Group items tagged

This article explores how a world-wide furnishing store (IKEA) used their already existing culture to guide the production and implementation of their intranet to ensure the technology was the right fit for them. With a very strong focus on teamwork, community and collaboration already recognised in the IKEA business-model, IKEA were well aware that a strong corporate culture does not guarantee user-acceptance of information systems. "Rather than forcing its corporate culture to bend to accommodate a technology-based system, IKEA used its firmly established culture as the foundation for its IT solutions." (P. Chin, 2009) And something must have worked. In 2008, IKEA Inside (their intranet) was listed in the world's ten best intranets by well-known user-experience research firm Nielsen Norman Group. IKEA were mindful of not letting the technology they introduce ruin an already well-established human focussed corporate culture. They said their culture gave them the framework to introduce new things to the business - including information systems and technology. As Beth Gleba, Internal Information Manager for IKEA North America points out, "Before, during and after [intranet implementation], our culture is our culture." In my experience as an intranet manager, I definitely agree that a company's already existing culture will influence the final state of a technology. In organisations that don't focus on people or put staff at the front, there will often be a "disconnect between the technology-based systems and the people they're meant to support." (P. Chin, 2009) It is because the people who've made the technology haven't taken into consideration the end-user, or worse, just don't care - and where that happens that attitude is often supported by the already existing corporate culture. Reference Chin, P (2009) Inside IKEA's Human Intranet Approach Retrieved from http://www.intranetjournal.com/articles/200908/ij_08_21_0

Thank you for this article. I leaned something very interesting. "I do a little, you do a little, and together we do a lot" (Chin, 2009) This could well be the mantra for IKEA. As a company with a strong brand identity and customer-focus, here we see how important it is for IKEA staff to have the right tools and platforms to allow them to find the information they need, quickly and easily. At the same time Beth Gleba, Information Manager of IKEA North America, is aware that tools are only part of the story. It is people who make IKEA what it is. It is a place where children are free to jump on the beds, while their parents browse. Part of the success of IKEA is it's strong brand focus and supporting charities is one very important way corporations are building on their social capital by bringing attention to issues close to the hearts of customers and staff alike. In one of my shared articles Mangold & Faulds (2010) point out "organisations can leverage emotional connections by embracing one or more causes that are important to their customers." Such practices give staff and customers a sense of 'belonging". Here IKEA goes one step further by not only providing products and issues to discuss but also provides them with the tools they need to do it. One interesting point I noticed was IKEAs use of Social Media tools to create employee profiles. This aids in fostering group cohesion and allow staff to get to know one another and feel a part of the IKEA family, which for a large firm, can be very difficult to do. They also make very nice meatballs! Reference: Mangold & Faulds (2009, July-August). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix in Business Horizons. 52(4) 357-365

Subject: How online collaboration has affected the software development industry Reference 2 Opening minds: Cultural change with the introduction of open-source collaboration methods ABSTRACT As open-source software becomes accepted worldwide, open-source collaboration and development methods are also gaining greater momentum. Collaboration based on the open-source paradigm is increasingly being used to improve multisite development and teamwork inside companies. Drawing on experience in projects for improving multisite collaboration, this paper explains how we evaluate communication and collaboration problems, assess obstacles to change, and facilitate the change by introducing employees to the benefits of the collaborative model over traditional development projects in a workshop setting. This method has proven to be a valuable ''mind-opener'' and helps identify specific obstacles that need to be addressed as part of the introduction of open-source development and collaboration methods. The paper concludes with lessons learned for facilitating the introduction of these methods in an organization. (Neus, 2005) Full document available from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5386734 Bibliography Neus, A. (2005). Opening minds: cultural change with the introduction of open-source collaboration methods. IBM systems journal, 44(2), 215. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5386734

Review of article - Opening minds: cultural change with the introduction of open-source collaboration methods This article reviews a different part of collaboration in the software development environment than the other articles. It looks at how software development collaboration works in the open source environment or at least that part of open source environment where developers do not all use the same development tools to develop a project. It is a detailed and well researched article that has been peer reviewed and that looks at the theories behind open source development and why it is different from traditional collaborative software development. One of the main differences between this article and my others it than it focuses more on the cultural and social aspects of collaboration in developing software and tends to see collaboration as much looser and less controlled than in traditional software development. The article does not focus on particular tools for collaboration when writing application code but sees the collaboration as more of many individuals working independently and mainly collaborating on documenting what is going on using software such as a a wiki as a content management system. This is much less controlled than traditional collaborative software development and quality control in this case is done by maintaining a detailed version history using the wiki. Neus, A. (2005). Opening minds: cultural change with the introduction of open-source collaboration methods. IBM systems journal, 44(2), 215. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5386734

