Group items tagged

In this paper, the authors examine the use of instant messaging (IM) during face-to-face, telephone, and computer-mediated team meetings, a practice they call "invisible whispering". Dennis et al. argue that organisational decision making is dominated by teams as a team has more resources, knowledge, and political insight than any one individual working alone. Collaboration technology has come to play an important role as teams have become more geographically distributed. The authors analyse how invisible whispering alters the socio-spatial and temporal boundaries of team decision making by using Goffman's theatrical conceptualisation of social interaction. Dennis et al. suggest that invisible whispering constitutes a new communicative genre. They distinguish between six types of invisible whispering and then describe how meeting participants used these practices to restructure the socio-spatial and temporal boundaries of collaborative decision making process. Findings from the research showed that invisible whispering is likely to improve the efficiency of collaborative decision making. However, they also found mixed effects on decisions quality, satisfaction, individual comprehension, and the relationship between group members. The paper is important as it shows how instant messaging can be used within organisations a decision making tool. The authors argue that workers are able to influence front stage decision making through backstage conversations, which would have been physically impossible or socially constrained without the use of IM. This proves that instant messaging is an important collaborative tool that organisations can benefit from. References Dennis, A. R., Rennecker, J. A., Hansen, S. (2010). Invisible Whispering: Restructuring Collaborative Decision Making with Instant Messaging. Decision Sciences, 41(4), 845-886. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00290.x/pdf

By examining the practice the use of Instant Messaging (IM) for undetectable conversations during meetings, termed 'invisible whispering', this paper provides an interesting example of how communication technologies are changing collaboration. Collaboration generally relies on trust and/or effective collaborative mechanisms (Mockus et al., 2002). However, employees of the two firms studied in this paper regularly used IM to communicate secretly with each other or with others outside of the meeting. I found it interesting that the previously unacceptable practice of whispered conversations became acceptable when conducted using digital means - probably partly due to increased speed and efficiency offered by multiple synchronous conversations (p. 856). To me, the importance of such a case study is that it demonstrates how socio-spatial boundaries have been expanded. In this case, invisible whispering alters socio-spatial boundaries by bringing in the influence of outsiders, and by allowing conversations that would have occurred at another time to be brought into the context of current conversation. As such, this paper provides a good launching pad for considering the scope of online collaboration's influence. An examination of online collaboration projects such as open source software or Wikipedia reveals that, generally, online collaboration has worked to break down socio-spatial limitations by allowing the participation of more people than could ever have fit into one room, practically transcending geographical distance, and changing the nature of conversations so that they can occur either instantly or asynchronously. Reference: Mockus, A., Fielding, R., & Herbsleb, J. (2002). Two Case Studies of Open Source Software Development: Apache and Mozilla. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 11(3), p. 309-346.

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: 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.

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

My topic is the collaboration practices of open source software development. OVERVIEW: 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.

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.

The goal of many intranets is to centrally store corporate information so that all staff can share information across divisions, access it and use it to make work-based decisions. This article argues that while there are many organisational benefits that occur from introducing collaborative tools to an intranet, if they are not managed properly they can create information silos, and therefore become tools that support anti-knowledge sharing. The article says the strengths of collaborative tools can also become their weakness. It starts with staff forgetting to publish outcomes or finalised documents produced in a 'locked down' collaborative space to the published area of the intranet. This then potentially causes hundreds of small collaboration spaces containing important and useful corporate information that hasn't been shared with the wider group. It is this fragmentation which makes it hard to find anything. The article argues, "This is the lesson we didn't learn from Lotus Notes and we are repeating it now." (J. Robertson, 2007) Even though some documents might be published to a broader audience, those who don't have access to the full collaborative space they were produced in may lack the context to understand what they are reading and how to use it. That is, the project plan might be a working document held in a permission only collaborative space, but the change management plan might be published. Both need to be read together to provide the user with richer context. "By 'locking up' the knowledge in these spaces, organisations make knowledge sharing harder, not easier." (J. Robertson, 2007) As an intranet manager and member of a professional intranet peer group, I have witnessed this happen in many organisations. These organisations are now spending lots of money and lots of time untangling their collaborative tools. In an unmanaged environment, not only do teams create information silos, but because of the nature of the collaborative too

