SFSU-ISYS363-FALL2013-SECTION1-GROUP:KINGS

1. {
SFSU ISYS 363—Fall 2013– Section 1
Group: Kings

2. Collaboration Topic Criteria
As a team we will be continuously working virtually to complete each task
of the project. With some of the students in our group outside of the local
area, this will ensure all of the tasks are completed in a timely manner, and
with everyone functioning on the same page.
Tools considered:
• Online file sharing
• Online chat/ video conferencing
• To Do List
• Real-time collaboration
• Grantt Chart

3. Cont. Collaboration Topic Criteria
Since we will be communicating virtually for the majority of this project, we
will need specific features when choosing an effective tool.
Features Needed:
• Multiple users allowed to be on one program
• Unlimited document uploading
• Large amount of data storage available

4. Tentative Tools Selected
Online File Sharing – TeamBox.com
PROS:
• Can be accessed mobile
devices
• Up to 5GB storage
• Sets due dates
• Keeps track of whose
accountable for each
task
CONS:
• Only up to 5 users
• Group video
chatting is not
available for free
• Only free for first 5
projects

5. Cont. Tentative Tools Selected
Online Chat/Video Conferencing
PROS:
• Allows group
members to actively
discuss ideas in real
time
• Allows real time
collaboration between
members in different
locations
• Everyone is on the
same page, so less
room for
miscommunications
CONS:
• Different schedule constraints
can limit the meeting times
• Must be used with other
collaborative tools
• Video chat can easily be
impeded by poor connection

6. Cont. Tentative Tools Selected
To Do List
PROS:
• Gives personalized list for
each group member
• Free and easy to access
• Simple, easy design and
interface
CONS:
• Implies that each element
can be worked
simultaneously
• If listed at more
sequential level, fails to
establish strict time limits
• Doesn’t facilitate
communication between
tasks and project
members

7. Cont. Tentative Tools Selected
PROS:
• It is the best way to
share ideas
• Every member
contributes actively
which ultimately
creates a better project
• It encourages debate
and constructive
criticism
• Refreshment* always
entice members to
attend meetings
CONS:
• All members are not able
to meet
• Hard to work around
everyone’s schedules
• Meetings can easily
become less work related
Real Time Collaboration (With Food & Drinks)

8. Cont. Tentative Tools Selected
Grantt Chart – TeamWork.com
PROS:
• Shows dependency
between activities within
the project
• Shows current status using
“percentage complete”
shading and a vertical
“today” line
• Good for small projects
that fit on a single screen
CONS:
• Doesn’t work well for
larger more complex project
• Doesn’t reflect relative size
of project elements
• Only free up to five
members

9. “Winning” Tool
We selected the “To Do List” as the winning tool
because this gives every group member a role and
various tasks to complete which in turn creates
efficient group collaboration.

10. References
• A case study of Facebook’s simply amazing talent management practices, part 1
& 2: http://www.ere.net/2013/09/09/a-case-study-of-facebooks-simply-
amazing-talent-management-practices-part-1-of-2/#more-33943
http://www.ere.net/2013/09/16/a-case-study-of-facebooks-simply-
amazing-talent-management-practices-part-2-of-2/#more-33972
• Video Conferencing Pros and Cons:
http://www.teachict.com/gcse_new/communication/comm_methods/mini
web/pg16.htm
• TeamBox Pros, Cons, Pricing and Review:
http://teambox.com/platform/features/,
http://teambox.com/platform/pricing/,
http://teambox.com/media/teambox-in-the-media/
• 5 Types Of Office Collaboration Tools: Which Is Right For Your Team?:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/allbusiness/2013/07/11/5-types-of-office-
collaboration-tools-which-is-right-for-your-team/