ROTATOR Model: A Framework for Building Collaborative Virtual Workspaces

This is the html version of the file http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/36379/InTech-Rotator_model_a_framework_for_building_collaborative_virtual_workspaces.pdf.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.

Page 1

5

ROTATOR Model: A Framework for Building

Collaborative Virtual Workspaces

Charles J. Lesko Jr, Christine R. Russell and Yolanda A. Hollingsworth

East Carolina University, East Carolina University, Middlesex College

USA

1. Introduction

The impacts of virtual world technologies are beginning to resonate on a global scale. The

recent developments and use of virtual world technologies in the form of virtual

workspaces has demonstrated distinct characteristics and outcomes that can be used to plan

and gauge levels of development and incorporation within a given business process

framework. In supporting business processes, virtual workspaces can provide collaborative

and immersive environments to better enable core business processes over a specified

period of time. Virtual workspaces are particularly valuable today because they can provide

workers with an online collaboration suite with varying levels of functionality that allow

groups of workers to communicate in a highly interactive, self-contained collaborative

workspace.

Recent uses of virtual workspaces have begun to identify some distinct characteristics and

outcomes related to their integration in live working environments. Collectively, these

characteristics and outcomes can be articulated through the identification of various

functional stages that businesses realize to establish and maintain a distinct level of virtual

world collaborative capability. However, to date there is no effective strategic model for

evaluating and planning implementation of virtual workspaces in a business setting. To

frame a discussion on implementation and planning processes for virtual workspaces the

authors are proposing a new systematic model in this paper. This proposed model provides

a staged breakdown outlining the characteristics and functionalities businesses can

currently expect to encounter when implementing virtual workspaces. This proposed model

is referred to herein as the ROTATOR Model.

In a broad sense, the concept of rotation involves having a clear central point that stays

fixed, in this case that fixed point is the process of virtual workplace collaborations and

like any palindrome it can be viewed from either end having movement from real to

virtual with varying degrees of reality and virtualization processes and capabilities

enmeshed in between.

This chapter presents the ROTATOR Model as a proposed framework for managing the

development and implementation of virtual workspaces. The purpose of the ROTATOR

model is to: (1) provide a pragmatic approach for describing various levels of virtual world

application used for implementing virtual workspaces; (2) assist in identifying what level of

---

Page 2

Virtual Reality and Environments

96

virtual world implementation is needed to achieve desired business outcomes; and (3) create

a practical framework that represents the varying levels of both functionality and capability

for establishing and maintaining virtual workspaces. In this chapter the authors propose the

ROTATOR model to establish a series of incremental stages that form the foundation for a

virtual workspace framework.

As a foundation for this analysis, the concepts, history and use of the terms virtual

collaboration and virtual workspaces are also discussed in this article to clarify their import

and use in industry. These discussions include a description of the recent evolution of

virtual collaborative environments with a focus on the most important online global

workforce drivers. The impact of other key technologies with respect to the ROTATOR

Model within the virtual workspace arena including cloud computing, semantic web, and

web 3-D are also discussed.

2. Defining the collaborative virtual workspace landscape

Over the past few decades, computing sciences has grappled with different approaches to

presenting digitally generated content. In recent years the field of virtual reality (VR) has

become one of the most intriguing technologies in the area of content presentation.

Although most people tend to relate virtual reality to its use in more common entertainment

arenas like gaming, the real impacts are in the broader areas of the, “arts, business,

communication, design, education, engineering, medicine and many other fields” (Briggs,

1996). Over the last 15 years, John Brigg’s prediction has proven to be correct--the biggest

impacts of virtual reality technology use are now being felt especially in the business,

communication and medical fields (Briggs, 1996). While the virtual world technology is still

evolving and developing, it has finally matured to a level where we are routinely

implementing it in whole or part in educational and business settings. The issue for businesses

seems to be less one of will they implement VR technology in workspaces, but rather more one

of how it will be done and in what sequence investment in the requisite technology will be

made. This includes considering not just current VR technology but also requires

understanding the likely evolution and trajectory of the technology development in the future.

Additionally, savvy users should ask themselves now what other technologies are being or

might be co-implemented to supplement the virtual environments along the way.

