The Essential Ingredients of Collaboration
Roy Soliman
University of Technology,
Sydney
Roy.M.Soliman @ uts.edu. au
Robin Braun
University of Technology,
Sydney
Robin. Braun @ uts. edu. au
situations where business units need to collaborate across
organizational boundaries" [9].
ABSTRACT
We propose there are eight essential ingredients for
collaboration, regardless of any underlying technology including face-to-face environments. These ingredients
are: two or more people; shared space; time; a common
objective; focus on the objective; common language;
knowledge in the area of the objective; and interaction.
These ingredients are useful for identifying aspects for
improvement in both collaboration technology and human
collaboration processes. Based on these essential
ingredients glimpses offuture technology can be seen.
KEYWORDS: CSCW; Collaboration;
Essential Ingredients; Framework; Model.
While CSCW technology is expanding interorganizational possibilities, it is also being introduced
within organizations (eg, [2, 7, 22]) where it aids efficient
communication, learning, decision-making, and creates
new possibilities for the way we work.
The CSCW field places equal emphasis "on the distinctive
qualities of co-operative work processes, and on questions
of design: how to mould computer technology to fit into
and support these work processes" [24]. Bannon et al
state, "CSCW should be conceived as an endeavor to
understand the nature and characteristics of cooperative
work with the objective of designing adequate computerbased technologies" [5]. They continue to say "the focus
is to understand, so as to better support cooperative
work"[5].
Evaluation;
1. INTRODUCTION
As we awaken to the dawn of a new era, the Information
Age, it is imperative we rethink concepts of national
borders and sovereignty, patterns of international trade,
work practices, business structures, and income generation
[28]. In the Industrial Age, capital and labor were key
factors in production; in the Information Age knowledge
is the key factor [8].
Although most people accept a similar conceptual
understanding of collaboration ("the act of working
together" [I ]), variation is common in its contexts,
approaches, and implementations. For example,
collaboration has been supported by, document sharing
[18]; text-based chat, bulletin boards and graphics [6]; 3D
virtual worlds [15]; audio-visual systems and other
technologies. Participants in the Centre for Networking
Technologies for the Information Economy (CeNTIE)
[11] consortium have researched a number of different
contexts and implementations of video based approaches
to collaboration. These include the virtual tea room
(teams at different locations who engage in casual, ad-hoc
interaction) and telecollaboration [25] (desktop-based
video conferencing, augmented with collaborative tools).
Peter Drucker, the father of modern management, states
that knowledge workers "will own both the 'means of
production' and the 'tools of production"' [12] meaning
they "own their knowledge and can take it with them
wherever they go" [12]. This sentiment is echoed by the
old proverb, "Knowledge knows no boundaries". The
portability of knowledge will lead to the decentralization
of future businesses, where people can work from any
location around the world on a part-time/contractual basis.
The various technologies (including face-to-face) differ in
the costs and benefits they offer. Some require human
infrastructure; some need high bandwidth; some are easier
for post-analysis; some work from desktop computers,
while others from specialized physical localities.
Current Computer-Supported Cboperative Work (CSCW)
technology has no doubt been a seed in this revolution. It
is also anticipated that this technology will be
instrumental in its fruition. "It is now widely recognized
that CSCW has an important contribution to make in
0-7695-2387-0/05/$20.00 ©2005 IEEE
Simeon Simoff
University of Technology,
Sydney
Simeon. Simoff@ uts. edu. au
366
to do, in order to carry out a task" [16]. Their seven
mechanics are: explicit communication; consequential
communication; coordination of action; planning;
monitoring; assistance; and protection [ 16]. These
activities are extended in conjunction with Baker [3].
Their work is useful for providing a basis for design,
particularly as they encompass most activities. However,
many of these activities have commonalities, which mean
they could be further reduced; for example, planning
requires communication. Can these activities be reduced
to the commonalities between them?
