Julia Simons's List: 2.5 Researching Credible Connections (Internet Collaboration)

**EVALUATION**

Content (9/10): The intent, author, and her tone towards the subject is very easily identified, and the information is very applicable to the statement. One point was removed due to the article being dated in 2010 (although that is not very old).

Credibility (10/10): The "About the Author" section suggests that the author is very well versed and experienced with this subject, and continues to research this field actively. (The article was also retrieved from EBSCOhost.)

Critical Thinking (9/10): Considering this was an article published by an official scientific journal, its components can be identified as a "traditional" published resource's would be. It also requires a good deal of knowledge about the subject prior to reading it, due to the difficult terminology.

Copyright (10/10): A clear copyright and claim to the piece is shown at the bottom.

Citation (10/10): A clear list of citations is included, at the end as well as throughout, the piece.

Continuity (6/10): While it will remain a reliable source of information on the state of things during 2010, it will not be updated nor maintained other than its current edition. It is, however, free to access via EBSCOhost (for Full Sail students).

Censorship (10/10): It appears to very open, not censored, concise article.

Connectivity (7/10): While the article is actively accessible from EBSCOhost, it is only open to Full Sail students, and cannot be accessed through that database by anyone outside the university. More than one user can access it at one time though, should the need arise.

Comparability (9/10): Given the work's static place in time (2010), it is possible to compare recent studies to its information and gather how the opinion may or may not have changed. It does have an official upload to the related scientific journal it was originally posted in, so there are other comparable versions of it.

Context (10/10): The information provided by the piece is very applicable to the current research topic, and is fully understood as well.

TOTAL EVALUATION SCORE: 90 - Excellent (by Everhart's standards/chart)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Collaboration is a natural behavior of humans.

Paul Jackson found the common element which significantly influences the success or failure of collaboration in Internet Technologies is ‘trust’. (Jackson, 1999. p.328) Attempts to develop trust in collaborative groups have been varied from a framework for understanding the mechanics of trust (Riegelsberger, Sasse, & McCarthy, 2005) to the suggestion of PIP’s
(Personal Identity Profile) (Rusman, Bruggen, & Koper, 2007b) and guidelines or rules for improving communication (Correia, 2007; Walther & Bunz, 2005).

In the ‘Real World’, as a result of the social nature of humans, a great deal of our lives is spent in the company of others. “We do not merely occupy physical space with other people. We affiliate and form groups with each other”. (Carlson & Buskist, 1997) When we work in a group towards a common goal we are collaborating with other humans. This interaction
and associated behavioral patterns and signaling is well documented and has been an integral part of humans survival mechanism. (Carlson & Buskist, 1997; Holborn & Haralambos, 1995; Trivers, 1971; R. Winston, 2002; Wright, 1994) We have over the course of human evolution acquired an understanding of our environment and the participants therein. Collaboration of work-groups in the ‘Real World’ involves real humans.

This paper proposes that in ‘Cyberspace’ there is no real human. The human representation is a digital projection or creation of real person/s. This projection or ‘persona’ may or may not be an extension of the creator/s; it may depict facets of the creator or may be totally different
to the creator. There is no guarantee as to how much the ‘persona’ reflects the values or attributes of its ‘Real World’ creator. In fact there may be reasons for concealing the true personality.

In ‘Cyberspace’ validation of the ‘persona’ is problematic; it is not intuitive and still evolving. (See 5) The ‘persona’ is only that part which the human wishes to present.

Some creators have a large investment in their ‘persona’ (Turkle, 1995) which complicates the distinction between ‘Real World’ facade and ‘Cyberspace’ ‘persona’. Due to the fact that a ‘persona’ can be generated or disbanded at very low cost to the creator, ‘personas’ tend to be very ‘thin’ with little to no sustentative information or data. This is not conducive
to establishing ‘trust-relationships’ which build collaborative behavior.

Much has been made of ‘putting-a-face-to-the-person’ by posting a photograph but studies have shown that image-avatars do not really represent the creator. (Fiore, Taylor, Mendelsohn, & Hearst, 2008; Gosling, Gaddis, & Vazire, 2007; Rosenbloom, 2008) Photographs used as
‘avatars’ have frequently been digitally enhanced or carefully selected to project a desired self-image of the ‘persona’ which may be deliberately misleading or inaccurate. Photo ID’s or image avatars do however provide quick ‘visual ID’ but they do not assist in developing collaborative behavior. Diego Gambetta noted that “even if people have perfectly adequate
motives for cooperation they still need to know about each other’s motives and to trust each other”. He continues by explaining that “It is necessary not only to trust others before acting cooperatively, but also to believe that one is trusted by others”. (Gambetta, 2000. p.3)

As illustrated previously there is no guarantee the ‘persona’ accurately reflects a single human underwriting it. It cannot be ruled out that a) it is more than a single human or b) is misrepresentative or c) that it is an artificial presentation.

Such ambiguity of the ‘persona’ makes developing a trusting relationship with the human behind the ‘persona’ very difficult. The only presence that is known for certain is the ‘persona’ presented and it is therefore the ‘persona’ that is engaged. Through engaging the ‘persona’ the resulting dialogue will initiate an environment in which trust could develop
and result in collaborative behavior. Trust therefore becomes a critical hinge point to successful collaboration.

An important issue here is that a human can only develop Internet relationships through the distorting lens of ‘personas’. This makes the ‘persona’ the actual focal point of collaborative behavior and as such understanding the ‘persona’ becomes crucial.

‘Swift trust’ occurs in temporary systems where traditional ‘Real World’ trust developing signals and behaviors are not obvious. (Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer, 1996) ‘Identity Profiles’ and ‘Introductory Posts’ are currently used as a means of importing ‘swift trust’. The idea being that the disclosure of ‘trust building personal information’ on initial contact will accelerate a trust environment.

The importation of ‘swift trust’ does not take into account other components of trust building; firstly environmental signs or signals and secondly the delivery sequence of information. Firstly in the ‘Real World’, validation of the humans environmental signs or signals cannot be controlled whereas in ‘Cyberspace’ there is greater opportunity for control over the ‘persona’ which increases the opportunity for deception (See 2.1) Secondly the presentation of ‘Identity Profiles’, particularly in the case of Rusman et.al where proposed PIP’s, actually diminishes the opportunity of building trust through the delivery sequence of personal information.

**EVALUATION**

Currency (13/15): The date it was posted is easy to find, and it was fairly recent (2013). The site also provides a bi-monthly newsletter with information concerning the same topics of discussion. However, this specific article will most likely not be revised or updated soon.

Content (14/15): The piece is thorough, accurate, has correct grammar and punctuation, and its purpose is very obvious. It is very useful for this project in particular. Yet, this article is not available by any other means.

Authority (10/10): The author is clearly identified, and has contact information available by several methods. He also appears to be very knowledgeable in this field, having given lectures on the subject, as well as a great invested interest in it. (There is an easy-to-find biographical page with all of this.) The blog has also won an award for its credibility in this field.

Navigation (10/10): The site is very well organized and fun to explore. It is straightforward, and there are always links back to the home page, as well as to social media to contact the author. It is consistent, and logically laid out.

Experience (10/10): The page is eye-catching and encourages you to participate in several places (like the "comments" section, for example), and reach out to the author for anything you would like to know. It is definitely worth the time and fulfills its purpose.

Multimedia (5/10): The site is very engaging graphically, but does not have any obvious sound or video available.

Treatment (9/10): There is age-appropriate vocabulary and content within the site, and no stereotyping. The author does have a bias towards "millennials" and their role for our future, but this is easy to find.

