Group items tagged

The article reviews the challenges and prerequisites of taking Enterprise Interoperability and Collaboration Solutions are used in supply chains, collaborative networks and business ecosystems. The article is more focus on the observations and developments of COIN project. Such as service usability, organization maturity and participatory take-up process are considered as requirements for end user success with take-up. The paper also discusses the challenges of inter-organizational implementation and the software lifecycle from the viewpoint of the end user. The development is based on increasing solution usability and developing guidelines for the implementation process. (Karvonen & Conte, n.d). A lot of this paper seems to be common sense, which is applying an IT based solution to an enterprise to optimize aspects of it. I think it is always useful to define some kinds of structured process when evaluating a solution to a problem and identifying risks and planning contingencies on how to deal with those risks. This paper appears to be just such an example of it. I would be very interested to see a practical example of the technique described by paper to see if it is practical to implement. The problem with many researchers is that unless they have practical work experience, they might find what they understand in theory does not always applied in the real world. Reference: Karvonen, I. & Conte, M. (n.d).Supporting and facilitating the Enterprise Collaboration(EC)& Enterprise Interoperability (EI) solution take-up. Retrieved from http://www.amicommunities.eu/pub/bscw.cgi/d573247/Supporting%20and%20facilitating%20the%20Enterprise%20Collaboration%20%28EC%29%20&%20Enterprise%20Interoperability%20%28EI%29%20solution%20take-up.pdf

My topic is the collaboration practices of open source software development. OVERVIEW: This article compiles data taken from online OSS-management tool SourceForge, and provides an excellent overview of the features, advantages, and limitations of this particular tool. SourceForge (http://sourceforge.net/) is an online tool that facilitates collaboration on Open Source Software (OSS) projects. Among the most significant tools that SourceForge provides are forums discussing each project, a file-release tool, a basic task management system, the ability to post documentation (eg. instruction manuals) online, and the all-important Concurrent Versions System (CVS). This article goes into satisfying detail of how CVS works and why it is advantageous to software developers, explaining the CVS process as follows: 1. CVS holds the current version of a program's source code, and allows developers to 'check out' (i.e. download) this source code so that they have their own version to play around with. 2. Once done, developers can 'commit' (or upload) their changes. If possible, the CVS automatically merges this code with any other changes that have been made since the code was checked out. 3. The CVS system retains a copy of all previous versions of the code, and thus allows reversion to previous versions, as well as the existence of multiple 'branches' of the same source code. The main advantage of the CVS tool is that it "[allows] multiple developers to be working on the source code at the same time without conflict" (p. 6), although teams are may be limited slightly by SourceForge's basic task management system which "lacks capabilities for resource and personnel management" (p. 4). SourceForge is one online tool that greatly aids in the co-ordination of open-source projects. Any software developer considering the use of a pre-made online tool for collaboration would bene

This article elaborates some overviews about data SourceForge which is from online OSS-management tool, with its characters, advantages, and limitations. SourceForge is a very altruistic platform to benefit people for the development of software tools. It is good example of a social networking platform that is geared towards producing collaborative work, which is productive. Its purpose is not entertainment or socializing, but its about bringing together people with specialized skills and providing the framework and tools to allow people to work on a product in a virtual workplace. I don't totally agree by collecting statistics on the software development process,especially one that is non-commercial and can potentially be worked on by any member of the public to be a totally useful study. Software was development which is not a static work flow. There are many standards, development methodologies, languages, platforms, not to mention the human factor that can make interpolation results of the data difficult. However, I strongly believe the success of SourceForge Projects is not the collaborative effort that causes success, but those developers to press ahead and work on their masterpiece. There are some projects that are very successful, but on the whole a majority of the projects are half started and incomplete. There have been many studies in the past to try to quantify the efficiency of Software Engineering and to date. There is no ideal solution to completing a Software Engineering Project. It is still a maturing engineering discipline.

