**2.2 Collaborative virtual workspaces: What they are and why we use them**

Collaboration itself is a recursive process where two or more co-workers, groups or organizations bring their knowledge and experience together by interacting toward a common goal in the best interests of their customers and to improve their organization's success (Martinez-Moyano, 2006) (Wagner, 2005). A virtual synchronous collaboration involves interaction within a virtual space wherein all colleagues, without respect to time or geographic separation, are able to negotiate, discuss, brainstorm, share knowledge, and generally work together to carry out a given work task. These environments aim to provide technology-based solutions where participants can cooperatively work as a group to construct and share knowledge (Ghaoui, 2003).

Virtual collaborative workspaces provide a common working environment where employees can not only collaborate systematically with corporate computing resources but also communicate with other co-workers and customers. Many of the virtual collaborative environments are 3D virtual environments that allow for multiple users. Recent evolution of virtual collaborative environments has focused heavily on online digital solutions, with these solutions providing for:

1. **Shifts in training and instruction for business and academia**. Business organizations have begun to shift their training practices using distributed teams in blended approaches (Alavi & Gallupe, 2003) (Simeon, 2003) with the use of online and webbased networking contributing to a boost in what is often referred to as e-Learning. The

ROTATOR Model:

A Framework for Building Collaborative Virtual Workspaces 101

2. **Focus Shift from Time to Results**. Managers are needing to focus more on results rather than time.This is aligned with themanagement by objective approach when time and competency matters little if results are not adequately evaluated and or determined as satisfactory (Shillabeer, Buss, & Rousseau, 2011). Further, managers need to be

3. **Mobile and Global**. As stakeholders and organizations become more mobile so too will the local and global networks. As these networks become more mobile so does the demand for more mobile technologies or those technologies that can eliminate natural and real barriers of geography, time zones and simultaneous communications (anytime/anywhere). These global and mobile teams or networks are viewed as complex for work and management (Ruohomaki, 2010). Once these elements or factors have the proper evaluation of tools and practices implemented the groundwork for accepting and cultivating virtual partnerships in virtual workspaces is laid (Vartiainen

Virtual world technologies provide computer-mediated three-dimensional (3D) interactive environments through which end users control one or more avatars (computer-generated proxies) in a persistent-state. Unlike other computer-mediated entertainment or simulation environments, virtual worlds typically retain a strongly temporal character where there is a persistent record of interaction from session to session. With respect to business processes, virtual workspaces utilize virtual world technologies to provide business users with a collaborative and immersion environment designed to better enable core business processes

Virtual workspaces typically provide workers with, "a complete online communication/collaboration package that allows workgroups to share files and applications, use an online whiteboard, and communicate via chat or instant messaging"(Toolbox for IT, 2007). A virtual workspace is a workplace that is not located in any one physical space. That is, virtual workspaces consist of several workplaces that are technologically connected (typically via the Internet) without any regard for specific geographic boundaries. Workers are able to work and communicate interactively with one another in a collaborative environment regardless of their actual geographical location. There are a variety of advantages related tot he

Affecting a decrease in unnecessary costs by integrating technology processes, people

Enabling employees to work from anyplace at any time supporting both the needs of

Streamlining systems from multiple facets of work into a single unified unit easily

over a specified period of time (Cherbakov, Brunner, Lu, & Smart, 2009).

For example, some advantages of implementing virtual workspaces are:

the employees and an ever increasing global customer-base.

accessible by both the consumer and the employee.

use of virtual workspaces for businesses and education.

processes, and online processes.

results-oriented instead of task or time-oriented (Amigoni & Gurvis, 2009).

2004)(Rowley & Jackson, 2009)(Howells, 1999) (Watkins, 1995).

& Hyrkkänen, 2010)(Ruohomaki, 2010).

**2.3 A virtual working space** 

skills are not found in-house and local networks must tap external resources. Between the need for non-local resources and cost containment issues this causes organizations to go global where unique or specific skills are less costly (Crossman & Lee-Kelley,

increase in distance programs at higher educational institutions has also been cause for the development of more group-oriented learning modalities for its remote participants (Harasim, 2000). Educational institutions are moving more agressively into 3-D virtual environments in order to create more social environments and to teach community involvment, creative thinking and social interaction skills (Ritzema & Harris, 2008) (Parsons, Stockdale, Bowles, & Kamble, 2008) (Bainbridge, 2007).