Despite the variations that "collaboration' represents, it is
beneficial to determine what some of the constants are
within collaboration. In this paper, eight essential
ingredients of collaboration are identified which are the
same regardless of underlying technology. These
ingredients provide a helpful framework for thinking
about collaboration and provide a basis for improving
both the human processes and their technological support.
The ingredients do not guarantee a group's objective(s)
will be met, but they are indispensable for establishing
collaboration. They describe how thoughts and feelings
are expressed. Thus, a group may collaborate but not meet
their objectives.
Malone & Crowston introduce Coordination Theory - an
interdisciplinary "body of principles about how activities
can be coordinated, that is, about how actors can work
together harmoniously" [26]. The components of
Coordination Theory are goals, activities, actors, and
interdependencies. The associated processes of these
components are identifying goals, mapping goals to
activities, assigning activities to selected actors, and
"managing" the interdependencies.
The eight essential ingredients will be discussed in section
3; however, we will first look at other models used to
understand cooperative work. Section 4 examines the
ingredients' operation with collaboration activities.
Finally, we present some aspects we expect to see in
future collaboration systems, based on this view.
2. MODELS FOR UNDERSTANDING
COOPERATIVE WORK
Malone et al categorise CSCW systems according to
coordination processes they support. These categories
would be useful as a foundation for designing CSCW
systems, particularly as Coordination Theory is leveraged
because of its applicability in numerous domains. The use
of Coordination Theory will potentially "identify new
opportunities for cooperative-work tools" [27]; lead to the
identification of primitives which can then be used in
various combinations to help solve particular coordination
problems; and "help systematically evaluate proposed or
actual systems" [27].
There are a number of models which have been used to
understand how people work together, each with its own
strengths and weaknesses.
Shannon & Weaver's [31] model of communications can
serve as a description for group work. Where a message is
encoded by the sender, transmitted through a channel, and
decoded by the recipient. Their model is applicable to
both the studies of human communications and
telecommunications. It is useful for determining
bandwidth requirements, calculating losses, and other
such data-based calculations. Although their concepts are
used in all communication systems, it does not aid in the
design of CSCW applications, nor does it suggest how
collaboration should be best supported.
This approach, however, is still largely based on
identifying activities and improving the technology's
support of them.
These activity-based models answer the question "What
do people do?" but do not answer "How does a group
....? " or "What do people need to do to .. ?". Furthermore,
these categorisations are only applicable to particular
collaboration systems. What then are the constants in
every collaboration session (regardless of technology,
context, implementation and approach)?
Another approach is to determine activities which are
common to all cooperative work. Hymes and Olson state,
"... it already seems clear that the answer to questions
about the effects of CSCW technologies is going to be
quite complex, and will require a concerted empirical
attack. What is required is separating component activities
and looking at various features of tools and their effects
on each activity" [20]. Although they do not provide the
component activities, they examine idea generation
3. THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF
COLLABORATION
The eight essential ingredients provide an alternate
framework to the ones outlined above. This view of
collaboration can be used to improve both the human
processes involved in collaboration and their supporting
technologies. A lack of time, for example, may cause
stress. The study of time management will alleviate this,
Gutwin & Greenberg [16] introduce the mechanics of
collaboration, which may be described as "component
activities". They define the mechanics as, "the things that
groups have to do, over and above what an individual has
367
ensuring better productivity (human processes);
alternatively technology can be designed to, provide
motivational statements, aid in goal setting, remind
participants to breathe deeply, etc. This view is applicable
to various contexts, approaches, and implementations (as
it is a technology-independent view) - which makes it
useful for comparing technologies (e.g 3D virtual worlds
vs video-conferencing vs text-based chat). Furthermore, it
is immediately applicable.
He also says, "Shared information space is obviously
necessary as the context in which articulation work,
situated action, and mutual influence fit together" [29].
Shared spaces have two components - a communications
environment and a point of interaction for accomplishing
the objective.
The communication environment is a tool which sets
boundaries for the way people communicate. For
example, a text-based chat communications environment
enables people to communicate through written words, but
not verbally. The participants must communicate within
the boundaries of their environment, but can control the
content promulgated through the environment.