The article described collaboration tools obstruct knowledge sharing if organisations do not manage tools well. I am interesting in this article as theme of the article is an alert for me. There is an association between collaboration tools and knowledge sharing. They work as train and rail. The knowledge needs collaboration tools such as Intranet, Internet or other systems share them to most of user. Trains need rails for running. Thus collaboration tools are rails and Knowledge is trains. They cannot work appropriately once they miss each other. However, railway requires particular planning before it builds up and maintenance after railway is running. The planning ensures railway is working efficiency and safety. Collaboration tools also require particular planning. Robertson (2007) mentioned in his articles, collaboration tools can be anti-sharing once tools are without management, planning and maintenance. Suarez (2006) argue in his blog that e-mail is not a powerful collaboration tools. I think what he argued is about how people using e-mail tools. E-mail is not a powerful collaboration tools because no one performs collaboration function well from e-mail. This is the same logic as collaboration tools. Collaboration tools can be an issue of knowledge sharing once on one control or manage tools. We should make sure collaboration tools are not only store all the knowledge only. Reference Robertson, J. (2007). Collaboration tools are anti knowledge sharing? Retrieved from http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/cmb_antiknowledgesharing/index.html Suarez, L. (2006). Email: The Good Enough Collaboration Tool - Is It Really? Retrieved from http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/elsua/email-the-good-enough-collaboration-tool-is-it-really-11473

This article emphasises some weaknesses of using collaboration tools in an organisation, such as unmanaged content misplaced in the system, a lack of organizational context for new staff, and irrelevance of search results for staff. This can link to one of my selected article - Sign of the times: manufacturing and e-business blend as a digital enterprise - which mentions another weakness that is the new solution may not integrate with the organisation's existing system and the existing organisational knowledge may fail to exploit. Long (2011) comments that both organizational teams and the nature of the collaboration tools can create information silos in an unmanaged environment. I agree that no collaboration tool is perfect but I also argue that such tools become a competitive necessity of most organizations because they provide powerful service to simplify business process and reduce cost. As Toole (2000) mentions, a trend for most enterprises is e-business which combines Internet and information technology to manage organizational information and process business geographically. I believe that with the continuous development of information technology, those collaboration tools can be improved and offer better services. Furthermore, organizations need to provide professional staff training on using those tools and make sure everyone follows the same procedure to process information in an effective way. Toole (2000) claims the bottom line of using collaboration tools is that they can deliver "better innovation and lower costs with higher quality products and services". Reference Toole, P. (2000). Sign of the times: manufacturing and e-business blend as a digital enterprise. Design Engineering, 46(8), 12. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?did=374775371&

Known as 'social media marketing, viral marketing, buzz, and guerilla marketing' Word Of Mouth Marketing has become an important feature of marketing online. This article is a fairly in-depth study looking at issues of shifting narratives, practices and theories in WOMM, particularly in the face of growing social media communities. The article looks at ways social - media marketers are dealing with "networked coproduction of narratives" made possible by the affordances of social media tools and the Internet (Kozinets, 2010). Kozinets et. al. argue the evolution of word-of-mouth marketing is marked by 3 stages: First, the Organic Interconsumer Influence Model, or simple word-of-mouth, which is not directed, promoted or directly influenced by marketers; Second, the Linear marketer Influence Model, sees marketers seeking to influence and guide WOM by focusing on so-called "opinion leaders" who are able to influence others. This the of marketing will be familiar to Facebook or Twitter users, who may be used to seeing products recommended by well-known celebrities; Third, is the Network Coproduction Model. This refers to "managed one-to-one seeding and communication programs". As Marketers and consumers often have very different goals, such a strategy is not without risk. As Kozinets et.al. point out (2010) "consumers are regarded as active coproducers of value and meaning, whose WOM use of marketing communications can be idiosyncratic, creative, and even resistant". The main challenge in Word Of Mouth Marketing (WOMM) online is that marketers typically have less control over the content and direction of the campaign or opinion (see Mangold and Faulds, 2010). According to Kozinets et.al (2010) the key to successfully engaging large and often disparate groups is building network of "one-to-one" personal relationships, which allow individual members to become involved and feel a part of the process of narrative building and meaning creation. References: Kozinet