Behind the growth in the use of virtual collaborative environments are drivers such as the global distribution of both human and computing resources. Recent approaches to outsourcing, a distinct focus shift from time to results, and a mobile to global movement are all business forces that are fueling an increased interest in and use of these virtual workspaces.

1. **Approaches to outsourcing**. In this current era of outsourcing, the core ideology centers on "finding core competencies and outsource the rest" (known as the Bill Gates philosophy)(Crossman & Lee-Kelley, 2004)(Vashistha & Vashistha, 2006). Necessary

2. **Introduction of social context and peer influence into goal-setting**. Technology guides the movement from a "sense of belonging to a sense of purpose" helping to orchestrate "communities of knowledgeable" among peers (Gerben, 2009). This collaboration of peers is viewed as relevant in discourse, evaluation and community building and follows directly in line with a ripple-effect when circular organizational system values

3. **Recognition of ownership and authority for decision-making**. Organizational structures tend to be flattened and decentralized in virtual collaborative settings such that all partners within a virtual team look to be included within the decision-making or else the technology can be perceived negatively (Cascio, August 2000). Ownership and trust need to be based on a shared understanding for effective decision-making to occur. It has also been noted that the flexibility and demands for more employee empowerment can place the owners of these types of collaborative toolsets as the

4. **Method of Cost Containment**. Less overhead for companies to use teleworkers and a growing movement towards environmentally green ventures (less travel/gas consumption) has aided in the exponential growth in the use of virtual collaborative spaces. The advantages of this type of collaboration are more often clear offsets to such factors as maintenance and setup costs, trust and cultural differences, and the dynamic nature of virtual teams/organizations (Goel & Prokopec, March 2009) (Avats, 2010). 5. **Knowledge and Creativity Capitalization.** Increased interactions between departments and subunits otherwise unconnected could share information more freely in a virtual environment. A non-linear activity of information sharing across multiple departments , units and subunits sparks new ideas and initatives. This process will provide an heightening of overall knowledge access, management and organizational creativity (Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008)(Fain, Kline, Vukasinovic, & Duhovnik, 2010). Regardless of specialization, lateral unit activity increases knowledge and creativity which can optimize assessments with regard to user needs or customer satisfaction. Particularly in new product development (NPD), this capitalization serves to implement successfully innovative ideas going fromembeddedto embodied knowledge (Madhaven & Grover, 1998)(Badrinarayanan, 2008) as well as shifting that creativity to

situated knowledge where dispersed teams share (Sole & Edmunson, 2002).

workspaces.

Behind the growth in the use of virtual collaborative environments are drivers such as the global distribution of both human and computing resources. Recent approaches to outsourcing, a distinct focus shift from time to results, and a mobile to global movement are all business forces that are fueling an increased interest in and use of these virtual

1. **Approaches to outsourcing**. In this current era of outsourcing, the core ideology centers on "finding core competencies and outsource the rest" (known as the Bill Gates philosophy)(Crossman & Lee-Kelley, 2004)(Vashistha & Vashistha, 2006). Necessary

(Parsons, Stockdale, Bowles, & Kamble, 2008) (Bainbridge, 2007).

function (Watts, 2007) (Browning, Saetre, Stephens, & Sornes, 2008).

enabler (Peters, 2007)(Fain, Kline, Vukasinovic, & Duhovnik, 2010).

increase in distance programs at higher educational institutions has also been cause for the development of more group-oriented learning modalities for its remote participants (Harasim, 2000). Educational institutions are moving more agressively into 3-D virtual environments in order to create more social environments and to teach community involvment, creative thinking and social interaction skills (Ritzema & Harris, 2008) skills are not found in-house and local networks must tap external resources. Between the need for non-local resources and cost containment issues this causes organizations to go global where unique or specific skills are less costly (Crossman & Lee-Kelley, 2004)(Rowley & Jackson, 2009)(Howells, 1999) (Watkins, 1995).

