Skip to main content

Home/ CurtinNet308/ Group items tagged e-business;

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
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&
Mandy Burke

Managing the Digital Enterprise in Digital Markets through the internet - 12 views

I think you are correct in saying that there have been great advantages (and many disadvantages) brought upon by the introduction of the Internet to society. For businesses it has made selling and ...

started by FARNAZ SHAMS on 14 Apr 11 4 follow-ups, last by Mandy Burke on 16 Apr 11
FARNAZ SHAMS

Article 4: Sign of the times: manufacturing and e-business blend as a digital enterprise - 13 views

ofcourese the advantages of e-business can overcome to its disadvantages and now most of the educated people prefer to as it as a beneficial thing.

collaboration; globel; network; enterprise; online; Net308_508; Internet; e-business; digital enterprises

started by Jiawen Lin on 10 Apr 11 2 follow-ups, last by FARNAZ SHAMS on 13 Apr 11
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
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
Jiawen Lin

Article 2: iManage Unveils the First Multi-Platform Collaborative Content Management Suite - 7 views

My comment: Fedorowicz, Laso-Ballesteros, and Padilla-Melendez (2008) summarizes that a good collaboration tool is able to produce a faster time to market, increase business model innovation, red...

collaboration; organisation; online; Internet; business; software; Net308_508

started by Jiawen Lin on 10 Apr 11 1 follow-up, last by Jiawen Lin on 12 Apr 11
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/
Mandy Burke

What video can and can't do for collaboration: A case study - 4 views

www.springerlink.com/...k6u5j47555154187

collaboration NET308 skype videoconferencing communication oragnisations companies

shared by Mandy Burke on 11 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • Mandy Burke on 11 Apr 11
     
    Face-to-face communication is not always an achievable goal for companies that have team members who are geographically dispersed. Video conferencing has been available for a number of years but has not always been accessible. Traditionally, video conferencing was an expensive way to communicate due to phone, software, hardware and high-speed Internet connection costs. Most computers now have in-built cameras and microphones. Skype builds on this hardware by providing software to facilitate video conferencing. Skype was originally only able to facilitate two-way conferencing but Version 5.1 allows users to videoconference with multiple users. Skype is a free download, video conferencing is free, calls can be made to landlines/mobiles for a discounted price and exchanging files and instant messaging can be utilised within the program. When face-to-face conferencing is unavailable, video conferencing can be a great alternative. Maintaining interest in an audio only conference can be difficult, attendees have the opportunity to switch off and work on other tasks whilst conferencing. Incorporating video into the meeting provides attendees with the ability to observe one another and see when a person is losing interest. Providing visual cues that assist receivers and senders to decipher messages enhances communication, attendees can also see vital hand/head gestures that help facilitate the flow of the conversation. By seeing these gestures the other attendees are able to grasp pauses in conversations or misunderstandings much faster. Skype and videoconferencing will not be effective if the Internet speed is not able to sync the video and audio. If there are delays or echoes this could have a detrimental rather than a positive effect on communication. Members in this situation may prefer to revert back to audio only or instant messaging as communicating with a delay/echo is annoying and in no means a productive way to communicate. References: Isaacs,
  • anonymous on 11 Apr 11
     
    This resource outlines the advantages of using video as oppose to audio only. As mentioned face to face communication is not always possible, and it is important for companies and organizations to consider the advantages of using video conferencing as oppose to audio calls only in order to discuss decisions and have conversations relating to work. Video conferencing seems to be a vital tool for many organisations; more then 50% of mid-size businesses use video conferencing (Finley, 2010). An important part of using conferencing software is to be able to enable natural collaborative behaviours. In this article Tang & Isaac's outline the advantages of using desktop video conferencing and suggest that as oppose to audio only calls, video conferencing can be more beneficial and influence more natural ways of collaborating and communicating. In internet communications we often contrast online communication to face-to face communication. In this article we are not comparing these two, but rather exploring the advantages of video conferencing over audio conferencing. Using this source we can conclude that video conferencing has strong advantages over audio conferencing because they show an employee's facial expressions which can make communication much much easier. Despite these advantages, it is vital for organizations to have a accommodating internet speed as well as hardware in order to enable individuals to effectively use video conferencing without experiencing technical issues (e.g. screen freezing) . Videoconferencing is definitely a valuable way to communicate when there are geographic boundaries between members, however in this situation the workers still face the obstacle of time zone differences. Never the less video conferencing is becoming increasingly cheaper and easier (Finley, 2010) and is clearly an important part of many organisations. This is a useful resource if you are interested in understanding how organisations benefit from video conferencing
  • anonymous on 12 Apr 11
     