Appropriate planning and scaling of implementation of VR technologies based on knowing

your industry goals, your company’s historical and future growth patterns, your immediate

real needs and your tolerance for risk are all crucial to planning implementation of VR

platforms and workspaces. Poor planning for implementation of VR workspaces or any new

technology may result in unnecessary risk exposure, cost overruns and simple ineffective

use of costly infrastructure that is both unnecessary and/or inefficient. While there are

many studies of the implementation of virtual, mixed and augmented reality spaces most or

many of those have been focused on education and medical uses (Caudell & Mizell,

1992)(Steuer, 1992) (Barfield & Caudell, 2001) (van Krevelen & Poelman, 2010). Before

considering the available studies and their place in the ROTATOR model though it’s

important to understand exactly what virtual reality is and how it is affected by other

technologies like augmented reality. Additionally as cloud computing becomes more widely

used in industry we will consider how that storage process along with some other most

common storage processes may affect the implementation plan for VR workspaces in a

---

Page 3

ROTATOR Model:

A Framework for Building Collaborative Virtual Workspaces

97

business setting. Often people mix up virtual reality and augmented reality so let’s begin

first with clear definitions of those concepts as used in this chapter and for purposes the

ROTATOR model of virtual reality and augmented reality implementation.

One expert defines virtual reality as a “three-dimensional, computer generated simulation in

which one can navigate around, interact with and be immersed in another environment”

(Briggs, 1996). While this definition has been expanded over time to include spaces that are

less real in terms of mimicking the real world for business purposes, these business spaces

almost always mirror closely in some way a real world setting. Virtual reality, (Milgram &

Kishino, 1994) takes a computer-generated world and begins to immerse the user through

varying levels of “real” content (Hampshire, Seichter, Grasset, & Billinghurst, 2006) (Haller,

Billinghurst, & Thomas, 2007) (Ritsos, Ritsos, & Gougoulis, 2011).

As for augmented reality, various technologies have and continue to be developed that seek

to enhance a user’s current perception of real world reality in varying degrees. Where

virtual reality attempts to replace the entire real world perception with a simulated one the

concept of augmented reality takes the user’s unmodified or actual reality and begins to

infuse computer-generated elements into that real world reality (Alem & Huang, 2011). The

computer-generated elements in this environment then in effect ‘augment’ what the user

senses in their real world environment (Kroeker, 2010). So, for example someone working in

a design environment and as a support the person might see computer-generated materials

that are overlaid by computer projection into the client’s landscape environment so the

client can see what it would look like if there were palm trees in the west corner of the

garden. The most common example of simple augmentation in fact is in TV sports casting

where the viewer of an American football game might see lines and graphics depicting the

ball placement or movement overlaid on the live TV feed from the game.

As computer graphics and generations become more sophisticated these augmentations are

becoming more and more sophisticated as well and are drifting closer to merging with the

virtual reality environment in a natural way. For example, as applications become mobile

there are new and more challenging options for the use of augmented reality. Some recent

examples of mobile applications that augment one’s reality include Layar, a ‘reality browser’

that retrieves point-of-interest data on the basis of GPS, compass, and camera view (Alem &

Huang, 2011). GraffittiGeo is another augmented reality application that lets users read and

write virtual Twitter-style comments on the walls of restaurants, movies and cafes (Kroeker,

2010). There are additional advanced uses of augmented reality being employed in design

and urban renewal work as well; allowing designers to literally sit together at a table and

manipulate and overlay computer generated materials and design drawings on say a real

world table in front of them using programs like ARUDesigner (Wang, 2009).

Additionally, the concepts of augmentation coincide with real-time presentation that is in

semantic context with the real world. So if we had a sliding scale viewpoint of these

concepts, we would see the real world reality on one end of the continuum—say to the left

with full immersive virtual reality worlds (we have not yet reached the capability to use

practically fully immersive virtual reality technologies) on the far other end of the scale—

say to the far right. Augmented reality would of course fall on that scale somewhere in

between but close to real world reality and relatively far away from the virtual reality side

of the scale at the other end. However, as augmentation develops it trends closer and closer

to the VR side of the equation. One challenge for planning implementation of VR worlds

---

Page 4

Virtual Reality and Environments

98

and/or augmented reality use then is to better understand the characteristics between the

two extremes of 3D virtual reality and real world reality with augmented reality spanning

the spectrum in between.