This article reviews SourceForge (http://sourceforge.net/) which is an Open Source software (OSS) development tool and provides free services to Open Source developers. By explaining how SourceForge collect, manage and apply activity data, this article points out the strengths and weaknesses of SourceForge as an online collaboration tool. An (2011) comments that the purpose of SourceForge is to bring "together people with specialized skills and [to provide] the framework and tools to allow people to work on a product in a virtual workplace". This feature is similar to Optimize Solutions which is mentioned in one of my selected articles: Optimize Solutions launches to help professional services organizations better manage - projects, resources, expenses. Both SourceForge and Optimize Solutions are collaboration tools with powerful functions for data management and user communication. With their network-based interface, distance is no longer an issue for collaboration and interaction among users. SourceForge deals with data and statistic; and Optimize Solutions manage various business resources, such as documents, images, and spreadsheet. While SourceForge is open for users to develop softwares, Optimize Solutions is used within an organization and external clients for business purposes. Although these two applications offer services in different fields, they both aim at enabling global collaboration and improving processing efficiency. I believe that with the development of information technology, especially online collaboration, such applications will be widely used in most organizations and for personal use. Reference: An, R (2011). Comment on Collection of Activity Data for SourceForge Projects. Retrieve from http://groups.diigo.com/group/curtin_net308?view=recent&page_num=1

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&

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

This article, posted on TechCrunch, discusses the release of a report from Nielsen, a worldwide market research firm, based in the US, perhaps best known for the ACNielsen Poll and Television ratings survey (Nielsen, 2011). Wauters here discusses the outcome and conclusions of research conducted by Nielsen into the effectiveness of social media advertising on Facebook. Wauters states, 'the report leverages six months of research consisting of surveys of more than 800,000 Facebook users and more than 125 individual Facebook ad campaigns from some 70 brand advertisers." Mangold & Faulds argue that by "enabling customers to talk to one another" social media is effectively "an extension of traditional word-of-mouth communication"(Mangold & Fauld, 2009). With traditional advertising rates and audiences falling, advertisers are keen to seek ways to reach new markets. Being able to leverage users social media networks can provide an important tool to reach a wider audience. Wauters suggests, according to surveys conducted by Nielsen, advertising recall on Facebook jumped between 16% and 30% when adverts mentioned friends or were featured in friends newsfeeds. Statistics here strongly suggest advertising is more likely to be noticed, and acted upon, if it seen to be 'recommended' by someone consumers know. --- It is interesting also to note Nielsen and Facebook are themselves engaged in a collaborative project to study social media advertising. Wauters points out: "Nielsen and Facebook recently joined forces to develop ad effectiveness solutions to determine consumer attitudes, brand perception and purchase intent from social media advertising." With this in mind, perhaps Wauters is correct to sound a note of caution: "we're not saying the report is bogus, but it's something to keep in mind if you decide to download it for yourself." References: Mangold, W. & Faulds, D. (2009, July-August). Social Media: The New Hybrid Ele

Belinda, This article was particularly of interest to me as I have used Facebook advertising platform both for work and my online business. Social Media advertising to me is different to other online and offline advertising. Having used Facebook as a medium to advertise my business, I can conclude that it's not the best medium to advertise. The conversion rates on the campaigns were low, that is the conversion of clicking and purchase. I accept that there might have been other factors that influenced the data. Comparing my Facebook campaign to my Google Campaign, it showed that campaigns through search i.e. user searches for your service or product is more effective. There is also the probability that campaigns may not reach the right demographic. In 2007, Vodafone suspended advertising on Facebook after its ads appeared on the profile page of a British right-wing Party. This prompted a flurry of other advertisers, including the AA, COI and Virgin Media, to follow suit (Clark, 2007). Facebook cannot effectively measure that the campaign is reaching the right audience. If I am allowed to, can I boldly state that Social Media campaigns are only effective when free or user generated. I applaud the article for questioning the release of such data by Nielsen. The question is, are social media networks the correct channel to advertise when users may be more interested in connecting than buying your product or service? Social Brands perform better on Facebook because most people on Social Networking sites are there for fun so it makes logical sense that industries such as tabloids and blogs (Bullas, 2011). Reference: Bullas, J. (2011). How Effective Are Facebook Ads? Retrieved from JeffBullas.com website: http://www.jeffbullas.com/2011/02/25/how-effective-are-facebook-ads/ Clark, N. (2007). Storm over ads on social sites. Marketing, 1. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?index=0&did=1326449831&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&

