Group items tagged

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

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

This study by Blau and Caspi is valuable for seeing how using Google Docs in a sharing and collaborating environment has on perceived student learning. The credibility of this study is enhanced by a wide survey of 118 students at an Open University in Israel. Ownership meant the degree to which the student using Google Docs felt responsible to work on and update project documents. This quantitative study also sought to measure the perceived learning and quality of project outcomes students felt were a result of using Google Docs. The implications from the study suggested the importance of owning the document, but also to make sure others knew of changes to the document. A document creator felt they lost ownership of the document when editing was done on it. They became the reader of the document. Such a change in hierarchy shows the importance of communicating changes done on Google Docs to every team member. A second implication was that the value of the document seemed to increase when more revisions was done. This suggested that more work on the document resulted in a more credible and trustworthy document as the project document was improved towards its final presentation. In fact most survey respondents seemed to not think the document got worse as more things were added to it. Overall, there was a correlation between document quality and revision, with Google Docs being perceived as quite effective in producing trustworthy documents which add to the learning process. The researchers' main advice from the study is that revising documents and suggesting improvements is far more effective than editing another's documents. Whilst this is not always possible it does suggest the importance of communication in the collaboration process. Google Docs is not a passive collaboration media; therefore, care in making sure all team members communicate changes is vital to a much better collaboration process.

References Blau, I., & Caspi, A. (2009). What type of collaboration helps? Psychological ownership, perceived learning and outcome quality of collaboration using Google Docs. Proceedings of the Chais conference on instructional technologies research 2009: Learning in the technological era. Y. Eshet-Alkalai, A. Caspi, S. Eden, N. Geri, Y. Yair (Eds.), Raanana: The Open University of Israel. Retrieved April 2, 2011, from http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:bBVQbNfm4-MJ:scholar.google.com/+google+docs&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

This article takes a case study approach using qualitative and quantitative survey questions to measure the difference between pre and post uses of Google Docs. The research problem was based on the observation that Web 2.0 collaborative technologies were initially causing hesitation. However, upon consistent use in the context of an online course, students changed their minds about the usefulness of Google Docs. Both researchers intended to measure undergraduate levels of self-efficacy and undergraduates perceptions of using these collaborative technologies. The study had 18 respondents to the survey. Although the researchers acknowledged Google Docs limitations in the robustness of the software, they argued that this would make no difference to the perceptions of the undergraduates using it. The results of the study are somewhat unremarkable and predicable, yet support the idea that Google Docs is very useful for collaborative student work. There were major differences pre and post use of Google Docs that were significant. A majority of students felt their level of self-efficacy, that is confidence to use the software, was much higher after undertaking the course. The second hypothesis also showed the majority had positive perceptions of using Google Docs both in the course but significantly in future studies and workplaces. Although the researchers reported mostly positive results about the use of Google Docs, one issue clouded the results. Not being able to access the documents when offline is perceived as a major impediment in the collaborative process. Overall this study may seem somewhat bland and predictable; however, it supports much positive and negative criticism of Google Docs in the ability to foster and impede the learning of the students using it.

Reference Edwards, J.T., & Baker, C. (2010). A case study: Google collaboration applications as online course teaching tools. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4), Retrieved April 3, 2011, from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no4/edwards_1210.htm

OVERVIEW Because of the ability to share and interact online, collaboration tools are being considered as tools that can help children with learning. Keith McPherson believes that students should be kept up-to-date on recent technologies as they help educators expand their notion of literacy to embrace evolving communication that moves beyond (but still includes) just reading and writing. He also suggests that "educators assist their students to develop critical literacy capabilities across a wide set of real-life communication contexts and technologies." The article then goes on to describe 5 different online literacy tools that can be used to aid student participation and collaboration and therefore help in their learning. The 5 tools he talks about are, Gliffy, Google Docs, Newsmap, OpenOffice and Delicious. Each analysis gives the reader a brief outline of each tool and the advantages and disadvantages of each. While exploring the strengths and weaknesses, there were many contributing factors that were evident in Gliffy, Google Docs and OpenOffice, all three of them incorporate document type editing tools which make them easy to use. Also, all three of them allow various formats to be exported and imported onto the websites database. Of course all 5 incorporate the main theme of sharing (so this is where delicious and NewsMap fit into the mix) However NewsMap is the more interesting analysis that Keith McPherson includes in his article. This site is very different to the other four, yet he has found a way to include it as one of the key tools for students. This site uses Google Maps, and, as McPherson states "allows users to quickly locate international, national, regional, or local news." He believes it helps literacy skills because it aids middle/high school students with learning about mapping, directions, news and critical thinking. This is perhaps a site that may not have instantly been associated with learning in schools but interstingly has been