Access (4/5): You can connect and load the page quickly, as well as download small images and text from it directly from various search engines.

Miscellaneous (13/15): There is no search engine within the page, but all other components of Everhart's are present: it has received an award, there are no extra costs involved, and you can print the information easily and in short segments without any complications.

TOTAL EVALUATION SCORE: 88 - Good

**EVALUATION**

Content (9/10): The intent, author, and his tone are very easily identified, and the information presented is very applicable to this study on collaboration. Even though the article is date in 2008, having access to an older outlook on the topic can be valuable.

Credibility (9/10): The author is easily identified and appears reliable, although there is no biographical section available for further investigation. The work was officially published and recognized however, by a reputable scientific journal.

Critical Thinking (10/10): The piece can be navigated as you would a "traditional" published resource. It also requires prior knowledge on the subject to fully understand and appreciate the studies provided within the article.

Copyright (10/10): There is a clear copyright and claim listed at the end.

Citation (10/10): There are pages of citations at the end, as well as throughout, the work.

Continuity (8/10): While the article can be accessed through EBSCOhost actively now, it is static in time, and will not be updated or revised, unlike living piece. However, it is free to use for all Full Sail students.

Censorship (10/10): The message appears very clearly with no censoring of the data.

Connectivity (8/10): It is accessible currently through the EBSCOhost database, which is only available to Full Sail students. Due to it being published officially in 2008 though, it might be open to the public by other means.

Comparability (9/10): The information is very useful in comparing the opinion of that time, and that of the present, to see how much has or has not changed. There is also more than likely, a comparable official version of the document due to be previously published.

Context (10/10): The argument and facts presented are very applicable to the current project, and their relationship to the topic understood.

TOTAL EVALUATION SCORE: 93 - Excellent (by Everhart's standards/chart)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What do people do at work? They go to meetings. How do we deal with meetings? What is it about sitting face to face that we need to capture? We need software that makes it possible to hold a meeting with distributed participants-a meeting with interactivity and feeling, such that, in the future, people will prefer being telepresent. (p. 2)

Although the intriguing results underpin the importance of nonverbal cues and the potential of avatars to convey or accentuate socioemotional information, there is still little evidence that avatars can improve CMC applications, such as Net-based collaborations. On the contrary, it can be asked whether the artificial nature of avatars and the nondisclosure of physical appearance and identity cues might even run the risk of generating negative effects, such as loss of trust and relatedness.

Biocca, Harms, and Burgoon (2001) define social presence as ''the
moment-by-moment awareness of the copresence of another sentient being accompanied by a sense of engagement with the other'' (p. 2) and consider this awareness as a key variable for the success of a medium across all application domains.

Cyr, Hassanein, Head, and Ivanov (2007) pointed out that social presence is closely related to, if not an indispensable prerequisite for, interpersonal trust. There is no doubt that trust plays an outstanding role in human relations in general and in mediated collaboration in particular (Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002; McAllister, 1995).

The question is how media properties can facilitate interpersonal trust. Regarding humanoid interface agents and avatars, Cyr et al. (2007) hold that ''online trust can be established through the virtual re-embedding of social cues and content'' (Riegelsberger & Sasse, 2001; Riegelsberger, Sasse, & McCarthy, 2003). This includes information that enables greater social presence on a Web site, and helps to approximate face-to-face communications'' (p. 5). Avatars are hypothesized to convey social cues and enhance social presence (Blascovich et al., 2002; Slater & Steed, 2002). Therefore, they are also expected to increase trust in Net-based collaboration.

Interpersonal trust is a multidimensional construct that includes cognitive as well as affective components (Johnson-George & Swap, 1982; Lewis & Weigert, 1985; Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985). Cognition-based trust (CBT) refers to a rational judgment of the partner's knowledge, competence, and dependability (Butler, 1991; Cook & Wall, 1980; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002; Kristof, Brown, Sims, & Smith,
1995; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; McAllister, 1995; Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer, 1996; Rempel et al., 1985). Affect-based trust (ABT) is described as an emotional bond between individuals or the confidence in the other that he or she is protective with respect to our interests and shows genuine care and concern for our welfare (Lewis & Weigert, 1985; McAllister, 1995; Pennings & Woiceshyn, 1987; Rempel et al., 1985). Although there is some evidence that it is easier to establish CBT
in virtual environments (Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002), results clearly demonstrate the importance of ABT (Iacono & Weisband, 1997; McAllister, 1995). The notion that trust needs touch (Handy, 1995) points to the importance of close interpersonal contact and brings up the question of how affectively-based trust can be established in Net-based communication settings where getting in touch is literally impossible.

Given the capacity of avatars to personalize and situate mediated encounters, positive effects on trust could be expected. On the other hand, anonymity and artificiality could also neutralize or even invert such effects.

CBT (competence of the other participant) and ABT (trustworthiness of the other participant)

General satisfaction with interaction outcome, the feeling of being co-present, and the experience of emotional closeness as a relevant dimension of social presence, as well as the affective component of interpersonal trust, seem to benefit from the provision of real-time audio or audio-visual channel for communication.

In FtF situations, actions and reactions cannot be temporarily or spatially buffered or decoupled. Responses have to take into account social adequacy and immediate consequences.

**EVALUATION**

Content (9/10): The authors are easily identified, as well as the title and tone of the article, and their intent to express their opinions on the role of consensus in collaboration. The information presented is very useful to this study on collaboration, however, it was published in 2002. (So, it is a little outdated.)

Credibility (10/10): The authors appears to be very reliable given their backgrounds in the field of group processes, leadership development, and marketing. The article was also officially released by a reputable publisher.

Critical Thinking (9/10): The work can be evaluated as you would a "tradition" source of information. There is some insight on the definitions of collaboration and consensus, but it is a much easier read with that knowledge prior to entertaining the authors' views.

Copyright (10/10): There is a clear copyright stated at the end, and credit given to those who provided additional resources (the photo by "Getty Images").

Citation (8/10): The piece does not appear to have any citations referring to the information from other works - it is solely an opinion-based article.

Continuity (8/10): The article is static in time, and will not be updated or revised further than its current state. It is, however, free to access by all Full Sail Students from EBSCOhost. (No extra or hidden costs.)

Censorship (10/10): The work is not censored in any way, and has been preserved in its original form.

Connectivity (8/10): Being only accessible from EBSCOhost, other than the original document published, it does limit the type of viewer to only Full Sail students (as far as I am aware). This does not mean the amount of people gaining access to it simultaneously is limited though. EBSCOhost is available via all web browsers.

Comparability (10/10): The article is an extremely useful tool to compare the opinion of the past versus the present when it comes to this study in particular. It also has an original form published in an official reputable journal, a comparable form.

Context (10/10): The content presented is very applicable to this research endeavor, especially with the older date considered, and proves to be a valuable resource to my needs.

TOTAL EVALUATION SCORE: 92 - Excellent (by Everhart's standards/chart)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And there's a risk of frustrating people who provide input and don't see their ideas reflected in the final decision.

Collaboration doesn't mean that all decisions should be made by consensus. Leaders who believe that abdicate their responsibilities and become passive members of their team, or waste time and energy in unnecessary rounds of agreement building. Instead, leaders need to make conscious choices about how much collaboration is appropriate for each decision. After all, there are many degrees of collaboration between making a decision unilaterally and delegating it.

If you have to decide and announce, try to frame your decision in context, explaining the reasons for your actions and how they're consistent with the established vision, mission, values, and strategies of your organization.