I certainly agree with the article. With mass consumed site like Facebook there should be advantages that give opportunity to certain business. The detail profile users made, can a kind of mass database that marketer can access. Collaborate the business with Facebook may allow company to get broader publication. But in Yu (2010) article, "The Most Powerful Secret in Facebook Ads", he mentioned that only certain business type that can get the best result. Local business will be the one who get most advantages because in Facebook you can have detail specification of where your ad will appear (the reason why it's effective) (Agarwal, 2010). This local business is easier to share among friend because they have likelihood in geographical aspect. Consumer product and entertainment also will get a good publication through Facebook ad. Users interest that provide in Facebook profile will give you opportunity to reach the main target audience of your product. But still the interesting fact that found by Nielsen will affect how business sees social media website. They will think about it straight away to use this kind of advertising methods that will lead them to higher profit (although the marketing teams need to have a complete plan before rather than just follow the trend). Agarwal, A. (2010). How Effective is Advertising on Facebook?. Retrieved from http://www.labnol.org/internet/are-facebook-ads-effective/13957/ Yu, D. (2010). The Most Powerful Secret in Facebook Ads. Retrieved from http://www.allfacebook.com/facebook-ads-secret-2010-06

No one possesses all the knowledge. Therefore, we have to know how to share knowledge among members of organisations. Two main points are fully utilizing knowledge and avoid knowledge losing within organisations. The article demonstrated a successful story of knowledge sharing at Lockheed Martin. They built up and internal social network call Unity (Brogan, 2010). Unity helped employees share their experience and solution in the network. They can post their challenge of a project. Other employees can give suggestion once they have related knowledge or experience. Finally, employees transfer their knowledge within organisation. The process of knowledge sharing is not an easy task. Although we understand we have to share their knowledge because everyone's knowledge is limited; people still want to keep the knowledge rather than sharing out. It is because knowledge is an asset. People afraid they lose their merit once they share knowledge. Therefore, knowledge manager should promote that knowledge transfer is enhancing their working efficient and building up their knowledge intelligence in organisations instead of reduce their value. Lockheed Martin give me a view of they can promote this concept successfully to their employees. I think this is the main reason of their success. They can transfer the knowledge from experienced staffs to new staffs. Reference Brogan, B. (2010). Internal Collaboration, Communication & Knowledge-Sharing Works at Lockheed Martin - Make It Work for You. Retrieved from http://www.interactyx.com/blog/internal-collaboration-communication-knowledge-sharing-works-at-lockheed-martin-a-make-it-work-for-you

Response to "Internal Collaboration, Communication & Knowledge-Sharing Works at Lockheed Martin" posted by Shan Shan Cheung This article discusses the Unity social networking platform that was implemented into Lockheed Martin at the end of 2009. Unity connects around 140,000 Lockheed Martin employees globally and provides knowledge sharing functionality such as blogs, wikis, file-sharing, RSS feeds, forums and social book marking. With 60% of its workforce identified as baby boomers Lockheed Martin needed to find a solution where corporate knowledge didn't leave the organisation when their people retired (Change Factory, nd). Often valuable information was locked away in an individuals email account which was inaccessible by other people who needed to access historical corporate knowledge. In contrast, Unity enabled certain employee contributions to become a permanent record. The other main group of employees at Lockheed Martin known as Millenials are the youngest generation in the workforce. Millenials are seeking social networking tools within the corporate environment as effective communications channel with the attitude that "I can access this type of tool at home, so I should be able to utilise it at work". Unity has also provided a platform to enhance business improvement and streamline processes as in the proposal tool kit. In summary, whilst Baby Boomers and Millenials operate differently (Options, 2001), Unity seeks to provide an effective communications channel to harness corporate knowledge and build collaboration amongst staff and ultimately reduce risk of losing corporate knowledge when the baby boomers retire . Reference Coping with the baby boomer brain drain. (n.d.) Retrieved April 15, 2011 from http://www.changefactory.com.au/articles/human-resource-management/coping-with-the-baby-boomer-brain-drain/ Generation Difference At Work - A Sleeping Giant. (2001). Retrieved April 15, 2011 from http://www.lifecare

