Confirm that E-mail was read.

[Robert Harrison]

Here is the senario.

1.) Supervisor sends out E-mail to 50 managers.
2.) Managers read E-mail
3.) Supervisor checks to make sure all managers have read E-mail and calls
those that have not.

I am doing #1 from Access and sending the E-mail through Outlook and keeping
track in Access as to who the E-mail was sent to.

Managers read the E-mail. They are all on the same network. How can the
managers confirm to the supervisor that they read the E-mail without the
supervisor having to go through 50 replies?

I thought about putting a link in the E-mail to an access form (on the
network) that would check off that they had read it. If I do that. how do I
include the person replying in the link? OR is there a completely different
and better way to accomplish this?

 

[Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]]

Are you using Exchange? If yes, then you can configure Outlook to send a
read-receipt when mail is read.

--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my personal
account will be deleted without reading.

After furious head scratching, Robert Harrison asked:

| Here is the senario.
|
| 1.) Supervisor sends out E-mail to 50 managers.
| 2.) Managers read E-mail
| 3.) Supervisor checks to make sure all managers have read E-mail and
| calls those that have not.
|
| I am doing #1 from Access and sending the E-mail through Outlook and
| keeping track in Access as to who the E-mail was sent to.
|
| Managers read the E-mail. They are all on the same network. How can
| the managers confirm to the supervisor that they read the E-mail
| without the supervisor having to go through 50 replies?
|
| I thought about putting a link in the E-mail to an access form (on the
| network) that would check off that they had read it. If I do that.
| how do I include the person replying in the link? OR is there a
| completely different and better way to accomplish this?

 

[Immanuel Sibero]

Robert,

Interesting scenario. There are customized, off the shelf, *workflow*
software that does this, although they are usually expensive.

Here's an quick idea (just off the top of my head, after reading your post).
I'm sure others will chime in. Since you're already integrating Outlook into
your Access application (i.e. storing a list of your managers' email
addresses, creating the email messages to them), maybe you could embed a
unique *code word* and *date* in the subject line of all the email going to
the managers. You could then write a procedure in Access to examine your
Outlook inbox and search the subject lines of all messages for this unique
code. You can then tell who has responded, who has not.


Immanuel Sibero

 

[Robert Harrison]

Thanks for your idea. The only problem with this idea is I really need to
have the manager DO something to confirm that the E-mail was actually read
by threm, not just displayed on the screen.


"Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"

 

[Ted]

I would have thought that the easiest way would be to get the supervisor to
email directly from Outlook, and to 'track' the email.

hth

 

[Robert Harrison]

Thanks, I'll look into that option.

Robert,

Interesting scenario. There are customized, off the shelf, *workflow*
software that does this, although they are usually expensive.

Here's an quick idea (just off the top of my head, after reading your post).
I'm sure others will chime in. Since you're already integrating Outlook into
your Access application (i.e. storing a list of your managers' email
addresses, creating the email messages to them), maybe you could embed a
unique *code word* and *date* in the subject line of all the email going to
the managers. You could then write a procedure in Access to examine your
Outlook inbox and search the subject lines of all messages for this unique
code. You can then tell who has responded, who has not.


Immanuel Sibero



do

 

[Guest]

Thanks for your idea. The only problem with this idea is I really
need to
have the manager DO something to confirm that the E-mail was actually
read
by threm, not just displayed on the screen.

So what is the difference between showing them an e-mail on their screen
and they "reading" that e-mail. They have their eyes open long enough
to open the e-mail but then close their eyes while trying to figure out
how to close that e-mail so they don't see it? Opening the e-mail marks
it as read. If the recipient is playing games, so what? They are still
responsible for their e-mails, especially if required by company policy.
These managers really have lifetime guaranteed positions where they
cannot be fired for failing to do their job?

Yeah, you could add voting buttons to the e-mail which would require the
recipient perform an action, but the recipient already did perform an
action: opening the e-mail! They could easily just click on a voting
button, too, and never bother to actually read what was displayed on
their screen when they opened the e-mail. If they are responsible for
reading their e-mails and acting upon them then make it so. You sound
like the mommy that repeatedly threatens the kids that she is going to
spank them but never does; i.e., a worthless threat. Time to get daddy
who actually does what he says; i.e., enforce the policy (but, at least,
HAVE a policy to enforce).