This is a comprehensive blog entry introduction to the potential of Google Docs as a collaborative tool for students. These potential uses are also valuable in work places or other group work. The value of this resource is the well-written way Wetzel articulates the advantages of Google Docs for collaborative practice. His argument is that such a system, aside from being free, is valuable to go beyond the e-mail sharing culture to a full real-time collaborative environment. Wetzel then proceeds to give examples of the potential for the application of Google Docs in education contexts and classrooms. To summarise, he argues three main points in using Google Docs for collaboration:  The ability for Google Docs to provide instant feedback to students on their work  To conserve expenses on school projects such as printing costs  Encouraging the working together of students on a projects in a systematic and orderly manner The tone of the article is clearly very much in favour of using Google Docs for collaborative practice in educational settings. However, though this may not be an issue in educational contexts, there are disadvantages using Google Docs that are not reported. Two bloggers highlight those weaknesses which may be of concern when trying to use more features in Google Docs that are not there but are part of the Microsoft Office Suite:  The speed of internet connection is vital; if it is slow the collaborator may not be able to keep up with others' postings (Bukisa, 2011)  Most of the time you cannot work offline with Google Docs, you must be online to create and update documents (Creative Marketing Solutions, n.d.) However, the article does put a compelling list of features that make Google Docs a good system to use for educational collaboration.

References Bukisa. (2011). Google Docs review. Retrieved April 13, 2011, from http://www.bukisa.com/articles/480255_google-docs-review Creative Marketing Solutions. (n.d.). How to use Google Docs. Retrieved April 13, 2011, from http://knolt.com/creative-marketing-solutions/2010/10/20/heading-2/ Wetzel, D. R. (2009). Google Docs are a free online educational tool: Web-based productivity software for teacher or student collaboration. Suite101.com. Retrieved April 2, 2011, from http://www.suite101.com/content/google-docs-are-a-free-online-educational-tool-a105900

The article, Google Docs are a Free Online Educational Tool Written by David R. Wetzel gives a comprehensive overview of the benefits of Google docs specifically in relation to education. The article outlines these positives a few of these include (but are not limited to) the ability to secure the websites content, making it a safe place to upload work, the ability to comment and give almost instant feedback, the ability to update students on deadlines, information, and helpful tools and also to keep course content. It seems that these positives are quite a universal thing as Keith McPherson (2007) explored all of these benefits in his article new online technologies for new literacy instruction. This reminds me of the use of wiki's in education, a tool that is explored by Elisha Petersen (2009) in which the tool is used to do the same. This brings me to question, which is better? Why use one over the other, if they achieve the exact same thing? Wetzel's article doesn't seem to give any suggestion that the tool has anything wrong with it. Something that, in technology, is hard to believe. Keith McPherson, However, outlines a few limitations of the program. He states "the conversion of graphics and tables from a Word document to a Google document is not reliable and Google Docs does not run on older browsers and Safari or Opera" (McPherson, 2007). Ryan Spoon a Principal at Polaris Venture Partners writes in his blog that he decided to use Wikidot (a wiki platform) instead of Google docs, he believes that although Google docs are great for specific documents they "don't scale over time well… more importantly the documents are treated distinctly and ultimately get as cluttered as your computer desktop" so although two tools (wiki and Google docs) can inevitably achieve the same thing, they still work in very different ways, and one has to evaluate the finer details. References Peterson, E.. (2009). Using a Wiki to Enhance Cooperative Learning in

