Skip to main content

Home/ CurtinNet308/ Group items tagged development

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Matthew Hewett

Reference 3: Continuous Coordination: A New Paradigm to Support Globally Distributed So... - 0 views

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/...download

shared by Matthew Hewett on 11 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • Matthew Hewett on 11 Apr 11
     
    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
  • Matthew Hewett on 11 Apr 11
     
    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
Matthew Hewett

Reference 4: Shared Waypoints and Social Tagging to Support Collaboration in Software D... - 1 views

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/...download

collaboration software development

shared by Matthew Hewett on 11 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • Matthew Hewett on 11 Apr 11
     
    Subject: How online collaboration has affected the software development industry Reference 4 Shared Waypoints and Social Tagging to Support Collaboration in Software Development By Margaret-Anne Storey, Li-Te Cheng, Ian Bull, Peter Rigby (2006) ABSTRACT This paper presents the conceptual design of TagSEA, a collaborative tool to support asynchronous software development. Our goal is to develop a lightweight source code annotation tool that enhances navigation, coordination, and capture of knowledge relevant to a software development team. Our design is inspired by combining "waypoints" from geographical navigation with "social tagging" from social bookmarking software to support coordination and communication among software developers. We describe the motivation behind this work, walk through the design and implementation, and report early feedback on how this lightweight tool supports collaborative software engineering activities. Finally, we suggest a number of new research directions that this topic exposes. (Rigby, 2006) Full document available from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.136.3988&rep=rep1&type=pdf TagSEA software/code available from http://tagsea.sourceforge.net/download.html Bibliography Rigby, P. S., Margaret-Anne; Cheng, Li-Te; Bull,Ian. (2006). Shared waypoints and social tagging to support collaboration in software development. Paper presented at the CSCW'06, ACM http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.136.3988&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  • Matthew Hewett on 11 Apr 11
     
    Review of article - Shared Waypoints and Social Tagging to Support Collaboration in Software Development This article reviews the development and purpose of TagSEA and gives us an understanding of the technology and why it is useful for software development collaboration. This is software that is designed to allow developers to place collaborative annotations attached to specific locations in source code. This is a professionally written article that looks at both why the software was developed and how it works, including a trial evaluation of the software. It also includes information on what it is written in (java) and what it works as part of (eclipse IDE). The article reviews what it can be used for and includes images displaying the look and feel of the software but does not explain how to use the software itself or provide a link to further information. However research on the internet has provided a link http://tagsea.sourceforge.net to where the software is available. The site where the software is located provides further information on how to use the software and links for downloading it as well as information about further developments. Both the article "Shared Waypoints and Social Tagging to Support Collaboration in Software Development" and the website appear to be written/designed to be read/used by people with technical skills i.e. developers and tends to use a significant amount of specialised terminology. Rigby, P. S., Margaret-Anne; Cheng, Li-Te; Bull,Ian. (2006). Shared waypoints and social tagging to support collaboration in software development. Paper presented at the CSCW'06, ACM Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.136.3988&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Emily Murphy

Collection of Activity Data for SourceForge Projects - 2 views

www.cse.nd.edu/...activity_data.pdf

Net308 collaboration open source OSS virtual community collaboration tools

shared by Emily Murphy on 11 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • Emily Murphy on 11 Apr 11
     
    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
  • ...3 more comments...
  • anonymous on 12 Apr 11
     
    Although my topic is crowdsourcing and not OSS, SourceForge is actually a strong example of crowdsourcing online. The website is simple, clean and easy to use. One of its main advantages is that it has a clear user friendly structure and offers developers useful features such as a clear summary and reviews of a piece of software. Open source software collaboration is an example of crowdsourcing because the crowd is in charge of shaping the nature of the product or system in question. In this case improvements and changes to software codes are influenced by a range of people with different skills and knowledge. These individuals are not necessarily industry experts, but rather a range of people with varying degrees of expertise. Going by the statistics in this article, SourceForge.net is proof that crowdsourcing works and can provide useful and sustainable results if a stable, reliable and controlled system such as CVS is made available to 'the crowd'. According Christley and Madey (2005, p. 1) SourceForge.net "is the word's largest open source software development website with the largest repository of open source code and applications available on the internet". This article is quite technical in nature, so it doesn't really explore reasons behind why people choose to engage with websites such as SourceForge.net. According to Veale (2005) people are motivated to make contributions online even though there is no payment involved. This differs from collaborative sites such as www.made.com and www.designcrowd.com. Veale (2005) argues that payment is no longer a primary motivation; individuals contribute for free because they get something out of this. One of the benefits of contributing to OSS projects is being able to improve something and use it for yourself or just being able to be a part of a community. This article is a useful resource for exploring open source software platforms and crowdsourcing.
  • anonymous on 12 Apr 11
     
    References: Veale, K. (2005 December 5). Internet gift economies: voluntary payment schemes as tangible reciprocity. First Monday, special issue #3. Available: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1516/1431.
  • Emily Murphy on 15 Apr 11
     
    Great points! In reading about OSS collaboration, I have found that as well as the benefit of being able to improve something for one's own use, participants are motivated by the learning opportunities and the opportunity to satisfy their own ego.
  • Ran An on 15 Apr 11
     
    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.
  • Jiawen Lin on 17 Apr 11
     
    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
Matthew Hewett

Reference 2: Opening minds: Cultural change with the introduction of open-source collab... - 2 views

ieeexplore.ieee.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/...stamp.jsp

collaboration software development open-source

shared by Matthew Hewett on 11 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • Matthew Hewett on 11 Apr 11
     
    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
  • Matthew Hewett on 11 Apr 11
     
    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
  • anonymous on 15 Apr 11
     
    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
Matthew Hewett

Reference 1: Online Collaboration and Agile Software Development - 2 views

drdobbs.com/...196900197

collaboration software development

shared by Matthew Hewett on 11 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • Matthew Hewett on 11 Apr 11
     