Stakeholder involvement is one of the key principles of collaboration. But it's possible to involve stakeholders without having them meet face-to-face.

Sometimes it may be more efficient to contact key stakeholders individually to gather input. That method works best for decisions that are clearly yours to make, but for which input may be helpful to you

But be careful. If you ignore stakeholders' advice, they might resent it and be less likely to cooperate with you the next time. Be clear that you're not seeking consensus but that you do value their input. If possible, talk about the criteria you'll use for your decision, and let them know when and how you'll tell them about it.

There's something powerful about discussing ideas openly in a group. Everyone hears the same ideas and can consider and respond to them, and everyone learns how others feel about an issue.

As a decision maker, you can convene a meeting and solicit input on a decision that you'll make later on your own. Perhaps the decision is too trivial (for example, the location of the new copier) or too pressing (for example, whether to bid on a specific contract) to take time for consensus. However, you may still believe it's important for people to hear each other's ideas and observe you hearing them.

The danger with that option is that the group might clearly favor one course of action, and you might decide differently. If that happens, you could cause greater resistance than if you'd consulted people individually. So, if your mind is already made up, don't hold an information-gathering session. If you do hold one, you'll want to warn stakeholders that you reserve the right to disagree and that you'll base your decision on their ideas as well as other factors. You should also let them know when you'll make your decision and how you will communicate it.

Most people can see the benefits of consensus decision making. It encourages participation, utilizes everyone's best thinking, develops cooperation, promotes empowerment, and creates a sense of individual responsibility within the group.

If consensus can't be reached, there's a clear fallback. As the formal decision maker, you must approve of the final outcome; you can't be outvoted. If you disagree with an emerging consensus decision and the group doesn't manage to persuade you, the decision doesn't fly.
Many leaders fear consensus decision making, thinking they will be isolated into a minority of one. But that rarely happens. If the issues are complex and several reasonable options exist, usually more than one person will advocate for each. If you get to the point at which the group is divided between two or more options and time is running out, people will often be willing to pass the final decision back to you.

Regardless of whether consensus is reached, you'll advance the cause of collaborative action by striving for it. If you do attain consensus, stakeholders will feel empowered and proud to have taken part in the process. If consensus isn't reached, you'll have demonstrated your commitment to collaborative decision making, and your team will likely support whatever you decide.

One of the best ways to build a collaborative culture in your organization is to get out of the way and turn the decision-making responsibility over to the appropriate stakeholders. If you've built alignment on the important issues of vision, mission, values, and strategy, you should be able to trust your staff to make good decisions.

To ensure successful delegation, be clear about the boundaries of the decision — the constraints in terms of dollars, time, resources, and so forth. Be explicit about criteria that an acceptable solution must meet. Also, if you must formally approve the decision, ask that the decision-making process include checkpoints at the end of each phase. In that way, you can be part of the consensus-building process and approve the group's definition and analysis of the problem before they work to find solutions. Delegation doesn't mean abdication. With good process design, you can enable a group to address an issue efficiently and effectively while still being part of the final decision.

**EVALUATION**

Content (9/10): The author, her intent, and date the article was published is easy to locate. It investigates the elements needed to create consensus, rather than the comparison between consensus and collaboration like the other sources. However, this gives more insight and ties into the arguments they pose too.

Credibility (10/10): There is no doubt about the reliability of the author, especially with all her degrees and titles to show for her vast amount of knowledge on the subject. The article was also published in a reputable journal.

Critical Thinking (9/10): The piece is a little difficult to understand, not having prior comprehension of the format of the management system of health care facilities (as that is the context from which the author speaks). Yet, understanding what collaboration and consensus means does assist greatly. There is a great deal of critical thinking involved when reading the studies presented within.

Copyright (10/10): There is a clear copyright claim at the end.

Citation (10/10): There are pages of citations, as well as throughout the piece itself, giving credit where it was due.

Continuity (8/10): As it is, is how it will remain, not to be updated or revised, as it is static in time, released originally in 2007. It is available though, through EBSCOhost, which can be accessed by any current Full Sail student. (That is free of charge, with no hidden costs too.)

Censorship (10/10): There does not appear to be any censoring of the data or the author's views, by EBSCOhost or web browsers.

Connectivity (8/10): Again, being available through EBSCOhost limits the article's openness to anyone not attending Full Sail University presently. That is purely speaking from an online standpoint; it can probably be found in its original published journal as well. (Therefore, it does require a specific database to view it.)

Comparability (10/10): Despite its focus on the collaboration and consensus within health care organizations, the arguments presented are very helpful when comparing timelines on the topic from various sources. It does also have a comparable physical form in the original official published journal.

Context (8/10): Consensus and collaboration's roles can be viewed from many concentrations, but their qualities can be relevant to many situations and studies, making the focus of this article on health care structure not a problem. This piece is very helpful in understanding the motivations behind consensus.

TOTAL EVALUATION SCORE: 92 - Excellent (by Everhart's standards/chart)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Findings indicated that a stronger relationship existed between consensus and commitment than between involvement and commitment. In addition, when present in the organization, involvement and commitment together were better predictors of consensus than each of those factors on its own, but significantly commitment had a greater impact in predicting consensus than involvement had.

Dess (1987) demonstrates that strategic consensus is achieved through the sharing of strategic information and through direct exposure to strategic priorities. Authors have highlighted the importance of consensus in strategic decision-making, and of strategy development as a consensus building process (Nielsen 1981, Hrebiniak & Joyce 1984).

In an individual capacity strategic consensus is defined as agreement amongst top, middle and operating level managers on the fundamental priorities of the organization (Floyd & Wooldridge 1992b: 28). Wooldridge and Floyd (1990) define consensus as the product of middle management commitment to, and understanding of, strategy (p. 235), resulting in the combination of collective heart and mind in managers who are acting in consort with a common set of strategic priorities. Dess (1987), in his study on consensus in strategy formulation undertaken in American hospitals, found that strategic consensus is achieved through the sharing of strategic information and through direct exposure to strategic priorities, and also that the relevance of involvement in strategy formulation to the achievement of consensus is not well understood (Dess & Origer 1987, Floyd & Wooldridge 1992b). Carney (2002) found that strategic consensus occurs when managers are involved in, and are committed to strategy development and when the organizations culture and structure are favourable. However, it is also recognized that strategic consensus may not always occur due to the fast moving pace of organizational change (Collins 1998), presence of multiple cultures (Thorne 2000, Carney 2006c) and the fact that organizations are often the sites of multiple and converging forms of conflict in relation to how the organization should be managed (Willmott 1987) and how patient services should be delivered (Carney 2006c).

Corser (1998) asserts that commitment is employees encompassing a complex sense of loyalty that involves a strong belief in the goals of the organization and congruence with the value system of the organization. Carney (2006b) identified commitment as a willingness to serve the organization through continued membership. Commitment to the organization influences individual levels of commitment in various ways (Randall and Cote 1991, Cote 1991, Cohen 1993, 2000), and it could therefore be argued that employee commitment and, by extension, middle manager commitment to the organization implies commitment to key organizational strategies.

The psychological approach to organizational commitment is defined as employees having a psychological identification with the goals and beliefs of the organization, and a willingness to concentrate efforts towards helping the organization to achieve its goals (Porter et al. 1974, Mowday 1978, Mowday et al. 1979). This process results in identification with the organization's objectives to the extent that individual and organizational goals are closely aligned (Guth & Macmillan 1986).

Commitment is portrayed as the internalization of the values of the organization, i.e. a willingness to concentrate efforts towards helping the organization to achieve its goals and a desire to remain as a member of the organization.