This article is important in the discussion of collaboration tools like wikis as it explores, the importance of having a collaborative culture within the organisation to ensure that communication and collaboration occur. This article relates to the other articles about wikis as the main purpose of the wiki is for communication and content sharing, easily and efficiently. If the organisation does not support open source collaboration then the wiki will not succeed in its purpose. This article by Neus & Scherf (2005, p. 216) explores the idea that the main limitations in the implementation of open source software is the people of the organisation and not the software. It is therefore imperative, that if open source software is implemented, then the organisation ensures that the people of the organisation are encouraged to communication and collaborate with the new software. This article is interesting as it highlights that simply implementing new collaborative software into an organisation does not simply mean that will be used at all. Organisations tend to forget that people have been performing tasks in a traditional manner so an organisation that originally used top down management cannot assume that the people of the organisation will not be suspicious of the new flat hierarchy in collaborative tools like wikis. This article illustrates this type of suspicion with the change in management styles by stating "it is not sufficient for management to stand up and proclaim that open collaboration is a good thing" (Neus & Scherf, 2005, p. 220) and people always want to know "what's in it for me" (Neus & Scherf, 2005, p. 220), illustrating that when implementing open source collaboration software like a wiki, organisations need to ensure that the culture is one that supports and encourages collaboration and communication. References Neus, A. (2005). Opening minds: cultural change with the introduction of open-source collaboration methods. IBM s

The goal of many intranets is to centrally store corporate information so that all staff can share information across divisions, access it and use it to make work-based decisions. This article argues that while there are many organisational benefits that occur from introducing collaborative tools to an intranet, if they are not managed properly they can create information silos, and therefore become tools that support anti-knowledge sharing. The article says the strengths of collaborative tools can also become their weakness. It starts with staff forgetting to publish outcomes or finalised documents produced in a 'locked down' collaborative space to the published area of the intranet. This then potentially causes hundreds of small collaboration spaces containing important and useful corporate information that hasn't been shared with the wider group. It is this fragmentation which makes it hard to find anything. The article argues, "This is the lesson we didn't learn from Lotus Notes and we are repeating it now." (J. Robertson, 2007) Even though some documents might be published to a broader audience, those who don't have access to the full collaborative space they were produced in may lack the context to understand what they are reading and how to use it. That is, the project plan might be a working document held in a permission only collaborative space, but the change management plan might be published. Both need to be read together to provide the user with richer context. "By 'locking up' the knowledge in these spaces, organisations make knowledge sharing harder, not easier." (J. Robertson, 2007) As an intranet manager and member of a professional intranet peer group, I have witnessed this happen in many organisations. These organisations are now spending lots of money and lots of time untangling their collaborative tools. In an unmanaged environment, not only do teams create information silos, but because of the nature of the collaborative too

The article described collaboration tools obstruct knowledge sharing if organisations do not manage tools well. I am interesting in this article as theme of the article is an alert for me. There is an association between collaboration tools and knowledge sharing. They work as train and rail. The knowledge needs collaboration tools such as Intranet, Internet or other systems share them to most of user. Trains need rails for running. Thus collaboration tools are rails and Knowledge is trains. They cannot work appropriately once they miss each other. However, railway requires particular planning before it builds up and maintenance after railway is running. The planning ensures railway is working efficiency and safety. Collaboration tools also require particular planning. Robertson (2007) mentioned in his articles, collaboration tools can be anti-sharing once tools are without management, planning and maintenance. Suarez (2006) argue in his blog that e-mail is not a powerful collaboration tools. I think what he argued is about how people using e-mail tools. E-mail is not a powerful collaboration tools because no one performs collaboration function well from e-mail. This is the same logic as collaboration tools. Collaboration tools can be an issue of knowledge sharing once on one control or manage tools. We should make sure collaboration tools are not only store all the knowledge only. Reference Robertson, J. (2007). Collaboration tools are anti knowledge sharing? Retrieved from http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/cmb_antiknowledgesharing/index.html Suarez, L. (2006). Email: The Good Enough Collaboration Tool - Is It Really? Retrieved from http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/elsua/email-the-good-enough-collaboration-tool-is-it-really-11473

This article emphasises some weaknesses of using collaboration tools in an organisation, such as unmanaged content misplaced in the system, a lack of organizational context for new staff, and irrelevance of search results for staff. This can link to one of my selected article - Sign of the times: manufacturing and e-business blend as a digital enterprise - which mentions another weakness that is the new solution may not integrate with the organisation's existing system and the existing organisational knowledge may fail to exploit. Long (2011) comments that both organizational teams and the nature of the collaboration tools can create information silos in an unmanaged environment. I agree that no collaboration tool is perfect but I also argue that such tools become a competitive necessity of most organizations because they provide powerful service to simplify business process and reduce cost. As Toole (2000) mentions, a trend for most enterprises is e-business which combines Internet and information technology to manage organizational information and process business geographically. I believe that with the continuous development of information technology, those collaboration tools can be improved and offer better services. Furthermore, organizations need to provide professional staff training on using those tools and make sure everyone follows the same procedure to process information in an effective way. Toole (2000) claims the bottom line of using collaboration tools is that they can deliver "better innovation and lower costs with higher quality products and services". Reference Toole, P. (2000). Sign of the times: manufacturing and e-business blend as a digital enterprise. Design Engineering, 46(8), 12. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?did=374775371&