    Subject: How online collaboration has affected the software development industry Reference 1: Online Collaboration and Agile Software Development By Doug Poirier, January 11, 2007 ABSTRACT Agile software development requires input from all team members, and such collaboration is most effective when everyone participates. (Poirier, 2007) Full document available from http://drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/196900197 ThinkTank software is available from http://www.groupsystems.com/ Bibliography Poirier, D. (2007). Online Collaboration and Agile Software Development. Dr.Dobbs Retrieved from http://drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/196900197
  • Matthew Hewett on 11 Apr 11
     
    Review of article - Online Collaboration and Agile Software Development This article is in an online magazine http://drdobbs.com and is aimed at software developers. The article is not peer reviewed but is by a software developer writing for other software developers in a well-respected magazine. It does not initially focus on using collaborative software development tools but looks at the issues and problems that affect remote groups attempting to collaborate on developing software without the assistance of collaborative software. It is written in an easy going manner and the author talks about issues that he has personally experienced. It then starts to focus on the issue of collaborative software and on the online collaboration tool called ThinkTank that is available from GroupSystems (http://www.groupsystems.com) and reviews details the use of the software in a trial setup. At this point a number of features of the software are outlined and screen dumps showing some of the features of the software are also included. A review of the article and a latter review of the GroupSystems website did make it clear that the ThinkTank software is more of a collaborative meeting software rather than software that developers use to collaborate when doing actual programing, but it is still a useful piece of software for developers to use when communicating between multiple sites. Poirier, D. (2007). Online Collaboration and Agile Software Development. Dr.Dobbs Retrieved April 8, 2011, from http://drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/196900197
Emily Murphy

Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and Mozilla - 5 views

portal.acm.org/citation.cfm

Net308 collaboration open source OSS collaboration tools software

shared by Emily Murphy on 11 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • Emily Murphy on 11 Apr 11
     
    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.
  • Emily Murphy on 11 Apr 11
     
    OVERVIEW: Open Source Software is software, built largely by volunteers, for which the source code is publicly available (p. 310). Such an approach is useful as a cheaper, high-quality alternative that can compete successfully with commercial products (p. 309, p. 343). This resource delves into the intricacies of Open Source Software (OSS) development by examining two prominent OSS projects: the web server Apache and the Mozilla web browser. In addition to providing detailed findings on the development processes that led to the early releases of both products, this comparative case study gives useful insight into the working practices and organisational structures of open-source developments, along with the tools that shape (and are shaped by) these working practices. As outlined in this paper, "decentralized workspaces" and "asynchronous communication" are very significant concepts in relation to OSS development (p. 317). Because there is no set schedule and contributors can do as much or as little as they like, constant communication through email and USENET groups is identified necessary to keep all contributors up to date. Other key tools used in the development of OSS are Concurrent Version Control Archive or CVS, which keeps track of each change made to the source code (comparable to wiki software); and bug-reporting databases, which enable the wider community to submit reports. The specialised nature of these tools suggests they are often purpose-built for the project, and the paper gives three examples from Mozilla - Bugzilla, Bonsai, and Tinderbox - which support this. In short, both through examining the control mechanisms, contributor involvement, and defect control practices; and through outlining specific tools that are invaluable in OSS development (and how they are used), this paper provides valuable insight into the nature of OSS development processes.
Emily Murphy

Toward an Understanding of the Motivation of Open Source Software Developers - 2 views

portal.acm.org/citation.cfm

Net308 collaboration open source motivation OSS community virtual community learning

shared by Emily Murphy on 15 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • Emily Murphy on 15 Apr 11
     
    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
  • Emily Murphy on 15 Apr 11
     
    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.
Mandy Burke

Four Trends in Enterprise Video Conferencing - 5 views

www.readwriteweb.com/...erprise-video-conferencing.php

collaboration online net308 videoconferencing business organisation employees smartphones mobile

shared by Mandy Burke on 12 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • Mandy Burke on 12 Apr 11
     
    Due to the global financial crisis, companies globally have been finding ways to cut costs. Instead of staff travelling to attend meetings, businesses rely on methods such as video conferencing to assist in facilitating meetings with geographically dispersed teams. This article published on the technology blogging site Read Write Web discusses four main trends in regards to video conferencing. The four trends stated are consumerisation, mobility, interoperability and providing a social layer. Mobility and the social layer are interesting trends when thinking about collaboration via video conferencing. Smartphones being released are beginning to include video conferencing as a standard functionality. Through the use of smart phones, mobility allows team members to participate and collaborate whilst on the move. It unshackles team members from the restraints of being restricted to an office. For team members that travel regularly being able to videoconference from hotel rooms or other offices through their smart phone provides them with flexibility previously not seen. Social layers being added to software is becoming the norm (Flinley, 2010). The social layer extends video conferencing beyond just audio and video. By adding social layers to videoconferencing software, users are able to communicate in the one location rather than utilising multiple platforms. A social layer provides "social networking, instant messaging, voice and video into one system" also including the ability to share files. By encapsulating all means of communication in the one destination, team members save time and recording communication becomes easier. References: 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
  • ...4 more comments...
  • Kaye England on 12 Apr 11
     