East North Carolina University (ECU) has used the virtual reality game "Second Life" as an education tool for those students who are still in highschool. The college has set up courses through Second Life in which teenagers can have access to as they are physically unable to attend. The article states that one main reason for this type of route is the lack of funding for early-college programs. The site gives a cost effective alternative yet still allows students to engage as though in a real classroom. An article by Dorothy Lepkowska. Which was featured in The Guardian, talks about the site as a means to educate teachers as well. She states "Second Life is an immersive 3D tool and learning environment, so it allows us to present things as we would if we were all in the room. We can take questions, show video clips and the participants can interact with each other but without all the time constraints and costs involved," Again the issue of cost is something that is pushing institutions in this direction. According to a Wire Feed, by Targeted News Service the University of Hawaii has also created their own island within second life. Their university building has been made to look exactly like their school, however they have been able to add extra learning areas than they could in real life. The main point of the article is the fact that Second Life allows those students to participate in a class like environment even if they cant physically attend. This brings me to an article by Mark Blakenship (2011) in which he talks about students being taken to Shakespeare's Globe Theatre (a new addition to Second Life). He states "students can join in the digital Globe and get an interactive sense of what it was like see a play there. Inside Second life, Fiebig (the professor) also has students "perform" plays by typing their lines into the game's chat function." It is argued that perhaps students prefer this as the thought of talking in class frightens them, yet th

This article is a great example of online community collaboration, reality meeting the virtual world. There are several reasons for the University employing the use of Second Life technology. The reasons stated by the article were the lack of funds and infrastructure. Collaboration tools must all means provide flexibility when real life fails to do so as demonstrated by the article. The only doubt I have with online learning through Second Life is whether the students are more or less engaged in comparison to on-campus students. As pointed out in the Qualitative findings of students' perception on practice of self-regulated strategies in online community discussion journal article, some students in Malaysia for example regarded the use of the Internet as a distraction to learning, and preferred the more familiar didactic learning environment (Vighnarajah, Wong, & Bakara, 2009). One of the key findings of the study was that student users who were familiar with the Internet found it rather distracting to continue learning once they were online (Vighnarajah et al., 2009). With Second Life as the means to collaborate a community of students for this High School, I wonder if the technology is sufficient considering the environment of this particular online collaborating platform. I also wonder if Second Life as a tool is appropriate for students. My topic is on Organisations and online collaborations and I want to touch base on where online collaboration succeeds. Online collaboration is good for businesses or organisations when participation is often measured by contribution and outcome of a certain task. The same cannot be said for students learning online through Second Life. Reference: Vighnarajah, Wong, S. L., & Bakara, K. A. (2009). Qualitative findings of students' perception on practice of self-regulated strategies in online community discussion. Computers & Education, 53(1), 9. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.d

This article is taken from credible source such as compilation articles based on Proquest - Curtin University library. The main topic of this article is that, Second Life as a cyber world which launced in 2003, is a free client program that enables users to have interaction among one another in form of virtual bodies along with avatars. Specifically this article highlighting on how virtual world is part of online education, where there is a virtual college that designed by combine the convenience of online education along with the atmosphere of a college classroom in 3D version. By relating to my own topic, which is talk about the use as well as features of social bookmarking site (delicious), the virtual world or in here especially Second Life as well provides specific features in order to facilitate the online education, it provides 3D experience which help the users as student to stimulate their experiences and transferring online education in the forms of digital. For examples one of the features in here is when student able to attending their classes, as for the value for the articles itself, it is useful and shows that there a great range of way on how people can use games and social sites merely not just for entertainment but as well as education. References: High Schoolers Attend College in Second Life. (2011). Retrieved April 17, 2011, from http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?index=10&did=2253249221&SrchMode=1&sid=14&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1302676765&clientId=22212