 

[Robert Harrison]

Don't assume too much. These managers are responsible for several
handicapped people, if they open an E-mail and one of the people goes into a
seizure, they very well may not read the E-mail and not get back to it for
several hours. If I assume that they read it at that time, it could cause
very serious problems. The current procedure is to actually call every
manager on the phone to make sure they get the message.

 

[Guest]

Don't assume too much. These managers are responsible for several
handicapped people, if they open an E-mail and one of the people goes
into a
seizure, they very well may not read the E-mail and not get back to it
for
several hours. If I assume that they read it at that time, it could
cause
very serious problems. The current procedure is to actually call
every
manager on the phone to make sure they get the message.

And clicking on a voting button won't work, either, because it is
possible they click on the button before reading the e-mail but they go
into a seizure before reading the message. Even if you use
HTML-formatted e-mails with a link or button control at the end with the
idea that they would have to read through the e-mail beforehand, they
could still just scroll to the bottom and click the link or button to
perform the acknowledge before reading the e-mail (but never get around
to actually reading the message), much like the vast majority of users
that check the box and click Continue when the EULA appears when
installing software. You cannot prevent a bomb from blowing up the
building right after someone opened an e-mail.

E-mail is not a guaranteed communications medium because it is not an
immediate or interactive *two-way* communications medium. If you are
using e-mail for critical scheduling, you're in for disappointment and
limitations. Also, it doesn't take being handicapped to get
interrupted, dealing with an emergency, or other reason that prevents a
recipient from reading an e-mail. I doubt you are sending out 50
e-mails and having 50 recipients all having seizures the moment they
open their e-mails; otherwise, stop using those seizure-inducing
graphics in your e-mails. Even with non-handicapped recipients, you
will still end up having to contact some of them that refuse or forget
to click the voting button or to otherwise reply. If that is too much
work, you're stuck using read receipts to let you know only that they
opened your e-mail.

 

[Wayne Morgan]

If you're using Exchange Server with Outlook, it may be easier to send this
to a Public Folder that has been set up for this. The folks in the Exchange
newsgroups could help you better with this. As far as sending the message
goes, this may actually simplify thing because you would send it to just one
address, the email address of the public folder.

 

[Robert Harrison]

Please, if you don't have anything constructive to add, let someone else
respond.

The managers are not the handi-capped ones, they are responsible for them.
At times the supervisor needs to contact these 50 managers and make sure
that they get the message within say 4 hours. The manager may not even be
at the location where he gets E-mail. He may be taking clients to the
doctor, hospital, etc, etc. On a normal day, the E-mail would reach about
40 of those managers with no problem and the READ function would work. The
other ten would then have to be called.

The SERIOUS problem comes if we assume that a manager has read an E-mail
that he has not. Of course if he responds that he has when he really didn't
read it, then he is gone. But blaming him when he opens an E-mail and can't
read it immediately, (which would happen quite often) is not fair to him and
not acceptable to the organization. So I have to have POSITIVE, ACTIVE
confirmation from each manager that the message was read, not a PASSIVE
action that tells me that the E-mail was opened.

My question was how to make this efficient. Making 50 calls is not
efficient. Checking for 50 individual replies is not efficient. I need to
send the message in bulk, (which I can do), but I need to be able to get a
quick report as to who has not READ the message, so that they can be called
within the appropriate time frame.

 

[Brian Tillman]

Don't assume too much. These managers are responsible for several
handicapped people, if they open an E-mail and one of the people goes
into a seizure, they very well may not read the E-mail and not get
back to it for several hours.

What you describe is the desire to know that the mesage was opened, read,
and understood. There's no way to automate that.

 

[Brian Tillman]

The SERIOUS problem comes if we assume that a manager has read an
E-mail that he has not. Of course if he responds that he has when he
really didn't read it, then he is gone. But blaming him when he
opens an E-mail and can't read it immediately, (which would happen
quite often) is not fair to him and not acceptable to the
organization. So I have to have POSITIVE, ACTIVE confirmation from
each manager that the message was read, not a PASSIVE action that
tells me that the E-mail was opened.

Then your company should publish a policy that says each person must RESPOND
to the message. You're describing a behavioral problem and expecting a
techniological solution.

