Group items tagged

Subject: How online collaboration has affected the software development industry Reference 3 Continuous Coordination: A New Paradigm to Support Globally Distributed Software Development Projects by David Redmiles , André Van Der Hoek , Ban Al-ani , Tobias Hildenbr , Stephen Quirk , Anita Sarma , Roberto Silveira , Silva Filho , Cleidson De Souza , Erik Trainer ABSTRACT Along with the rapid globalization of companies, the globalization of software development has become a reality. Many software projects are now distributed in diverse sites across the globe. The distance between these sites creates several problems that did not exist for previously collocated teams. Problems with the coordination of the activities, as well as with the communication between team members, emerge. Many collaborative software engineering tools that have been used to date, in global software development projects, exhibit a fundamental paradox: they are meant to support the collaborative activity of software development, but cause individuals and groups to work more or less independently from one another. The underlying issue is that existing software engineering tools, such as configuration management repositories, issue trackers, and workflow engines, separate time and tasks in concrete but isolated process steps. Designing tools based on the premise that human activities can be codified and that periodic resynchronization of tasks is an easy step reflects poor understanding human nature. We therefore propose a new approach to supporting collaborative work called Continuous Coordination. Underlying Continuous Coordination is the premise that humans must not and cannot have their method of collaboration rigidly dictated, but should be supported flexibly with both the tools and the information to coordinate their activities and to collaborate in their activities as they see fit. In this paper, we define the concept of Continuous Coordination, introduce our work

Review of article - Continuous Coordination: A New Paradigm to Support Globally Distributed Software Development Projects This is quite a useful paper about current issues relating to the collaboration of software development and though it does not appear to have been published it is still a well-researched review of the topic. It focuses on the developing technology and changing methods of collaboration when developing software. It reviews a number of issues such as coordination issues that may arise between different sites that are working on a collaborative project together and looks at why these issues arise when developers and designers are working with current versions of collaborative software. It further focuses on why these issues arise and then reviews some of the software that is currently under development that may fix these issues. The software that it reviews includes YANCEES notification service that is an automatic publication/subscribe service for keeping software collaboration coordinated; Palantir workspace awareness tool that is an enterprise-level integrated analysis platform that works on a client/server model; Ariadne that is a tool for the collaborative searching/analysis of databases/source code and the graphical visualization and tracking of such searches; the TriVis which is a utility for graphically tracing collaborative software development and interactions and finally WorldView which is similar to TriVis but can extend from visualising design models to high level representations of development team interactions. Overall this is a very interesting article about the future direction of software development collaboration Redmiles, D. V. D. H., André; Al-ani, Ban; Hildenbr,Tobias; Quirk, Stephen; Sarma, Anita; Silveira, Roberto; Filho, Silva; De Souza, Cleidson; Trainer, Erik Continuous Coordination: A New Paradigm to Support Globally Distributed Software Development Projects. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow

