PM440 – Ideation Chapter Content 2010
INTRODUCTION:
Collaborative Authoring can be defined as a creative writing process by which a group
of people work together to comprise one final product such as an article, book or project. In a
true collaborative environment, each team member contributes a portion of the overall project to
be compiled until the final product is complete. Each contributor has an equal ability to add
content to the project yet they also have the ability to comment and make edits on other team
member’s contributions and the overall product. The recursive nature of this process prompts
others to make changes and makes it easier for the group to reach the end goal. This writing
method allows the writing process to be completed faster and more efficiently. These new
writing techniques free the team to be able to focus on their individual contribution as well as
working on other tasks parallel to the completion of the end product. This process is iterative in
nature which eliminates the need for the end product to be completed by one person only
offering content from one perspective. This method incorporates the ideas of the entire team
making for more in-depth and rich content for the end product.
EXERCISES FOR COLLABORATIVE AUTHORING – There are several types we will
focus on 4 as seen below:
CARD SORTING
MIND CANVAS
CAD
MICROSOFT’S ONE NOTE OR WORD
ICAT TOOL
SEQUENTIAL
PARALLEL
ALFRESCO
ECLIPSE
SHAREPOINT
WRITE BOARD
RECIPROCAL
CARD SORTING is an ideation method of collaborative authoring that allows users to
validate numerous ideas within an existing plan – evaluating each for effectiveness. There are
two types of card sorting methods: Open and Closed. For Open method card sorting the user is
allowed to cluster labels for existing content into their own categories, which are later labeled
and sorted by each user. For the Closed method, subjects review existing categories and are
asked to sort the content into the existing categories.
PM440 – Ideation Chapter Content 2010
There are several types of card sorting environments some of which are web based and some of
which are manual in nature:
Manual Based Card Sorting
-- Web Based Card Sorting
Advantages
●
●
●
●
●
Simple – For participants, card sorting proves to be easy to use and follow
Cheap – For manual applications, the cost limits itself to the cost of 3x5 index cards – Web based
applications depending on whether you are a client side user or you are buying the software
outright, is also a cheap option of carrying out this type of collaborative authoring and ideation
technique with some applications ranging under $50.00 and basic subscriptions to an online CA
Card Sorting site ranging from 18 to $45.00 dollars.
Quick to execute – Ability to perform several sorts in a short period of time. This proves to be
important in data gathering as this technique provides participants with a wealth of data in a
relatively short period of time.
Established – This technique has been in use by many different developers for over 10 years.
Involves users – The software should be easy to use as the information structure within card
sorting is based on actual user input, not just the suggestion of a developers or key stakeholder.
PM440 – Ideation Chapter Content 2010
●
Provides a good foundation – It’s not the only solution. It provides a good start for the
ideation and collaborative authoring process in designing websites, products or business
processes.
Disadvantages
● Does not consider users’ or tasks – Card sorting is an inherently content-centric
technique. Card Sorting could lead to unstable information structures if used without the
consideration of tasks, users and the project as a whole. Information needs analysis as it
is necessary to ensure that the content being sorted meets user requirements and that the
end result allows users to achieve tasks within the given information structure.
● Results may vary –The card sort may vary widely yet can provide fairly consistent
results between participants.
● Time Consuming Analysis – The analysis of the data can be time consuming and
tedious even though the actual sorting exercise was quick. This is especially possible if
the participants are not consistent.
●
“Surface” characteristics captured – The content type may not be considered by
participants or how they can use it – ending with a sort that is only compiled of surface
issues or characteristics.
OTHER EXERCISES FOR COLLABORATIVE AUTHORING
IMAGINATIK: A scalable, robust web based application for collaborative innovation and idea
management. This application serves as an enterprise audience targeting and sourcing platform
that allows organizations to receive and maximize benefits from collective intelligence. This
collective intelligence may include: employees, customers, suppliers and other third parties.
This application has the ability to leverage the brain power of an organization to boost revenue
growth and profitability, increase collaboration, build sustainability and streamline business
process improvements.
This tool has one main module offering 10 different custom features:
Main Module: Shared group intelligence emerging from the usage of various forms,
encouraging mass collaboration of many individuals for a common issue.
Features: Idea Creation, Idea Central (Cross Collaboration), Idea Minder (Idea Tracker),
Spotlight Ideas (Review Team Approvals & Audience Tagging), Social Networking (Tie in to
popular social networking sites such as: Twitter, Facebook or Myspace), Review Space, Search |
Export, Reporting Business Intelligence, Workflow and Campaign Management.
MIND CANVAS: This is a card sorting tool built as a web-based application which currently
stands as a common method for completing complex data analysis using cluster analysis.
MICROSOFT’S ONE NOTE: This is a web browser enabled application that allows users to
collaborate within the one note client portal to add changes, text, markups and images to existing
team projects. The tool allows for full text editing, contextual picture tool editing, wiki
PM440 – Ideation Chapter Content 2010
collaboration, blog apps, auditing trails as well as mobile phone applications for change note
updates. Microsoft built this tool off of the SharePoint collaboration workspace features
allowing for users to utilize name recognition, document changes, and other forms of virtual
team collaboration.