In summary, the total regression equation demonstrated that involvement and commitment, when both were present, were better predictors of consensus than if involvement or commitment were present as single entities.

Findings also support the Quality and Fairness Health Strategy (Department of Health 2001) that health care must be delivered through inter-professional partnerships and consensus, and that turf wars and old hierarchical thinking in relation to the professions must disappear, for the benefit of the patient.

Authors have suggested that employees display feelings of loyalty, affection and belongingness (Jaros et al. 1993, Carney 2006b), and emotional attachment to the organization (Allen & Meyer 1990, Gruen et al. 2000), or that they bond with the organization (Iverson & Buttigieg 1999, Gruen et al. 2000). This personal commitment appears to lead to work commitment (Mottaz 1988, Putti et al. 1990, Carney 2006b), and to increased levels of cooperative behaviour amongst employees (Gruen et al. 2000), that would indicate that for strategic involvement to occur there should also be commitment to the organization.

**EVALUATION**

Currency (15/15): The site is very active, having planned future workshops for 2014 even, and the article itself has an easily identifiable original post date.

Content (15/15): The page has correct grammar and punctuation, is in good taste, and as accurate as an opinionated document could be. The purpose is very obvious, especially considering its title, and the information provided, thorough.

Authority (8/10): The author is stated on the page, but the information concerning how to contact him and more on his background are located under a different section of the site. Therefore, it is there, just not with the article. (The nature of the blog could have something to do with this.) He is very experienced in the field of study too, with more than thirty years to show for it.

Navigation (9/10): You can clearly tell the type of site it is from the first page, and it is well organized with a consistent layout and easy-to-read font. The links are self-explanatory, and with a direction to the home page from all areas.

Experience (7/10): While it is well organized and fulfills its purpose, there is nothing special attempting to keep your attention, other than the claims of helping big companies like eBay, TiVo, and VeriSign (to name a few).

Multimedia (3/10): It is mainly a text-based site, with few diagrams, charts, and photos. The color is not very appealing, and does not keep me wanting to explore too much.

Treatment (10/10): There is no stereotyping involved, and the vocabulary and topic discussed is appropriate for the intended audience. The author does have a bias, but this comes with the nature of the article, and is obvious.

Access (5/5): The page is available from all web browsers and search engines, and loads very fast. There are options to view it in different versions too.

Miscellaneous (12/15): The site has not received awards, but the organization has worked with some big-name clients, which is equally impressive. There is a search available within the page, and no additional costs are apparent. Information provided is also in short segments, and does not require a "backing up" of a system to print.

TOTAL EVALUATION SCORE: 84 - Good (by Everhart's standards)

**EVALUATION**

Content (10/10): The intent of the article is very obvious (as it is clearly stated within), as well as the author, her tone towards the subject, the title, and the date it was published. It is written in a very informative, scholarly manner.

Credibility (10/10): The author is currently a professor at the Albany State University in the College of Business, and holds strong opinions on the topic, important and credible enough to be recognized by a reputable scientific journal.

Critical Thinking (10/10): The piece can be evaluated as you would a "traditional" published one, because it was published at one point. It demands for your complete attention with the subject matter at hand, although having prior knowledge about collaboration and the benefits of technology would be of some help in comprehending the message proposed.

Copyright (10/10): There is a clear copyright stated at the end of the work.

Citation (10/10): There are numerous pages crediting those who contributed to this study's existence, as well as scattered throughout the piece.

Continuity (8/10): The study and its conclusions will remain as is, and will not be updated or changed. However, access to it will be open through EBSCOhost to all Full Sail students. This of course limits the public's ability to read it, unless they seek out the official original document when it was published in 2012. (There are no costs associated with accessing it through EBSCOhost either.)

Censorship (10/10): The document appears to fully disclose all information concerning the topic, and is censored in no way.

Connectivity (7/10): As stated before, the article is reachable through EBSCOhost, a database only available to Full Sail students. Several can access it at once though, and it works on all web browsers. However, the public, again, would have to seek out its original form, making it harder for them to "connect" to it.

Comparability (10/10): There is a comparable original physical document associated with the online version, one that was published by the "International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning", and the "full text" is available online. Having recent information from this study is very valuable when making comparisons to the past's extent of involving technology in learning compared to now.

Context (9/10): This information is very useful in the study on internet collaboration, as connectivism is a new insight into how collaboration can be done more effectively, despite its focus on its application within the school system.

TOTAL EVALUATION SCORE: 94 - Excellent (by Everhart's standards/chart)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The emergence of new communications technologies, coupled with accessibility of internet and world wide webs have made them viable choices for both educational learning and knowledge oriented applications. These technologies (i.e., weblogs, wikis and podcasts etc.) possess the capacity to generate active learning, collaboration, practical and reflective learning. This has raised questions regarding the validity and usefulness of “connectivism’ as a learning theory for digital age.

Are the existing theories appropriate and complete to examine issues pertaining to learners of the technological age? Some researchers such as Siemens (2005), Downes (2006) etc. have come forth with a theoretical framework known as connectivism to understand learning. They have argued a new theory is required to react to the increasing use and complexity of information resources and the accessibility and participation which web sites and internet facilities provide to the learners of present generation. Siemens (2004) believes connectivism with its capacity to generate learning in a web based environment is the answer.

Today’s students are “digital natives” who have got used to receiving information really fast. They like to parallel, process and multitask. They prefer their graphics before their text rather than the opposite. They prefer random and they function best when networking. They thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards. They prefer games to serious work (Prensky, 2001). Prensky (2005) further opines that today’s learners are not interested in or capable of learning in environments which do not effectively reflect or incorporate their personal experiences.

Earlier teaching paradigms emphasized print based materials for instruction, printed textbooks, paper-based instructional materials and written tutorials (Hsu, 2007). But with advent of digital technologies, teaching and learning has the opportunity to go beyond printed materials, towards more collaborative and social interactive learning techniques. The internet with its tools ranging from blogs, wikis and podcasts provide opportunities to work and learn collaboratively, explore, analyze, engage in discussion and learn in new and innovative ways (Hsu, 2007).

learning occurs outside individuals, through information stored within technological tools

Learning within the distributed knowledge theory takes place through “network like structure evident in online interactions” (Siemens, 2008, p. 12).

Teachers need not always be the embodiments or sources of knowledge. Information could be acquired from computers as well. With internet becoming highly popular, technological sources such as wikis, blogs and podcasts can allow interaction between brain, mind and environment to generate learning.

Connectivism thus believes knowledge gets constructed through connections between networks. When individuals connect to these networks, learning takes place. Learning can also be a network (Siemens, 2006). Connectivism is different from the traditional theories of learning. It argues that knowledge and learning need not always be through language and logic, it can also occur through connections and clusters online. (Downes, 2006). Knowledge is, in this theory, literally the set of connections formed by actions and experience. Knowledge need not reside in the mind of an individual. Instead it can be located in a distributed manner across a network. Learning then becomes an act of recognizing patterns shaped by complex networks (Siemens, 2006).

In connectivism, learning occurs when a learner connects to and feeds information into a learning community. A community consists of a group of people with similar interests who share, interact, dialogue and think collectively to generate and disseminate new knowledge. (Siemens, 2004). A learning community is a network of knowledge from where individuals can acquire and feed knowledge into. Learning takes place when the learners connect to a network, filter knowledge, retrieve information, assimilate it and use it. Learning in connectivism occurs through informal exchange of information; it is organized into networks and available via technological tools. It is a process of continuous, lifelong systems of network activities (Bessenyei, 2007). Bessenyei (2007) further clarifies that the process of acquiring knowledge is more motivating if it takes the form of a cooperative networked activity. Individuals learn through cooperative activities, personal social networks which enable informal exchange of expertise and communities.