Subject: How online collaboration has affected the software development industry Reference 4 Shared Waypoints and Social Tagging to Support Collaboration in Software Development By Margaret-Anne Storey, Li-Te Cheng, Ian Bull, Peter Rigby (2006) ABSTRACT This paper presents the conceptual design of TagSEA, a collaborative tool to support asynchronous software development. Our goal is to develop a lightweight source code annotation tool that enhances navigation, coordination, and capture of knowledge relevant to a software development team. Our design is inspired by combining "waypoints" from geographical navigation with "social tagging" from social bookmarking software to support coordination and communication among software developers. We describe the motivation behind this work, walk through the design and implementation, and report early feedback on how this lightweight tool supports collaborative software engineering activities. Finally, we suggest a number of new research directions that this topic exposes. (Rigby, 2006) Full document available from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.136.3988&rep=rep1&type=pdf TagSEA software/code available from http://tagsea.sourceforge.net/download.html Bibliography Rigby, P. S., Margaret-Anne; Cheng, Li-Te; Bull,Ian. (2006). Shared waypoints and social tagging to support collaboration in software development. Paper presented at the CSCW'06, ACM http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.136.3988&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Review of article - Shared Waypoints and Social Tagging to Support Collaboration in Software Development This article reviews the development and purpose of TagSEA and gives us an understanding of the technology and why it is useful for software development collaboration. This is software that is designed to allow developers to place collaborative annotations attached to specific locations in source code. This is a professionally written article that looks at both why the software was developed and how it works, including a trial evaluation of the software. It also includes information on what it is written in (java) and what it works as part of (eclipse IDE). The article reviews what it can be used for and includes images displaying the look and feel of the software but does not explain how to use the software itself or provide a link to further information. However research on the internet has provided a link http://tagsea.sourceforge.net to where the software is available. The site where the software is located provides further information on how to use the software and links for downloading it as well as information about further developments. Both the article "Shared Waypoints and Social Tagging to Support Collaboration in Software Development" and the website appear to be written/designed to be read/used by people with technical skills i.e. developers and tends to use a significant amount of specialised terminology. Rigby, P. S., Margaret-Anne; Cheng, Li-Te; Bull,Ian. (2006). Shared waypoints and social tagging to support collaboration in software development. Paper presented at the CSCW'06, ACM Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.136.3988&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Subject: How online collaboration has affected the software development industry Reference 1: Online Collaboration and Agile Software Development By Doug Poirier, January 11, 2007 ABSTRACT Agile software development requires input from all team members, and such collaboration is most effective when everyone participates. (Poirier, 2007) Full document available from http://drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/196900197 ThinkTank software is available from http://www.groupsystems.com/ Bibliography Poirier, D. (2007). Online Collaboration and Agile Software Development. Dr.Dobbs Retrieved from http://drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/196900197

Review of article - Online Collaboration and Agile Software Development This article is in an online magazine http://drdobbs.com and is aimed at software developers. The article is not peer reviewed but is by a software developer writing for other software developers in a well-respected magazine. It does not initially focus on using collaborative software development tools but looks at the issues and problems that affect remote groups attempting to collaborate on developing software without the assistance of collaborative software. It is written in an easy going manner and the author talks about issues that he has personally experienced. It then starts to focus on the issue of collaborative software and on the online collaboration tool called ThinkTank that is available from GroupSystems (http://www.groupsystems.com) and reviews details the use of the software in a trial setup. At this point a number of features of the software are outlined and screen dumps showing some of the features of the software are also included. A review of the article and a latter review of the GroupSystems website did make it clear that the ThinkTank software is more of a collaborative meeting software rather than software that developers use to collaborate when doing actual programing, but it is still a useful piece of software for developers to use when communicating between multiple sites. Poirier, D. (2007). Online Collaboration and Agile Software Development. Dr.Dobbs Retrieved April 8, 2011, from http://drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/196900197

Subject: How online collaboration has affected the software development industry Reference 2 Opening minds: Cultural change with the introduction of open-source collaboration methods ABSTRACT As open-source software becomes accepted worldwide, open-source collaboration and development methods are also gaining greater momentum. Collaboration based on the open-source paradigm is increasingly being used to improve multisite development and teamwork inside companies. Drawing on experience in projects for improving multisite collaboration, this paper explains how we evaluate communication and collaboration problems, assess obstacles to change, and facilitate the change by introducing employees to the benefits of the collaborative model over traditional development projects in a workshop setting. This method has proven to be a valuable ''mind-opener'' and helps identify specific obstacles that need to be addressed as part of the introduction of open-source development and collaboration methods. The paper concludes with lessons learned for facilitating the introduction of these methods in an organization. (Neus, 2005) Full document available from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5386734 Bibliography Neus, A. (2005). Opening minds: cultural change with the introduction of open-source collaboration methods. IBM systems journal, 44(2), 215. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5386734

