Optimizing Team Performance

Journal of Business Communication, 2004

This paper argues for using specialized collaborative writing (CW) tools to improve the results of distributed, internet-based writing teams. The key features of collaborative tools that support enhanced coordination and group awareness are compared to existing writing tools. The first internet-based CW tool, Collaboratus, is introduced, and its group features are compared with those of Microsoft Word. Next, theoretical propositions, hypotheses, and constructs are formulated to predict outcomes of distributed groups that use CW tools. A four-week-long synchronous-distributed experiment then compares the outcomes of Collaboratus and Word groups. Innovative measures show that Collaboratus groups generally experience better outcomes than Word groups, in terms of productivity, document quality, relationships, and communication, but not in terms of satisfaction.

IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 2005

Asynchronous-distributed (AD) collaborative writing (CW) is an important form of the growing trend of distributed work. However, AD CW typically results in multiple process losses. We argue that using advanced writing technologies designed for AD work alone is not sufficient by itself to overcome these losses. Instead, adopting high levels of process structure delivered in the form of explicitly written procedural scripts can improve the results of AD CW groups. We performed an experiment with over 500 participants working in groups supported by advanced CW technologies that were designed for AD work. Participants were given six weeks to conduct their work. We found that high levels of process structure in novice AD CW groups that worked on a moderately complex task created significantly better outcomes than did groups using low levels of process structure. Groups with high levels of process structure had better results in terms of production, document quality, satisfaction, relationships, and communication. In no case did low-structure groups outperform high-structure groups. This research supports our hypothesis that increased process structure delivered in the form of a repeatable process script can decrease process losses and increase process gains in novice AD CW groups. We conclude that it is not sufficient to give novice AD writing groups CW technology and time to conduct their tasks; these groups also need appropriate procedural support, which can be provided effectively through written scripts.

Critical Collaborative Communities

Academia in general, and academic writing in particular, are often isolated endeavours (Fergie, Beeke, McKenna, & Crème, 2011). Isolation can hamper academic success-most of us have felt the heightened effects of intense work demands when our support system is not present. This can be even more palpable when collaborative partners are globally located. With the advent of technology, collaborators now have tools to assuage academic isolation and foster rich, productive collaborations. Using synchronous technology, a common passion for SoTL work and collaborative work has led to lasting partnerships across continents that support both personal and professional development. Synchronous and asynchronous technologies offered the authors ongoing opportunities to actively participate in academic dialogue and collaborate on multiple publications, despite being scattered over three continents. This unique academic collaboration is called a Small Significant Online Network Group (SSONG). The name SSONG was modified from work describing "small significant networks" (Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009, 2012; Verwoord & Poole, 2016). The authors included the online component, which provided the apt overarching metaphor of a song, situating song as a collaborative work of art. Singing our SSONG has a choral ring to it, underscoring the strength in its collaborative cacophony of voices. The SSONG highlights academic writing's multi-modal elements. The richness of the different author voices in a SSONG bring confidence, encouragement, and personal and professional transformation.

2002

This paper proposes requirements necessary for designing future collaborative writing tools to support distributed work teams on the Internet. Requirements are proposed from literature, and then compared to previous and existing CW tools such as Microsoft Word™. Because no tool adequately addresses the needs of distributed CW teams, a new CW tool called Collaboratus is proposed and reviewed.

1998

Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work - CSCW '90, 1990

This paper reports on a project to develop a "work in preparation" editor, or PREP editor, to study co-authoring and commenting relationships. As part of the project, we have identified three issues in designing computer support for co-authoring and commenting: (1) support for social interaction among co-authors and commenters; (2) support for cognitive aspects of co-authoring and external commenting; and (3) support for practicality in both types of interaction. For each of these issues, the paper describes the approach the PREP editor takes to address them. GOALS OF THE RESEARCH The goal of this project is to develop a "work in preparation" (PREP) editor, a multiuser environment to support a variety of collaborative and, in particular, co-authoring and commenting relationships for scholarly communication. In our research, we do not focus on collaborations in which co-authors or commenters interact at the same time, though systems that support research into the issues such collaborations raise are clearly valuable [StefS7]. Our focus is on enhancing the effectiveness of loosely-coupled collaboration. We focus on co-authoring because it represents an interesting challenge for collaborative work over networks: co-authors, after all, must share a planning environment that often relies on, but is nonetheless richer than a working draft. We focus on commenting because it poses a challenge for communication within authoring groups as well as between external readers and such groups. We focus on scholarly communication because scholarly communities as they exist today are already collaborative work groups. They are not explicitly organized around single, concrete goals, but members of groups share the common goal of advancing the state of knowledge. Such work groups are organized in local settings, but they also interact intensively at a distance, as members of a common "invisible college" [Cran72]. ISSUES IN SUPPORTlNG CO-AUTHORING AND COMMENTING The PREP editor we are developing addresses three issues: (1) support for social interaction among co-authors and commenters; (2) support for cognitive aspects of coauthoring and external commenting; and (3) support for practicality in both types of interaction.

Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1993

Proceedings of AACE E-Learn

Paper accepted for E-Learning 2002 conference, Canada, Montreal ... Considerations for Building a Common Platform for Cooperative and Collaborative Authoring Environments ... Alexandra Cristea1, Toshio Okamoto2 and Mizue Kayama2 ... 1Faculty of Mathematics and CS, ...

Social Science Research Network, 2002

This paper proposes requirements necessary for designing future collaborative writing tools to support distributed work teams on the Internet. Requirements are proposed from literature, and then compared to previous and existing CW tools such as Microsoft Word™. Because no tool adequately addresses the needs of distributed CW teams, a new CW tool called Collaboratus is proposed and reviewed.