This is an interesting article highlighting the tools that can help assist students with their literacy. I find this subject extremely interesting as I have studied via distance education and I know from experience how tools such as Google Docs can be greatly beneficial in facilitating a group project. Another way students can be assisted in learning is through the use of videoconferencing. Videoconferences can assist students that are restricted due to physical disabilities or geographical limitations. By using videoconferencing software such as Skype in the classroom, students can be exposed to a number of different teaching methods or styles and other students. One of the great benefits with videoconferencing is providing students with motivation (Masum, Brooks and Spence, 2005). Instead of students feeling isolated with their learning they can use videoconferencing to discuss and share ideas with other teachers and students on a worldwide basis. By incorporating tools such as Google Docs, Delicious and video conferencing software, teachers can provide a more interesting way of teaching students. Google Docs could be used to facilitate the collection of ideas, Delicious can be used to share links and articles, while follow up and discussion of those ideas could take place through videoconferencing. This would present a student, that has restricted access to a school, with a full rounded experience of being in a classroom without physically having to leave their home. References: Masum, H., Brooks, M. and Spence, J. Music Grid: A case study in video collaboration. First Monday. Retrieved on 16 April 2011 from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/1238/1158

This article by Chris Brogan demonstrates the enormous potentials of adopting a virtual office using communication and collaboration tools. Brogan, owner of a small-business education and growth company believes that doing business without the traditional trappings means equipping employees with the right platforms. The author breaks down the tools he used for his virtual office. The first list was the tools used for communication which comprised of: - Skype: Used as a de facto office phone - Adium and Trillian: An instant messaging tool. - Yammer: An internal organisational version of twitter. As their online collaboration tool, company used various free virtual tools: - Google Docs (docs.google.com): sharing information back and forth. Google Docs is one of the more popular tools for sharing and editing documents in real time online. - Linoit (en.linoit.com): A virtual cork board for sticky notes. - Dropbox (dropbox.com) - Real time file sharing. At one time, the office was a physical place, and communicating with colleagues meant visiting their cubicles to discuss ideas or ask questions. Online media, however, have expanded the office to virtual environments in which one regularly interacts with co-workers from different cultures and countries (Amant, 2003). A virtual office removes time and place for an organisation. Reference: Brogran, C. (2011). Virtually there: Facilitating communication and collaboration at a virtual office using software tools. Entrepreneur, 39(1), 1. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=dc3fa996-00f5-4ad2-994b-3393f25aad18%40sessionmgr114&vid=2&hid=108 Amant, K. S. (2003). Making contact in international virtual offices: an application of symbolic interactionism to online workplace discourse. Institute of Technology & Sci. Communication, 46(3), 4. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1227596

Instant Messaging (IM) applications, such as AOL Instant Messaging (AIM), MSN Messenger and Yahoo! Messenger, have become very popular in the last decade. This paper by de Vos et al. (2004) investigates the adaption of Instant Messaging (IM) by individual users and pairs of users within a mid-size organization. This paper is important as it examines employees' willingness to adapt to instant messaging tools within an organization. The findings from the research showed a fourfold increase in IM use after the introduction, both in terms of users and the number of conversations. The findings are interesting as it has been argued that the main problem companies experience when implementing online collaboration tools is the objections many employees have when introduced to these new tools (Foster, 2009). The main limitation of the paper is that the authors' research sample was restricted to only one organisation. The period of research was four months before and three months after introduction of IM in an organisation, thus the authors indicate that further research needs to be undertaken to see how usage patterns develop over a longer period of time. de Vos et al found that business mobile phones users don't seem to benefit from IM. However, this finding is not applicable anymore as smartphones with IM applications have been introduced after the paper was written in 2004. References de Vos, H., ter Hofte, H. & de Poot, H. (2004). IM [@Work] Adoption of Instant Messaging in a Knowledge Worker Organisation. Retrieved from https://doc.telin.nl/dsweb/Get/Document-30163/205610019a.pdf Foster, D. (2009). Collaboration Technology and Organisational Change. Retrieved from http://gigaom.com/collaboration/collaboration-technologies-and-organizational-change/