    I was interested in this article not only from a business perspective but also from an educational perspective. Video conferencing is something that we would like to use in the presentation of information literacy classes to off campus students in our library. The four trends that Finley (2010) discussed that of consumerization, mobility, interoperability and social layer are trends that will see video conferencing used much more in both business and educational settings (as well as for personal use of course!). Giesbers, Rienties, Gijselaers, Segers & Templeaar (2009) present an interesting case study of two virtual teams. One of the teams used video conferencing and the other team used online forums for their project work. The conclusion of this study was that there were no perceived advantages in the group that used videoconferencing. The debate then became about the advantages and disadvantages of asynchronous and synchronous communication. I for one am a reflective thinker - I like to be able to think things through and respond in my own time - so asynchronous communication suits me well. Synchronous communication such as videoconferencing can put more pressure on people to respond immediately. The key component in the videoconference group that stood out though, was the difference in leadership. It was more obvious in that group who the leader was and that seemed to make a difference to the group. Suduc, Bizoi, Filip (2009), conclude in their study that web conferencing requires much more leadership and organisation than other forms of collaboration. However, with that in place they say that there are many advantages to this type of collaboration, including, cost, time saving, reduction in travel and facility costs, improvement of decision making and communication. I definitely think that video conferencing will become more and more immersed in our day-to-day business and educational functions in the days to come. References: Finley, K. (201
  • Jiawen Lin on 16 Apr 11
     
    This article introduces some video conferencing applications, such as Cisco, Skype, Nefsis Basic, BlackBerry Playbook, and Google Voice, and shows how they are used as collaboration tools in enterprises. Burke (2011) summarizes that the use of such tools helps to establish instant communication, save travelling time, and cut business cost. One of my selected articles, iManage Unveils the First Multi-Platform Collaborative Content Management Suite, announces a new Internet content management application suit called iManage WorkSite MP which is an online collaboration tool as well. Both video conferencing tools and Internet content management applications are network-based, so users' contributions will be available instantly, and shared information can be distributed globally. Both of them aim at improving business efficiency, reducing cost and resource, and finally developing organisational service and product quality. While video conferencing tools focus on communication by audio and video, Internet content management applications, such as iManage WorkSite, has more to do with information management, such as text, image, and spreadsheets. It can be said that online collaboration tools can facilitate meetings among team members geographically, provide access to shared knowledge and ideas, and manage organisational information effectively. I argue that the combination of both video conferencing and content management tools can offer a comprehensive service to an organisation to compete in the global economy. As Fedorowicz, Laso-Ballesteros, and Padilla-Melendez (2008) state, the development of online collaboration "will facilitate multidisciplinary innovation and reduce barriers and inefficiencies among people working together"(p.1). Reference: Fedorowicz, J., Laso-Ballesteros, I., & Padilla-Melendez, A. (2008). Creativity, Innovation and E-Collaboration. International Journal of E-Collaboration, 4(4). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.
  • Samantha Clews on 17 Apr 11
     
    I was first interested in this article from personal, and educational experiences with one of the tools mentioned. (Skype) The article explores the idea that Video conferencing can be used to cut costs in this growing financial crisis. A family member of mine uses the tool to collaborate with business partners as it is a much cheaper and easier option than flying all over. It is also easier to quickly update somebody without the high cost of international phone calls. the article explores other benefits of using the tool for business, such as the ability to use it on the move and the ability to combine it with social networking tools. Through personal experience, having family that live in another country, the tool is helpful to share photos, information, and to merely see each others faces, something that is much more beneficial than a phone conversation. This then brought me to an article by Mark Blankenship, in which he talks about a skype lecture he gave to a group of undergraduates. He states "They listened, took notes, asked questions, and engaged in discussion. Except for the fact that I never shared a physical space with them, my experience with the students was remarkably similar to the experience I've had with students in the actual world" therefore perhaps developing a fifth trend in which users feel that video conferencing enhances the ability to act as a real face-to-face mechanism, in which the social element is not hugely different than that of a real social interaction. Also proving to be more than just a one-on-one tool, as it can be used to interact with a group of students to aid in learning where a guest speaker is unable to attend the physical lecture. References Blankenship, M.. (2011, March). How Social Media Can and Should Impact Higher Education. The Education Digest, 76(7), 39-42. Retrieved April 17, 2011, from http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?index=5&did=2253484511&SrchMode=1&sid=14&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VTyp
  • Kelly Kerr on 17 Apr 11
     
    This article provides a high level overview on video conferencing in a corporate setting and discusses four main trends, such as consumerisation, mobility, interopability and the social layer. It discusses Skype and how quickly it is gaining a business market share in in comparison to other enterprise tools such as TelePresence and WebEX. The success of Skype is due to the fact that it is so easy to use and allows users to share desktops so they are "virtually" in the same room. Mobility is also a main driver for video conferencing. When we consider that every laptop has a webcam, the potential for mobile video conferencing is immense and not just limited to tools such as the iPhone using the Facetime protocol. Add to this that the workplace is changing with more people working remotely either from home or travelling on business and the potential for video conferencing is growing as we need to connect with colleagues and clients. In essence I think video conferencing is the way of the future, however interoperability with devices has the potential to create issues until a standard or protocol is defined much in the same way TCP/IP was defined as the global standard for web traffic in 1983 (Microsoft, 2005). Presently devices can "talk" to each other if they use the same protocol, however there are many protocols emerging at the moment and no industry set of rules that all protocols must adhere to. Reference TCP/IP background. (2005). Retrieved April 15,2011 from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc775383(WS.10).aspx
  • Jiawen Lin on 17 Apr 11
     