In today's competitive business environment the difficulties linked to keeping up with new and innovative technologies are momentous. 'ERA Real Estate Launches Technology offering that Mirrors Its Culture of Collaboration' article proves just that by demonstrating how a real estate company is using online technology to communicate and collaborate. The article introduces us to the launch of a new intranet solution by ERA Real Estate. The intranet as stated by the article provides significant corporate social networking functionality that links agents, brokers and companies across America and around the globe to collaborate and share knowledge of the 30,000 members they have so far. One of the features on the intranet is the ability to connect with colleagues within the same environment or different locations. The organisation must have other mobile collaborating tools such as smart phones to track or update listings, managing leads and other tasks commonly associated with Real Estate organisations. The new online intranet provides this functionality as well. This article is among a number of great examples of industries communicating and collaborating online as the means to share knowledge. The new organisation social media website by ERA Real Estate will no doubt open the gate to more innovation and the sharing of knowledge. Reference: ERA Real Estate Launches Technology Offering that Mirrors Its Culture of Collaboration. (2011). 1. Retrieved from RISMedia website: http://rismedia.com/2011-04-13/era-real-estate-launches-technology-offering-that-mirrors-its-culture-of-collaboration/

This paper does a great job in critically analysing how Flash Mobs, a new socio-cultural phenomenon, are in fact final products born from a complex human collaboration and use of the technological revolution that is the Internet. It clearly explains their specificity as being totally socially mediated on, by and through online digital tools (blogs, social media, forums, instant messaging) that are used as collaborative spaces to virtually organise and create a real-life upcoming interaction between people (Nicholson, 2005). What's more, the paper brings some ideas about how the Internet can also be used to "hijack" and reverse the original essence of Flash Mob philosophy, thereby turning its main assets - instantaneity, virtual proximity, massive audience reach, networks, costless operation - into potential factors for bringing chaos, as when Philadelphia experienced a very violent wave of riots (Wagner & Buzi, 2010), or when a political protest flash mob was organised in Belarus in 2006 (Peterson, 2009). Garland demonstrates the importance of cooperation and participation between network users for Flash Mobs and cites Rheingold's thesis, with which I strongly agree, that states that they are "a type of social engagement that may be created and organised by interacting with the technology of shared networks or the technologies that allow the shared networks to interact [within an event program]" (2002). Yet, this reading highlights the differences between Flash Mobs and Smart Mobs even though both can be considered as the technology itself and the use of that technology (Rheingold, 2002). In the end, The History of Flash Mobs raises larger concepts from which this phenomenon grew out of, such as communication, social or cultural studies, thus emphasising the importance of Internet as a new way for human beings to interact and collaborate in real life. REFERENCES Buzi, J. & Wagner, A. (2010) Flash Mobs: A New Social Phenomenon Philadelphia N

REFERENCES (continue): Buzi, J. & Wagner, A. (2010) Flash Mobs: A New Social Phenomenon Philadelphia Neighbors. sct.temple.edu. Accessible from http://sct.temple.edu/blogs/murl/2010/03/30/flash-mobs-a-new-socialphenomenon/ (accessed on 11th April, 2011) Nicholson, J. A. (2005) 'Flash! Mobs in the Age of Mobile Connectivity' The Fibreculture Journal, Iss.6 December. Accessible from http://six.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-030-flash-mobs-in-the-age-of-mobile-connectivity/print/ (accessed on 11th April, 2011) Peterson, N. (2009) Flash Mobs - The New Political Dissent. Accessible from http://www.neilpeterson.com/index.php/2009/11/flash-mobs-the-new-political-dissent (accessed on 12th April, 2011) Rheingold, H. (2002) Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. New-York: Basic Books.

Kumar's work has a reasonable amount to offer in terms of a resource; his research gives more clues to the perceived effectiveness of Google Docs users have towards it as a collaborative tool. He has chosen to use the effective research method focus groups with semi-structured questions. Perhaps the useful part of investigating Google Docs as a collaborative tool is how he selected students at the university site who were in many disciplines. Thus he was able to elicit some good insights into why Google Docs is so praised as a collaborative educational tool. One finding was that students preferred Google Docs as a time saving tool where no formal meetings took place. Although the students were on campus, it was surprising that they felt they would rather use Google Docs then all meet to work on a project. The other finding was that the acceptance of this Web 2.0 collaborative technology was greater amongst students that had previous experience with Google Docs or other similar software. Another major advantage found by Kumar (2009) was that overall using such collaborative tools increased interest in the subject matter of their particular discipline. The concept that new technologies add value to existing practice was also interesting. Although Kumar was not clear on this concept, what students indicated this was the case, such a statement suggests that using Google Docs is linked to increased interest in a subject and in turn a desire to succeed. The weakness of this resource is Kumar is not clear of this link; however, as an article to show that Google Docs is of value equating collaboration tools with increased productivity shows how potentially valuable using them can be.

Yes Michael - I agree - things are constantly changing and evolving on the Internet and as you say if Kumar did the study again it would be a different outcome. Cheers, Kaye

This paper articulates through research and data analysis from although relatively small focus group the effectiveness of using new technologies 2.0 to enhance learning of students from different background in their respective disciplines. This is as same topic as one of my discussions with article Art Education, Collaboration and the Internet. It talks about internet technology integrates into contemporary education. New generation communicates and shares information differently in current technological society. Computer literate generation are different from earlier generations who rely mainly on books and printed materials. Collaborative online activity as an educational endeavor is involving people from different areas to work together.(Harris, 1999). Internet is also being used in region of high education that adopts Web2.0 to help students learning for their self-study and group projects and leverage strategies. (Kumar, n.d). Not only for undergraduate students, but also those students from high schools and colleges, all gained the benefits of new technologies across disciplines in order to achieving their teaching and learning purposes of education. For high education, I completely agree with that Google Documents is very popular among the students for collaborative projects or assignments, because I often use Google document for my topic research and reference as well. I also believe that the internet generation's familiarity with new media undoubtedly will make this way easier for teachers to craft effective learning experiences and to use such tools to engage students. Reference: Harris, J. (1999). First steps in telecollaboration. Learning and leading with technology. 27(3),54-57. Roland, A. (2003). Art Education, Collaboration and the Internet. Retrieved from http://www.artjunction.org/articles/arted_collab_internet.pdf Kumar, S. (n.d). Undergraduate Perceptions of the Usefulness of Web 2.0 in Higher Education: Survey Development. Re

Although I am not sure if a YouTube video link is alright for this assignment I felt it was a great source for the topic of online collaboration in student education and learning. Coomey envisioned an online global collaboration of journalism and broadcast students from different universities and in the year 2000 set out to accomplish this project in collaboration with other universities around the world. Many obstacles were in the way of success however, mostly technical, and highlight the evolution of online collaboration technologies. Computer access in 2000 was not as readily available as it is today in 2011, bandwidth was slow and internet connections were unreliable. Time differences between the students in their respective countries was also an issue as for this project, chat rooms were used as the main collaboration tool. Coomey ultimately says the collaboration effort was not really a collaboration as the students weren't able to work together due to these technical issues but rather they were only able to discuss their projects after the fact. Now in 2011 as most of the technological issues have been solved and also with the development of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. A new project called the Global City is now in it's maiden form and the website can be found here http://www.theglobalcity.org/. With the continuing evolution of online collaboration tools an the innovation of users we can see that many of the obstacles and boundaries once faced are slowly able to be dissolved, which opens up new opportunities and experiences to students around the globe. References: Coomey, M. (2010). The Virtual Newsroom: An International Online Collaboration between Broadcast Journalism Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPAtVVKwzPw

As a journalism major having spent the last two weeks working 9am to 6pm newsroom shifts to produce our newspaper's first edition for 2011, I find myself particularly drawn to this topic. Putting aside its unreliable air-conditioning and sticky keyboards, the short tempers of sleep-deprived students and the threat of vitamin D deficiency...working in the newsroom proved to be one of the most socially creative and genuinely rewarding environments I have experienced. And I can say with certainty- it wouldn't have been the same online. I am an enthusiastic advocate for the news media to embrace the online sphere and enable its consumer to "archive, annotate, appropriate and recirculate media content in powerful new ways" (Jenkins, 2004). The convergence of news online presents an exciting opportunity for audiences to interact with the news in "increasingly participatory" (Dueze, 2007) ways such as Facebook, Twitter and Youtube (Coomey, 2011). There are noticeable positives to an online newsroom: reporters can publish their work immediately and from anywhere, the capacity for international voices, and not having to rent office space or purchase on-site equipment. According to a 2005 survey into the roles of journalists in online newsrooms (Magee, 2005), organisations expect their journalists to multi-task- writing, producing multimedia, and publishing their work- an overload which may dilute the quality of the product. A traditional newsroom has its journalists physically and mentally there, and the atmosphere is intoxicating. It's noisy, you bump into people, and there's always someone microwaving Chinese food. You don't need to wait for someone to come online to reply, or get tripped up by faulty programs and Internet connection. It's a hive of imagination and collaboration. Someone will walk past and offer their suggestions on a better layout, people call out for a headline or editing suggestion, others showing photographers and

As Virag Molnar (2010) emphasises, researchers who have studied the Flash Mob phenomenon (and its derivatives like subway parties), have only focused on the role of digital communication technologies such as blogs, social networking websites or mobile phones, in the organisation and collaborative processes. Yet, in her paper, she remarkably examines how Flash Mobs, as new types of collective actions, provide insights into the "intersection and interaction between new communications media and changing uses of physical urban space" (2010). Using the example of Flash Mobs, she states that communication technologies (mobile phones and Internet in particular), have become powerful design tools used for encouraging new forms of sociability and collaboration, emphasising that they are at the very core of these new kinds of organisation models. Following Rheingold's concept of Smart Mobs (2002), Molnar draws the differences between Flash Mob actions happening in Western Europe or in the U.S, with contrasting Flash Mob events in Eastern Europe or Asia. She highlights that cultural factors will influence sociability as the essence of Flash Mobs and describes their instrumental use to express political, marketing or entertainment purposes. Nonetheless, it is clear from her explanations that whatever the aim of the Flash Mob is, the online collaboration step to make it happen remains as an essential aspect of offline mobilisation and acts as a springboard towards it (Picataggio, 2007). REFERENCES Picataggio, S. (2007). "Use of Social Media and the Internet", on Flash Mob: 101. Accessible from http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/fall07/Picataggio/index.html (accessed on April 12th, 2011) Rheingold, H. (2002) Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. New-York: Basic Books.