 

[Bob H]

That's exactly what I am looking for, Brian. What can I set up so that the
manager can respond when he reads the message, AND the supervisor can pull
up some kind of report that would show who has not responded, so he can
contact them in a different manner.

 

[Guest]

Please, if you don't have anything constructive to add, let someone
else
respond.

You want magic. While software can be adaptive, it cannot overcome the
decisions and actions of humans using the software.

The SERIOUS problem comes if we assume that a manager has read an
E-mail
that he has not. Of course if he responds that he has when he really
didn't
read it, then he is gone. But blaming him when he opens an E-mail and
can't
read it immediately, (which would happen quite often) is not fair to
him and
not acceptable to the organization. So I have to have POSITIVE,
ACTIVE
confirmation from each manager that the message was read, not a
PASSIVE
action that tells me that the E-mail was opened.

So what's wrong with my other suggestion of making them use voting
buttons to report that they performed an additional action (of clicking
the voting button) after opening the e-mail? But, as said, nothing
prevents them from clicking on the voting button and then getting
interrupted and not reading the e-mail, but the e-mail will still be
there on their return. Of course, they could just click the voting
button and pretend they read your e-mail, and the same for any mechanism
that does what you've asked for. Nothing you can put into an e-mail
client or a message will force the user's eyeballs across the sentences
in your message and release the clamps holding them into their chair
until they read it all.

If you cannot get your managers to read their e-mails, click on voting
buttons, or send a required reply, you have a bigger behavioral problem
with your managers than just with them not reading their e-mails when
first opened or returning to them later should they have been
interrupted. We've had tornado alerts that forced us to scoot down to
the basement but that doesn't relinquish our responsibility upon
returning to our desks to handle e-mails that we might've already
opened. Interruptions are a normal work event, not an abnormality. You
are trying to make a behavioral change in your managers by throwing
software at the problem. These managers are adults, right?

 

[Gerhard Fiedler]

Thanks, I'll look into that option.

If you can sufficiently control the Outlook configurations, there are other
options. The "read" confirmation gets sent out when the message gets marked
as being read. In my configuration this happens when I go from that message
to another (not sure this can be changed). So the "read" confirmation
doesn't get sent out when I open the message, it gets sent out when I go to
another message, that is, when I "close" it. Which would avoid the
problematic scenarios you described earlier.

An additional safeguard could be (again if you can control the individual
Outlook configurations), that all Outlooks are configured to ask the user
whether to send out confirmation emails. Then you have, besides the
notification still being initiated when going from the message to another,
an active feedback.

Experiment with Tools | Options | Preferences | E-mail Options... |
Tracking Options... | Ask me before sending a response. Setting this and
then sending yourself messages that require receipts gives you an
information when the different receipts (delivery receipts and read
receipts) get processed.

At least the way it is set up here, it is not possible to accidentally open
an email and have a read receipt sent while I'm away from my computer,
without 1) going from that email to the next (which kind of assumes that I
have read it) and 2) giving my consent that the confirmation message should
get sent.

AFAIK, 1) is independent of the Outlook configuration options, kind of
hardcoded into Outlook, and 2) is dependent on the configuration item I
mentioned above.

Gerhard

 

[Brian Tillman]

That's exactly what I am looking for, Brian. What can I set up so
that the manager can respond when he reads the message, AND the
supervisor can pull up some kind of report that would show who has
not responded, so he can contact them in a different manner.

Nothing in Outlook. Outlook cannot address behavioral issues. You need a
published policy from management.

 

[Bob H]

Thanks for all the suggestions. None addressed the specific issue I asked
about, so we will continue to use our current procedures until we find some
better solution. Thanks again.

Bob

 

[Peter D]

Don't assume too much. These managers are responsible for several
handicapped people, if they open an E-mail and one of the people goes into a
seizure, they very well may not read the E-mail and not get back to it for
several hours.

Well, not assuming too much, how likely is it that a person will have a
siezure in the time between a manager opening an e-mail and completing the
task of reading it? Statistically speaking?

My suggestion? Create a "I've read it" button at then end of the e-mail and
tell them to use it. Call the ones that didn't.

 

[Bob H]

Thanks Peter,

That's what I want to do. But how do I compile a list of who did click the
"I've read it" button. That's my original question.