    This article introduces some video conferencing applications, such as Cisco, Skype, Nefsis Basic, BlackBerry Playbook, and Google Voice, and shows how they are used as collaboration tools in enterprises. Burke (2011) summarizes that the use of such tools helps to establish instant communication, save travelling time, and cut business cost. One of my selected articles, iManage Unveils the First Multi-Platform Collaborative Content Management Suite, announces a new Internet content management application suit called iManage WorkSite MP which is an online collaboration tool as well. Both video conferencing tools and Internet content management applications are network-based, so users' contributions will be available instantly, and shared information can be distributed globally. Both of them aim at improving business efficiency, reducing cost and resource, and finally developing organisational service and product quality. While video conferencing tools focus on communication by audio and video, Internet content management applications, such as iManage WorkSite, has more to do with information management, such as text, image, and spreadsheets. It can be said that online collaboration tools can facilitate meetings among team members geographically, provide access to shared knowledge and ideas, and manage organisational information effectively. I argue that the combination of both video conferencing and content management tools can offer a comprehensive service to an organisation to compete in the global economy. As Fedorowicz, Laso-Ballesteros, and Padilla-Melendez (2008) state, the development of online collaboration "will facilitate multidisciplinary innovation and reduce barriers and inefficiencies among people working together" (p.1). Reference: Burke, M (2011) Comment on Four Trends in Enterprise Video Conferencing. Retrieved from http://groups.diigo.com/group/cur
  • Fransisca Mayang Sari on 17 Apr 11
     
    Video conferencing as one of online collaboration tools, able to change the way people communicate as well as their perceptions towards the work day in nowadays. Video conferencing has become a part of communication strategy, this article shows that about 37% of Skype users use the service for business purpose, which is they use Skype to make conference video that is more convenient and less traveling cost, users would be able to meet up without consuming traveling time which normally required in order to meet face to face. I found out this article are useful in terms of explaining the way video conferencing been used in business as well as introducing 4 new trends on how people use it, and as resources itself, it is credible enough, this article took from ReadWrite Enterprises web sites that mainly focusing on business purposes. By relating on my own topic, which is talk about the use and features of social bookmarking site (delicious), video conferencing as well provides specific features in order to facilitate the video conference, hence users would be able to use the features and communicating online, same as the way delicious using it special features, such as tags, where people would be able to collaborate their bookmarks as long as they are sharing and using same tags. As for value, this article shows and recommends how useful video conferencing is and there is multiple ways and benefits we could get by using it online. References: 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
Michael Nycyk

How organisations collect, manage and share resources through Internet and other Techno... - 41 views

Yes you do post comments on here but it has been made very difficult because there are two groups but just ignore that and post here.

collaborate; collaboration; collect; manage; information; internet; resources;organisation;

started by Jiawen Lin on 05 Apr 11 3 follow-ups, last by Michael Nycyk on 07 Apr 11
Kristy Long

Communities of Practice: Knowledge Management for the Global Organization - 20 views

I read this article with great interest as I am about to establish a Community of Practice among intranet authors in my workplace. Our intranet authors are spread over many geographical sites and ...

communities of practice CoP intranet collaboration innovation community

started by Kelly Kerr on 14 Apr 11 4 follow-ups, last by Kristy Long on 18 Apr 11
Michael Nycyk

Undergraduate perceptions of the usefulness of Web 2.0 in higher education: Survey Deve... - 5 views

web2integration.pbworks.com/...eb+2.0+in+Higher+Education.pdf

collaboration ouaNet308-2011 308 508 Curtin Net education Google Docs

shared by Michael Nycyk on 15 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • Michael Nycyk on 15 Apr 11
     
    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.
  • ...4 more comments...
  • Michael Nycyk on 15 Apr 11
     
    References Kumar, S. (2009). Undergraduate perceptions of the usefulness of Web 2.0 in higher education: Survey development. In D. Remenyi (Ed.) Proceedings of 8th European Conference on E-learning, Italy, 308-314. Retrieved April 13, 2011, from http://web2integration.pbworks.com/f/Undergraduate+Perceptions+of+the+Usefulness+of+Web+2.0+in+Higher+Education.pdf
  • Kaye England on 15 Apr 11
     
    I was interested in this article as I work in an academic institution (75% of our students are external) and it is a very topical subject for us at the moment. It was of interest to note that many students "expect to learn with new technologies and because higher education should prepare students for the workplace of the future" (Kumar , 2009, p.308). In terms of the use of Google Docs as a collaborative tool in academic institutions I think that we are only just beginning to see the benefits of this type of online collaboration. Google Docs, as stated by Edwards & Baker (2010, p.836) "can be used to save valuable time that would be otherwise spent e-mailing, revising, saving, e-mailing back etc.". Google Docs is a relatively new collaborative tool but the benefits to both lecturers and students are very evident, as anything that saves time and engages students is worth using. It was interesting that Kumar (2009) said that the use of Wikis was not a popular online collaborative tool - although it was easy to see the possibilities of its use. In one of my resources I looked at the positive use of wikis in educational settings as they "assist students in learning new content and support them in connecting new knowledge with personal experiences" (Deters, Cutherell & Stapleton, 2010, Discussion section, para.2). Successful online collaborative work is not necessarily a time saver or a short cut but approached positively and with good planning and leadership I believe that it will become an efficient and well used educational tool. References: Deters, F., Cuthrell, K. & Stapleton, J. (2010). Why Wikis? Student Perceptions of Using Wikis in Online Coursework . Journal of Online Teaching and Learning 6(1). Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no1/deters_0310.htm Edwards, J. T., & Baker, C. (2010) A Case Study: Google Collaboration
  • Michael Nycyk on 15 Apr 11
     
    My reading of it Kaye is that Kumar found that was the case at the time the study was done, but I am sure if he redid the study that would be less of an issue. I see Wikis are being quite popular now. Also I agree with your point, it is not always about time saving but if one spends the time learning it, it can be a useful tool for education. Our experiences in this course with Ning last year and the online conference proved that.
  • anonymous on 16 Apr 11
     