I think the rapid adoption of instant messaging software in the workplace could be due to the trend of consumerisation of products prior to businesses adopting them (Flinley, 2010). Many employees would have been exposed to instant messaging through Skype, Microsoft Messanger etc in their personal use of the Internet (Flinley, 2010). When businesses implement this software into the workplace, they are already aware of the benefits and they are familiar with the how the software is used so this would lead to the employee adopting this software quicker. Instant Messaging is also available in the free download of Skype. Skype provides users with the ability to instant message but also gives users the ability to videoconference, audio calls, file sharing and screen sharing. These are important factors when considering which program to download to implement instant messaging software. By providing staff with instant messaging software that can also provide a variety of tasks saves the company money and provides employees with a variety of ways to communicate and to collaborate with one another. One of the great features of Skype that was updated in their most recent version is screen sharing. Screen sharing is often restricted to the IT department of businesses but Skype gives this functionality to basic users. Allowing people to see each other screens, increases users ability to share information with one another. References: Flinely, K. (2010). Consumerization of IT: 95% of Information Workers Use Self-Purchased Technology for Work. Readwriteweb. Retrieved on 16 April 2011 from http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2011/03/consumerization-of-it-95-of-in.php Finley, K. (2010). Four Trends in Enterprise Video Conferencing. Read Write Web. Retrieved on 12 April 2011 from http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2010/10/trends-in-enterprise-video-conferencing.php

I think we should concern about is how to capture and manage the useful knowledge from Instant Messaging (IM). IM helps staffs share knowledge in organisations. de Vos et al. (2004) wanted to find out in the research that IM supports quick question and clarification, keeping touch with friends and families. This is a common situation nowadays. I have an experience that my friends at Hong Kong always discuss their questions of study or work with me with Windows massager. My friend who work at school library often ask me about cataloguing problem when she is working. IM not only allows transferring knowledge within organisations, it also allows staffs interacting with people outside organisations. Therefore, the first issue of manage knowledge is separated the useful message out. It is not useful of private message. IM sharing is not a formal knowledge sharing method. Nevertheless, it place important role in organisations. Caruso (2010) pointed out in his article that organisations must able to understand some of the tools that can utilize to knowledge sharing all among the organisation. Meanwhile, Caruso (2010) also indicated that "80 percent of organisational knowledge exists exclusively within an individual." Although IM is usual in the organisation, but the information is only store in staffs' brain, not in the organisation. We should think an appropriate way to manage the information in IM. Reference Caruso, S. (2010). Informal Workplace Learning and Knowledge Sharing. Retrieved from http://www.eadulteducation.org/adult-learning/informal-workplace-learning-and-knowledge-sharing/ Caruso, S. (2010). Informal Workplace Learning and Knowledge Sharing. Retrieved from http://www.eadulteducation.org/adult-learning/informal-workplace-learning-and-knowledge-sharing/

Convofy wants to go beyond being a private Facebook and Twitter to let companies collaborate around content like web pages, images PDF files, PowerPoint files, Word Files and Excel (Tsotsis, 2011). Convofy claims to be the most private powerful social network enabling organisations to communicate, collaborate and share more easily and effectively than ever before. Convofy combines the functionality of twitter, Facebook and Google Docs. Networks within an organisation can post ideas, links, and files, and their followers can comment on them. Convofy also provides on-the-go communication and collaboration by making it available for mobile phones in the form of application. In a market research conducted by Research and Markets in 2009, organisations viewed applications such as Web, audio, and video conferencing, messaging, and document collaboration as critical components of an effective collaboration strategy ("Meeting the Enterprise Collaboration Challenge: Vital to the Success of the Distributed Organization," 2009). The research then concluded effective collaboration is no longer a "nice-to-have," rather it is a critical requirement for success in the modern economy ("Meeting the Enterprise Collaboration Challenge: Vital to the Success of the Distributed Organization," 2009). Though there have been enterprise collaborative tools launched over the years, Convofy claims to be the powerful. We will just have to wait and see. Reference: Meeting the Enterprise Collaboration Challenge: Vital to the Success of the Distributed Organization. (2009). 1. Retrieved from Business Wire website: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20090724005305/en/Research-Markets-Meeting-Enterprise-Collaboration-Challenge-Vital Tsotsis, A. (2011). Convofy Is A Workplace Collaboration Tool Centered Around Documents And Images. 1. Retrieved from TechCrunch website: http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/06/convofy-is-workplace-collaboration-centered-around-documents-and-images/

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.

