CurtinNet308

The "Old Spice Guy" Campaign has proven to be a game-changer, not only for Old Spice but for social media marketing. Ehrlich points out (2010), such campaigns seek to involve the audience in an immersive experience, essentially making viewers part of the campaign. Since the original campaign advertisement was launched, the campaign reached 40 million views in a week for a total 1.4 billion campaign impressions across all media, including thousands of parody mashups. The campaign has since gone on to increase sales of Old Spice by 107% and even won the Cannes Film Lions Grand Prix in 2010 (the advertising industry's equivalent of winning an Oscar for best film). Arguably, the most interesting and memorable feature of the campaign has been the interactive "Old Spice Responses". Responses was a series of 186 custom-made videos made for fans and celebrities selected from comments from Social Media Sites like Twitter, Facebook and Reddit (Ehrlich, 2010; see also Grant, 2010). These videos posted on YouTube became the basis for a viral campaign that achieved 6,000,000 responses in 24 hours. The true genius behind Wieden & Kennedy's simple idea, as Ehrlich points out (2010), is that it is viewers themselves who are maintaining the campaign's momentum as "viewers to go viral". This marks an important shift as "brands don't make viral videos, users make videos viral." That's exactly what Old Spice achieved." (Ehrlich, 2010). References: Grant, R. (2010, 10 August). 'Wieden+Kennedy's Old Spice Case Study' in We are Social [video] Retrieve 12 April 2010 via http://wearesocial.net/blog/2010/08/wieden-kennedys-spice-case-study/ Williams, M. (2010, 26 June). "Old Spice scoops Cannes Film Lions Grand Prix" Retrived 12 April, 2010 via http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/1012646/Old-Spice-scoops-Cannes-Film-Lions-Grand-Prix/

My topic is more specifically related to videoconferencing, through the use of software programs such as Skype. But I found this article (and this marketing campaign) interesting as they were combining video technology with a marketing campaign, which was the first marketing campaign of its kind (Taylor, 2010). Video has many advantages including those discussed by Isaacs and Tang (1994), which are connecting people who are geographically dispersed, building motivation, providing visual cues and body language indicators. I think Old Spice incorporated these four benefits of video and utilised them effectively into their campaign. They could have made the responses in text only versions, but this would not have been as impactful or effective. They relied on visual cues and body language indicators to assist in delivering their message. Due this marketing campaign being innovative it helped to motivate consumers who were geographically dispersed into spreading these videos throughout their social networks. However as discussed by Masum, Brooks and Spence (2005), without the use of a high speed Internet connection this campaign would not have been as successful. A high speed Internet connection would need to be in place to upload the video content to its users and also share the content throughout the network. If it was still common for users to have dial up speed Internet connections, they would not have found this campaign as motivating as they would have had to wait for it to download and users may have become uninterested quite quickly. References: Isaacs, E., Tang, J. (1994). What video can and can't do for collaboration: A case study. Multimedia Systems, Vol. 2, Issue 2, pages 63 -73. 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

Thanks Mandy, you make an interesting point about the importance of Broadband Internet in the growth and popularity of video as a means of communication. It is sometimes easy to overlook or even overestimate the role of tools and affordances in analysing collaborative projects and events. Rosanna's article "Egypt did not have an Internet Revolution" suggests the role of social media was greatly exaggerated by the media and, in fact, the most important collaborative tool in the recent Egypt uprising was, in fact, face-to-face communication and word-of-mouth.

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

Tumblr becomes new media that more conversational than Twitter nor Facebook. The multi format of contents that you posted builds more conversation and comments rather than posted in Twitter. The content also become more fun and interesting, also engaging to reader that invites them to involve in the conversation and share it to others. Most of the publisher consideration to use Tumblr is because of the more conversational aspect. Facebook is more to building identity in the web but Tumblr an extension of their printed materials. The feature of not showing how many followers that you have-not like in Twitter or Facebook-also makes Tumblr professionally one step ahead. As the senior editor of Newsweek, Mr.Coatney, that start using Tumblr for his magazine say, "It is less about broadcasting to an audience and more about communicating with a community." (Wortham, 2010) As collaboration tools, Tumblr fit printed media perfectly. It becomes the new extension of magazines that engage a whole new conversation level. The relationship is no longer between letters to the editor, but readers involve as co-creator that give them sense of ownership (Wortham, 2010). The development of web 2.0 creates the notion of two-way communication pattern that need to be followed by traditional media. Wortham, J. (2010). Media Companies Try Getting Social With Tumblr. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/technology/02tumblr.html