ICAT TOOL: This is a tool mainly used by engineers but it offers a wide array of collaborative
authoring features so that engineers can draft plans and proposals as well as map designs and
process documents for engineering whiteboard activities. This tool is a “open source”
communication platform providing a decibel method of collaborative authoring providing users
with structured annotative diagramming, aspect management and augmented reality mapping
such as those used in architectural designs and diagrams.
CAD: This is another engineering collaboration tool called Computer Aided Design
Environments mostly used in auto making and other engineer related fields/industries. This
software combines the ability for users to complete complex process documents with geometric
computations and visualization tools which are essential to the engineering creative process.
There are two main types of CAD environments Mechanical CAD and AEC (Architectural
Engineering Construction.
ECLIPSE: This application is mainly emergency management exercise system. Here engineers
can create floor plans and disaster recovery plans for evacuations of buildings and other
structures. Eclipse uses a GEF or a Graphical Editing Framework allowing users the ability to
author diagram and design layouts where each team member can draw and author new sections
of a complete diagram. This software utilizes web dashboards for increased user functionality
for document and content storage, editing and audit management, training and real world
operational usage after prototype development.
LEMILL: This application is mostly used by educational institutions to provide learning
resources to school teachers and personnel. This application is web based and utilizes a “open
source” server architecture which was developed in Europe. It uses most of the common
collaborative features such as wikis, blogs and chat boxes however it does contain word
processing software for content management such as document versioning, track changes and
draft content, comments, ratings and other web analytics.
Sequential Editing/Authoring/Writing
The most prevalent CW strategies can be described as group single-author writing, sequential
single writing, parallel writing, reactive writing, and mixed mode writing.
Sequential editing
Sequential group writing is where the collaborators divide up the task so that the output of one
stage is passed to the next writer for individual work. Editors which support this process are
called markup tools.
Sequential Writing
Pros:
PM440 – Ideation Chapter Content 2010
•
•
•
Cons:
•
•
•
•
Easy to use common tools
Easy to understand
Little wasted effort
Slow, lots of wasted time
Only one person active at a time
Some people miss out on final edit
Procrastinator can halt project
As CW tools improve through integration with these ideas, the lines will be blurred between CW
tools and knowledge-management tools, creating significant synergies for group work. For
example, existing document-management tools are adept at sequential coordination but do not
provide simultaneous editing on a shared group outline and lack other group awareness features
found in CW tools. As these tools merge, the capabilities and utility of such tools will greatly
improve.
PM440 – Ideation Chapter Content 2010
References
Building a Taxonomy and Nomenclature of Collaborative Writing to Improve Interdisciplinary
Research
http://job.sagepub.com/content/41/1/66.full.pdf
Using Internet-Based, Distributed Collaborative Writing Tools to Improve Coordination and
Group Awareness in Writing Teams
http://liquidbriefing.com/twiki/pub/Dev/RefLowry2003/using_internetbased_collab_writing_tools.pdf
The Online Learner: Characteristics and Pedagogical Implications
http://www.citejournal.org/vol7/iss3/general/article1.cfm
Collaborative writing
http://www.sis.pitt.edu/~spring/cas/node31.html
Online Collaborative Writing: How Blogs And Wikis Are Changing The Academic Publishing
Process
http://www.masternewmedia.org/online-collaborative-writing-how-blogs-and-wikis-arechanging-the-academic-publishing-process/
Informed Opportunism as Strategy: Supporting Coordination in Distributed Collaborative
Writing
http://www.ecscw.org/1993/16.pdf
Coordination of Collaborative Activities: A Framework for the Definition of Tasks
Interdependencies
http://139.82.24.161/groupware/publicacoes/alberto_CRIWG2001.pdf
The Multiple Views of Inter-organizational Authoring
http://people.dbmi.columbia.edu/~chw7007/papers/CSCW04-David.pdf
Collaboration Exercise
http://agile.csc.ncsu.edu/pairlearning/Collaboration%20Exercise%20Instructions.htm
Heribert Watzke: The brain in your gut
http://www.ted.com/talks/heribert_watzke_the_brain_in_your_gut.html
PM440 – Ideation Chapter Content 2010
Parallel Writing
Parallel writing occurs when a team divides Collaborative Writing (CW) work into discrete units and
works in parallel (Sharples et al., 1993), as depicted in Figure 1 below. This strategy is also referred to as
a separate writer strategy (Posner & Baecker, 1992) or a partitioned writing strategy (Ellis et al., 1991).
The term parallel writing was chosen because it conveys work in parallel by multiple writers, and such
work does not necessarily have to be partitioned into separate sections. The benefits of this strategy
include more efficiency than sequential single writing and more working autonomy and anonymity
(although specialized CW technologies must be used to gain the latter two benefits (Ellis et al., 1991)). In
contrast, some problems that can occur with the parallel
writing strategy include oblivious writers (Ellis et al., 1991), poor communication (Ellis et al., 1991),
stylistic differences, and information overload.