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

This is an interesting blog that debate e-mail is a powerful collaboration tool or not. I totally agree with Suarez (2006) that e-mail is a very powerful communication tool. We can receive every mail whether are junk mails or useful mails. Others could receive a mail within few minutes from someone who live at the other side of world. In addition, people receive wide range of information from e-mail. However, I am not completely agreed that we miss out the point of collaboration and knowledge management once we define e-mail is good enough collaboration tool. Suarez (2006) mentioned how people have managed e-mails. Although nine people read e-mails, only a person knows the content of e-mails, is able to trace out particular e-mails and uses e-mails. Thus e-mail is not powerful collaborations tool. My opinion is the argument misses the essential elements of knowledge sharing. It is human. No matter the knowledge sharing tools or other collaboration tools, they also require human's management. If no one sends mails in electronic format, e-mail would not be at society anymore. The nature of e-mail still is collaboration tools. Organisations should focus on human is well use e-mail system and the information that inside e-mail system. This is a human base procedure. Reference 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

I know someone who works in information management and, to prevent duplication, they have dedicated procedures, spelling out who is supposed to archive emails and documents. As I understand it, only the original sender submits a copy to the file, cc copies can be deleted.

Thanks Shan as I enjoyed reading this article. The question of whether the good old email is a good enough collaboration tool is an interesting debate. I beg to differ that email is not a powerful collaboration tool. I am part of an organisation where are main communication and collaboration happens through emails. We plan, organise, discuss and share documents through emails. I will list some functions vital to our organisation that email provides: 1. Organisation - You can track and organise responses through email by clicking on the latest responses. The latest email often contains the conversation from previous users as mentioned my Samantha in her response. Who said what and at what time can also be noted. 2. Document sharing - Just like any collaboration tool, you can attach and send any document in any format to the group in your network. The only area traditional email clients falls short is real-time editing. Google Gmail provides this function by incorporating Google Docs with the Gmail Service. This makes it a powerful online collaboration tool where content editing is incorporated into the email system. 3. Records - Like modern collaboration tools, emails can be archived and searched. Though we meet up on monthly basis, my organisation can be classified as a virtual team. As a virtual team, email is a powerful collaboration tool for us. Thanks once again, a great article related to my topic of collaboration within organisations.

Subject: How online collaboration has affected the software development industry Reference 3 Continuous Coordination: A New Paradigm to Support Globally Distributed Software Development Projects by David Redmiles , André Van Der Hoek , Ban Al-ani , Tobias Hildenbr , Stephen Quirk , Anita Sarma , Roberto Silveira , Silva Filho , Cleidson De Souza , Erik Trainer ABSTRACT Along with the rapid globalization of companies, the globalization of software development has become a reality. Many software projects are now distributed in diverse sites across the globe. The distance between these sites creates several problems that did not exist for previously collocated teams. Problems with the coordination of the activities, as well as with the communication between team members, emerge. Many collaborative software engineering tools that have been used to date, in global software development projects, exhibit a fundamental paradox: they are meant to support the collaborative activity of software development, but cause individuals and groups to work more or less independently from one another. The underlying issue is that existing software engineering tools, such as configuration management repositories, issue trackers, and workflow engines, separate time and tasks in concrete but isolated process steps. Designing tools based on the premise that human activities can be codified and that periodic resynchronization of tasks is an easy step reflects poor understanding human nature. We therefore propose a new approach to supporting collaborative work called Continuous Coordination. Underlying Continuous Coordination is the premise that humans must not and cannot have their method of collaboration rigidly dictated, but should be supported flexibly with both the tools and the information to coordinate their activities and to collaborate in their activities as they see fit. In this paper, we define the concept of Continuous Coordination, introduce our work

Review of article - Continuous Coordination: A New Paradigm to Support Globally Distributed Software Development Projects This is quite a useful paper about current issues relating to the collaboration of software development and though it does not appear to have been published it is still a well-researched review of the topic. It focuses on the developing technology and changing methods of collaboration when developing software. It reviews a number of issues such as coordination issues that may arise between different sites that are working on a collaborative project together and looks at why these issues arise when developers and designers are working with current versions of collaborative software. It further focuses on why these issues arise and then reviews some of the software that is currently under development that may fix these issues. The software that it reviews includes YANCEES notification service that is an automatic publication/subscribe service for keeping software collaboration coordinated; Palantir workspace awareness tool that is an enterprise-level integrated analysis platform that works on a client/server model; Ariadne that is a tool for the collaborative searching/analysis of databases/source code and the graphical visualization and tracking of such searches; the TriVis which is a utility for graphically tracing collaborative software development and interactions and finally WorldView which is similar to TriVis but can extend from visualising design models to high level representations of development team interactions. Overall this is a very interesting article about the future direction of software development collaboration Redmiles, D. V. D. H., André; Al-ani, Ban; Hildenbr,Tobias; Quirk, Stephen; Sarma, Anita; Silveira, Roberto; Filho, Silva; De Souza, Cleidson; Trainer, Erik Continuous Coordination: A New Paradigm to Support Globally Distributed Software Development Projects. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow