(testing site – not for public use – official site: www.nawg.co.uk)

Project: Communications Review

Contents
  • Overview
  • Email activity
  • Solutions
  • Do nothing
  • Push
  • Pull
  • Other
    •
  • Original report
    •

    Overview

    This project is a review of the systems and procedures we use for communication.

    The basis of the project is an original report, which will need to be reviewed and revised.

    Email Activity ↑

    I've been keeping track of all of our email activity, so that we can monitor how much traffic we're handling. The data will be updated from time to time.

    You'll see the problem we have with junk mail. Here are the averages since August 2016:

    Type Average Messages
    Per Month Per Day
    Mail 158 5.4
    Junk 241 8.3
    Total 399 13.7

    Solutions ↑

    The original report has highlighted some shortcomings with our current systems and methods. There are a number of ways we could deal with this, including:

    Here are some possible solutions to our communications needs, particularly email.

    Do Nothing Solution ↑

    In this scenario, we simply continue without making any big changes, either to the system or to the way we work with it.

    We would simply put up with its limitations.

    If this were the chosen route, then I would hope that such a decision were made as a result of consideration and discussion, rather than apathy.

    Push Solution ↑
    Operational Details

    For the push system to work, we'd need to change the way we work with email messages. Some examples are given in the notes below.

    Advantages
    Disadvantages

    Here are some potential drawbacks with the push solution.

    Issue Possible Remedies

    Too many messages?

    Because we'll all get all the messages, our email environment is likely to get very noisy and busy. Unless we're careful and have good procedures, things may get chaotic or even out of control.

    Legacy addresses will still be in use & documented.

    The plethora of email addresses that we currently have in use, are now known to many of the public. They are also documented in Link magazine and other communications, and on the website.

    This can be solved by having a transitional period to change things over. For example:

    • Keep the old addresses, but simply relay them all to "info", therefore all committee members. Phase them out eventually.
    • Change the documentation and the website over time, as new pages are put up and new editions of our publications are produced.
    Pull Solution ↑

    The push solution (see above) is so named because all messages are pushed to all staff. An alternative to this would be a pull solution, where staff regularly go to check the messages, rather than being bombarded by them.

    This would involve:

    Operational Details

    The pull solution would also require that we change our working habits when it comes to email messages, particularly since our personal mailboxes would no longer be part of the equation.

    Regular checking of the official mailbox would be needed, and by all staff. This is perhaps the most radical change to people's behaviour and therefore the solution's biggest weakness.

    As with the push solution, assignment of tasks and/or a taking ownership approach would be needed.

    Advantages
    Disadvantages
    Issues Possible Remedies
    Too easy for nothing to happen, should people not check the mailbox regularly. Perhaps a rota might work.
    Potential confusion about who's dealing with what. Some kind of information radiator to show who's taken ownership of what.
    Legacy email addresses would still be in use and documented. Same issue as with the push approach.
    Other Solutions ↑

    Please do come up with ideas and have them documented and discussed here.

    In some ways, email may not always be the best tool for the job. Perhaps other mechanisms might work better, especially when it comes to task assignment and management.

    Report on Email ↑

    Original report by Kevin Machin, 06-Dec-2017. Distributed as an email attachment.

    This report is a review of our email systems and how we use them. It lists some of the shortcomings, along with possible solutions where appropriate. Current advantages are also listed in some cases.

    Other systems, whether in use or potential additions, such as TeamViewer or Slack, are not discussed here as they are outside the scope of this report.

    Issues

    Here are some issues with the email system. Not everything about them is necessarily negative, so positive points are also listed where appropriate.

    Too Many Addresses?

    At the time of writing, 06-Dec-2017, there are 18 NAWG email addresses. The idea was to have one address per significant role among staff. That being the case, there are not enough addresses as it is. We now have more than 18 roles among the 8 committee members.

    As time has gone by and we've been using these multiple addresses, it has become less certain that this is the best way to operate.