Parallel writing can be further divided into two main types: horizontal-division writing and stratifieddivision writing. Horizontal-division writing is the most common form of parallel writing in which each
participant is responsible for a particular section of a document (Stratton, 1989), as depicted in Figure 1
The chief disadvantage of this approach is that divisions are often arbitrary and are not based on core
competencies. The document is divided into sections and each author is assigned a section that he/she
is responsible for. The completed sections are submitted to the team leader who assembles them
together to form the final document. This approach is sometimes called horizontal-division writing
(Lowry et al., 2004).
Figure 1
PM440 – Ideation Chapter Content 2010
Section of final document
worked on by author 1.
Final
Document
Section of final document
worked on by author 2.
Section of final document
worked on by author 3.
In contrast, stratified-division writing is a form of parallel writing in which participants play a particular
role, such as editor, author, or reviewer, based on their core talents (Stratton, 1989), as depicted in
Figure 2.With this strategy, a team divides the CW task into discrete units and works in parallel. This
model has several variants. In one, each team member is assigned roles such as writer, reviewer, editor,
and so on, depending on their expertise. Members then work on the document according to their roles.
PM440 – Ideation Chapter Content 2010
Writer
Reviewer
Final Document
Content
Organizer
Repository
manager
Figure 2
Exercise steps (Alred et al., 2003):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Designate one person as the team coordinator.
Collectively identify the audience, purpose and project scope.
Create a working outline of the document.
Assign segments or tasks to each team member.
Establish a schedule: due dates for drafts, revisions, and final documents.
Agree on a standard reference guide for style and format.
Each member should research and write a draft of their assigned document segment.
Exchange segments for team member reviews.
Revise segments as needed.
PM440 – Ideation Chapter Content 2010
Reciprocal Writing Exercise
What is it?
Reciprocal writing is a strategy for collaborative writing.
sequential writing.
It contrasts with parallel writing and
“Collaborators work together to create a common document, mutually adjusting their activities in
real time to take into account each others’ edits.” [Adkins]
Why use it?
Reciprocal writing has several benefits (Ter Bush):
○ A single voice emerges for the document
○ It is fast
○ Very little effort is wasted
○ It supports a large number of potential authors
○ All collaborators feel ownership of the document
Facilitation Instructions
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Identify participants
Select subject for document
All participants gather information about subject
All participants create and agree on outline for document
Each of the participants chooses a section to check out
○ docs.google.com is an appropriate tool
■ Create a folder for the document
■ Share it with all participants
■ Ask participants to put their name next to the section they are checking
out. The outline will update in real-time for everyone.
■ Participants may create a “sub-document” that will stay in the same
folder and be named by the section they have checked out
Each participant authors his/her section based on the gathered info and outline
When all participants have completed writing their section, start Revision 1
○ break participants into diads and assign each diad a section to edit
○ no diad should edit a section that one of its own members wrote
■ AB edit D’s document
■ BC edit A’s document
■ CD edit B’s document
■ DA edit C’s document
○ send the sections back to the authors with edits so he/she can apply them
PM440 – Ideation Chapter Content 2010
●
Start Revision 2
○ Revision 2 is like Revision 1 except that you choose different diads for
each document.
■ AC edit D’s document
■ CD edit A’s document
■ DA edit B’s document
■ AB edit C’s document
○ send the sections back to the authors with edits so he/she can apply them
● Do a structured walk-through as a group. Everyone participates in an out-loud
reading of the document. They are trying to make sure everything makes sense
with the document. For example, is it reaching the intended audience?
●
Repeat steps 5 through 9 again until all the sections of the outline are complete.
References
ADKINS, MARK; REINIG, JEANNETT; KRUSE, JOHN; MITTLEMAN, DANIEL. 1999.
“GSS Collaboration in Document Development: Using GroupWriter to Improve the
Process”. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, Tucson, AZ and Chicago, IL.
TER BUSH, RUTH. 2010. PM440 class at Depaul University, Chicago, IL.
CONCLUSION:
Vehicles such as Collaborative Authoring produce better ideas, which create better end
products, and eventually, better projects which help businesses grow and develop over time.
Inside market usage suggests that companies look to trends and industry analysis to understand
emerging opportunities and use internal creative thinking techniques to improve their chances to
capitalize on these new ideas.
PM440 – Ideation Chapter Content 2010
In summary, Collaborative Authoring has many advantages and disadvantages. As an
advantage, collaborative writing can help teams provide better content with new innovative ideas
and methods to approach the common issue or end goal. Collaborative Authoring can also
promote the usage of subject matter experts for increased end goal output and improved
communication between team members and the sharing of knowledge material. The drawbacks
associated with collaborative authoring can include: cultivation of dependence upon others to get
certain project documentation or other artifacts completed. Collaborative authoring also tests
participants time management skills and ability to share information over a longer period of time
as others contribute to the end product. Sometimes within a collaborative environment it is hard
to estimate or monitor how much content was contributed by each team members. Newer
technology provides a method of completing audit trails for version control and checking who is
authoring what section of the content.