Topic : How internet technology has shaped collaboration within organisations. How social networking increases collaboration at IBM http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?did=1930082361&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=22212&RQT=309&VName=PQD This article is an extract taken from a 2009 Melcrum Research report. The article focuses on IBM and how a social networking application has increased collaboration for its 365,000 employees around the world through the use of an application called the BluePages which has been loosely modelled on MySpace and Facebook. The IBM BluePages are accessed six million times each day by staff and contain basic staff information which is pulled from IBM's HR records, and includes information about reporting lines and where people fit inside the organisation. Staff can update their photo, and add specific information about themselves through the use of tags (keywords). Tags connect staff to others who might be using the same tags, in addition colleagues can add tags to another individuals page which further builds a relevant database of expertise throughout the network. IBM's BluePages also take search to the next level, whereby if someone is searching on a tag (keyword) that has been used by an individual, all people that have that tag will also be returned in the search results. "This development opens up semantic contextual information to the wisdom of the crowd." [Ethan McCarty] IBM also has a collaborative application called ThinkPlace where anybody in the company can post an idea. If the idea has merit, others can comment on it until the idea has developed into something that requires action. Another use of ThinkPlace has more of a social conscience whereby one employee noticed

Like IBM, I manage the intranet for an organisation where a significant percentage of our workforce work from locations other than work. This Melcrum article concentrates largely on social tagging and social bookmarking. Ethan McCarty, editor in chief of IBM Intranet believes " 'tagging' will be one of the most significant things to have happened on the internet." I agree with much of what McCarty says. Our organisation is moving from a fairly one-way push of information on our intranet to a more collaborative and activity-based platform. I was interested to read about IBM's BluePages, which seems to be an extension of a normal phonebook but connects people with other people's knowledge through social tagging. We are about to launch a similar application on our intranet that also has a self-editing system. This is an important first step in getting our intranet to become a place of collaboration. Hopefully the launch of this tool will allow management to see staff can be trusted to use tools correctly and self-edit and that 'social' networking concepts used on the internet can be translated into valuable internal tools. Tagging through the contact directory is also a feature of social networking that our management and culture would be comfortable with as a first step. In a fairly risk-adverse culture, many senior managers believe the use of 'social networking' tools in the workplace would open up a Pandora's box of problems. This article however, demonstrates that collaborative and networking tools in the workplace obviously have a valuable role to play. I think the words 'social media' and 'social networking' scare a lot of managers off right from the start.

For IBM, the social networking site is not only works well internally. They also use SNS as a way to build relationship to consumer. I personally use IBM as an example of online collaboration. They use Tumblr as collaboration tools to create conversation between company and their audience and users. http://smartercities.tumblr.com/ I saw this Tumblelog as a corporate social responsibility project to give back to consumers. They are trying to engage consumer with the smart way of living (mainly by using IBM product). In this Tumblr, consumer can contribute by sending an email about their smart way of living. They also can like or reblog the post from IBM that indirectly lead them to viral marketing. Relate to your article, for a big company such as IBM social network may become the best way to communicate with all employees. They can get a fast information and suggestion about the company. But the criticism is, for example, if they join the company group in Facebook it means they need to be conscious with what they put online. Their private life also can be seen by the company. They can say bad things about company that will make them risk their job. Because I heard this kind of story where people get fired just because they forget they are friend with their boss in Facebook. This is only my criticism.

Two tools are discussed in this article, a 3D virtual world for teaching and learning called the AET Zone and ConnectYard, a collaborative tool that integrates different forms of online communication. Although AET Zone has some benefits and has been useful in the teaching programme at the Appalachian State University, it is the second tool that offers more opportunity for those needing to collaborate. As a collaborative tool used in an educational setting, ConnectYard provides as its basis for success a social constructivist viewpoint. Learners construct their knowledge through social and cultural settings (Kim, 2001). ConnectYard provides an online collaborative setting allowing students to learn together. One of the main attributes of the tool is that it is able to interact easily with existing social networking tools such as Facebook and Twitter, text messaging and even email. The advantage of this is that members do not have to get to know a new technical application - they can use whatever they are most comfortable with. Another feature of this tool is that students are able to contribute even if they do not have an Internet connection. Students can collaborate using mobile phones, allowing them to connect anywhere, anytime (ConnectYard, n.d.). The ConnectYard widget is embedded within a web page, interfacing with other networks (Howard & Wallace, 2010). Using ConnectYard gives collaborative members a choice about what tool they use at whatever time they want. As stated by Howard & Wallace (2010, last para.), "The use of social networking tools allows our students to engage in a level of collaboration that would be awkward, if not impossible, without a means to communicate effectively". ConnectYard is an effective, easy to use collaborative tool, which offers flexibility, privacy and builds community.