The eight essential ingredients, derived from literature,
case studies, observations, and thought experiments, are:
people; shared space; time; a common objective; focus on
the objective; a common language; knowledge in the area
of the objective; and interaction.
3.1. People
The point of interaction is a more abstract view - shared
space in its true form. It represents the space where
inward thoughts and feelings are outwardly expressed.
The nature of the point of interaction is governed by the
communications environment. For example, in telephony
participants can communicate by speaking, but their
interaction point is the conversation itself; for two
songwriters, the piano [30] forms part of the
communication environment, but the notes they play
forms the point of interaction. The point of interaction is
where minds truly meet, where each participant can
perceive other people's thoughts and add their own.
It is evident that collaboration requires two or more
people for its existence. Even with variations in
underlying technology, collaboration remains a people-topeople process. Schrage insightfully states, "Collaboration
can occur by mail, over the phone lines, and in person.
But the true medium of collaboration is other people"[30].
It is important to note that although collaboration is based
in relationships, collaboration is not a personal
relationship (this is explored more in section 3.4).
The differences between people play a crucial role in
establishing the people-to-people process. Each person is
different in his/her perceptions, education, cultures
(ranging from home to national cultures), family,
knowledge, personality, and experiences. When
confronted with inputs, particularly unfamiliar ones,
people respond in different ways. These differences are
utilized to jointly create solutions to unfamiliar problems.
The common objective of collaboration (discussed in
section 3.4) is pursued through the interaction point.
When writing a paper collaboratively, for instance, the
document is where the authors derive their sensory
experience (interaction point) and simultaneously where
the objective is being out-worked.
Clearly, the selection of the shared space must be
appropriate for the objective at hand, for example, two
people writing a song would not use a text-based chat
communication environment. It is evident that the choice
of shared space can either limit or enhance the potential
and speed of the collaboration itself.
The similarities between people (as will be discussed) are
also crucial for establishing the people-to-people process.
For example, the common language between participants
enables effective communication of their differences.
People are the fundamental element in collaboration;
people alone however are insufficient for its existence. Of
the next seven ingredients discussed, some are external to
the participants while others are embodied in them.
Shared space can also be likened to a language with a
finite symbol set (an alphabet for example), a prescribed
protocol, and understanding attached to it. In continuing
the song-writing example, a song is built on certain notes
(symbol set), played at certain times in certain
combinations with certain intensity and at certain speeds
(protocol). Like languages, shared spaces are the delivery
mechanism for content; unlike languages, however, shared
spaces may also form a repository of content.'
3.2. Shared Space
Shared space, the second essential ingredient, provides
common sensory inputs to the participants of a
collaboration session. Shared space is a widely accepted
necessity. Robinson states, "Shared information space is
one of the few ideas unconditionally endorsed by Bannon,
who is often rightly more sensitive to the implicit dangers
Although information is embedded in the structure of language, it does
not inherently keep a record of conversations.
than the potential benefits of CSCW applications" [29].
368
Languages are not without their limitations and their
normal usages. For example, embedded in English
language structure are references of time (past, present,
future); in contrast, Japanese carries references of social
hierarchy (higher, lower, equal) [30]. Languages pattern
our thinking and culture such that particular concepts are
better expressed in some languages than others. Similarly,
some ideas and thoughts are better expressed with
particular shared spaces. Isaacs et al, say "Each time we
tested a revised design with users, we learned more about
how certain design decisions affected participants' ability
to collaborate during a talk" [21].
Timing, a related area, provides an important indicator of
the collaboration mode. Generally, when information sent
and information received are temporally close, a
synchronous system results; when they are not close, an
asynchronous system results. This is not a hard and fast
rule as asynchronous systems can be used synchronously
(e.g. email for chat) and synchronous systems can be used
asynchronously (e.g. text based chat). Though, not all
synchronous technologies can be used asynchronously - a
real-time video message will not wait for an absent
participant. The users of synchronous systems also share
space simultaneously, such that if one person manipulates
the space, the others can perceive it immediately.