This article looks at another popular online collaboration tool in educational settings - the wiki. A wiki is a good choice for online collaboration because it is easy to set up, monitor and for most students easy for them to use. Deters, Cutherell & Stapleton's (2010) article looks at a study of the use of two wikis in particular, PBWiki and Wet Paint. Benefits when collaborating on a wiki are that can author, edit and find information very easily, making wikis especially helpful in the educational setting. Whilst this study overwhelmingly supports the use of wikis, they did identify a number of issues, which can be overcome. It is important that the wiki has instructor or teacher support. The teacher needs to set up guidelines, rules and examples for students to read before the wiki exercise begins. There can also be some technical issues with Wikis - but once again with good technical support these issues can be overcome. The study revealed that most students enjoyed using a wiki and the response was overall very positive. Not only did the students participate as part of their studies, but they could see how it would be possible to use wikis in their own teaching practices. Wikis are a wonderful tool that can be used in many settings and as stated by Deters, Cutherell & Stapleton's (2010, Discussion section, para.2), "in online learning situations, wikis assist students in learning new content and support them in connecting new knowledge with personal experiences".

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

This article is a good case study on the benefits of using a wiki for teaching and learning. Since, wikis allow playful creation, flat hierarchies, simple rules, flexible scheduling and diverse participates (Ebersbach, 2008, p. 24-25) it is a great collaborative tool to use in teaching and Learning for students of any age. It would also be more appropriate for teaching staff to start implementing the usage of wikis or collaboration tools for teaching and learning as younger generations are digital natives and use web technologies regularly for communication and collaboration with peers. This article is also a good source to support the argument of using wikis for teaching and learning as it highlights and illustrates the support that students have towards teaching and learning outcomes, with the data illustrating that the majority of students found wikis to be useful for "teaching and learning and for collaborative problem solving" (Deters, Cuthrell & Stapleton, 2010, p. 5). Therefore, highlighting how a wiki allows for asynchronous use for students as many university students may study in a range of modes that include part time or distance modes, thus ensuring that all students regardless of time, space and location can collaborate and communicate both with other students and their facilitators for problem solving. 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 Ebersbach, A. (2008). Wiki Web collaboration Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com.ezproxy.lib.uts.edu.au/content/q08xw7/#section=226612&page=1

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

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

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

The authors examine uses of instant messaging in a high-tech firm to illustrate how knowledge workers use this tool to collaborate with co-workers. According to Quan-Haase et al., the objective with the study was to 1) identify the collaborative practices of individuals in mediated work environments by looking at use of IM, 2) discern what social processes are reflected in employees' use of IM, and 3) investigate how visibility, awareness and accountability are used in an IM system. The research found that IM is used extensively to exchange work-related messages, coordinate and arrange meetings, and inquiry about colleagues' availability for discussion. IM was used as much for internal communication as for external communication. The authors also found that IM functions as a barrier in some cases as some employees use IM as a way to create distance between them and their superiors. Quan-Haase et al. suggest that this is particularly useful when difficult decisions have to be made or sensitive topics discussed. Quan-Haase et al. examines how workers in a small high-tech organisation manage their IM use for the purpose of information exchange and collaboration. The article is interesting as it is based on a case study of an actual organisation. However, it is written 6 years ago so employees' willingness to adapt to instant messaging may have changed as collaborative tools are more common today. Still, most of the findings are still applicable today. References Quan-Haase, A., Cothrel, J. & Wellman, B. (2005). Instant Messaging for Collaboration: A Case Study of a High-Tech Firm. Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/quan-haase.html

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

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

'99Designs' is a website that connects designers with small businesses who need design projects. The website allows for those who need designs to post what they want and then for designers to take on the project and compete to complete the best design. The design chosen by the project poster is awarded prize money. Looking for graphic designers online enables businesses to quickly and conveniently source the designs they want. The main advantage also being that they have the pick of many designs put forward to them, rather than say paying someone for their time to create something for you, only for it to be not entirely what you want. You obviously have to have the skills in design, but it gives those who have not been given the opportunities in the real world, to put their skills to use and make money on the internet. Websites such as this also allows for people to build their portfolios and in the long run are advantaged by the opportunity to design for people that they choose. This use of crowd sourcing shows how the internet is changing the way in which we do business, as it offers an easier and cheaper option for the buyers and more opportunities for the producers. References About Us. (2011). Retrieved from 99designs: http://99designs.com/help/aboutus Kumo. (2011, January). Design and Money Making Opportunities at 99designs. Retrieved from ToastEggMe: http://www.toasteggme.com/index.php/money-making-opportunities-site/design-and-money-making-opportunities-at-99designs/