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

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

Appropriate tools are prerequisite to the successful execution of a job. Organisations understand knowledge is important to business running. However, efficient method of applying knowledge in daily working procedure is necessary for organisations. Human, policy and collaboration tool are essential elements for implement knowledge sharing system. The article expressed collaboration tools is the 'wheel' of knowledge sharing. The article also gives me a message that I should choose collaboration tools carefully if I work as information management professional. The article evaluated several knowledge collaboration tools. Appropriate collaboration tools have been helping several organisations improve their performance whether public or private sectors (Hedgebeth, 2007). It proved collaboration tools is helpful for knowledge sharing. However, we should not avoid the importance of choosing collaboration tools. Hedgebeth evaluated four collaborations tools only in the research paper; nevertheless, there are lots of collaboration tools in the market. All vendors advertise their tools are the best. Therefore my opinion is the first step is understanding how to choose the tool rather than using the tool. Organisations should compare more than four tools. Moreover, organisations should aware add on module of each tools. Although organisations need to spend more money on purchasing add on services, but add on services may enhance the performance of sharing knowledge. Reference Hedgebeth, D. (2007). Making use of knowledge sharing technologies. VINE, 37(1), 49. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?index=0&did=1247959181&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1302856540&clientId=22212&cfc=1

This article brings some ideas about internet and social networks services. When I heard the word Social Production I immediately think of ownership. The fact is, for a truly collaborative effort to be made, ownership must be discarded, which is a very difficult concept for emotive based humans. There are also the other factors such as wealth that are the driving force behind online social networks. At the end of the day, it's not idealism that drives these infrastructures, but it may appear so in many cases that is a majority of them are driven for financial means. People don't seem to realize but websites like YouTube or Facebook were not created for the purpose of purely sharing information, providing a platform for people to gather and solve issues, in fact, they were created as a means of making money. A very smart way of making money, that is shaping the online world. For example, Facebook has very strong metrics that measure behavior and activities. Users willing to hand over their details maybe not fully realizing that their information is a commodity that will be sold to companies so their advertising department can target them. What I find amazing is the fact that many people are not willing to divulge information about themselves to a telemarketer on the phone or a strange on the street, but they are fully willing to divulge the name, interests and share photos with the world online. The Social Networking age of the internet is breaking down people's privacy and truly exposing a world in which everyone can know everybody. Reference: Kallinikos, J. (n.d).Social Production, Information and Organisation Forms: Rethinking Collaboration. Retrieved from http://www.dsp.unibo.it/seminari/Social_Production_Kallinikos.pdf

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

This article shows an example of how crowd sourcing is thinning the line between amateurs and professions. With Web 2.0 making the internet about networking and sharing, crowd sourcing is something that is changing the way in which people can consume products. The example in this article is that of a project director who needed specifically themed photographs for a project. Instead of hiring a professional photographer she went to the internet to find stock photos, initially a photographer offered her photographs for a competitive price, until she found a website called 'iStockPhoto' in which she could purchase stock photographs for $1. Websites like 'iStockPhoto' are databases of photographs taken by amateurs in the field. The issue raised in this article is how crowd-sourcing is obviously eliminating peoples need to find professional photographers, and whether crowd-sourcing will eventually eliminate the need for professionals in industries such as photography and design. People no longer have to look locally for professionals to do things for them; the internet is a whole other realm for finding exactly what they want, but for less money. Howe states that "The open source software movement proved that a network of passionate, geeky volunteers could write code just as well as the highly paid developers at Microsoft or Sun Microsystems." This reinforces the belief that people who may not be able to make it in the real world with their talent, have much more opportunities online.

