy. But it’s guy #3 who made it a movement. Initiators are rare indeed, but it’s scary to be the leader. Guy #3 is rare too, but it’s a lot less scary and just as important. Guy #49 is irrelevant. No bravery points for being part of the mob. We need more guy #3s.”

One of the key strenghts our company has, is that we can get bottom up innovation and internal corporate communities to work. It has always been a bit of a struggle to describe precisely what we do. We have always called what we do ‘supplying perceived critical mass.’ Perceived critical mass is needed when a (innovation) community is not large enough to look vibrant and without intervention would look dull and die. Until the community gains enough critical mass to be vibrant itself, a supporting team generates all sorts activity to stir things up. Some people find this description too abstract though. Reading Seth’s blog made me see a big void in innovation management and how we create value for our clients.

When most companies set-up innovation an important aspect of that is looking for entrepreneurs (guy #1). Not much attention is given to make sure that when guy #1 starts dancing there are people standing by to join in. Many companies have hiring policies and training to make people behave more entrepreneurial. I have never seen a company hire or train with the aim for people to be the initial supporters of intrapreneurs. When asked many companies will agree there is a big gap between the entrepreneurs running ahead and the the rest of the organization. You can have all the entrepreneurs, processes and tools you like, if you do not fill the gap, you’ll be completely dependent on the chance of a guy #3 jumping in. We fill this void by giving hands on support to entrepreneurs, activating employees to help out entrepreneurs, or coach entrepreneurs to find guy #3′s.

Wouldn’t it be great if we would structurally fill the gap. There are large groups of employees that would qualify for the role of guy #3. Traditional staff functions are generally very knowledgeable however, in many companies they take on the role of firing squad, telling the intrapreneur why his or her idea will not work. If these employees could be trained as Guy #3s this would be very beneficial. So the value for companies is not in training controllers to think like entrepreneurs. The trick is to train controllers to dance with entrepreneurial people.

In internal communities a similar problem exists. Usually community managers fully focus on finding people that will post content and stop there. If people are actually asking colleagues for input or help, unanswered questions are a detrimental warning: “Don’t ask your question here because you’ll be ignored by your colleagues and look stupid.”Also questions without initial response often remain without response. In the communities we support, we find guy #1s but also find guys #2 and 3 to respond quickly to guy #1. After guy #3, the community will take over.

Tagged , , , ,

Communities an alternative for CRM?

February 18, 2009 by Jaap Linssen | No Comments

We see a lot of corporates showing interest in communities these days. Many focus on building their own communities or playing a role in large generalistic communities like Youtube, Facebook, or Dutch case Hyves.

Successfully starting and maintaining a consumer community is difficult and takes a long time to do so. I would estimate chances of success around 1%-2%.

Using large generalistic communities for your communication in a way is quite similar to the traditional mass marketing. Even though companies are utilizing new methods, like virals, the audience is quite broad and communication remains expensive, just like in the days of push marketing on radio, TV, and print.

Why is so much budget flowing to projects with such low chances of success? I would like to share another perspective to working with communities.

I remember the late 90′s where CRM and data mining were big buzz words. And with some companies they still are. The point is to analyse data to find homogeneous groups to better fine-tune our proposition and communication. The interesting thing is that specialised communities are such homogeneous and focused groups.

The Harley Davidson Community in the picture below is a great example. This group consists of people that cherish their machine, the ‘Harley life’, and other Harley people. I think that a lot of marketeers could easily decide if this group is interesting to them, and if yes, make them a good proposition with a relatively limited investment.

Therefore, with specialised communities your CRM or data mining has been done for you and you can skip right to making the community a crisp proposition that suits them. To my mind this is low hanging fruit that can be harvested with small investments and quick returns. I have yet to speak to a marketeer from a large corporation who has realised this and acted upon it.

Tagged , , ,

Incentives to activate community members

November 25, 2008 by Jurjan Huisman | No Comments

Community managers give different incentives and rewards to stimulate members in an online innovation community. According to a blogpost on Fastwonderblog.com it is wise to stay away from monetary rewards and be creative in finding ways to reward participants. I absolutely agree with the reasoning behind this statement.

Activate community members
Community members can be stimulated to contribute more in the community by for example awarding points, higher status, an extra nice profile, mentioning in a newsletter or another type of promotion within the community. Some communities even give monetary rewards. However, in a short post on Feverbee.com it is suggested to send a fruit basket to an active participant instead of giving a monetary reward. The bottom line in that blogpost is that when you reward active participation with money it simply becomes work. Next time, people will evaluate whether it is worth their time to be active in the community. Whereas a surprise gift brings out the best in people. Of course, this gift does not need to be a fruit basket. It can be another type of gift, for example a free ticket to an off-line event. Just be more creative than simply giving a monetary reward.

At the innovation community from one of our clients it is very clear that a ‘surprise gift’ stimulates further participation. For example, an intangible gift like a personal thank you message from a senior manager on active member participation is one of the most effective ways to stimulate further participation. So be creative with rewarding your active community members.

Tagged ,
Page 1 of 212