As a designer, this article raises some very important important issues within the design industry. Design99 is just one of many similar crowdsourcing sites, which have cropped up online, which encourage designers to compete and bid for work online. In the industry, this is known as "spec work" and has often been a source of strong debate. Spec work presents a great opportunity for clients as they get to pick and choose from potentially dozens of designs, all the the price of one. On the other hand, designers run the risk of putting in many hours of work, for which they may or may not be paid. For a design student, this presents no real risk, and it can even provide a degree of professional development but a professional designer cannot hope run a business if they are essentially expected to work for free. For this reason, many professionals refuse to engage in spec work. Except for pro-bono and some charity work AIGA, the American Institute of Graphic Arts and AGDA, the Australian Graphic Design Association actively discourage the practice. Grefé points out (2009) AIGA "believes that professional designers should be compensated fairly for the value of their work and should negotiate the ownership or use rights of their intellectual and creative property through an engagement with clients". AGDAs position is rather more blunt, as Bartow recommends avoiding spec work "like the plague" (Bartow, n.d). While many freelance sites behave this way (see O'Dell, 2010) there are also crowdsourcing sites which don't. Brandstack.com allows designers to upload and sell unused designs from other jobs and, as only professional designers are accepted on the site, clients can be assured of receiving only high quality designs and professional service. References: Bartow, D. (n.d). "29 Things Young Designers Should Know" in Howdesign.com. Retrieved via Agda.com.au nofollo

Diigo keeps deleting my references so I'll try again Bartow, D. (n.d). "29 Things Young Designers Should Know" in Howdesign.com Retrieved via Agda.com.au http://agda.com.au/news/national/819/29-things-young-designers-should-know Grefé, R. (2009, May). "What is AIGA's position on spec work? And how are ethical standards determined?" in Aiga.org. Retrieved from http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/what-is-aigas-position-on-spec-work-and-ethical-standards#addcomment O'Dell, J. (2010, April 2)."Want Crowdsourced Design Without the Spec Work? Try Brandstack" on Mashable.com. Retrieved via http://www.mashable.com/2010/04/02/brandstack/

Kumar's work has a reasonable amount to offer in terms of a resource; his research gives more clues to the perceived effectiveness of Google Docs users have towards it as a collaborative tool. He has chosen to use the effective research method focus groups with semi-structured questions. Perhaps the useful part of investigating Google Docs as a collaborative tool is how he selected students at the university site who were in many disciplines. Thus he was able to elicit some good insights into why Google Docs is so praised as a collaborative educational tool. One finding was that students preferred Google Docs as a time saving tool where no formal meetings took place. Although the students were on campus, it was surprising that they felt they would rather use Google Docs then all meet to work on a project. The other finding was that the acceptance of this Web 2.0 collaborative technology was greater amongst students that had previous experience with Google Docs or other similar software. Another major advantage found by Kumar (2009) was that overall using such collaborative tools increased interest in the subject matter of their particular discipline. The concept that new technologies add value to existing practice was also interesting. Although Kumar was not clear on this concept, what students indicated this was the case, such a statement suggests that using Google Docs is linked to increased interest in a subject and in turn a desire to succeed. The weakness of this resource is Kumar is not clear of this link; however, as an article to show that Google Docs is of value equating collaboration tools with increased productivity shows how potentially valuable using them can be.