References: ConnectYard (n.d.) retrieved from http://www1.connectyard.com/ Howard, B & Wallace, P 2010. Social Networking Tools to Facilitate Cross-Program Collaboration. EDUCAUSE Quarterly (EQ) 33(4) retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/SocialNetworkingToolstoFacilit/219139 Kim, B. (2001). Social Constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

While web 2.0 technologies have been around for awhile now, many organisations are still in an experimental phase. There are all too often rare wins and rare examples of it being used correctly to fulfil a strong business need or solve a business problem. This article argues that organisational collaborative tools such as social intranets etc will not be embraced or used to their full potential if employees do not already communicate with each other - i.e. have a structure, management style or physical layout that supports them to communicate. As the article states, "The existence of collaborative tools does not automatically imply that people will collaborate or collaborate effectively." (A. Broomhall, 2009) This makes sense. In a working and professional environment, most staff are more guarded in their communication (depending on the culture of the organisation of course) and less reluctant to use collaborative tools like they might as strangers on the World Wide Web. If the fundamentals of communication are working well in an organisation and already exist (ie. people have met face to face, have already established communities, have trusted relationships where they share information) they are then more likely to collaborate online. There are several intranet features which can be used to strengthen these communication paths and employee relationships: - staff directory - news channels - social news sites. It is these types of technologies (available on most intranets) which can help encourage the development of communication networks, and in turn support the use of collaborative tools. Reference: Broomhall, A (2009) No collaboration without communications Retrieved from http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/cmb_nocollaboration/index.html

Thanks for providing this article, Kristy. I agree with Broomhall that just because collaboration tools have been put in place, it does not guarantee that these tools will be utilised or even used in the manner in which they were intended. However I also don't agree that "if people are not already communicating with each other, then there is little chance they will feel comfortable enough to share their knowledge online." (Broomhall, 2009.) I think that Net 308's Blackboard discussion forums, although not extremely lively, are an example of strangers communicating with each other and sharing knowledge. Successful forums and even groups on Flickr are comprised of those that have not met in real life nor communicated with each other prior to utilising the collaboration tool they are part of. Although I will agree that successful collaboration required the right collaboration tool and proper facilitation of such, the main factor in success or failure of online collaboration comes down to common purpose or interest. Without that fundamental element, at least at the beginning, I believe success to be far fetched and difficult to achieve. I agree that a staff directory would aid in the success of collaboration in the organisation Broomhall refers to in this article. I feel that an ice breaker activity as outlined by Augar, Raitman and Zhou (2004.) of sorts would also benefit. References: Broomhall, A (2009) No collaboration without communications Retrieved from http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/cmb_nocollaboration/index.html Augar, N., Raitman, R. & Zhou, W. (2004). Teaching and learning online with wikis. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 95-104). Perth, 5-8 December. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/augar.html

This is an interesting article that brings up some great points on the importance of communication regarding collaboration. I totally agree with the author, communication within an organisation is vital in order to collaborate effectively. The main problem companies experience when implementing online collaboration tools, is the objections many employees have when introduced to these new tools (Foster, 2009). Fear, uncertainty, resistance and concerns are some of the issues companies have to deal with as employees are asked to go from being a passive consumer of online information to becoming a creator of content by posting discussions, comments etc. that anyone can view. Foster (2009) suggests that businesses should spend more time thinking about the impact of these changes on their employees. In order to deal with the different issues employees may have, Foster suggests organisational change management. Like Broomhall, Foster (2009) highlights communication as the common element whether the change is coming from the top of the organization or from the bottom. The article is a useful resource for this project as it focuses on the importance of communication when organisations are implementing collaborative tools. Broomhall (2009) argues that employees need information about internal changes and external influences which may impact their daily work. As Broomhall points out, the existence of collaborative tools does not automatically imply that people will collaborate. References Broomhall, A. (2009). No Collaboration without Communications. Retrieved from http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/cmb_nocollaboration/index.html Foster, D. (2009). Collaboration Technology and Organisational Change. Retrieved from http://gigaom.com/collaboration/collaboration-technologies-and-organizational-change/

This is a comprehensive blog entry introduction to the potential of Google Docs as a collaborative tool for students. These potential uses are also valuable in work places or other group work. The value of this resource is the well-written way Wetzel articulates the advantages of Google Docs for collaborative practice. His argument is that such a system, aside from being free, is valuable to go beyond the e-mail sharing culture to a full real-time collaborative environment. Wetzel then proceeds to give examples of the potential for the application of Google Docs in education contexts and classrooms. To summarise, he argues three main points in using Google Docs for collaboration:  The ability for Google Docs to provide instant feedback to students on their work  To conserve expenses on school projects such as printing costs  Encouraging the working together of students on a projects in a systematic and orderly manner The tone of the article is clearly very much in favour of using Google Docs for collaborative practice in educational settings. However, though this may not be an issue in educational contexts, there are disadvantages using Google Docs that are not reported. Two bloggers highlight those weaknesses which may be of concern when trying to use more features in Google Docs that are not there but are part of the Microsoft Office Suite:  The speed of internet connection is vital; if it is slow the collaborator may not be able to keep up with others' postings (Bukisa, 2011)  Most of the time you cannot work offline with Google Docs, you must be online to create and update documents (Creative Marketing Solutions, n.d.) However, the article does put a compelling list of features that make Google Docs a good system to use for educational collaboration.