This article focuses on the web 2.0 term "wisdom of crowds" within crowd sourcing, in which Catone explains as meaning "two heads are better than one, and that still more heads will yield even better results." The "Wisdom of crowds" looks at how crowds determine popularity and accuracy on the internet because they are the actions of millions of people. Wikipedia is an example of this concept as it is formed by the collaboration of thousands of users. This article states that according to studies Wikipedia is as accurate as encyclopaedia volumes such as Britannica. This theory comes from the fact that although crowd sourcing enables millions of people to participate, on websites such as Wikipedia it is usually just a few thousand people that contribute. Although it is possible for anyone to edit the website, it is monitored for changes and incorrect information is seen as the exception rather than the rule (Goodin 2005). "Crowdsourcing can be looked at as an application of the wisdom of crowds concept, in which the knowledge and talents of a group of people is leveraged to create content and solve problems." The wisdom of crowds concept can be seen differently when applied to websites such as www.StumbleUpon.com. StumbleUpon allows for users to rate and share web pages. Within a category users can rate with a 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' on the page they are given. The ratings not only determine what web pages you are referred to in future, but they allow for others who browse the same category as yourself to see the most relevant (most voted for) pages. As crowd sourcing enables for crowds to put forward their concepts, strategies and problem solving solutions in to practice in one place, the 'wisdom of crowds' concept refers to the way in which the large input from crowds enables particular websites on the internet to function in a way more relevant to its users. Goodin, D. (2005, December 14). 'Nature': Wikipedia is accurate. Retrieve

Crowdsourcing is changing some industries as revealed in 'Business Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd is driving the Future of Business' by Jeff Howe. The phenomenon is a threat to organisations that sell what the crowd will do much more cheaply (Howe, 2008). Thank You Steffi for this article as I found it very interesting and insightful. Collective intelligence I believe is essential to the growth of knowledge especially within organisations, relating to my topic of Organization collaborative tools. Companies benefit from crowdsourcing, not only from the ideas they generate through collaboration, but also from the publicity they attract ("Crowdsourcing just got Simpler, Faster and Less Expensive," 2009). Crowdsourcing is vital as pointed out in the article. By stating that Wikipedia is as accurate as Encyclopaedias, I welcome this shift from one point of opinion to a community based perceptive view. The Cambrian House example was perhaps a wonderful representation of crowdsourcing in the form of community collaboration. Cambrian House as a crowdsourcing community using the wisdom of crowd based approach to discover new business and technology ideas is laudable ("Doors more than open at Cambrian House; Cambrian House delivers "crowdsourcing technology in a box" and evolves its focus to developing its crowdsourced product portfolio," 2008). A million heads is truly better than one. Reference: Crowdsourcing just got Simpler, Faster and Less Expensive. (2009). PR Newswire. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?index=0&did=1670123411&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1303038199&clientId=22212 Doors more than open at Cambrian House; Cambrian House delivers "crowdsourcing technology in a box" and evolves its focus to developing its crowdsourced product portfolio. (2008). PR Newswire. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin

This article is an assessment of the book 'Crowd sourcing' by Jeff Howe. An important example of crowd-sourcing is the way in which businesses can be created. As discussed in this article, the use of crowds in businesses is highly effective because they are inevitably the consumers as well. With the example of Threadless.com, an online clothing business that allows crowds to design, vote for and buy t-shirts, we can easily see how a business can benefit by not having to hire people to do the jobs they used to. Outlined in the article is the way in which crowds are more efficient than current organisations. 1. Making predictions These are the decisions made by the crowd, which seem to be accurate as they know how to appeal to the consumer market. 2. Solving problems With opinions coming from a crowd of people, problems are able to be solved more easily as a range of solutions can be offered and applied. 3. Brainstorming and designing Relating to companies such as Threadless, since the designs come from the same people as the website markets to, they are able to receive designs that are more likely to appeal to the consumers. 4. Funding With the use of a crowd, business have a larger database of knowledge available to them, as well as an excess amount of time. This is another example of how crowd sourcing is able to eliminate the jobs that have always been completed by professionals, by allowing people online to participate and put forward their skills to those who may be able to take advantage of them. Meyer, F. D. (2011, January). The Business of Crowd Sourcing. Retrieved from Crowdsourcings.org: http://www.crowdsourcing.org/document/the-business-of-crowdsourcing/2430

