One of the major themes in my library systems class this semester is using technology to enhance collaboration. In class we have talked about this as it relates to some of the Web 2.0 capabilities such as Wiki, Blogs and RSS. For me it seems that between work and school, I am getting to experience the whole realm of collaborating via technology.
Now that our company has split in two, we have gone to an e-version of our quality control process in order to allow people working on the same project in the two offices to complete their work without having to drive the paper work back and forth. In order to do this, file sharing software has been set up and a central file is created for each job where each member of the team logs in to access their particular file for work. In order to maintain the integrity of the original work file, each member has been instructed to use a converted version imaging file and make changes to that. At the end of the process the project owner incorporates the changes to the original document.
We have been using this system for about a month now and it is going okay, but as with any new technology implementation, not without glitches. For example, there is an e-routing form attached to each project where the individual who completes a given task then sends the form to the next person on the list notifying them that they can begin their particular function. Several times, this routing system has failed and the progress of the job essentially gets lost in cyberspace. This proved to be stressful the other week when we realized two large jobs that were due ASAP had been lost in the routing process for over a week and had not been touched.
I think what I am learning through my class and work this fall is collaborative technology can be a good service, but the people involved need to maintain a good control over the systems being used or strange things can happen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

3 comments:
The dynamics of human computer interaction can be very weird, in that humans often abdicate responsibility to machines as they rarely would to other living beings. Scary.
Despite the added stress, it sounds as though you accept the e-version f your quality control process. Is this correct? Or is the jury still out?
Ditto to Dr. Ball's comments! Your example shows that clear, dedicated communication becomes even more (not less!) important when implementing technological tools that are supposed to make communication easier!
Cheers!
TV
Post a Comment