    This article is interesting as it highlights the benefits of using collaborative tools in higher education for teaching and learning. Although, it is also interesting how the article mentions wikis as one of the collaborative tools and then Kumar (2009, p. 6) then omits wikis as part of the group focus discussion as the students involved in the focus group had not used wikis in their personal life nor on campus. What is more interesting about this reasoning by Kumar (2009) is that it was not explained to students about the use of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a very popular wiki used as a reference tool both in studies and personal life, so it is hard to comprehend that the students in this focus group did not draw any correlation to Wikipedia and the use of wikis. This article also supports the benefits in using a wiki for both, organisations and for teaching and learning as Kumar (2009) highlights how a wiki "improves students writing" (Kumar, 2009, p. 3) and also engages students to collaborate across disciplines (Kumar, 2009, p. 3). The majority of articles supporting wiki use as a collaborative tool have highlighted how the ease of use allows for communication and collaboration, whilst also focusing on the culture of sharing within these two groups. Therefore, wikis are a great collaborative tool, although it is important to also create a sharing culture and provide guidelines when implementing the use of a wiki so, that the participates will use it to support the organisational culture or teaching and learning outcomes in collaborating and communicating with fellow peers or colleagues. References: Kumar, S. (2009). Undergraduate perceptions of the usefulness of Web 2.0 in higher education: Survey Development. In Proceedings of 8th European Conference on E-learning (ECEL), Italy, retrieved from http://web2integration.pbworks.com/f/Undergraduate+Perceptions+of+the+Usefulness+of+Web+2.0+in+Higher+Education.pdf
  • Kaye England on 17 Apr 11
     
    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
  • Ran An on 17 Apr 11
     
    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
Kaye England

Factiva - 2 views

global.factiva.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/...default.aspx

online learning collaboration forum chat project

shared by Kaye England on 10 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • Novel way for using technology. By PETER LELONG, VINCE SUMMERS. 500 words31 July 2002Hobart MercuryMRCURY26English(c) 2002 Davies Brothers Limited STUDENTS in years 5 to 8 are helping to write a great online novel called Billy Bathtub. As confidence grows in the use of online learning technologies, we are seeing the range of activities made available for students continue to develop. The adventures of Billy Bathtub, supported by the Department of Education, is a topical case in point. Author Damian Morgan is currently engaged in writing a novel, online, in collaboration with Tasmanian students during second term. A teacher and writer for many years, Damian has been working with students from around the state in recent weeks. On the completion of the novel in August, Erica Wagner, a publisher with Allen & Unwin, will be editing the novel for publication. The contributions of the students who participated in developing the story will be acknowledged. The partnership of writer and editor in an online collaborative project with schools around Tasmania is certainly a new and innovative way of engaging students from years 5 to 8 in the writing process. With the completion of four drafts of chapter one completed, the author posted a number of questions on the forum to engage students to take an active part in writing the story with him. "I know this is the story of Will Reynes, but do I call him Will or do I call him I?" Morgan asks. One of the many responses which he received: "I think if the story is going to be written in the present tense it should be written in the third person, but if it is in the past tense, the first person. I personally find stories easier to read if they are written like that." The story revolves around the adventures of Will Reynes, who we first meet in chapter one as he tries to rescue his window-cleaning mother from a high-rise building, where she has become entangled in her safety harness. In chapter two, Will, is with his father in a frantic rush to the airport, to meet an important scientist who comes complete with a large ceramic elephant. Students involve themselves in the writing of the novel by submitting ideas through the Discover Education online forum. The author responds to the suggestions from the students. This interaction between author and reader in the development of a novel demonstrates a very good use of the technology. Schools can also engage in online chat sessions with the author by booking time with him over the web. Alternatively they can invite him to visit their classroom. The Discover web site provides a link to download the software, Microsoft Comic Chat, for the online chat segment of the project. Once configured this program provides a secure online environment for students to communicate with the author. The story will continue to unfold with contributions from students until the end of August. To take part visit the Discover web site at http://www.discover.tased.edu.au/ billybathtub/. Document mrcury0020020730dy7v000nc
  • Kaye England on 10 Apr 11
     
    Even though this article from The Mercury (Hobart) is nearly 9 years old, I believe that it is very interesting, and the first time that I have been aware of an online collaboration to write a children's novel. It also shows that online collaboration need not be complicated. Sometimes we overlook the simple in order to engage in the latest popular online trend or something that is seen to be technologically complex. This article shows how sometimes a simple online collaboration tool works best. The collaboration involved students from grades 5 to 8 and was coordinated by author Damian Morgan. Damian received a grant from the Tasmanian government to undertake the collaboration project. Collaboration for the project was undertaken in an online forum and through online chat sessions. Over a period of time students contributed and collaborated with Damian in order to write the novel. Collaboration can take many forms and often we don't realize that we are engaged in it, I suspect that the children in this project were having fun, learning and collaborating all at the same time and had little notion of it! It is interesting that access to the forum is still available and in fact it details the collaborative conversations between students and Damian. The forum is still available at the following URL: http://forum.education.tas.gov.au/webforum/student/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=97 Final and draft versions of the novel are available at the following URL: http://odi.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/Resources/Framer.asp?URL=%2F2002%2F2%2F010%2Fdefault.htm&ID=00215534 References: Lelong, P. (2002, July 31). Novel way for using technology. The Mercury (Hobart), p. 26. Retrieved from http://global.factiva.com
  • ...2 more comments...
  • anonymous on 12 Apr 11
     