Yes Michael - I agree - things are constantly changing and evolving on the Internet and as you say if Kumar did the study again it would be a different outcome. Cheers, Kaye

This paper articulates through research and data analysis from although relatively small focus group the effectiveness of using new technologies 2.0 to enhance learning of students from different background in their respective disciplines. This is as same topic as one of my discussions with article Art Education, Collaboration and the Internet. It talks about internet technology integrates into contemporary education. New generation communicates and shares information differently in current technological society. Computer literate generation are different from earlier generations who rely mainly on books and printed materials. Collaborative online activity as an educational endeavor is involving people from different areas to work together.(Harris, 1999). Internet is also being used in region of high education that adopts Web2.0 to help students learning for their self-study and group projects and leverage strategies. (Kumar, n.d). Not only for undergraduate students, but also those students from high schools and colleges, all gained the benefits of new technologies across disciplines in order to achieving their teaching and learning purposes of education. For high education, I completely agree with that Google Documents is very popular among the students for collaborative projects or assignments, because I often use Google document for my topic research and reference as well. I also believe that the internet generation's familiarity with new media undoubtedly will make this way easier for teachers to craft effective learning experiences and to use such tools to engage students. Reference: Harris, J. (1999). First steps in telecollaboration. Learning and leading with technology. 27(3),54-57. Roland, A. (2003). Art Education, Collaboration and the Internet. Retrieved from http://www.artjunction.org/articles/arted_collab_internet.pdf Kumar, S. (n.d). Undergraduate Perceptions of the Usefulness of Web 2.0 in Higher Education: Survey Development. Re

The article emphasise knowledge is the asset of organisations. Although knowledge is virtual object, but its benefit for organisations cannot be avoidable. Knowledge benefits organisations enhance their profit making because it increases employees' productivity (Caruso, 2010). Therefore, we should consider how to share knowledge in efficient and low costly approaches. I agree with Caruso (2010) that informal learning experience is an important way of employees acquires their knowledge. Formal learning is not the majority part of knowledge sharing in organisations because of large human and financial resources consumption. On the other hand, informal learning is a helpful way. We could not ignore people share their knowledge among their daily conversation. Moreover, social networking tools such as blogs, wikis are helping informal knowledge sharing. Thus, organisations should think about how to well use these kinds of informal collaboration tools. In my opinion, well use collaboration tools not only ensure employees share their knowledge. In addition, we have to ensure knowledge is practicing and keeping in organisations. Difficult to keeping knowledge in an organisation is the main issue of informal sharing. It is because the knowledge exists and absorbs with an individual. Organisations lose the knowledge once the individual leave the organisations (Caruso, 2010). Besides that, once employees get the knowledge, how do organisations ensure employees apply the knowledge within organisations is the other issue. If employees have not use their knowledge, it does not have any benefit to organisations. Reference Caruso, S. (2010). Informal Workplace Learning and Knowledge Sharing. Retrieved from http://www.eadulteducation.org/adult-learning/informal-workplace-learning-and-knowledge-sharing/

This article explores how a world-wide furnishing store (IKEA) used their already existing culture to guide the production and implementation of their intranet to ensure the technology was the right fit for them. With a very strong focus on teamwork, community and collaboration already recognised in the IKEA business-model, IKEA were well aware that a strong corporate culture does not guarantee user-acceptance of information systems. "Rather than forcing its corporate culture to bend to accommodate a technology-based system, IKEA used its firmly established culture as the foundation for its IT solutions." (P. Chin, 2009) And something must have worked. In 2008, IKEA Inside (their intranet) was listed in the world's ten best intranets by well-known user-experience research firm Nielsen Norman Group. IKEA were mindful of not letting the technology they introduce ruin an already well-established human focussed corporate culture. They said their culture gave them the framework to introduce new things to the business - including information systems and technology. As Beth Gleba, Internal Information Manager for IKEA North America points out, "Before, during and after [intranet implementation], our culture is our culture." In my experience as an intranet manager, I definitely agree that a company's already existing culture will influence the final state of a technology. In organisations that don't focus on people or put staff at the front, there will often be a "disconnect between the technology-based systems and the people they're meant to support." (P. Chin, 2009) It is because the people who've made the technology haven't taken into consideration the end-user, or worse, just don't care - and where that happens that attitude is often supported by the already existing corporate culture. Reference Chin, P (2009) Inside IKEA's Human Intranet Approach Retrieved from http://www.intranetjournal.com/articles/200908/ij_08_21_0