Evaluation of shared spaces is a growing field. It is
significantly more complicated (and costly) than
evaluating single-user applications. Evaluation has been
carried out in numerous ways. For example, the most
common method is to assess a group's accomplishments
in regards to their goal(s). Other methods include (but are
not limited to) Cognitive Walkthroughs [14], heuristics
[31, introspection [17], and usability testing [221. The
eight essential ingredients may also be used as a basis for
evaluating collaboration and its supporting environments.
3.4. A Common Objective
The fourth ingredient required for collaboration is that an
objective must be held jointly by all the participants.
Schrage defines collaboration as a "purposive
relationship" [30]. This concept is well supported in other
literature. For example, Ellis et al's definition of
groupware is a "computer-based systems that support
groups of people engaged in a common task (or goal)
and that provide an interface to a shared environment"
[13]; Bannon et al state, "A group is defined as a
relatively closed and fixed ensemble of people sharing
the same goal and engaged in incessant and direct
communication" [4].
3.3. Time
Although time is an obvious ingredient, it is an important
one; it is also frequently overlooked. There must be an
investment of time for collaboration to exist. The amount
of time available, in relation to the amount and difficulty
of work involved, may affect the rate of work completion.
Burns argues that people do not achieve their goals if "the
action is not urgent; the action has no immediate
consequence; and, the action is by nature unpleasant"
[10]. When a deadline approaches, often a person's
effectiveness increases. Conversely, when little time is
available negative stress may also emerge, which causes
people to work less productively. If a person has too much
time he/she may tend to become less efficient. This
concept is depicted in Figure 1.
Each participant may be drawn to a group or collaborative
task for a different reason; however they must be united
by a common objective. Furthermore, the shared objective
must be external to the relationships between the
collaborators. Although relationships may be deepened
because of collaboration, it is not the overarching purpose.
If the objective is internal to the relationship, it is not
collaboration, but relationship development and/or
socializing. This concept is depicted in Figure 2.
The common objective must have an aspect of newness
for all the participants; although the objective, in and of
itself need not be new. Schrage insightfully points out,
"Collaboration creates a shared meaning about a process,
a product, or an event. In this sense, there is nothing
routine about it. Something is there that wasn't there
before." [30]. The objective may not be new for other
people (external to the collaboration group) but for the
group it is. For example, two people who are experienced
with software use an unfamiliar language; although they
had written software previously and other people have
used this language before, it is new to this collaboration
group.
0h75
~0.
r90.25
No Time
Opbmum
Time
Too
Much
Time In Relatlon to Work Involved and Its Impact on Effiency
Figure 1. The Relationship between Work and Time
A collaborative effort often emerges without plan or
design, such that, it may not always be labeled
"collaboration" and an objective may not be explicitly
369
objective, but also includes activities such as coordination,
planning and monitoring ([16]) which are inline with the
objective.
communicated. However, each person of a group would
be able to enunciate a similar group objective. Conversely,
when collaboration is by plan or design, the shared
objective is usually made explicit.
Participants mcet to accomplish an objective. After the
objectivc is accomplished they continuc to mect bccause
they'vc cstablishcd a fricndship.
I
Participants mcet to accomplish an objectivc. Aftcr the
objectivc is met, cach goes his/her own way. A fricndship
apart from the purposc has not becn cstablished.
Participants alrcady have a fricndship, and work on an
objcctivc together. Their fricndship continucs throughout
and aftcr the accomplishmcnt of their objectivc.
p-I
I,
ill.:
I
t
Objective ends
Objective starts
Figure 2. Collaborative Relationship & Friendship
In a pilot study we carried out, one participant spent some
time being awed by the technology and learning how it
worked. Although this was appropriate use of the
technology, while he was engaged in this process his
focus was neither on his group nor their objectives. If
good technology can distract people then similarly poorlydesigned technology can certainly take their focus away.
In summary, collaboration requires an objective which is,
shared among the group; external to the relationships
between the participants; and which contains an element
of newness for the participants.