2.1 Virtual verses real environments

Milgram's Reality-Virtuality Continuum defined in 1994 describes a continuum that spans

space from the real environment into a pure virtual environment. In between those end

points there are spaces of augmented reality that are closer to the real environment and /or

augmented virtuality that are closer to the fully virtual environment (Milgram & Kishino,

1994). From the virtual reality perspective an environment is presented to the end user that

can either contain totally virtual (computer-generated) content or be somewhere in between

thereby containing relative levels of realism or actual existent artefacts not computer

generated.

There is a natural merging (see Figure 1) of the two concepts where the purely virtual

environment meets the natural or real environment. In essence, virtual reality evolves from

systematically-generated environmental content that is presented to the end-user and

gradually adds real world content while augmented reality (from an opposing perspective)

evolves from the real world and gradually infuses digital content into the end-users

presentation.

Fig. 1. Converging Realities: Real vs. Virtual

In a real environment we might have a live meeting with all the participants in the room in

the same place at the same time to discuss or work on some kind of business problem. Of

course this has become more and more impractical as people are geographically farther and

farther apart because of workforce globalization and decentralization. To respond to the

need to communicate across geographic boundaries we saw the introduction of technologies

like Skype, live meetings online, instant message usage or even some kinds of social

networking that involved either synchronous or asynchronous communications. The use of

these tools has now become ubiquitous in the workplace as businesses find one or more

combinations of these communications tools, which can be used to smooth and speed up

communication and business processes.

We have rapidly developed beyond even these latest technologies now and are seeing

rapidly evolving; newer ones emerge that include virtual reality and augmentation tools.

While these new virtual reality and augmentation tools, allow for more depth and

---

Page 5

ROTATOR Model:

A Framework for Building Collaborative Virtual Workspaces

99

expression in communication thereby facilitating increasingly effective communication

processes like training programs and client communications, users are finding that they are

often costly to implement and fraught with more risk factors than the earlier technologies

like Skype and instant messaging (IM). For example, there is a steeper learning curve for use

in VR technologies and there are risks associated with storage of information that may be

considered meeting or business communications required by law to be housed and

accessible. Additionally there may be significant upfront costs for software development or

implementation that businesses don’t anticipate. This does not mean that use of VR

technologies should be avoided by businesses as effective implementation can have far more

advantages then disadvantages when they are properly planned and implemented.

We are now beginning to see more extensive adoption by Universities, hospitals and

medical companies as well as industry of these VR environments and augmented reality

technologies. However, there seems to be little consideration given to the actual choice and

implementation of the technologies with regard to their place on the continuum, their long-

term viability and evolution, and the requisite return on investment (ROI) of

implementation and use. By placing technologies on the proposed ROTATOR continuum

and evaluating the goals and needs of an organization, companies can better plan and more

efficiently use limited resources for implementation and adoption of VR and augmented

technologies in business applications. Additionally, use of the ROTATOR model should aid

in illuminating any potential risks associated with their implementation depending on the

company and application. Use of the ROTATOR model can also shed light on possible risks

associated with use and maintenance of VR and should help minimize risks based on

planned and appropriate implementation policies and procedures.

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 web-

based networking contributing to a boost in what is often referred to as e-Learning. The

---

Page 6

Virtual Reality and Environments

100

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).

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

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

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

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

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).

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

---

Page 7

ROTATOR Model:

A Framework for Building Collaborative Virtual Workspaces

101

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).

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

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

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

& Hyrkkänen, 2010)(Ruohomaki, 2010).

2.3 A virtual working space

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

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

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

use of virtual workspaces for businesses and education.

For example, some advantages of implementing virtual workspaces are:

•

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

processes, and online processes.

•

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

the employees and an ever increasing global customer-base.

•

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

accessible by both the consumer and the employee.

---

Page 8

Virtual Reality and Environments

102

•

Making it easier for employees because of business traveling, consolidates services, and

assists in the communication processes.

•

Increasing productivity because employees’ are more focused with business related

projects with only a single system to interact in.

•

Making collaborations with team members easier with a singular virtual workplace.

•

Allowing a company to reach more of its employees via meeting workspaces and

virtual training sessions (Shafia, Ebrahim, Ahmed, & Taha, 2009)(Hertel, Geister, &

Konradt, 2005) (Demster, 2005).

Some challenges to integrating virtual workspaces still exist. For example, some challenges

of implementation of virtual workplaces are:

•

Failure to leverage the technology that supports virtual workplaces resulting in

decrease in productivity.

•

Lack of human contact effecting team motivation, trust and productivity.