Review of article - Opening minds: cultural change with the introduction of open-source collaboration methods This article reviews a different part of collaboration in the software development environment than the other articles. It looks at how software development collaboration works in the open source environment or at least that part of open source environment where developers do not all use the same development tools to develop a project. It is a detailed and well researched article that has been peer reviewed and that looks at the theories behind open source development and why it is different from traditional collaborative software development. One of the main differences between this article and my others it than it focuses more on the cultural and social aspects of collaboration in developing software and tends to see collaboration as much looser and less controlled than in traditional software development. The article does not focus on particular tools for collaboration when writing application code but sees the collaboration as more of many individuals working independently and mainly collaborating on documenting what is going on using software such as a a wiki as a content management system. This is much less controlled than traditional collaborative software development and quality control in this case is done by maintaining a detailed version history using the wiki. Neus, A. (2005). Opening minds: cultural change with the introduction of open-source collaboration methods. IBM systems journal, 44(2), 215. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5386734

This article is important in the discussion of collaboration tools like wikis as it explores, the importance of having a collaborative culture within the organisation to ensure that communication and collaboration occur. This article relates to the other articles about wikis as the main purpose of the wiki is for communication and content sharing, easily and efficiently. If the organisation does not support open source collaboration then the wiki will not succeed in its purpose. This article by Neus & Scherf (2005, p. 216) explores the idea that the main limitations in the implementation of open source software is the people of the organisation and not the software. It is therefore imperative, that if open source software is implemented, then the organisation ensures that the people of the organisation are encouraged to communication and collaborate with the new software. This article is interesting as it highlights that simply implementing new collaborative software into an organisation does not simply mean that will be used at all. Organisations tend to forget that people have been performing tasks in a traditional manner so an organisation that originally used top down management cannot assume that the people of the organisation will not be suspicious of the new flat hierarchy in collaborative tools like wikis. This article illustrates this type of suspicion with the change in management styles by stating "it is not sufficient for management to stand up and proclaim that open collaboration is a good thing" (Neus & Scherf, 2005, p. 220) and people always want to know "what's in it for me" (Neus & Scherf, 2005, p. 220), illustrating that when implementing open source collaboration software like a wiki, organisations need to ensure that the culture is one that supports and encourages collaboration and communication. References Neus, A. (2005). Opening minds: cultural change with the introduction of open-source collaboration methods. IBM s

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

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

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

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.

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.

Instant Messaging (IM) applications, such as AOL Instant Messaging (AIM), MSN Messenger and Yahoo! Messenger, have become very popular in the last decade. This paper by de Vos et al. (2004) investigates the adaption of Instant Messaging (IM) by individual users and pairs of users within a mid-size organization. This paper is important as it examines employees' willingness to adapt to instant messaging tools within an organization. The findings from the research showed a fourfold increase in IM use after the introduction, both in terms of users and the number of conversations. The findings are interesting as it has been argued that the main problem companies experience when implementing online collaboration tools is the objections many employees have when introduced to these new tools (Foster, 2009). The main limitation of the paper is that the authors' research sample was restricted to only one organisation. The period of research was four months before and three months after introduction of IM in an organisation, thus the authors indicate that further research needs to be undertaken to see how usage patterns develop over a longer period of time. de Vos et al found that business mobile phones users don't seem to benefit from IM. However, this finding is not applicable anymore as smartphones with IM applications have been introduced after the paper was written in 2004. References de Vos, H., ter Hofte, H. & de Poot, H. (2004). IM [@Work] Adoption of Instant Messaging in a Knowledge Worker Organisation. Retrieved from https://doc.telin.nl/dsweb/Get/Document-30163/205610019a.pdf Foster, D. (2009). Collaboration Technology and Organisational Change. Retrieved from http://gigaom.com/collaboration/collaboration-technologies-and-organizational-change/