3.5. Focus on the Objective
Our fifth essential ingredient is that participants must be
focused on accomplishing their objective. People may
come together, with time and resources but become
distracted from their main objective. Focus on the tasks,
therefore, is crucial for successful collaboration.
While technology
physically distract participants, the
the successful completion of the objective, then they are
unfocused. "All sorts of human crosscurrents can sweep
the discussion off course" [23].
We can say (in broad terms) that the higher the percentage
of participant-minutes2 focused on the objective in the
total participant-minutes for a particular group, the more
efficient that group has been. In contrast, if no one was
focused on accomplishing the objective for the whole
time, the collaboration will inevitably have failed.
3.6. Common Language
For users to successfully interact they must have a degree
of commonality in their language, thus the sixth
ingredient. For our purposes a common language can be
thought of as a set of symbols which are mutually
understood by all participants; it includes (but is not
limited to) speech, drawing, body language, and musical
Balance here, like many aspects of life, is needed.
Introducing appropriate times for rest from the objective
may result in increased effectiveness, particularly in
longer-term collaborative pursuits. Similarly, planning
may not contribute directly to the work that needs to be
done to accomplish the objective, but in balance, it brings
a greater quality to the focus. As such, our definition of
focus is not limited to direct work on accomplishing the
2
can
content of a group's conversation can mentally distract
participants. If their 'collaboration' is not contributing to
notes.
In broad brush strokes, there are three points of interest on
the continuum of language commonality. The continuum
starts when participants have dissimilar spoken languages,
that is, one person may speak French, another English,
and a third Russian. They may resort to the use of natural
body language, but their vocabulary will be crippled.
Participant-minutes: The number of participants multiplied by the
(minutes).
amount time
370
invested into learning rather than accomplishing the
objective (with the exception of collaborative learning for
educational purposes). In the case when all the individuals
are lacking in relevant knowledge then this effect is
multiplied.
Collaborators at the second point share the same spoken
language, but have dissimilar interests and training. An
architect who speaks (English) with an interior designer,
electrician, plumber and structural engineer (who all speak
English) exemplifies this. At a further point, people with
the same spoken language, with similar training and
interests will use similar language.
It is important to note that although the needs for
individual knowledge in the area, and the commonality of
language are complimentary they are still contrasted.
Language is distinguished from knowledge in that it is
knowledge of how to communicate with the other
participants.
Commonality increases as there are more shared
experiences. For example, two people growing up in the
same home would be more familiar with each other's
language (and cultural cues) than two people growing up
in different nations. As the distance between languages
increase, more time is spent learning the languages of the
other people, reducing the time available for actual work
on the objective. However, over multiple collaboration
sessions, we expect to see an increase in the percentage of
time spent accomplishing the objective.
3.8. Interaction
Interaction, the eighth ingredient, describes the activity of
using the other ingredients to accomplish the common
objective. We have defined interaction as "an action by a
person triggered by an action of another person". Without
interaction, the other seven (now latent) ingredients could
serve as a description for various forms of group
entertainment (like theatre productions or movies, etc).
3.7. Knowledge in the Area of the Objective
Participants need to (individually) have some knowledge
in the area of the objective - ingredient number seven.
The overlap (of the relevant knowledge) between the
participants may be a lot or little.
Ideally, the total number of interactions in a given session
should neither be too high nor too low. When the number
is too high, each person only speaks a few words before
another starts to speak, making conversation nonsensical.
When the number of interactions is too low, the dynamic
nature of collaboration is lost.
If all the knowledge required to accomplish the objective
was embodied in one person, there would be no need for
collaboration as the person could "command" the other
participants in the work effort as was the case in the
industrial age. Indeed there could not be collaboration. In
most cases, each participant will learn something new.
Furthermore, the number of interactions and floor time for
each participant should be in the same order of magnitude.
In this way, no one person dominates conversation, but all
can contribute equally. There will be some tension in
satisfying both medium interaction and balanced talk time.
("Talk" here is used generically for any interaction,
including body language).