References Bukisa. (2011). Google Docs review. Retrieved April 13, 2011, from http://www.bukisa.com/articles/480255_google-docs-review Creative Marketing Solutions. (n.d.). How to use Google Docs. Retrieved April 13, 2011, from http://knolt.com/creative-marketing-solutions/2010/10/20/heading-2/ Wetzel, D. R. (2009). Google Docs are a free online educational tool: Web-based productivity software for teacher or student collaboration. Suite101.com. Retrieved April 2, 2011, from http://www.suite101.com/content/google-docs-are-a-free-online-educational-tool-a105900

The article, Google Docs are a Free Online Educational Tool Written by David R. Wetzel gives a comprehensive overview of the benefits of Google docs specifically in relation to education. The article outlines these positives a few of these include (but are not limited to) the ability to secure the websites content, making it a safe place to upload work, the ability to comment and give almost instant feedback, the ability to update students on deadlines, information, and helpful tools and also to keep course content. It seems that these positives are quite a universal thing as Keith McPherson (2007) explored all of these benefits in his article new online technologies for new literacy instruction. This reminds me of the use of wiki's in education, a tool that is explored by Elisha Petersen (2009) in which the tool is used to do the same. This brings me to question, which is better? Why use one over the other, if they achieve the exact same thing? Wetzel's article doesn't seem to give any suggestion that the tool has anything wrong with it. Something that, in technology, is hard to believe. Keith McPherson, However, outlines a few limitations of the program. He states "the conversion of graphics and tables from a Word document to a Google document is not reliable and Google Docs does not run on older browsers and Safari or Opera" (McPherson, 2007). Ryan Spoon a Principal at Polaris Venture Partners writes in his blog that he decided to use Wikidot (a wiki platform) instead of Google docs, he believes that although Google docs are great for specific documents they "don't scale over time well… more importantly the documents are treated distinctly and ultimately get as cluttered as your computer desktop" so although two tools (wiki and Google docs) can inevitably achieve the same thing, they still work in very different ways, and one has to evaluate the finer details. References Peterson, E.. (2009). Using a Wiki to Enhance Cooperative Learning in

In 2006, IBM was responsible for hosting possibly the largest online collaborative brainstorming session known as the IBM InnovationJam. The idea grew from earlier innovation jams held internally and hosted through their intranet. The first one held in 2003 focussed on the launch of new corporate values. The jams were driven by the IBM chairman "who personally participated by typing his thoughts into the jam forums and reading literally thousands of comments." (Transforming your intranet, 2008) This use of the tool and therefore public commitment from senior management to the jams would have undoubtedly helped with staff engagement and participation in the jam. Thousands of suggestions were received from staff covering IBM operations, workplace policies and how to improve relationships. Staff then voted for the best 35 ideas which were then implemented. (S. Musselwhite, 2007) The jamming sessions also sped up the implementation of ideas - partly because the consultation, staff buy-in and testing, and pre-socialisation have already been done. Interestingly, research showed IBM staff trusted the information on their intranet more than the information they got from their managers or even on the informal 'grapevine'. Similar to IKEA and their approach (see other article Inside IKEA's Human Intranet Approach), IBM used an already existing framework or business feature to help technology work. IBM capitalised on the trust in and use of intranet to host a 'jam' - a new medium IBMers created that went "beyond online communities, brainstorming sessions, or traditional suggestion systems." (A Global Innovation Jam, 2011) References: A Global Innovation Jam (2011) Retrieved from http://www.ibm.com/ibm100/us/en/icons/innovationjam/words/ Musselwhite, S (2007) Intranet Strategy and Management London: Ark Group Transforming your intranet (2008) Sydney: Melcrum Publishing

This article brings online collaboration to a new height. Without internet and intranet technology an event of this size spanning 104 countries would not have been possible. Imagine assembling 150,000 participants in a venue and being able to do something with all the information being passed back and forth. Not withstanding the cost to assemble an audience of this size, the level of moderation would slow the collaboration process down, thus reducing the effectiveness of the session. In contrast, the IBM Jam sessions are delivered via a web platform which allows for accountability through personalisation that self regulates what users will and will not post. It provides an audit trail and recognition of great ideas so even the most junior staff member can receive global recognition and kudos for an idea that might have otherwise been misrepresented. The Jams are an effective way of performing an organisation pulse check in a global setting in a very small amount of time as they move at such a rapid pace (Feder, 2001). Further they allow the employees to recognise and drive change from the bottom up instead of just top down as management recognises that you cannot force a "command and control" culture for a workforce. Reference Feder, B.J., (2001). I.B.M. Meets With 52,600, Virtually. Retrieved April 10, 2011 from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F06E4DD143CF93BA15756C0A9679C8B63&pagewanted=1