I think the rapid adoption of instant messaging software in the workplace could be due to the trend of consumerisation of products prior to businesses adopting them (Flinley, 2010). Many employees would have been exposed to instant messaging through Skype, Microsoft Messanger etc in their personal use of the Internet (Flinley, 2010). When businesses implement this software into the workplace, they are already aware of the benefits and they are familiar with the how the software is used so this would lead to the employee adopting this software quicker. Instant Messaging is also available in the free download of Skype. Skype provides users with the ability to instant message but also gives users the ability to videoconference, audio calls, file sharing and screen sharing. These are important factors when considering which program to download to implement instant messaging software. By providing staff with instant messaging software that can also provide a variety of tasks saves the company money and provides employees with a variety of ways to communicate and to collaborate with one another. One of the great features of Skype that was updated in their most recent version is screen sharing. Screen sharing is often restricted to the IT department of businesses but Skype gives this functionality to basic users. Allowing people to see each other screens, increases users ability to share information with one another. References: Flinely, K. (2010). Consumerization of IT: 95% of Information Workers Use Self-Purchased Technology for Work. Readwriteweb. Retrieved on 16 April 2011 from http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2011/03/consumerization-of-it-95-of-in.php 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

I think we should concern about is how to capture and manage the useful knowledge from Instant Messaging (IM). IM helps staffs share knowledge in organisations. de Vos et al. (2004) wanted to find out in the research that IM supports quick question and clarification, keeping touch with friends and families. This is a common situation nowadays. I have an experience that my friends at Hong Kong always discuss their questions of study or work with me with Windows massager. My friend who work at school library often ask me about cataloguing problem when she is working. IM not only allows transferring knowledge within organisations, it also allows staffs interacting with people outside organisations. Therefore, the first issue of manage knowledge is separated the useful message out. It is not useful of private message. IM sharing is not a formal knowledge sharing method. Nevertheless, it place important role in organisations. Caruso (2010) pointed out in his article that organisations must able to understand some of the tools that can utilize to knowledge sharing all among the organisation. Meanwhile, Caruso (2010) also indicated that "80 percent of organisational knowledge exists exclusively within an individual." Although IM is usual in the organisation, but the information is only store in staffs' brain, not in the organisation. We should think an appropriate way to manage the information in IM. Reference Caruso, S. (2010). Informal Workplace Learning and Knowledge Sharing. Retrieved from http://www.eadulteducation.org/adult-learning/informal-workplace-learning-and-knowledge-sharing/ Caruso, S. (2010). Informal Workplace Learning and Knowledge Sharing. Retrieved from http://www.eadulteducation.org/adult-learning/informal-workplace-learning-and-knowledge-sharing/

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

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

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

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.

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,

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

Finley, K. (2010). 4 Trends in enterprise video conferencing. Retrieved from http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2010/10/trends-in-enterprise-video-conferencing.php

Skype is a free download which can be accessed from their website (www.skype.com.au). It is user-friendly, quick and easy to download. Once installed, minimal instruction is required to use Skype. Skype users can be located through searching the email address book, connecting through Facebook or inputting the username into the search box. Once connected with others, Skype has the ability to make audio calls, videoconference, share files and instant message. Video conferencing can be utilised throughout Skype with no charge. Skype allows users to see and hear others, which increases the effectiveness of the communication exchange. In Skype's recent update, screen-sharing functionality was added. This functionality enhances a videoconference by providing users with access to share one another's screens to view presentations or to assist with IT issues. Audio calls can be made between Skype accounts or through VOIP software to landlines or mobiles. The benefit of making calls through Skype is that they can be significantly cheaper than calling through a mobile or landline. Skype call charges start as low as $0.23c per minute. Credit for calls can be loaded onto Skype through the use of a credit card. Instant messaging allows users to talk to one another without the use of audio or video. It can be utilised when working on projects or for an alternative to video/audio in particular when Internet speed may not be high enough for a good connection. Instant messaging can be conducted with just one person or multiple people can use instant messaging simultaneously allowing for people to collaborate on projects. An extra benefit of Skype is file sharing, files can be shared instantaneously with no limit on the file size. This is a great benefit to businesses that may have size restrictions on their work email.