When an individual has insufficient knowledge (in the
area of the objective), he/she will need to invest time and
energy into bridging their knowledge gap. If the other
participants are knowledgeable in the area of the
deficiency then they can educate the individual - thus we
have teacher-student relationships. Alternatively, the other
participants may be knowledgeable in their own area, but
not where the individual lacks; in this case the individual
will need to pursue independent learning.
The interaction patterns can be affected by the technology
and the activity. "Interactions were reduced in part
because of limitations in the technology and design, but
also because the distributed environment changed the
affordance of certain behaviors" [21]. Ishii et al found
participants made eye contact more frequently in teaching
contexts in comparison to game-playing contexts [22].
Another set of scenarios arise, when all individuals have
knowledge deficiencies. If there is only a small relevant
knowledge overlap, then each individual will be required
to undergo independent learning. If, however, the
knowledge deficiencies are essentially the same, then the
participants can undergo collaborative learning. In this
case, the common objective will become "learning
to/about ..." which requires knowing how to learn. The
need for knowledge in the area of the objective is
inescapable.
Collaboration sessions have varying degrees of coupling
between the participants. In tightly coupled situations,
interaction will be higher than in loosely coupled ones. If
there is no interaction it may indicate that the participants
are working individually on a shared goal rather than
collaborating per se. The interaction patterns indicate the
degree of coupling.
In any of the cases where learning is required, it may
reduce collaboration effectiveness as resources are
371
4. OTHER WORK THROUGH THE LENS
OF THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS
in its use would not realize they are using it but would be
caught up in their purposes and applications.
The research on the framework is not intended to replace
higher level studies of teams and collaborative work, such
as decision making, leadership, planning work, and
monitoring progress. These higher-level processes, if done
collaboratively, can be expressed by the framework. In
this way, the processes and some of its implications, can
be better understood and improved on. Decision making
will be used as an example of this.
By making technology more aware of the content of
cooperative work, recommender systems can be
introduced. For example, when a person is mentioned,
their contact details are displayed on the screen; as a
subject is mentioned some links to valuable resources like
books and webpages will appear. "Al [Artificial
Intelligence] may, in the long run, provide one of the most
significant contributions to groupware. This technology
could transform machines from passive agents that
process and present information to active agents that
enhance interactions" [13].
Group decision making can be described in terms of
collaboration as it requires two or more people, a shared
space, time, an objective (what decision needs to be made
under what constraints), focus on the objective, a common
language and some knowledge in the areas of making
decisions and the implications of the decision.
The technology can keep track of the interaction patterns
and provide up-to-date information on the total talk times
of the participants and the dynamicity of the conversation.
With careful thought and sensitivity, this information
could also be presented as a report at the end of a session.
It is possible to improve the decision making process by
improving some of the essential ingredients. For example,
more informed decisions can be made by increasing the
knowledge of the implications of decisions; a decisionmaking language can be formed such that participants can
communicate their values, thoughts, opinions, and
intuitions clearly, unambiguously, and effectively; tools
can be created to enhance shared spaces which capture the
complexities of decisions; software can assist in helping
participants focus on pertinent issues through their
emphasis.
Hindmarsh et al provide an example of how technology
can improve the focus of the participants: "The slides
were also effective for maintaining a shared focus among
the speaker and audience, just as they do in a traditional
talk ... only about one speaker in four used annotations,
but when they were used, audience members said they
were very effective for helping them focus their attention,
especially when they were first getting used to the
interface." [19].
Having now a clearer understanding of what collaboration
entails, we can use this as a basis for dreaming about
future technology. We can then use the framework to
collaborate to create the technology. What can we do to
improve the use of time? Increase focus? Strengthen our
understanding of each other's language? Increase
knowledge? Ensure appropriate interaction levels? The
future is limited only by our imagination.
Similarly, improvements at the higher level of decision
making can be expressed in terms of the collaboration
framework. For example, decision making is often in light
of competing values, by making values explicit and
prioritizing them, better decisions can be formed - this is
reflected in an increase of knowledge and added focus of
pertinent issues.