This is an interesting article which gives an insight of how companies can use crowdsourcing in their corporate strategy. The author presents his assessment on Jeff Howe's book "Crowdsourcing" from 2008. The term crowdsourcing was coined by Howe, thus a review of "Crowdsourcing" will be relevant and valuable as a resource for this project. Meyer (2011) presents four different areas in which crowds can be more performing or efficient than current organisations. Howe's work excels in opening the mind regarding what will be possible through crowdsourcing in the future. With the emergence of Web 2.0 tools, crowdsourcing has proven to be an efficacy tool more and more businesses are adopting. Kessler (2010) argues that asking a pool of people to create something can be faster, cheaper, and more accurate than putting a project in the hands of individuals. As the competition to get consumers attention increase, crowdsourcing can be used to better satisfy consumers' demands. For example, the public may be invited to develop new technology or carry out a design task which has been seen in the company Fashion Stake (Kessler, 2010). During the crowdsourcing process people can vote designers up and down, thus the consumers are deciding what items go from sample to retail. By doing that, consumers are giving the company an understanding of what they really want (Kessler, 2010). This is an example of what Jeff Howe refer to as "brainstorming and design", an effective tool where the consumers are given the opportunity to influence the output. References Kessler, S. (2010). 5 Creative Uses for Crowdsourcing. Retrieved from http://mashable.com/2010/05/26/creative-crowdsourcing/ Meyer, F., D. (2011). The Business of Crowdsourcing. Retrieved from http://www.crowdsourcing.org/document/the-business-of-crowdsourcing/2430

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 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

My topic is the collaboration practices of open source software development. You can access this article by logging into ACM via the Curtin Library website. OVERVIEW: Because the production of Open Source Software (OSS) relies heavily on the work of volunteers, the motivation of those volunteers is imperative to the success of any OSS development. Recognising this, this paper seeks to explain the motivations of those who work on OSS projects, using the learning theory of Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991) as a guide. Building on this theory, the authors assert that the transient and open nature of an OSS development community appeals to user/developers as an environment to learn and hone their skills through 'legitimate participation'. Having identified the desire to learn as a key motivation for participants, the authors suggest that to attract more users to become OSS developers, leaders of OSS projects should create a list of progressively difficult tasks to foster the learning process and "enable newcomers to move toward the center of the community through continual contributions" (p. 9). Although this paper focuses on learning as a motivation, the authors acknowledge that because OSS is "a very complicated phenomenon" (p. 10), other motivations no doubt play a part. Informed by this and other articles, I would postulate that these other motivations include dissatisfaction with current software options (because "the best hacks start out as personal solutions to the author's everyday problems" (Raymond, 1999)), the desire for participants to gain reputation within the community, and the egoistic benefits of contributing to a program with a flatteringly large population of users. Raymond (1999) recognises the importance of satisfying the egos of "hacker/users" by providing them with a "piece of the action" (p. 29), while an internet-based survey (Hertel et al., 2003) has found that activities within OSS te

determined by participants' own "perceived indispensability and self-efficacy" (p. 1159). Overall, I believe that the community surrounding any given OSS-development is a key factor in the production of motivation, as it provides participants with the opportunity to gain reputation, satisfy one's own ego, and learn through legitimate participation in a project that the participants are personally interested in. References: Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Raymond, E. (1999). The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 12(3), p. 23-49. Hertel, G., Nieder, S., & Herrmann, S. (2003). Motivation of software developers in Open Source projects: an Internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel. Research Policy 32(7), p. 1159-1177.