The emphasis is shifted from “how” and “what” to learn towards the question of “where to learn”.

Each person assimilates and contributes to the knowledge and the “entire community as a whole becomes the curriculum and the classroom” (Darrow, 2009, p. 5). Connectivism can be described as a learning process which occurs through groups of people who use computer-mediated communication networks to learn at their convenient times and pace (Siemens, 2008). It is a type of networked individualism where people use personal, digital networks to acquire knowledge, collaborate with others and secure social membership and a sense of belonging (Haythornthwait and Wellman, 2001). When individuals join network communities, they contribute data and information which benefits the entire network. “In a sense network grows in intelligence” (Siemens, 2005, p. 17). The entire community creates knowledge through discussion and collaborative contribution. The “learner controlled and driven community helps to shape, construct and reconstruct the knowledge base...Members of learning communities are responsible for engaging in the knowledge building process” (Cornier as cited in Darrow, 2009, p. 20). The process of knowledge creation is flexible (Darrow, 2009).

Learning, thus in connectivism, is dependent on two important skill —ability to seek out current information and the ability to filter secondary and extraneous information. The “capacity to know is more critical than what is actually known”

The entire concept of connectivism rests on the following principles:
Learning and knowledge is dependent on a variety of opinions.
Learning is a process of connecting to specialized sources of information.
Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
The ability to connect to sources of information facilitates continuous learning.

Technology has transformed the way students learn, acquire and disseminate information and communicate with each other. Gen Y’ers are digital learners who have a learning style which is conducive to collaborative and community learning with subtle guidance from friends and teachers. Blogs, wikis, Facebooks and Twitter provide this social space to learn and share information as a collaborative group (Hellreigel and Slocum, 2011). Therefore, in order to connect to these digital students, educators need to use these technological mediums daily in their classrooms (Prensky 2001, Prenky 2005). Moreover, if one accepts this practical view, then all current learning theories seem inadequate.

The theoretical framework of connectivism with its ability to generate learning in a web based environment seems to be the answer. Connectivism believes that learning can occur through connections and clusters online. Knowledge need not reside in the mind of the individual. Instead it can be located in a distributed manner across a network. When a learner connects to this virtual network, s/he learns by connecting to and feeding information into this community. Knowledge no longer rests with the institutions but instead the learners themselves become active participants in the creation of knowledge. Individuals learn through cooperative activities, personal social networks which allow informal exchange of views and opinions (Siemens, 2008; Darrow, 2009 and Bessenyei, 2007).

This study makes a contribution by empirically testing the theoretical claims of connectivism theory. The empirical study reveals that connectivism is an appropriate and comprehensive theory for the digital learners or Gen Y’ers.

The students’ feedback revealed positive comments of effective knowledge acquisition in a supportive, collaborative environment of peers. Learning took place by feeding into and assimilating information from a virtual community created by the author. Learning was no longer relegated to an instructor, classroom or textbook. Instead it occurred through online social networks. This supports the views of Kop (2008) and Siemens (2008).
Moreover, online environments need not always eliminate or minimize critical reflection and introspection. On the contrary, the teacher can take up the role of a facilitator and guide students to reflect and question theoretical concepts and implementations. This supports the views of Kop (2008) but contradicts Norris (2001) who argued that a community of peers eliminates critical and reflective discussion and interactions.

**EVALUATION**

Content (10/10): The author, his intent, tone of the paper, date it was presented, and title are very easy to find, especially with the help of the introductory "abstract" explaining the purpose of the piece itself.

Credibility (10/10): The author hails from Middlesex University in Dubai, and was considering knowledgeable and influential enough on the topic to speak at the International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age, held in 2012. I believe he has the authority to speak plainly and truthfully about the subject at hand.

Critical Thinking (8/10): The paper cannot be evaluated as you would a "traditional" resource, as it is was not distributed by a publisher, but only to the members of that conference. However, it does prove to be slightly challenging to understand concerning the references to various learning theories if you are not familiar with those terms prior. It definitely requires critical thinking, and insightful thought at that.

Copyright (10/10): There is a copyright claim posed by the organization that hosted the conference - the International Association for Development of the Information Society.

Citation (10/10): There are clear citations within the paper itself, as well as at the end.

Continuity (6/10): The report will not be update or revised; it is meant as a reference and commentary on the state of education and its involving the technologies available at the present. Yet, it is accessible through EBSCOhost, only to Full Sail students. So this limits the public's finding it greatly, as it was not published in a journal of any kind, only revealed to those that attended the conference. There are no costs associated with the document either.

Censorship (10/10): The transferring of the report to EBSCOhost seems to have no censoring, and full disclosure of the information was presented.

Connectivity (8/10): Again, it is only accessible through EBSCOhost, to all Full Sail students, or to those who attended the conference. The database does work on all web browsers though, and there are no problems with several users viewing the file simultaneously.

Comparability (8/10): While there is no comparable physical form of the paper, like that of a source officially published, or other than the original which the author had at the conference, the work does have comparable data concerning the timeline of education and its relationship with technology.

Context (10/10): It provides very insightful information on connectivism and how it can improve internet collaboration, regardless of its nod to the education system. (After all, internet collaboration is a huge part of education now, especially considering the amount of online programs.)

TOTAL EVALUATION SCORE: 90 - Excellent (by Everhart's standards/chart)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Web 3.0, termed as the semantic web or the web of data is the transformed version of Web 2.0 with technologies and functionalities such as intelligent collaborative filtering, cloud computing, big data, linked data, openness, interoperability and smart mobility. If Web 2.0 is about social networking and mass collaboration between the creator and user, then the Web 3.0 is referring to intelligent applications using natural language processing, machine-based learning and reasoning. From the perspective of advancements in e-Learning, the Web 2.0 technologies have transformed the classroom and converted a passive learner into an active participant in the learning process.

Broadly speaking, where the Web 1.0 connects real people to the world wide web (www), the Web 2.0 connects real people who use the www, the Web 3.0 will connect the virtual representatives of the real people who use the www. So, it is believed that Web 1.0 is about providing information, Web 2.0 is about overload of information and the Web 3.0 is about control of information (Rego, 2011).

Web 1.0 is generally referred to as the “read-only Web” making content available online for viewing. Authors of the web generally write what they want others to view and then publish it online. The reader can visit these web sites and can contact the writer or publisher if contact information is available. There is no direct link or communication between the two. Examples of these are static web sites and web pages created using HTML. (Rubens et al., 2011)
The term Web 2.0 is usually associated with the O’Reilly Media 2.0 conference(O’Reilly, 2004), but was actually used for the first time in early 1999. (DiNucci, 1999) As opposed to the Web 1.0 which is referred to as the static web, Web 2.0 is considered as the dynamic web. The users can read, write and collaborate to a certain extent. The latest technologies used on client side or server side in Web 2.0 are Ajax (Asynchronous Javascript), XML (Extensible markup language), Adobe Flash, PHP, Per, Python, Flash and so on.