•

Increased sensitivity to communication, interpersonal and cultural factors.

•

Increased number and use of various formal and informal communications channels

with the constantly-expanding use of social networking sites (Greenlee, 2003) (Powell,

Piccoli, & Ives, 2004).

3. The need for a virtual collaborative workspace framework

The exponential growth of the World Wide Web (WWW) over the past two decades has

driven both technological innovation and increased senstivity to immediacy in

communication and collaborative business functions. As the web has evolved so too has our

desire to become more involved with the process of content-sharing and content-creation.

Now new web-based semantic technologies are providing smarter, more meaningful

content and virtual world technologies are presenting that content with a new level of depth

and interactivity (Lesko & Hollingsworth, 2010). Additionally, we do this all faster and with

less willingness to wait for the process to evolve. As an interface, today’s virtual

collaborative technologies provide users with some unique capabilities including:

•

Shared Space: the world allows multiple users to participate at once.

•

Graphical User Interface: the world depicts space visually.

•

Immediacy: interaction takes place in real time.

•

Interactivity: the world allows users to alter, develop, build, or submit customized

content.

•

Persistence: the world's existence continues regardless of whether individual users are

logged in.

•

Socialization/Community: the world allows and encourages the formation of in-world

social groups (Book, 2008).

As a collaborative medium virtual workspace integration within any business requires some

basic understanding of four key components. Those four key components are as follows:

1. Business Environment - this component recognizes both the internal and external

factors that may impact the process of use of the collaborative medium. Factors such as

geographical location, corporate policies and procedures, and collaborations with

---

Page 9

ROTATOR Model:

A Framework for Building Collaborative Virtual Workspaces

103

external organizations can all influence the effectiveness of the virtual collaborative

process (Duncan, 1972) (Mescon, Albert, & Khedouri, 1988).

2. Collaborative Tasks - this component highlights key activities in the collaborative

process. Collaboration is a means of producing something joined and new, from the

interactions of people or organizations, their knowledge and resources. These

interactions are facilitated by relationships—the personal bonds or ‘connections’—that

are established and maintained by the people and organizations participating in the

collaboration. Relationships give collaboration strength, allowing it to form and

function effectively. The quality of those relationships is determined by three primary

factors: trust, reciprocity and mutuality (Miller & Ahmad, 1981) (Davis, Murphy,

Owens, Khazanchi, & Zigurs, 2009) (Schmeil & Eppler, 2010).

3. End-Users - this component focuses on modeling user needs, values, skills, perceived

challenges and their capabilities in decision making. End users are those who directly

interact with the virtual collaborative workspace. Other users or stakeholders may also

require consideration including those who are not directly involved in the use but

whose inputs and decisions may have influence on the features of use. Other

stakeholders may include those involved in the development of the workspace and/or

those whose participation and input are needed for the development of the workspace.

(Geumacs, 2009) (Koehne, Redmiles, & Fischer, 2011).

4. Encompassing Technologies - this component outlines the collaborative media that are

required to support virtual collaborative processes. The media consists of

communication tools, shared business intelligence data, and shared virtual workspaces.

These media allow the end-users to explore both synchronous and asynchronous

collaborative experience across a common solution (Lim & Khalid, 2003) (Robidoux &

Andersen, 2011) (Montoya, Massey, & Lockwood, 2011).

The characteristics of each of these components is unique to the level of virtual workspace

integration within a given business scenerio. These four components can be used to more

clearly understand the technological level of functionality experienced by businesses that

integrate collaborative medium virtual workspaces with in their business processes.

4. Proposing a collaborative virtual workspace framework

The ROTATOR model describes seven stages of virtualization/augmentation that do or will

characterize virtual workdspaces at varying different stages of development and capability.

The model presumes fluidity and that actual business use may swing back and forth

between different stages much the way a pendulum glides back and forth depending on the

outside forces impacting the particular business need or use at any given time. The focus of

the ROTATOR model is to provide businesses with a common framework for analyzing

their needs for and processes related to implementing collaborative virtual workspaces.

The purpose of the ROTATOR model is to:

•

Provide a practical model for describing various levels of virtual verses real

presentation end-users might have immersed in any given virtual workspace solution.

•

Assist in identifying what level of virtual world/augmentation implementation is

needed to achieve the business’s described, desired business outcomes.