    This resource directly links to my topic of crowdsourcing as it discusses a crowdsourcing project which involved young students having the ability to write a novel in a collaborative manner. Students were part of the process of writing 'The adventures of Billy Bathtub'. The article highlights some of the key benefits of crowd sourcing: non-professionals can make important contributions. Anyone can contribute, in this case, despite their age, their input was deemed valuable. It is important to consider that this project occurred in 2002; the nature of the online context was vastly different to today, and we can see this with the design/appearance of the project's online forum. In http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/07/creative_crowdwriting Gorski (2007) explored two popular examples of collaborative novel writing using crowdsourcing. 'A million Penguins' and 'These Wicked Games' also allowed a group of people to write the novel. However unlike 'The Adventures of BillyBathtub' they did not rely on a forum, but rather wiki technology and were also very open and allowed anyone to make edits. Due to this chaotic structure, i believe 'The Adventures of Billy BathTub' was more successful because it was more controlled and restricted. 'A million Penguins' and 'These Wicked Games' faced many issues including vandalism. Many contributors were also contributing content to chapters without bothering to read what was happening in the narrative. However as stated by Jeremy Ettinghausen (publisher of 'A million Penguins') the project was mainly a experiment to see what would happen if anyone could edit and write a novel (A Million Penguins - The More the Merrier, 2007). This article suggests that collaborative narrative writing can be successful if organizers implement some degree of crowd control and impose certain restrictions to avoid chaos, spam, and vandalism.
  • anonymous on 12 Apr 11
     
    References: A Million Penguins - The More the Merrier.(2007, February 1). Retrieved from http://thepenguinblog.typepad.com/the_penguin_blog/2007/02/a_million_pengu.html Gorski, K. (September 7, 2007). Creative crowdwriting: the open book. Wired Online. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/07/creative_crowdwriting
  • Jiawen Lin on 12 Apr 11
     
    Hi Kaye, thank you for your interesting article and comments. Following is mine: This article is a good example of how people use internet to communicate and collaborate, which is similar to one of my readings: The American Pain Foundation (APF) and The HealthCentral Network Collaborate to Develop Enhanced Internet Resources for People with Pain. Both articles explain how people are connected by Internet to share ideas, gain information, and interact with each other through a website. Both websites mentioned in these two articles are open for general users, such as year 5-8 students and patients with pain, who may not have professional skills on Internet, so these websites are designed to be simple and user-friendly. Such websites let users easily focus on gaining information and collaboration without technical issues. As Kaye (2011) claims, "a simple online collaboration tool works best". In addition, this article shows the trend of using Internet to improve learning efficiency and allows communication and collaboration after school. As students' contribution will be available to view once they enter it to the website, Internet not only makes collaboration across time and geographical boundaries by global networking but also encourages students to contribute to their projects with more flexibility. Furthermore, as students normally access to Internet at home, this makes learning in a more relax and intimate environment. As Pelton (1996) mentions, online learning allows students to move from a passive learning to an active learning mode. In short, online collaboration helps student to achieve learning goals more efficiently with powerful and user-friendly features. Reference: England, K. (2011). Comment on Novel way for using technology. Retrieved from http://groups.diigo.com/group/curtin_net308 Pelton, J. N. (1996). Cyberlearning vs. the university: An irresisti
  • Kaye England on 17 Apr 11
     
    Thanks Jiawin and Cathy for your comments. It was a very interesting project wasn't it and I agree with you Cathy that one of the reasons that it was successful was probably due to the way it was controlled and organised - not like some of the examples in your readings (which were very interesting by the way). Jiawin - I read your articles too with much interest and would agree that the Internet is a powerful tool as it allows the sharing of ideas and information. Sometimes I think that people are afraid of engaging in some of these new online collaboration tools - but there is much to be gained by simply 'having a go'!! Thanks, Kaye
Kristy Long

No collaboration without communications - 7 views

www.steptwo.com.au/...index.html

intranet; collaboration; communication; organisation

shared by Kristy Long on 10 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • Kristy Long on 10 Apr 11
     
    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
  • ...4 more comments...
  • Kaye England on 11 Apr 11
     
    This was a very thought-provoking article and I was especially interested in how the author stated "The existence of collaborative tools does not automatically imply that people will collaborate or collaborate effectively" (Broomhall, 2009, para. 5). In one of the articles that I posted on wikis in education by Deters, Cuthrell, & Stapleton, J. (2010) they noted that without proper preparation of students and specific guidelines that the success of the wiki would be in doubt. I believe that this can be related to this article by Broomhall. Without proper preparation and planning online collaboration can fall flat and fail. I don't fully agree with Broomhall (2009, para.6) when she says "It is a simple concept, but if people are not already communicating with each other, then there is little chance they will feel comfortable enough to share their knowledge online." I believe that there are many instances where online collaboration between strangers can take place most effectively (not least of which is this exercise in learning on DIIGO!). Waltonen-Moore, Stuart, Newton, Oswald & Veronis (2006) concluded in their study on an online learning environment that it is possible for virtual strangers to collaborate and successfully complete their work. I would agree that it comes down to good planning, facilitation and monitoring of any online collaborative environment in order to make it successful. References: Broomhall, A (2009) No collaboration without communications Retrieved from http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/cmb_nocollaboration/index.html Deters, F., Cuthrell, K. & Stapleton, J. (2010). Why Wikis? Student Perceptions of Using Wikis in Online Coursework . Journal of Online Teaching and Learning 6(1). Retrieved from http://jolt.me
  • anonymous on 15 Apr 11
     
    This article by Broomhall (2009) also explores the notion that, simply implementing collaborative software into an organisation does not necessarily mean that it will be used. Collaborative tools like wikis may seem easy to use by those that use wikis like Wikipedia, although it does not mean that everyone within the organisation will have the confidence or skills to use the wiki or understand the purpose of using the wiki for collaboration or communication within the organisation. This article is a small and easily understood article that is relevant to explain the main issues that may arise in an organisation that is using collaborative tools like wikis in content management and communication. This article compliments the articles like Clarke's article (2007) "Collaborative authorship with Atlassian Confluence" and Stackpole's article (2008) "Wikis that work: Four IT departments get it right" about wikis as it ensures, that when implementing a wiki the organisation understands the importance of ensuring that "the basics of communication are established" (Broomhall, 2009) and that "staff share a common understanding of the organisation, its functions, organisational structure and its role in the broader industry" (Broomhall, 2009). Staff that have an understanding of the role of the company will be more likely to understand how open collaboration can assist the organisation and how their use, can assist in creating communication between other departments and staff from other locations, thus breaking down silos that may exist and enable the promotion of a sharing culture within the organisation. References: Broomhall, A (2009) No collaboration without communications Retrieved from http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/cmb_nocollaboration/index.html
  • anonymous on 15 Apr 11
     