The main features of the Web 3.0 technologies which differentiate it from its earlier generation, Web 2.0 are given as follows (Cho, 2008; Wheeler 2009a; Berners-Lee, 2001; Morville, 2005; Semweb, 2011): Intelligent/semantic Web: The term semantic web refers to the W3C’s vision on the Web of linked data enabling people to create data and build vocabularies. Simply put, semantic web is all about describing things in a form that is understood by computers Openness and interoperability: This refers to openness in terms of application programming interfaces, data formats, protocol and interoperability between devices and platforms. Global repository of data: This is the ability of information to be accessed across programs and across the web. 3D Virtualization: Extensive use of 3D modeling and 3D spaces using services like second life and personalized avatars connected to your devices. Distributed and Cloud Computing: The delivery of computing as a service rather a product.

E-learning is usually understood as instruction delivered via a computer in teaching and learning. A number of other terms are synonymously used with e-Learning for example, computer based training, online learning, virtual learning, web-based learning and so on. The central idea is that all these refer to use of information and communication technology that pertain to all educational activities either performed individually or in groups, working online or offline, synchronously or asynchronously, via networked or standalone computers or other electronic devices. (Romiszowski, 2004; Garrison and Anderson, 2003) The learner of the future is totally digitalized. The often so-called digital natives, digital immigrants, net-generation, Generation @ are some of the names given by researchers to the students of today. (Prensky, 2001; Tapscott, 1997; Pelevin & Bromfield, 2002)

With the advent of the Web, the major change was to have content available online. The concept of “learning objects” came into being which were used to create what is known as the learning (content) management systems (LMS or LCMS) developed to support study management and course organization for learners. This is considered more of a traditional, rather than a hierarchical way of learning where communication is mono-directional. In this direct-transfer model, the instructor is the distributor of learning material in a media-rich way and addresses learners through various communication channels. This era is usually referred to as e-Learning 1.0.

Stephen Downes described the use of Web 2.0 technologies for teaching and learning as ‘e-Learning 2.0’ (2005). Web 2.0 for example has transformed the class room in terms of how it is not only socially but collaboratively constructed by using wikis, blogs, podcasts, and other social web tools. Such tools demand dynamic content generation which may comprise of reflections and conversation, hence requiring a collaboration and interaction. (Richardson, 2009) This is a collaborative way of learning where communication is multi-directional where knowledge may be socially constructed.

Personalization is seen as the key approach to handle the plethora of information in today’s knowledge-based society.” (Ebner et al., 2011, p. 22)

In the context of this paper, when accepting Web 3.0 technologies for e-Learning 3.0, the human factor will also play some role but possibly not a significant one because the transition for the aforementioned ‘digital natives’ will be much quicker as compared to the earlier generations, the ‘digital immigrants’.

Learning theory refers to a framework that helps us think about how and why change (in learning) occurs (Smith, 1999).
Broadly speaking, in the education literature, there is reference to four theories of learning namely Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism and Connectivism. In Behaviorism knowledge is perceived as facts that can be transferred from teacher to student (can be related to e-Learning 1.0) Cognitivism opens up the black box of the mind, considering the learner as an information processor whereas Constructivism suggests that learners create knowledge as they try to make meaning of their experiences. Connectivism, considered to be the learning theory of the digital age, according to Siemens (2004) is, “a successor to behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism.”

Connectivism applies ideas from biological models of the brain to neural networks in machine learning; stating its basic principles as follows (Siemens, 2004):
Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known
Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.

Advanced technologies will continue to play a central role in the development and evolution of e-Learning; however it will do so more in the background providing connections between knowledge; so technology is not merely an enabling tool in education, rather a driver of change.

**EVALUATION**

Currency (15/15): The date it was posted is clear and recent (2012) considering the ongoing discussion on the top. The article is one of many in an e-journal, and will have further postings.

Content (15/15): The information presented is in good taste, has correct grammar and punctuation, and is very thorough. The purpose of the piece is very obvious, as it is stated in the "abstract" at the beginning.

Authority (9/10): The authors are well versed in the topic being discussed, and are easy to identify. There is also a way to e-mail them, although being a member is required.

Navigation (7/10): The site is simply organized, with font and a color scheme easy-on-the-eyes (although a little on the small side when looking to the right). The links' purposes are very obvious and relevant, and there is always a direction back to the "Home" page available.

Experience (9/10): The page is very text-heavy, with a small amount of other various media. But the information within is very intriguing, and worth the time to someone investigating the topic. Therefore, it does fulfill its purpose. They also have affiliations listed at the bottom and more articles to explore.

Multimedia (7/10): There is no additional video, although a good number of photos (even though they are mostly of the authors of various articles) and even sound recordings of their publications.

Treatment (10/10): The correct vocabulary and content is presented for its intended audience, and it is free of stereotyping. There is a slight bias on the topic of MOOCs, but it is easily recognized.

Access (5/5): You can access the article, along with others, by many methods, and the article loads quickly from various search engines.

Miscellaneous (13/15): Although the site has not received any awards, the information is constricted to small segments, easy to print, nothing private is asked for (unless wanting to become a member), and there are no additional per-use or hidden costs. There is also an apparent search engine.

TOTAL EVALUATION SCORE: 90 - Excellent (by Everhart's standards/chart)

**EVALUATION**

Currency (10/15): The date is was posted is easy to find, and there will be frequent updates and news presented on the site. However, this particular article was written in 2008, almost 5 years ago.

Content (15/15): The information presented is very thorough and useful to this study on internet collaboration. It is accurate (with lots of figures to prove its point), in good taste, and with correct grammar and punctuation.

Authority (6/10): The author is very obvious, yet there is no way to contact him or confirm his knowledge on the subject. It is clear the page is ".com" rather than ".edu" or ".org", and originates from a sponsor-site named "IT Business Edge" (who does seem very credible).

Navigation (10/10): The page is consistent in its layout and aesthetic presentation. Any links are grouped appropriately, obvious to their meaning, and there is always a way back to the "home" page. Any additional icons, like those to e-mail or print a specific article, are very clear as well in their purpose.

Experience (7/10): The page would be more appealing to someone who took interest in this topic specifically, but does encourage the reader to stay much like a newspaper's website, providing links to all kinds of news stories with catchy headlines. It does fulfill its intended purpose.

Multimedia (7/10): The graphics and some video enhance the site, although there is no sound other than that which accompanies those.

Treatment (10/10): Bias is slightly apparent, but very easy to identify, free of stereotyping as well. The content and vocabulary within it is very fitting for the audience it is meant for too.

Access (4/5): The site is accessible from all web browsers and search engines, and loads quickly. Downloading smaller images from it is possible, although different versions, like "text-only" or "non-frame", are not apparent.

Miscellaneous (13/15): The information is presented in small segments, and is easy to print without any difficulty. Any areas which ask for personal data are secured, with no additional or hidden costs to worry about. There is also a search engine available at all times within the site. However, it has never received any awards.

TOTAL EVALUATION SCORE: 82 - Good (by Everhart's standards/chart)

**EVALUATION**

Content (9/10): The author, her tone and treatment of the information, and the date it was written are clear. It is very appropriate for this particular study.

Credibility (10/10): The author is very knowledgeable on the subject at hand, being an assistant professor on this and similar topics at the Iowa State University, and her work was published by a reputable scientific journal - "The Journal of Technology Studies".

Critical Thinking (10/10): It definitely requires some insight on the information to understand her conclusion, although she speaks in a very clear and relatable fashion. The source can be identified as you would a "traditional" one as well, because it was published as such a source would be.

Copyright (10/10): There is a clear copyright claim at the end of the piece.

Citation (10/10): There is an obvious "References" page, as well as credit to those who helped make this work possible throughout the report.

Continuity (6/10): This is a static piece, written in 2004, that will not be revised or updated in any way from the original. It is can be relied on as a reflection of the opinion of that time, however, and can thus remain a credible source in the present or future. It is free to access for current Full Sail students through the EBSCOhost database, something that is not available to the public, and will remain that way (as far as I know).