Thank you for this article. I leaned something very interesting. "I do a little, you do a little, and together we do a lot" (Chin, 2009) This could well be the mantra for IKEA. As a company with a strong brand identity and customer-focus, here we see how important it is for IKEA staff to have the right tools and platforms to allow them to find the information they need, quickly and easily. At the same time Beth Gleba, Information Manager of IKEA North America, is aware that tools are only part of the story. It is people who make IKEA what it is. It is a place where children are free to jump on the beds, while their parents browse. Part of the success of IKEA is it's strong brand focus and supporting charities is one very important way corporations are building on their social capital by bringing attention to issues close to the hearts of customers and staff alike. In one of my shared articles Mangold & Faulds (2010) point out "organisations can leverage emotional connections by embracing one or more causes that are important to their customers." Such practices give staff and customers a sense of 'belonging". Here IKEA goes one step further by not only providing products and issues to discuss but also provides them with the tools they need to do it. One interesting point I noticed was IKEAs use of Social Media tools to create employee profiles. This aids in fostering group cohesion and allow staff to get to know one another and feel a part of the IKEA family, which for a large firm, can be very difficult to do. They also make very nice meatballs! Reference: Mangold & Faulds (2009, July-August). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix in Business Horizons. 52(4) 357-365

Although often overlooking the role of politicians in organizing online political collaboration, Sanson documents the crucial role that facebook played in galvanizing and motivating the millennial generation of voters to participate and engage in political debate throughout the 2008 election. There is an underlying theme throughout this paper that it was a case of peer -to-peer relationships that caused this revolutionary collaboration of young voters. Further highlighted is the ease with regards to facebook being an organizing tool, with social actions within the site being reflective of a ground based campaign and helping to form a new kind of politics(Sanson, 2008). Sanson ponders why it is that the youth vote has suddenly became more engaged in the political spectrum, considering factors outside of the political world; noting that both circumstance(BBC News,2008 ) and the timing of incidents over the last decade may well have instigated this youth movement. Yet it is crucially noted that the internet and particularly Facebook became a catalyst for this millennial collaboration, based not solely on political presence online but also the wealth of information and the free-flowing style of messages combined with the vast number of users(Facebook, 2011) and the ultimate chain reaction of a peer-to-peer connection. Noted throughout is the fact that this social network was used for more than just organization and a spear head of this political collaboration - highlighted is how it was used for financial muscle, as well as a tool for micro-targeting and the education of a younger generation on both the candidates and the political process. Throughout this academic paper a thorough explanation is offered as to the triggers of this millennial political collaboration which has led to a new dialogue being opened between the politicians and the voters, there can be no question that Facebook has revolutionized the way that political collaborations are conducte

The Internet has presented a medium for people to carry out 'liberal individualist' transactions with government agencies. In 2001, Microsoft announced that the internet will empower citizens "to set their own political agendas, establish government priorities and help implement policies" (Katz & Rice, 2002) and, as Angela Sanson's chapter explains, the 2007/8 United States elections rang this prediction true. Campaign finance was "just one of the many ways Obama's IT and social networking approaches revolutionised citizen participation" (Norquay, 2007): Evidence of internet incensed political dialogue, such as discussion forums, sites indicating support/non-support for parties and leadership (for example, President Obama's 1.7 million friends at the time), videos, art and news combine to create an increasingly potent role for the internet user. Obama endeavoured to "define his campaign by 'conversations' with the American people" (Westling, 2007), and in doing so, formed genuine connections which later translated into votes. As Westling recognises, Facebook is an ultimate campaign tool as it combines the "best features of local bulletin-boards, newspaper, and town hall meetings and places them in one location that is available at any time in practically any location" (2007). Many scholars have likened the transformative role of the Internet in political propaganda to that of television in the 1966 U.S. Election. The impact of the internet, however, far surpasses television because of the vast potential for individual empowerment. Instead of simply voting for themselves, citizens had the opportunity to actively contribute to political change in their peers. From the public's perspective, Facebook "gives amateur activists an easy way to connect with other citizens around the globe and helps them push their collective concerns to the top of political agendas" (Sanson, 2008). This same online influence was successfully em