The idea of collaborative video creation and crowdsourcing

This was an engaging article that provided an insight into collaborative video platform Stroome by interviewing its co-founder. Stroom is a relatively new platform that allows individuals to upload video and edit it with multiple individuals from around the world. Stroom is essentially focused on providing a platform for crowdsourced video. Individuals can work on an editing project by themselves or with others. In a nutshell Stroome can be defined as a "collaborative video editing service" (Scott, 2011). This article links well to my topic of crowdsourcing. I am interested in discovering new tools which draw on 'the wisdom of the crowds' and encourage collaboration between individuals from around the world in new and interesting ways. This article interviews the co-founder of Stroome and provides us with an insight into what stroome is about, how crowdsourcing can be utilised through Stroome, and what the future of video uploading and editing is. It is a reliable and useful source if you were interested in Stroome, crowd sourcing, and the potential path video and crowdsourcing are heading towards. Since this tool is relatively new, it provides us with insights into future trends and how crowdsourcing is evolving online and taking advantage of different media forms for a wide range of purposes. According to the article Crowdsourced videos are just beginning to flourish, however they do have a huge potential and provide great opportunities for areas such as citizen journalism. Most recently, "Stroome was used by protesters in Egypt when the government blocked Twitter and Facebook" (Scott, 2011). This quote from the company's co-founder suggests that this platform is also about liberation and spreading details through viral platforms such as Stroome. Overall a useful source in relation to crowdsourcing, citizen journalism, and online collaboration through interactive media platforms. References Scott, J. (2011). Can collaborative online video creation go mainstre

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

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 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/

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 study by Blau and Caspi is valuable for seeing how using Google Docs in a sharing and collaborating environment has on perceived student learning. The credibility of this study is enhanced by a wide survey of 118 students at an Open University in Israel. Ownership meant the degree to which the student using Google Docs felt responsible to work on and update project documents. This quantitative study also sought to measure the perceived learning and quality of project outcomes students felt were a result of using Google Docs. The implications from the study suggested the importance of owning the document, but also to make sure others knew of changes to the document. A document creator felt they lost ownership of the document when editing was done on it. They became the reader of the document. Such a change in hierarchy shows the importance of communicating changes done on Google Docs to every team member. A second implication was that the value of the document seemed to increase when more revisions was done. This suggested that more work on the document resulted in a more credible and trustworthy document as the project document was improved towards its final presentation. In fact most survey respondents seemed to not think the document got worse as more things were added to it. Overall, there was a correlation between document quality and revision, with Google Docs being perceived as quite effective in producing trustworthy documents which add to the learning process. The researchers' main advice from the study is that revising documents and suggesting improvements is far more effective than editing another's documents. Whilst this is not always possible it does suggest the importance of communication in the collaboration process. Google Docs is not a passive collaboration media; therefore, care in making sure all team members communicate changes is vital to a much better collaboration process.

References Blau, I., & Caspi, A. (2009). What type of collaboration helps? Psychological ownership, perceived learning and outcome quality of collaboration using Google Docs. Proceedings of the Chais conference on instructional technologies research 2009: Learning in the technological era. Y. Eshet-Alkalai, A. Caspi, S. Eden, N. Geri, Y. Yair (Eds.), Raanana: The Open University of Israel. Retrieved April 2, 2011, from http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:bBVQbNfm4-MJ:scholar.google.com/+google+docs&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

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

This Strategic Guide on instant messaging is developed by ProcessOne, a company that delivers instant messaging services to businesses. The guide examines the real risks associated with instant messaging in corporate environments and explains how to mitigate them. ProcessOne argues that instant messaging is becoming a valuable form of communication in business environment, alongside the telephone and email. IM allows users to see if recipients are available to receive a message, thus it can be a much more efficient communication tool than email and telephone. The report suggests that danger arise when using public IM services like Gmail and MSN. Public IM services have not been designed for corporate activity and do not provide the level of security that is essential in a business environment. The report suggests different risk factors associated with public IM services as well as how businesses can overcome these risks. This guide is important as its attention is on security issues associated with instant messaging. A common concern among companies is that IM programs render their networks vulnerable to viruses and other potentially crippling intrusions (Glasner, J. 2002). ProcessOne suggests that the best way to reduce the risk of instant messaging is to bring IM in-house with the deployment of a central instant messaging server. IT departments can take measures to protect users and intellectual property through the use of encryption, anti-virus software, corporate policy, and domain certificates, thus the risks will be reduced. References Glasner, J. (2002). IM Bans Hush Workplace Chatter. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2002/09/55090?currentPage=1 ProcessOne (2009). Instant Messaging and Security. Retrieved from http://www.process-one.net/resources/research/ProcessOne_Strategic_Guide-Security.pdf