A cooperative activity, then, can be mapped onto the eight
essential ingredients. Furthermore, by directly modifying
the ingredients, the activity can be improved; and the
ingredients reflect direct changes to the activity. This
provides a powerful roadmap for improvement. The
essential ingredients are not only applicable to decisionmaking, but to all cooperative activities.
6. CONCLUSION
Collaboration will be a crucial activity in the Information
Age and is currently prevalent within organizations. We
have introduced the eight essential ingredients of
collaboration, which are applicable to all cooperative
contexts, approaches and implementations. As it is
technology-independent it provides many benefits. It
allows deeper analysis of human processes in addition to
the supporting technologies, and thus improvements in
both these areas, particularly as collaboration activities
can be mapped to the eight ingredients. In using this view,
designers will be better able to support cooperative work
and become even more innovative.
5. THE FUTURE OF COLLABORATION
TECHNOLOGY
By considering what collaboration is more deeply, we can
then begin to envision future collaboration technologies.
For example, since we understand that collaboration is
fundamentally a human process, technology should be
designed to be transparent, such that people who engage
372
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
[15] Frecon, E. and A.A. Nou. "Building distributed virtual
environments to support collaborative work", The ACM
symposium on Virtual reality software and technology
1998, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, Taipei, Taiwan
1998, pp. 105 -113.
[16] Gutwin, C. and S. Greenberg. "The mechanics of
collaboration: developing low cost usability evaluation
methods for shared workspaces", IEEE 9th International
Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for
Collaborative Enterprises, 2000. (WET ICE 2000).
Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA 2000, pp. 98 - 103.
[17] Haake, J.M. and B. Wilson. "Supporting Collaborative
Writing of Hyperdocuments in SEPIA", Computer
Supported Cooperative Work, ACM Press, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada 1992, pp. 138-146.
[18] Hawryszkiewycz, I.T. "Workspace Networks for
Collaborative Knowledge Sharing", The Fifth Australian
World Wide Web Conference 1999, pp. 219-227.
[19] Hindmarsh, J., et al. "Fragmented Interaction: Establishing
mutual orientation in virtual environments", CSCW 1998
1998, pp. 2 17-226.
[20] Hymes, C.M. and G.M. Olson. "Unblocking Brainstorming
Through the Use of a Simple Group Editor." CSCW '92
Toronto, Canada 1992, pp. 99 - 106.
[21] Isaacs, E.A., T. Morris, and T.K. Rodriguez. "A Forum for
Supporting Interactive Presentations to Distributed
Audiences", CSCW, Chapel Hill, USA, 1994, pp. 405-416.
[22] Ishii, H., M. Kobayashi, and J. Grudin. "Integration of
inter-personal space and shared workspace: ClearBoard
design and experiments", The 1992 ACM conference on
Computer-supported cooperative work Toronto, Ontario,
Canada 1992, pp. 33 - 42.
[23] Jay, A., "How to Run a Meeting", in Readings in
Groupware and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work,
R.M. Baecker, Editor. 1993, Morgan Kaufmann
Publishers, Inc: USA. p. 130-144.
[24] Lyytinen, K., Computer Supported Co-operative Work
(CSCW) - Issues and Challenges. 1989, Departmnet of
Computer Science, University of Jyvaskyla: Finland.
[25] Mahadevan, V., R. Braun, and Z. Chaczko. "An
Exploratory Study on the Role of Performance Evaluation
in Future Telecollaboration Environments", SCI 2004
Florida, USA 2004.
[26] Malone, T.W. and K. Crowston, "What is coordination
theory and how can it help design cooperative work
systems?" The ACM conference on Computer-supported
cooperative work. 1990, ACM Press. p. 357--370.
[27] Malone, T.W. and K. Crowston, "The Interdisciplinary
study of coordination". ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR),
Vol. 26, No. 1, 1994, pp. 87-119.