Censorship (10/10): There appears to be no censoring of the document - only the original information.

Connectivity (7/10): Again, it is available through EBSCOhost, a database the public cannot access. Many students can simultaneously view it though, and through all various web browsers.

Comparability (10/10): It is very applicable to compare the information from this work to present data in the context of this study. It also has a comparable original physical form within the journal it was published from in 2004. (This may or may not be accessible at this time, perhaps through a library.)

Context (10/10): This assessment of internet-based collaboration efforts is extremely insightful and useful in this particular study. Despite its being outdated, the opinion and statistics presented herein can be compared to those of today to construct an image of how the issue of security while collaborating via the internet has or has not changed.

TOTAL EVALUATION SCORE: 92 - Excellent (by Everhart's standards/chart)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Effective collaboration tools can help resolve product design conflicts early in the design stage. As a result, product development, lead-time, and manufacturing cost can be greatly reduced. Thus, companies that use collaborative design tools realize many benefits. For example, by using a collaborative design tool to create its LBP-1210 laser printer, Canon was able to reduce design iterations, total cost, and lead-time (www.cocreate.com). Hewlett-Packard found that using a collaborative design tool helped immediately reduce overseas travel costs. Overall, using a collaborative design tool helped HP achieve a 135% return on investment (ROI) after one month and 240% after three months (www.cocreate.com).

However, integrated collaborative design capability over the Internet has not fully matured. For example, Potter (1997a) found that security and authentication are still major concerns when transferring CAD files over the Internet. Designers or companies need to protect intellectual property (Fornaro & Sanna, 2000).

Therefore, collaborative CAD tools need a common, secure communication framework and protocol so that CAD files can be transferred safely and accurately. To meet the need, many CAD tools have recently added at least some of the following collaborative design capabilities: (a) real-time communication, (b) support for various CAD formats, (c) tools for publishing 2D/3D CAD designs on the Web, and (d) tools for manipulating CAD models outside the original CAD program.

CAD/CAM (computer aided design and computer aided manufacturing)

For example, to help designers share design data and models over the Internet, CAD vendors have begun to incorporate Internet-based conferencing and real-time 3-D model viewing tools directly into their products (Shyamsundar & Gadh, 2001). Autodesk integrates Windows NetMeeting into the latest version of Inventor. NetMeeting includes chat, whiteboard, program sharing, file transfer, remote desktop sharing, security, and video and audio conferencing. Thus, Autodesk Inventor users have online real-time communication capability available within the Inventor design environment.

While working on a project, collaborative designers frequently make changes to parts that are being accessed at the same time by others working on the same project. One of the biggest problems with many Internet-based collaboration tools is that they do not have built-in multi-user version control capability. As a result, users can mistakenly use an older version of a file, rather than the latest version. Drawings may be sent out and considered final when they actually are not. Therefore, efficient collaborative design tools must support inconsistency prevention and detection (Despres, Piloty, & Schellin, 1993).

With the explosive growth in Internet use, network security has become an inevitable concern for a growing number of organizations (Yu & Le, 2000). Since CAD files often serve as legal documents, cautious CAD users may not be willing to use any tools that create a risk of exposing their designs to outsiders (Hauck & Knol, 1998). Users often express concerns about having their files stolen during transmission (Farrell, 2000), and many people are not totally comfortable when sending information across the Internet. Users often believe that if a file is sent over the Internet, someone might steal or modify the file. Indeed, some surveys already indicate that many companies are not willing to use the Internet to transfer their CAD data (Potter, 1997a). Thus, in the future, collaborative CAD tools must offer more capabilities for securing files and encrypting models.

Remaining problems facing collaborative CAD tool researchers and developers include technical difficulties related to data translation and file security. Data translation often leaves cracks, degeneracy, duplications, holes, and overlaps in models. Security issues on the Internet leave many companies concerned that their designs might be lost, stolen, or modified when transferred over the Internet.

A review of current collaborative CAD capabilities shows that although some capabilities exist, further research and development is needed, particularly in the areas of data repair, data integrity, and data security.

**EVALUATION**

Content (5/10): There is no clear author or date the document was written, but this is probably due to the nature of it being a company's insight on the topic rather than an individual. The information within is extremely useful to this venture into the security of internet collaboration, and provides many facts on the issues that could likely occur. Whether it is an older report or not, these presented facts can still be valuable in comparing the opinion of the past to the present and future state of security across the internet. I believe this company and its "white paper" is credible.

Credibility (8/10): There is no explicit author stated (taken into account in the score), yet this company - Accellion, Inc. - has helped some other very important, well-known organizations with their collaboration efforts, and deserves being recognized or considered for that.

Critical Thinking (8/10): This piece requires some critical thinking and reflection on the steps needed to take to protect sensitive data that could be revealed through improper and inappropriate methods of internet collaboration. It cannot, however, be reviewed as a "traditional" piece, due to its being in this "online-only" format, accessible through the company itself, or the search engine "iSEEK Education".

Copyright (10/10): There is clear copyright claimed by the company (Accellion, Inc.)

Citation (10/10): There is a small amount of citations present, and they are done correctly.

Continuity (8/10): This work is available to anyone with an internet connection through the search engine "iSEEK Education". Yet, it will probably not be revised or updated any time soon by the company. (I say 'probably' because the company's service is to protect internet collaboration through their service, and an updated statement may reveal itself as new collaboration methods are revealed.) It is available without any additional or hidden costs.

Censorship (10/10): The document does not appear to be censored in any way, by the company or the search engine "iSEEK Education".

Connectivity (10/10): It is, again, available readily to the public, and can be accessed simultaneously by several users. (There are likely other methods of retrieving the work, but I am referring to the use of "iSEEK Education" solely.) It is viewable by all web browsers too.

Comparability (6/10): There is no comparable physical form of this particular piece. However, it is possible that this work is a revision of a past report on the same topic, depending on the evolution of the methods of internet collaboration and the time period this company came into existence. Regardless, the issues presented herein about the questionable security of internet collaboration are applicable when comparing the past to the present.

Context (10/10): This "white paper" is a very important and concise resource in light of questioning the security of internet collaboration. Its information, tone, and vocabulary are appropriate, and it does not provide a lot of data irrelevant to this inquiry.

TOTAL EVALUATION SCORE: 85 - Good (by Everhart's standards/chart)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Managing the sharing of valuable information assets such as confidential intellectual property, sensitive customer data, financial information, product designs, and personal health information continues to be a top priority for all enterprises. Balancing enterprise data security and compliance requirements with user needs for easy, anytime, anywhere information access is a challenge that many organizations face.

But now, in the age of cloud computing, mobile devices, and easy access to Software as a Service (SaaS), enterprise employees are collaborating differently. Employees with access to the Internet, a web browser, and the files on their desktop, are eagerly trying and using free or inexpensive collaboration tools for business use-without IT oversight or control. Dropbox-type solutions for syncing files between devices, wikis, and free file-sharing services are just some of the unsanctioned collaboration tools that are infiltrating the enterprise, putting the organization at risk for a data breach.

Unauthorized use of collaboration solutions poses enormous risks to organizations in the area of enterprise data security and regulatory compliance. Many, if not most, of the files being shared on collaboration platforms contain confidential information, including business plans, customer records, financial reports, technology plans, partner agreements, and HR records. Files such as these present a data breach risk if they are exposed. If a data breach does occur, the consequences for the enterprise can be dire: regulatory penalties, public censure, customer defections, lost business, and loss of competitive advantage.