    Here are some of the issues…

    Issue Description Possible Remedies
    Printed & electronic documents The more addresses we have, the more there is to present in things like Link magazine. This increases the risk of errors and means more overhead to maintain and edit these documents. Improved document management and procedures would help to alleviate this.
    Communicating the addresses

    Communicating, electronically or otherwise, multiple addresses to people can lead to confusion and mistakes, such as:

    • Typographical errors leading to non-delivery of messages.
    • Use of wrong address, so the wrong person receives, leading to delay and/or increased internal forwarding.
    One address per role Role names can change or disappear, making email addresses inappropriately named or even defunct. If there are not enough addresses, then inappropriate re-use can be necessary, e.g. Marvin's newsletter role being lumped under "comp-100".
    Confusion The more addresses there are, the easier it is for people to be confused about which one they should be using for a particular purpose. Especially if they are unfamiliar with the way NAWG operates.
    Handling individual availability

    A message sent to a role based address may reside in the target person's mailbox for an unacceptable length of time before reply. In some cases, the message may never even arrive. This can happen if:

    • The person is unavailable, e.g. holidays, illness, busy with work/life.
    • The person is unable to receive messages, due to technical faults with their equipment or Internet Service Provider (ISP). In the mean time, none of the other staff will be aware of this situation.
    Handling requests Others will never know to step in and help when a request is delayed or not received by the primary role. Not a solution, but an advantage is that a single person/role can handle a customer request without disturbing other staff members, freeing up their time.
    Management

    For every address, there is more administration work to do, including:

    • Mailbox and/or folder maintenance.
    • Account management, configuration settings, etc.
    • De-duplicating repeated messages (from lazy "reply-all" situations).
    • Archiving and backups.
    		 Some of these activities might be able to benefit from more automation.
    Dealing with spam

    Our mail server has separate anti-spam settings for every address. These must be individually configured.

    The more email addresses we have, the bigger attack surface we present to spammers.

    		The anti-spam measures may be able to be improved.

    The obvious solution to many of the above issues is to reduce/consolidate the number of email addresses. This is discussed later on.

    Use of Personal Addresses

    The use of personal addresses for NAWG business, in my opinion, has more drawbacks than benefits…

    Pros:

    • Consolidation. No need to check several places for messages.

    Cons:

    • Mixing business with personal messages can lead to disorganisation.
    • Sending messages exposes personal address, even if replying to one sent to a NAWG address.
    • For the above reason, message threads and possibly important information, can become detached from the official channels.
    • Staff and/or role changes are not handled well, if at all.
    Too Much Spam

    Although not all relayed personal accounts may be as badly affected, our servers receive a phenomenal (see numbers and chart below) amount of junk mail. Below are some possible reasons and remedies.

    Reason Remedy
    Multiple addresses provide a large attack surface to spammers. Reduce the number of addresses.
    It's too easy to harvest email addresses from our website. Take measures to deter automated "screen scrapers" from obtaining the addresses. This will not stop human spammers, but it might reduce the overall amount of junk.
    A lack of anti-spam measures on the contact form. Add anti-spam measures to our form(s). This may involve re-engineering some of the software.
    Poor anti-spam measures on our mail server. Note that this is assumed and needs verification. Run experiments to investigate this theory. Liaise with hosting company to see what can be done to reduce spam.

    Over the period August 2016 — November 2017, we received an average of:

    • 113 genuine messages per month,
    • 254 junk messages per month.

    i.e. Well over twice as much junk mail as genuine mail.

    For more a up-to-date figures, please see the email activity section.

    Recommendations

    The original recommendations made in this report were the ideas behind the push solution. This can be approximated and summarised as:

    • Cut the number of email addresses to just two: one public, one private.
    • Arrange for everyone to receive all messages.

    However, there are now more proposals on the table. Please have a look at the solutions section for more details.

    Author: Kevin Machin ♦ Created: 17-Aug-2018 ♦ Access: public ♦ Article: project-comms-review ♦ Topics: old WordPress site, projects