[28] Pospisil, V., "Glimpse of the Borderless Future". Industry
WeekWlW, Vol. 247, No. 2, 1998, pp. 90.
[29] Robinson, M. "Computer Supported Cooperative Work:
Cases and Concepts", Groupware '91, Software
Engineering Research Center (SERC), 1991, pp. 59-75.
[30] Schrage, M., No more teams! - mastering the dynamics of
creative collaboration. I ed. 1995, Currency Doubleday,
New York, 1995.
[31] Shannon, C.E. and W. Weaver, The Mathematical Theory
of Communication. 1949, University of Illinois Press,
Chicago, 1949.
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the
Centre for Networking Technologies for the Information
Economy (CeNTIE), Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research (CSIRO), and the Institute of
Information and Communication Technology (IICT).
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[I 1]
[12]
[13]
[14]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language. 4 ed. 2000, Published by Houghton Mifflin
Company, 2000.
Ackerman, M.S., "Augmenting organizational memory: a
field study of answer garden". ACM Transactions on
Information Systems (TOIS), Vol. 16, No. 3, 1998, pp.
203-224.
Baker, K., S. Greenberg, and C. Gutwin. "Heuristic
Evaluation of Groupware Based on the Mechanics of
Collaboration", 8th IFIP Working Conference on
Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction (EHCl'0I)
Toronto, Canada 2001, pp. 123-140.
Bannon, L.J. and K. Schmidt. "CSCW: Four Characters in
Search of a Context", Tthe First European Conference on
Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Elsevier Science
Publishers B.V, North-Holland 1991, pp. 3-16.
Bannon, L.J. and K. Schmidt. "CSCW: Four Characters in
Search of a Context", The First European Conference on
Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Elsevier Science
Publishers B.V, North-Holland 1991, pp. 3-16.
Biuk-Aghai, R.P. and S.J. Simoff. "An integrative
framework for knowledge extraction in collaborative
virtual environments", The 2001 International ACM
SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work
Boulder, Colorado, USA 2001, pp. 61-70.
Brave, S., H. Ishii, and A. Dahley. "Tangible Interfaces for
Remote Collaboration and Communication", CSCW 98
1998, pp. 169-178.
Brint, S., "Knowledge Society And The Professions".
Current Sociology, Vol. 49, No. 4, 2001, pp. 101-132.
Brooks, L. and M. Jones, "CSCW and requirements
analysis: requirements as cooperation / requirements for
cooperation", in CSCW requirements and evaluation, P.J.
Thomas (editor), 1996, Springer-Verlag, London. p. 10-20.
Burns, S.A., "Some interesting ideas about goal
achievement", Navybridge Pty Ltd,
http://www.stcphanicburns.com/articlcs/articlcO I gabasics
asp, 1999-2004. Accessed: 22 June 2004.
CSIROjAustralia, "Centre for Networking Technologies
for the Information Economy", http://www.centie.net,
2004. Accessed: 20 June 2004.
Drucker, P.F., Post-Captilist Society. 1993, HarperCollins
Publisher, New York, 1993.
Ellis, C.A., S.J. Gibbs, and G.L. Rein, "Groupware: Some
Issues and Experiences". C'ommunications of the ACM,
Vol. 34, No. 1, 1991, pp. 38-58.
Ereback, A.-L. and K. Hook. "Using cognitive
walkthrough for evaluating a CSCW application",
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
ACM Press, Boston, Massachusetts, USA 1994, pp. 91-92.
373
Proceedings
_&
20051atlmltilallbll.Siolll.
CDlllborative Tecll.Dlolies aId S,IIIIIS
,
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
•
Steven Benford
The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, U.K
•
Geoffrey C. Fox
Indiana University. Indiana. USA
•
Mark T. Maybury
The MITRE Corporation. Massachusetts. USA
•
Gary Olson
University of Michigan, Michigan, USA
•
Steven Poltrock
The Boeing Company. Washington. USA
•
Atul Prakash
University of Michigan, Michigan. USA
•
Johann H. Schlichter
Technische Universitat Munchen, Germany
v