However, while file sharing enriches collaboration, it also creates risk for the enterprise, since the loss of confidential data through collaborative file sharing can impose significant financial costs.

Team members want to be productive, and file sharing is a necessity. When confronted with these account-based security limitations, many users seek work-arounds. The typical end-run: an authorized user downloads a file from the collaboration platform, and then blasts the file out to other team members over unsecured, unmonitored channels such as email, FTP, or the latest Web 2.0 startup specializing in file-sharing.

In this era of cloud computing and free or low-cost SaaS applications, it has never been easier for employees to gain access to tools for improving personal productivity. Under the category of collaboration tools, there is no shortage of free file-sharing services, including dropbox-type solutions that provide remote file syncing, free file-transfer and file sharing accounts that provide less restrictive file attachment limits than business email accounts, and even social networking sites like Facebook. Not to mention the fallback of sharing files via USB devices or CDs. The problem with these file-sharing methods is that they are not secure. They lack controls for limiting data access; they usually forego encryption in transit, if not also encryption in storage; and they cannot be monitored and audited by IT and security departments. By failing to provision employees with secure file, an enterprise increases the likelihood that its data security will be breached, by an unsecure file-sharing tool selected by employees.

Unsecure file-sharing routinely leads to data breaches, compliance violations, tarnished brands, identify theft, and fraud. Free and easy file sharing for employees becomes costly and difficult for the organization. Enterprises need a better solution.

Encrypted file transfer and file storage, Authenticated access to files, Comprehensive file tracking and reporting features for regulatory compliance with HIPAA, GLBA, SOX, FDA, Cross-boundary communication with all authorized users, including internal and external users, Support for all file sizes and formats beyond traditional limits of email, 100 GB or more.

Simply put, an enterprise collaboration solution should enable users to share files of any size securely with the people they're collaborating with, regardless of whether those people are local or remote, and all file-sharing activity should be able to be monitored and controlled for compliance with company policies and industry regulations. These capabilities are the security essentials for collaboration today.

**EVALUATION**

Currency (15/15): The post date is clear, the site has been updated recently, and it will continue to be.

Content (15/15): The information is thorough, precise, and in good taste with correct grammar and punctuation. Thus, it is useful in this discussion on how internet collaboration saves businesses money (and time). The purpose of the page is very obvious as well.

Authority (5/10): The author is very plain to see, but there is no apparent way to contact her or confirm her knowledge on the topic. The site is also clearly a ".com" one, but is the counterpart to a popular physical newspaper.

Navigation (10/10): The site is easy to traverse, with appropriate links grouped and their purpose evident, as well as access to a "Home" page always. It also utilizes a traditional font with an appropriate background to accompany.

Experience (10/10): This site definitely has experience in "fulfilling its intended purpose". Readers are strongly encourage to stay on the site, and it accomplishes this goal by providing articles on many different topics through many different means.

Multimedia (8/10): The page has a good number of pictures and video (with accompanying sound).

Treatment (9/10): The author does seem to have a bias (making sure to highlight "four key tools" that will save money and time), but this is very clear from just the title itself. Otherwise, the piece is free of stereotyping, and the vocabulary and content is appropriate for its audience.

Access (4/5): The page loads quickly from any web browser or search engine, and smaller images are downloadable. However, there is no obvious way to view the site in "text-only" or "non-frame" versions.

Miscellaneous (13/15): The site has not received an award, but there is a search engine within, information is presented in short segments that are easily printed with no problems, no private data is asked of the reader (unless registering or logging into the site, in which case, it is secured), and there are no per-use or hidden costs associated with it.

TOTAL EVALUATION SCORE: 89 - Good (by Everhart's standards/chart)

**EVALUATION**

Currency (15/15): The posted date of the article is apparent, the site has been updated recently, and it will continue to be well maintained and recent.

Content (15/15): The information is to the point, clear, in good taste, has correct grammar and punctuation, and is thorough. It is very useful when studying the relationship between internet collaboration and saving money (and in this case, time), and the purpose of the site is very evident, with similar articles available.

Authority (8/10): The author is easily identified, and holds a high status within this organization/site. Thus, he is knowledgeable on the topic. There is no obvious way to contact him personally, although you can get in touch with the site it is posted on, "All Covered". Other articles that have also been written by the author have the option to leave a comment, but this one in particular, does not unfortunately.

Navigation (10/10): The page is very easy to read, complete with relevant links with clear purposes (including a "home" page always), and any additional icons, like those that connect to social media, are distinct and appropriately placed. All information presented appears pertinent.

Experience (10/10): The page is worth investigating, even for someone who does not take a great interest in the subject matter. It is distinctive, and definitely accomplishes its goals.

Multimedia (5/10): There are lots of pictures, and moving slideshows, but no additional sound or video. (Although there claims to be a "Demo" to the right side of the "Home" page, it does not work currently.)

Treatment (8/10): The author may have a slight bias concerning the subject matter, but it is duly noted. The article remains free of stereotyping, and the vocabulary and information discussed is more than appropriate for anyone who visits this site.

Access (4/5): The page loads quickly from all web browsers and search engines, and images can be downloaded. But, there is no way to determine if there are "text-only" or "non-frame" versions of the site discernibly.

Miscellaneous (12/15): The page has not received an award, but does have a search engine within, information provided is organized into short segments that can be printed with ease, there are no per-use or hidden costs, and no personal data is asked of the reader (except when subscribing to their newsletter).

TOTAL EVALUATION SCORE: 87 - Good (by Everhart's standards/chart)

**EVALUATION**

Content (10/10): The author, her tone, and the date are very clear. The information is very recent, and the intent obvious - to educate the reader on the benefits of cloud collaboration, and how it is changing the business world. This knowledge is very beneficial considering the research topic of "internet collaboration".

Credibility (10/10): The author is more than experienced (15+ years) in this particular field, and her opinion can be considered with respect. The web publisher "Manufacturing Digital" also seemed to agree, as this is the source of the original posted document. (It may be a ".com" website, but there is a comparable physical magazine too.)

Critical Thinking (10/10): A great deal of critical thinking is required to understand the concepts the author presented within, especially the inner workings of "the cloud" and business practices. It cannot be evaluated as a "traditional" physical source, as this was a web-based publication.

Copyright (10/10): There is clear copyright stated at the end of the page.

Citation (0/10): There are no citations in the piece. It is a pure opinionated report.

Continuity (8/10): While this assessment in particular will probably not be expanded on in the future, the site it originates from is very well maintained and kept up-to-date on current events, and will more than likely continue this trend. It is also free to navigate the site, with the option to subscribe to their magazine (which naturally does require a fee).

Censorship (10/10): The publication does not appear to have been censored in any way, by LexisNexis or the publishing site.

Connectivity (8/10): This work is accessible through LexisNexis, a database only available to Full Sail students, and not the public. It may, however, have a comparable web-based published source on the site "Manufacturing Digital", which is publicly operable on all web browsers. There are also no problems when several users attempt to open the document simultaneously.

Comparability (9/10): Again, there is more than likely an original web-based publication of the same article through the site "Manufacturing Digital". Considering the very recent date of its revealing, it is very useful in comparing the knowledge on this subject today as opposed to the past, when this type of technology was just in its beginning phases.

Context (10/10): This article is definitely applicable to the study on how internet collaboration can save money, specifically in the case of using cloud technology to do so as a business practice. The data is concise, to the point, and provides examples to back its claims.

TOTAL EVALUATION SCORE: 85 - Good (by Everhart's standards/chart)