Still looking for tools
In the ICANN context, it seems to me that we could benefit in many ways by having between-meeting discussions, asynchronously, using visual tools that incorporate text.
We might be able to come to decisions — something that is almost impossible to do in an email stream.
We might be able to continue communicating, rather than letting things sit for three months while we gather our strength for the next eight-day meeting.
We might be able to get quick input from people other than those who are able physically to attend meetings.
And, finally, we might make more visible ICANN's policy processes — something that is needed.
I received a few email messages after my last post about this subject, but I'm looking for more. Send word if you've worked with an online application that seems to facilitate this kind of work and is easy to use. And is free (or inexpensive).
Comments
8 Responses to “Still looking for tools”
Got something to say?
http://www.research.att.com/~johnston/
This page seems to be a pretty comprehensive list of all such software out there. I only have experience using stuff like Groove and Sharepoint that don't do exactly what you want, but maybe some other people have used some of the more niche stuff that is listed. Netmeeting might also be useful in terms of letting you communicate visually (i.e. via Whiteboard and video conferencing) but they don't have such good tools in terms of logging what occurs for a permanent record. There is also a tool that Google uses internally as a sort of quick wiki that lets people create websites easily to flesh out their ideas. It is called SparrowWeb and there is a demo of it here. It used to be free but now I'm not sure what the licensing is like.
That's a great site, thanks.
I'm looking for things that don't require everyone to be online at the same time. And, you're right, I want to create structured permanent records.
I'll go look at SparrowWeb. Thanks for the great suggestions! I also found wikispace yesterday, and it seems very good.
Susan
Tom — that's very interesting, and clearly something that would be great for NYC.
I wonder if there are research projects out there on the (perhaps more primitive) problem of helping people ask structured answers, get responses, move forward with inclinations etc. Because threaded email doesn't do it, but graphics and voice (alone) are not the answer either.
Susan
Your requirement that the system needs to work in disconnected environments as well as online, pretty much rules out any web based applications. The application that does what you need and does the best job of dissolving distance and time issues for workgroups is Groove (as was mentioned previously). I've used it in workgroups successfully where we ended up never meeting f2f. That's pretty amazing. It provides synchrounous and asynchronous communication and collaboration tools, synchronizes workspaces well for disconnected uses, has a good alerts system that pushes events to workgroup members, and is flexible and customizable depending on your needs. The alerts really help workgroup members stay connected with each other and with the project.
It's not free and it only works on Windows, but it does what you need it to do. If nothing else, download the demo version with a few of your team members and check it out. I think now that Ray Ozzie has joined Microsoft that we'll see a lot of Groove's tools migrated to Office in a less monolithic form than Groove perhaps using web services types of tool integration.
Thanks — I have used Groove in the past and I agree that it's very useful. We've got a number of Mac adherents so I'm not sure a windows-only solution is optimal.
But I'm not requiring that this be used in disconnected environments. I do think we need a web based solution, and something lighter-weight than Groove (in addition to Groove, perhaps, for heavy-duty projects).
We need web-based forums that allow for wiki-creation, threaded email, project planning, document sharing, and some ability to make some portions secure. It would be great if there was an application that did all of this.
Funny, I was trying to build a similar toolset with Openlaw several years ago and ended up with the “small pieces loosely joined” solution of multiple tools: wiki, threaded messaging, threaded email discussion archiving. It doesn't seem as though online collaboration has advanced significantly since then.
I had hoped that your post would generate more ideas also. The problem that you're trying to solve is the same one that I need to solve for university workgroups. While wiki's are decent document collaboration tools, workgroups need more than this. They need workgroup collaboration tools (i.e. document libraries, communication tools, task management tools, whiteboards, presentatation tools, etc.). Perhaps the reason that there hasn't been more discussion here is that there aren't that many alternatives that address all of these needs coherently. I would watch what Ray Ozzie does in this space though. I don't think there's anyone else with better credentials in collaboration tools.
You've said that you've used Groove previously, are you aware that Groove has a “Mobile Workspace for Sharepoint” tool. This essentially maps a Groove workspace to a Sharepoint site and maintains synchronization of content between both platforms. This solution would provide a web presence for a Groove workspace and might appease Macintosh users (probably not though). It doesn't provide the rich communication modules available in a Groove workspace though. There are also platforms like communityserver.org that provide integrated blog, forum, photos, and file tools. No doubt, there are other examples of platforms like this. Some probably also provide or can be integrated with wikis, but they don't provide communication tools or any of the data conferencing tools.
I agree that there may be a mashup of simple tools that might provide what is needed in the future. I keep my eye on the IM/VoIP platforms (i.e. any of the messengers or Skype) for extensions that might address workgroup collaboration needs. To me those platforms are the most likely candidates for providing workgroup collaboration tools because they provide the base communications tools (voice and text) that are not available in web-based tools. Verosee (referenced at Verosee - Skype's Groove Killer) is a Groove-like add on to Skype that looks promising. I've tried it though and I don't think it's ready for prime time. Also, more generally, RSS as the web services interface to glue a number of simple tools together to provide a solution is not robust enough in its current state to handle the kinds of synchronization/syndication that workgroup collaboration requires.
Finally, I think that Gene Smith has a point in his Proliferation of Simple Tools post that “…creating simple tools is great, but there's tremendous value in reducing complexity”. I'm concerned that having a lot of simple tools will only result in having a lot of simple tools. As he also says: “Sometimes shit is complicated…The tension isn't so much between simplicity and complexity, but between complexity, clarity and relevance.” This argues for a Groove like approach that provides modularity, but within an integrated framework that reduces complexity in the tools, if not in the tasks.