Group items tagged

I was interested in this article as much of my research for the assignment has made the same argument that this article makes. And that is, Email may be great for communication but is most deffinately not at all useful for collaboration. As Luis Suarez states, most will file the email away and will be unlikely to find it later. He also states that new people to the project wont have those emails. The article by Stackpole (2008) talks about the use of wiki's as great online collaboration tools that help users to organise projects and separate them from eachother. Many of the points addressed in this article are almost exact responses to the issues with email. As stated above, those users who join a project late wont have the email. Stackpole (2008) explores this notion by talking about new members being able to catch up on the development of a project easily without having to sift through hundreds of emails. The wiki page will give the most current information as well as show the progress in a neat logical way. Saurez also states that the ability to find information/changes in emails is challenging as one has to search / sift through their emails. As stated above wiki's allows users to easily see these changes without having to try find the five or ten emails it was discussed in. Stackpole (2008) also notes that changes/updates/information and separate projects can all be kept in the one place. However, if one was to send an email to 10 different people, perhaps only some would actually click reply all (in which the response is sent to all recipients) therefore if one was to click just reply, only the initial sender would see the response, thus information is too scattered as some have less access. With a wiki it is all in one spot for everyone to reference. While reading Saurez's article I strongly agreed with his arguments, and Stackpole (2008) article backs up the notion that email is not a strong collaborative tool, that doesn't mean it is not a strong

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

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..

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

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

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

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

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.

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