    Finley, K. (2010). 4 Trends in enterprise video conferencing. Retrieved from http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2010/10/trends-in-enterprise-video-conferencing.php
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
Samantha Clews

Using a Wiki to Enhance Cooperative Learning in a Real Analysis Course - 4 views

proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb

collaboration education learning students Wiki

shared by Samantha Clews on 14 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • Samantha Clews on 14 Apr 11
     
    This is an analytical article in which the writer, Elisha Peterson, discusses the use of Wiki's in her mathmatical undergraduate course. The wiki-based software, wikidot, allowed her students to post questions as well as work collaboratively on assignments. In the article the author outlines the ways in which the wiki was specifically helpful for her class. She believes that it helped to improve participation by her students. This nturn helped students to feel more at ease when they saw what other students assignments were about. She also talks about their collaborative glossary of terms, in which each student had to post two definitions. She found that because of the collaborative nature, the students posted more than the required. It was also interesting to note that students were able to comment and correct other students work, which in turn ensured they werent studying the wrong material. However it seems that what was the most important for her class was the the compatibility wikidot had with their typesetting tool LaTeX. This made typing out mathematical equations an ease instead of students having to scan written material to the site. it seems that another positive of the site is the fact that it shows the logged time of each student, and therefore shows how much time they spent online either merely reading or perhaps editing (and what they edited was shown as well). I feel the most important part of her analysis is the feedback from her students. When examining the feedback it was obvious to see that many students believed that the online collaboration helped them when it came to studying for exams. I believe this would be a great way to get help from other students; you are able to address your question to a whole group of people instead of just one person (the teacher) this way students will get answers much quicker. It seems that the only issue behind the use of a wiki is the fact that students are unable to edit a page at the same time, however it s
  • Emily Murphy on 15 Apr 11
     
    Online collaboration has already proved its worth in software production and in the business models of various websites and organisations (eg. Wikipedia). This article provides a good example of how online collaboration can be worthy of inclusion into course material. In this example, students in the author's maths class benefited from extending their small community into an online space because students could correct each other's glossary entries and gain guidance by looking at other students' projects online. While it would have been possible for these students to collaborate offline as well, I found it interesting that various properties of the Internet seemingly made online collaboration easier than offline collaboration. For example, students could access the Wikidot page even outside of class time. Built-in features of the wiki such as forums, syntax for 'definition lists', hyperlinks, and LaTeX further assisted communication online. Having completed units involving the use of online collaboration tools (including Wikidot), I've observed that the usefulness of online tools is inevitably limited by how many students actually participate. While Ye and Kishida (2003) postulate that a 'community of practice' motivates participants to learn through participation, I would theorise that the allocation of marks to collaborative tasks is the most effective motivation for students to participate. Indeed, the author finds that tasks to which marks are allocated had excellent participation rates, while the forum, for which use was not compulsory, was used by only a few students. References: Ye, Y. & Kishida, K. (2003). Toward an Understanding of the Motivation of Open Source Software Developers. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering. Accessed April 15, 2011, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=776867
  • Bianca F on 17 Apr 11
     