As we know that collaboration is one process of participation in a group project or between organizations. This article elaborates the factors of effective influences in developing collaboration process of organizations in order to achieving the desired results for organizations, such as the skills of leadership, communication, sustainability, participation etc. (Hogue, st al, 1995), and internal communication, external communication, membership, and goal setting. (Borden ,1997). The article also explored that the importance of networking collaboration in areas of organizations cooperation and collaborative relationship. I agree with that the building and developing the trust is the vital skill for leaders to nurture the collaborative relationship between organizations. Trust is the basic element for all kinds of collaborative projects. The purpose of the collaboration is what the leaders and stuff in the group seek to create, so ensuring a clear and understood goal for collaborative groups and organizations is also an important issue. In order to establishing a successful collaboration within organizations, trust, freedom with bring different perspectives to bear to solve problems and provide with positive change, and considering of culture and work environment and so on are supportive points to manage the organizations as a successful whole. So, for collaboration to be successful between organizations there must be clarity, direction and communication. Reference The Role of Collaboration in Organizations.(2010). Retrieved from http://collaboration-tools.org/business/the-role-of-collaboration-in-organizations/ Hogue, T. Perkins, D. Clark, R. Bergstrum, A. Slinski, M. & Associates. (1995). Collaboration framework: Addressing community capacity. Columbus, OH: National Network for Collaboration.

Highlighted throughout this wire piece is the principal idea that the collaboration of online political supporters of the Obama campaign did not happen randomly, rather as Benko (2008) notes there was a "clear vision" behind the strategies used to empower, encourage and promote this activism. While this article takes a more statistical approach the vast success that the campaign had in translating online collaboration into an offline political movement is demonstrated as over 150,000 campaign related events were organized through online communities, and in the last week of the campaign online volunteers were asked to make over a million phone calls encouraging others to vote. A key strength of this source is the lack of political ideology or motive present. As a news piece it offers factual and well supported observations and comparisons as to how this online collaboration evolved. This is documented when noting the crucial role that this organized campaign played in generating financial muscle for the candidate, Obama himself noting "that it was the working men and women" who helped to obtain over $600 million most of which was donated online. The Obama campaign employed the right people in Rospars, Hughes an Goldstein (2009) to exploit the potential Youth, grassroots and hard - to-reach voters with an online political strategy they helped to not only involve them in this revolutionary online collaboration but to also give them a feeling of political empowerment. This reliable source is therefore key in documenting how the Obama campaign skillfully executed an online strategy to maximize group collaboration. Offering not only a balanced and factual observation as to how the internet empowered and mobilized the ordinary citizen thus revolutionizing the political scene of the western world, but also crucially that with this campaign there was a clear bridge that activism online can result in political involvement and ultimately change offline. Refer

It is important to remember that, although Obama cleverly attached the Internet to his campaign, a combination of factors contributed to his 52 per cent (Stirland, 2008) majority: A compelling and humanising personal narrative, stellar oratory skills, and that "the moment was perfect for his message of 'change'" (Norquay, 2007). Obama's candidacy was a consciously planned and executed national movement that "lent itself to mass mobilisation among that very portion of the population that is the most new media friendly and tech-savvy, the younger demographic" (Norquay, 2007). The youth not only engaged in the web pages and online action groups produced by the Obama campaign, they took it upon themselves to create their own media content; such as the 'Yes We Can' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY, 2008) celebrity-driven music video which reached Youtube notoriety, or the portrait graphic a supporter produced later going on to be assimilated into the official promotion. This content-creation parallels my topic on Middle East revolutions, through activist's construction of uniform slogans, signs and imagery (McHugh, 2011). This article concludes with the prediction that Obama's "rise to the presidency will be studied for years to come as the textbook example of a new kind of electioneering driven by people and technology" (Stirland, 2008), and- to a less successful extent- this was realised in the Kevin07 campaign, in which "Kevin Rudd launched his campaign to online publicity buzz- turning to blogging, Youtube and Facebook" (Best, 2007). The Obama Campaign speaks volumes on trends towards the democratic possibilities of technology; but dystopian thought suggests that "people go online to find out more about a subject, not to be politically transformed" (Lievrouw & Livingstone, 2002). Even though a 2000 ULCA study (Kahn & Keller, 2004) showed only 29.7% of users felt the internet led to people having greater pow

Howard Rheingold is one, if not the most, interesting writer and theorist about collaboration and the use of new participatory media literacy in the framework of Flash Mobs. Cited in almost all the papers, studies and blog posts I have read, he certainly represents a respected thinker and is a reliable author of a number of books on this topic, including Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution (2002) and The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier (2000), which establish and explain the relationship between social, cultural and new digital communication mediums. In this video in particular, Rheingold talks about the relationships between communication, Medias (as communication mediums) and collective actions. He argues that our communication means, the way we use them, how they are developed and the ways in which we organise socially have been co-evolving since the beginning of human interaction (2005). He also states that this mutual evolution has conveyed new social interactions, and one perfect example to illustrate this theory is certainly the Flash Mob phenomenon. It is just a new way to interact, made possible by online collaboration of humans expressing their natural need to socialise. This reference in my bookmark list represents a valuable piece of information as it describes the historic bond between communication, collaboration and our social development. Indeed, Rheingold emphasises the fact that collaboration, as a vital question of survival, has naturally emerged between humans. REFERENCES Rheingold, H. (2000). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. MIT Press. And (2002) Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. New-York: Basic Books. And (2005) Howard Rheingold on Collaboration [video streaming], accessible from http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html (accessed on 10th April, 2011)