Skype is an excellent software that both individuals and businesses can make use of. Skype's unified communications capabilities make it a useful strategic tool for businesses. While Skype has been successful in the consumer market, it may have had harder time cracking into business market as there are already several competitors. Skype likes to point out that more than 30 percent of its global user base uses the service for business. However, there have been speculations that a greater proportion of business use is overseas and that a much smaller percentage of "business users" have integrated Skype with their office systems (Blackwell, 2009). Blackwell (2009) suggests that the reason why not more businesses use Skype is that call and connection quality are not always as good as they are on public switched telephone network. As Skype works over the open, Internet and peer-to-peer technology help route calls, thus the service may not provide the quality sufficient for business use. Another concern is the security of the Skype service as it uses the public Internet for voice calls (Reardon, 2009). I think that the different collaborative opportunities Skype offers are valuable for small or medium-sized companies looking to keep costs down. Reardon (2009) believes that businesses in general won't get rid of their existing telephone service to use Skype, but some may use it to communicate with employees internally. References Blackwell, G. (2009). The Pros and Cons of Skype for Businesses. Retrieved from http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.com/buyersguide/article.php/10729_3816716_2/The-Pros-and-Cons-of-Skype-for-Business.htm Reardon, M. (2009). Skype Targets Businesses with New Service. Retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10201830-92.html

I agreed that skype is an excellent tool, since it is user friendly and widely accessible. Apart from computer usage, it could also be accessed on smart phones, which it is a trend now and still growing on mobile phone usages. I felt that Skype had especially collaborated distant communication; as a student studying away from home country, a budget international communication tool like Skype is demanded. Yet the quality of calls is doubtable as Elin Frustol said, and I found this is a problem with most of online calling tools, such as msn messengers, tango and vibers. I believe that is not only the problem of the tool but also internet accessibility, and computer technology. These issues would need a longer time to fixed, and it may lead to broader usage such as business and government, however the question is would it still be a budget tool by then?

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

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

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

This article takes a case study approach using qualitative and quantitative survey questions to measure the difference between pre and post uses of Google Docs. The research problem was based on the observation that Web 2.0 collaborative technologies were initially causing hesitation. However, upon consistent use in the context of an online course, students changed their minds about the usefulness of Google Docs. Both researchers intended to measure undergraduate levels of self-efficacy and undergraduates perceptions of using these collaborative technologies. The study had 18 respondents to the survey. Although the researchers acknowledged Google Docs limitations in the robustness of the software, they argued that this would make no difference to the perceptions of the undergraduates using it. The results of the study are somewhat unremarkable and predicable, yet support the idea that Google Docs is very useful for collaborative student work. There were major differences pre and post use of Google Docs that were significant. A majority of students felt their level of self-efficacy, that is confidence to use the software, was much higher after undertaking the course. The second hypothesis also showed the majority had positive perceptions of using Google Docs both in the course but significantly in future studies and workplaces. Although the researchers reported mostly positive results about the use of Google Docs, one issue clouded the results. Not being able to access the documents when offline is perceived as a major impediment in the collaborative process. Overall this study may seem somewhat bland and predictable; however, it supports much positive and negative criticism of Google Docs in the ability to foster and impede the learning of the students using it.