    This article discusses the author, Elishia Peterson's experience in creating and maintaining a wiki for her mathematics students to use during their semester. Peterson describes the tasks and activities she assigned the students in order to utilise the online collaboration tool that is Wikidot and was satisfied with the level of student involvement. (2009). Peterson is also forthcoming in any negatives and shortfalls she experienced during the course of the semester period, including the issue of more than one person working on the page at a time (which locks the other out and they are thus required to wait their 'turn') and that having to learn how to use the Wiki properly also took up a little extra time. Despite these minor issues, Peterson explains that the wiki created a more "streamlined student - instructor" relationship and that the communication kept the students engaged. The ability to post course material and answer questions on the wiki, along with the activities assigned to the students, created an environment where the students were able to work together. Peterson does mention that the use of the discussion board may have further enhanced the experience for her students but she found the board largely ignored perhaps as there was no grade requirement to utilise that specific tool. This reminds me of Broomhall's (2009) observation that just because a collaboration tool is available, does not mean it will be used. References: Broomhall, A (2009) No collaboration without communications Retrieved from http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/cmb_nocollaboration/index.html Peterson, E.. (2009). Using a Wiki to Enhance Cooperative Learning in a Real Analysis Course. Primus : Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 19(1), 18-28. Retrieved April 17, 2011, from ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID: 1642644011). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?index=1&did=1642644011&SrchMode=1&sid=10&Fmt=4&VI
Rosanna Candler

How the Internet brought down a dictator - 4 views

technolog.msnbc.msn.com/...ternet-brought-down-a-dictator

Egypt revolution internet dictator Government social media collaboration

shared by Rosanna Candler on 12 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • peter stanier on 17 Apr 11
     
    Contrasting the prominent role the internet played with political revolutions in both the Arab and Western worlds (Dutta, 2008) the striking notion is how significant the Internet and subsequent social medias are in empowering ordinary citisens. For the first time in history the minorities of society have a place to establish equal-footing, share information and as Conley (2011) notes destabilize the old guard and oppressing political regimes. As we see internet inspired revolutions spreading across the globe the idea championed by Ghonim that "the best way to liberate a society is to give them the Internet (Smith 2011)" is becoming increasingly relevant. There's also an underlying theme throughout this news report that this political collaboration was strengthened by the inept tactics adopted by the Mubarak government. As well as the significant costs to the Egyptian economy and businesses through unplugging the Internet, it only served to advance the cause of the protesters elevating personal political stories to a global audience and invoking internet users and organizations from around the world to partake and assist in this online collaboration. A pressing issue for me is the evolution of this collaboration, the grassroots movement can be traced back to 2008 (Egypt's opposition pushes demands as protests continue, 2011) and since then the underground and organized techniques employed by the protesters online, were crucial in not only this political movement going undetected by an oppressive regime but also the successful outcome of this collaboration. While briefly touching on the potential negative aspects of the greater utilization of social media, this source clearly demonstrates how the internet and particularly social networks have assisted in the liberation of the Egyptian society. Although it remains to be seen whether similar internet revolutions will occur, evidenced here is a political collaboration build online and as Cowie (2011) docume
  • Rosanna Candler on 24 Apr 11
     
    In a media environment where opinion tends to incline toward black or white extremes, MSNBC's technology blogger Wilson Rothman clearly and diplomatically maps out Egypt's January conflict. Performing a simple online search of 'Egypt revolution' will deliver thousands of arguments for two sides of the coin: those reinforcing a dedicated belief that social media conceived and sustained the revolution, and those (such as Mayton, 2011) who consider this estimation a gross discredit to the majority of activists with no online access. Most refreshingly, Rothman refuses to bow to broad and antagonistic statements- preferring instead to present the chain of events and their professional commentary- providing his reader with the means to determine their own position. In light of Wikileaks tracing the seeds of activism from 2008, Facebook and Twitter was used to mobilise numbers for the January 25 demonstration. This is the function for which many consider the Government 'turned off' Internet in Egypt for, however Philip Howard regards the ability to document (photograph and video) and post online the violent police response as a far greater threat and 'kill-switch justification' for the Government. During this time, the leaked media (i.e. SpeakToTweet) were "rendered more uplifting and powerful by their illicit nature" (Rothman, 2011). Journalist John Guardiano has gone as far to say that "Mubarak resigned really because of the pressure imposed on him by CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya, Twitter, Facebook and the Internet" completely disregarding the Tahrir Square protesters and igniting the online comment "You bring your hyper partisan lens to bear on events you know little about" (Guardiano, 2011). Rothman's article reminds us that although Egypt's Revolution was 'Internet-fuelled' and gave individuals the capacity to "tell the story...and making sure someone is there to hear the story" (Rothman, 2011), it is
1 - 12 of 12
Showing 20▼ items per page