    References: Clarke, R. (2007). Collaborative Authorship with Atlassian Confluence. GlinTech. Retrieved from http://www.glintech.com/downloads/Collaborative%20Authorship%20with%20Atlassian%20ConflueCon.pdf Stackpole, B. (2008). Wikis that work: Four IT departments get it right. Computer World: the voice of IT management Retrieved 13 April, 2011, from http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9118878/Wikis_that_work_Four_IT_departmdepa_get_it_right
  • Shan Shan Cheung on 17 Apr 11
     
    Thanks Kristy for your article. When we talk about collaborations tools in organisations, we pay more attention on the collaboration tools more than human factor. What I found in my articles are focus on tools. My comments think about how to choose appropriate tools, how to develop and manage tools. However, we should not ignore the origin of knowledge sharing. It is base on people's communication. I agree with Broomhall (2009), if people are not already communicate with other, they do not feel comfortable share the knowledge online. It is like we do not borrow our money to stranger. Therefore, collaboration tools should work as communication tools at the same time. Tools are something which need human's practice, especially collaboration tools. If no one uses collaboration tools, we cannot see any collaborative activities inside. Tools are not collaboration tools anymore. Broomhall (2009) noted some channel of communication, such as intranet, staff directory. The channel which I am interested is social site. Social site is not a communication channel. I found that in my research is informal sharing place an important role in organisations. Organisations not only benefit from formal records or information. They can get more benefit from informal channel. Informal sharing should be part of collaboration tools have to concern. Reference: Broomhall, A (2009) No collaboration without communications Retrieved from http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/cmb_nocollaboration/index.html
  • Bianca F on 17 Apr 11
     
    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
  • Elin Frustol on 17 Apr 11
     
    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/
Kristy Long

Collaboration tools are anti-knowledge sharing? - 7 views

www.steptwo.com.au/...index.html

intranet; collaboration; information silo; fragmentation

shared by Kristy Long on 13 Apr 11 - Cached
  • Kristy Long on 13 Apr 11
     
    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
  • ...4 more comments...
  • Jiawen Lin on 13 Apr 11
     
    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&Fmt=7&clientId=22212&RQT=309&VName=PQD Long, K. (2011). Comments on Collaboration tools are anti-knowledge sharing? Retrieved from http://groups.diigo.com/group/c
  • Kelly Kerr on 15 Apr 11
     
    This article highlights the fact that whilst an organisation can implement collaboration tools there is more to collaborating that just implementing the technical solution and letting the staff collaborate without governance or guidelines (Till, 2005). The article raises that without leadership and guidance the tools that are designed to assist the business can actually work against it with multiple silos of content occurring, often with duplicate information which is not managed appropriately. For example the same piece of content could appear in more than one silo and be different as different teams are managing each of the sites (silos). Further, staff who are unfamiliar with a particular site are likely to create another instance of a site to avoid a conflict of an existing site. The article raises the issue of knowledge management at the corporate level being neglected and business risk that becomes a side effect of poor knowledge management. For many organisations, the intranet search engine is the quick win to locate information amongst multiple team sites however that is only masking the issue at hand (Brauns, 2004) and the information architecture of the intranet or sites needs to be addressed from an organisational wide approach and identify which information needs to be keep separate and implement a solution to meet the business needs. Reference Brauns, M. (2004). Moving Beyond Search. EContent, 27(7/8), S8-S9. Retrieved April 10, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global database Till, J.G., (2005). Don't blame the technology. Information World Review, (213), 28. Retrieved April 10, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global database..
  • Ran An on 15 Apr 11
     
    The article argues that it exists some disadvantages with using those collaboration tools, while collaboration tools were introduced to an intranet of organization. The article argues that it could cause the unmanaged content misplaced, lacking of context, and create information silos as it is not widely used, and therefore, at the end the article gave the conclusion is that collaborate tools can result in anti-knowledge sharing during the daily collaborative work. In fact, when providing team members with some effective e-business collaboration tools and spaces to manage organizational information and communicate each other, team members are also provided with professional knowledge about how to use those tools and spaces in an effective way.(Toole,2000). Team members need actively know how to use the collaboration tools within the group of organization, and learn how to find the important information in the "shared context" and catch up with what's going on with updated context in collaboration spaces before members started using these tools and spaces.(J. Robertson, 2007) I don't agree with that collaboration tools are anti knowledge sharing. Each technological product has its own disadvantages a certain extent, but updated technologies have been improving better services. So, users need find ways to solve the problem with using those collaborative tools in effective ways, in order to achieve the successful collaborative communication among members in the group. Minimize the risk and maximizes the benefits are the key points in the organizations for a better collaborative results. Reference: Robertson, J. (2007). Collaboration tools are anti knowledge sharing? Retrieved from http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/cmb_antiknowledgesharing/index.html Toole, P. (2000). Sign of the times: manufacturing and e-business blen
  • Michael Nycyk on 15 Apr 11
     