Reference Edwards, J.T., & Baker, C. (2010). A case study: Google collaboration applications as online course teaching tools. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4), Retrieved April 3, 2011, from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no4/edwards_1210.htm

OVERVIEW Because of the ability to share and interact online, collaboration tools are being considered as tools that can help children with learning. Keith McPherson believes that students should be kept up-to-date on recent technologies as they help educators expand their notion of literacy to embrace evolving communication that moves beyond (but still includes) just reading and writing. He also suggests that "educators assist their students to develop critical literacy capabilities across a wide set of real-life communication contexts and technologies." The article then goes on to describe 5 different online literacy tools that can be used to aid student participation and collaboration and therefore help in their learning. The 5 tools he talks about are, Gliffy, Google Docs, Newsmap, OpenOffice and Delicious. Each analysis gives the reader a brief outline of each tool and the advantages and disadvantages of each. While exploring the strengths and weaknesses, there were many contributing factors that were evident in Gliffy, Google Docs and OpenOffice, all three of them incorporate document type editing tools which make them easy to use. Also, all three of them allow various formats to be exported and imported onto the websites database. Of course all 5 incorporate the main theme of sharing (so this is where delicious and NewsMap fit into the mix) However NewsMap is the more interesting analysis that Keith McPherson includes in his article. This site is very different to the other four, yet he has found a way to include it as one of the key tools for students. This site uses Google Maps, and, as McPherson states "allows users to quickly locate international, national, regional, or local news." He believes it helps literacy skills because it aids middle/high school students with learning about mapping, directions, news and critical thinking. This is perhaps a site that may not have instantly been associated with learning in schools but interstingly has been

This is an interesting article highlighting the tools that can help assist students with their literacy. I find this subject extremely interesting as I have studied via distance education and I know from experience how tools such as Google Docs can be greatly beneficial in facilitating a group project. Another way students can be assisted in learning is through the use of videoconferencing. Videoconferences can assist students that are restricted due to physical disabilities or geographical limitations. By using videoconferencing software such as Skype in the classroom, students can be exposed to a number of different teaching methods or styles and other students. One of the great benefits with videoconferencing is providing students with motivation (Masum, Brooks and Spence, 2005). Instead of students feeling isolated with their learning they can use videoconferencing to discuss and share ideas with other teachers and students on a worldwide basis. By incorporating tools such as Google Docs, Delicious and video conferencing software, teachers can provide a more interesting way of teaching students. Google Docs could be used to facilitate the collection of ideas, Delicious can be used to share links and articles, while follow up and discussion of those ideas could take place through videoconferencing. This would present a student, that has restricted access to a school, with a full rounded experience of being in a classroom without physically having to leave their home. References: Masum, H., Brooks, M. and Spence, J. Music Grid: A case study in video collaboration. First Monday. Retrieved on 16 April 2011 from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/1238/1158

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

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

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

This article by Chris Brogan demonstrates the enormous potentials of adopting a virtual office using communication and collaboration tools. Brogan, owner of a small-business education and growth company believes that doing business without the traditional trappings means equipping employees with the right platforms. The author breaks down the tools he used for his virtual office. The first list was the tools used for communication which comprised of: - Skype: Used as a de facto office phone - Adium and Trillian: An instant messaging tool. - Yammer: An internal organisational version of twitter. As their online collaboration tool, company used various free virtual tools: - Google Docs (docs.google.com): sharing information back and forth. Google Docs is one of the more popular tools for sharing and editing documents in real time online. - Linoit (en.linoit.com): A virtual cork board for sticky notes. - Dropbox (dropbox.com) - Real time file sharing. At one time, the office was a physical place, and communicating with colleagues meant visiting their cubicles to discuss ideas or ask questions. Online media, however, have expanded the office to virtual environments in which one regularly interacts with co-workers from different cultures and countries (Amant, 2003). A virtual office removes time and place for an organisation. Reference: Brogran, C. (2011). Virtually there: Facilitating communication and collaboration at a virtual office using software tools. Entrepreneur, 39(1), 1. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=dc3fa996-00f5-4ad2-994b-3393f25aad18%40sessionmgr114&vid=2&hid=108 Amant, K. S. (2003). Making contact in international virtual offices: an application of symbolic interactionism to online workplace discourse. Institute of Technology & Sci. Communication, 46(3), 4. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1227596