    Kristy I was taken aback by the article but it also reminded me of my time working in a construction company. Many large-scale huge projects require the joining together of organisations (designers, architects, constructors) and professionals who previously competed for construction work. That is why there is much hype around creating a knowledge-sharing culture. This is described as making knowledge sharing a 'norm' (Gurteen, 1999), which means it is an accepted and agreed upon practice in the collaboration of any kind that things are disclosed and not hidden. We know this of course sometimes for politics or self-gain does not work. However, as construction clients do demand many firms to complete a project, knowledge sharing tools must not be anti-knowledge sharing. I will give you an example, which is in the public domain, of an example. I found on one project the issue of context that Robertson (2007) talks about in his article to be important for the sharing of records. The project I did ended up being published, but the situation was the sharing of important construction data. Each manager kept records of materials used on their own laptops and PC's as spreadsheets. No wonder there was confusion when they were told to merge them to share what had been done. They referred to it as 'Spreadsheet Culture' (Nycyk, 2008). They simply did not want to share how much material was being used. Although that suggests a culture issue, Excel can be a collaborative tool but it is obviously anti-knowledge sharing if every manager uses it differently. This is what they did, hence why the simple use of this tool in the wrong way prevented not only a sharing culture to develop but resulted in top management writing into their duty statements they had to use the new central database. References Gurteen, D. (1999). Creating a knowledge sharing culture. Gurteen, Retrieved April 15, 2011 from http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/ksculture Nycyk, Michael (200
  • Shan Shan Cheung on 17 Apr 11
     
    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
  • Jiawen Lin on 17 Apr 11
     
    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&
FARNAZ SHAMS

Digital enterprise technology-defining perspectives and research priorities - 3 views

Rapid product and process realization are major elements of competitiveness for the manufacturing industry, so efforts must focused on early stage of product development, where the product lifecycl...

started by FARNAZ SHAMS on 15 Apr 11 no follow-up yet
Ran An

Supporting and facilitating the Enterprise Collaboration (EC) & Enterprise Interoperabi... - 0 views

www.ami-communities.eu/...EI%29%20solution%20take-up.pdf

enterprise collaboration

shared by Ran An on 15 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • Ran An on 15 Apr 11
     
    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
Emily Murphy

Open Source Everywhere - 1 views

www.wired.com/...opensource.html

Net308 collaboration open source OSS Wikipedia

shared by Emily Murphy on 15 Apr 11 - Cached
  • Emily Murphy on 15 Apr 11
     
    My topic is the collaboration practices of open source software development. OVERVIEW: Open source software has popularised the concept of free, open collaboration through the huge success of projects such as Linux, Apache, and Mozilla. This article from Wired Magazine explores how the concept of open source, propelled by the success of OSS projects, is being applied to all aspects of information compilation, from free scientific journals, to liberally-licensed gene-transfer technology, to freely-editable encyclopaedia Wikipedia. Although this article takes a somewhat liberal interpretation of 'open source', it does a good job of explaining the origins and future of the open source ethos. It also pinpoints two factors behind open source's success: the rise of the Internet, and general exasperation with stifling intellectual property laws. By concentrating on open source as "a broad body of collaborators ... whose every contribution builds on those before" (p. 1), this article successfully links the concept of open source with the broader theme of online collaboration. Open source software developments, along with other incarnations of open source such as Wikipedia, are prime examples of the power of online collaboration. Relying on the work of semi-anonymous participants and loose organisational mechanisms, open source projects create something of value without many of the restrictions of intellectual property. As exemplified in this article, all kinds of organisations can learn from the success of open source's collaborative online approach.
  • Michael Nycyk on 15 Apr 11
     
    I wanted to comment Emily on what a fascinating example of collaboration this is and a good resource to share. The open source software movement, particularly Linux, was one of the first online examples of the gift economy at work as identified by many anthropologists. Indeed, what makes some scratch their heads when trying to get others to collaborate on projects is the eagerness of those to contribute without reward to the programming process. Much has been made of the fact that niceties are attended to in the community, such as making sure the other programmers know what you did on the code. Anthropologist Coleman (2004) commenting on Project Muse shows not only the power of collaboration practices, but also how political they can get. For example to clarify this point, Zeitlyn (2003) studied the motivations of programmers who get involved in such collaborations. Much open source work is built on an ideal and goal, it is just that the sheer size of these collaborations make them very interesting in the way they are organised and executed. I do think mass scale collaborations such as Red Hat are different to Wikipedia. To me Wikipedia is somewhat anarchistic. There are rules but there is no actual valued goal; not everyone is out improve Wikipedia, whereas Linux has a greater degree of concern for the end goal, which is often being the alternative to Windows. I enjoyed reading all your postings on this issue and it seems that both Zeitlyn and Hertel et al did a lot of work to try to understand open source software and collaboration practices. References Coleman, G. (2004). The Political Agnosticism of Free and Open Source Software and the Inadvertent Politics of Contrast. Anthropological Quarterly, 77(3), 507-519. Zeitlyn, D. (2003). Gift economies in the development of open source software: Anthropological reflections. Research Policy, 32(7), 1287-1291.
Belinda Milne

Measuring The Value Of Social Media Advertising - 1 views

techcrunch.com/...social-media-advertising

advertising social media facebook social media marketing Nielsen techcrunch

shared by Belinda Milne on 12 Apr 11 - Cached
  • Belinda Milne on 12 Apr 11
     
    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
  • Sheila Bonsu on 17 Apr 11
     
    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&
  • Karina Mitya Pradipta on 18 Apr 11
     
    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
Steffi Jones

A Million Heads is Better Than One - 2 views

www.readwriteweb.com/...rowdsourcing_million_heads.php

crowdsourcings collaboration Business wikipedia stumbleupon

shared by Steffi Jones on 15 Apr 11 - Cached
  • Steffi Jones on 15 Apr 11
     
    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
  • Sheila Bonsu on 17 Apr 11
     
    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
Ran An

The Role of Collaboration in Organizations - 1 views

collaboration-tools.org/...collaboration-in-organizations

collaboration communication organisation networking

shared by Ran An on 15 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • Ran An on 15 Apr 11
     
    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.
1 - 20 of 41 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page