•

Create a practical framework that represents the varying levels of both functionality

and capability for planning, establishing and maintaining virtual workspaces.

---

Page 10

Virtual Reality and Environments

104

The ROTATOR model has seven distinct stages that extend from a purely virtual world

communicative environment to a real world presentation with no augmentation or virtual

world presentation. The operative characterisitcs of each stage of this model are divided into

four areas: 1) Business Environment, 2) collaborative tasks, 3) end-users, and 4) other

encompassing technologies. These areas are designed and described because they are the

ones most likely to affect and represent the business needs, uses, and outcomes available.

The ROTATOR framework is specifically designed to be used as a situational, needs

analysis based tool for business and other industries to use to guage the best investment of

their time and money if they choose to begin using virtual reailty or augmented reality

environments. The use of the term ROTATOR is indicative of the fact that business can

approach the integration of virtual workspaces from either end of the model. In its broadest

sense, the concept of rotation involves having a clear central point that stays fixed and in

this context that fixed point is the process of virtual workplace collaborations and like any

palindrome it can be approached from either end. In the case of virtual workspace

collaborations that movement is between the two extremes of real and virtual environments,

with varying degrees of reality and virtualized processes and capabilities enmeshed in

between.

Fig. 2. Stages in the ROTATOR Model

Stage numbering begins at boths ends as well using roman numerals I through IV with

Stage IV being at the center point. Beginning from the real end of the spectrum, the first

three stages are designated Stage Iar, Stage IIar, and Stage IIIar. Beginning from the virtual

end of the spectrum, the first three stages are designated Stage Ivr, Stage IIvr, and Stage IIIvr.

Note the the center has no subscript denoting a blend of both virtual reality and augmented

reality at the center.

---

Page 11

ROTATOR Model:

A Framework for Building Collaborative Virtual Workspaces

105

4.1 Stage Iar – Reinforcing Stage

The Reinforcing Stage (Stage Iar) represents the initial infusion of digital content into a real

world end-user presentation. The concept of augmenting reality involves superimposing

digital graphics, audio and other sensory enhancements onto realtime environments. An

evolving field in an of itself, augmented reality goes beyond the static graphics technology

of television where the graphics imposed do not change with the perspective (Tech-Faq,

2011). At the Reinforcing Stage, the augmenting content is presented to a broad user base.

For virtual workspaces at this stage the focus is on presenting business content to a broad

audience with minimal end-user interaction. The following characteristics are anticipated

from virtual workspaces at the Reinforcing Stage (Stage Iar) of the model:

1. Business Environment – The environment created by virtual workspaces at Reinforcing

Stage of the model is characterized by its ease of use. There is minimal to no persistence

and most content would be static or streamed in real-time. Management structured

environment. Management may use environment for activity and time tracking.

Document share and exposure a focus.

2. Collaborative Tasks – Basic collaborative tasks would include centralized distribution of

preselected and relatively static content to a broad user base. Collaboration would be

limited to central or corporate entity and end-user.

3. End-users – At this stage, end-users at looking for basic business content and minimal to

no direct collaboration with other end users. As this stage, presentation is to singular

end-users. Interaction with mostly non-verbal content such as email, circulars,

team/corporate correspondence and documentation, and websites.

4. Encompassing Technologies – At this stage, technologies beyond the basic use of televised

augmented content would include smart phone applications that combine the use of

global positioning data with online data with video streams. Management structured

and presented content for individual use.

4.2 Stage IIar – Obverse

The Obverse Stage (Stage IIar) infers a turning toward or facing to the end-user. At this stage,

of the model virtual collaborative workspaces look to incorporate end-user input in the end-

users presentation. Multiple end-users are expected at this level with an increasing degree of

social interaction. The following characteristics are anticipated from virtual workspaces at

the Obverse Stage (Stage IIar) of the model:

1. Business Environment - The environment created by virtual workspaces at Obverse Stage

of the model is characterized by an influx of end-user content and ability of end-user to

manipulate pre-defined environment. Auto-environment construction based on

systematically negotiated rules is expected.

2. Collaborative Tasks – Basic collaborative tasks would include group collaborations,

presentation of multiple end-users in a singular presentation and interaction with

presented business content are all a focus at this stage. Interactions include virtual

meetings and various levels of digital socializing.

3. End-users – At this stage, end-users are looking for collaborative media to interact with

others. Virtual teaming and the ability to create and manage specific groups and

present content specific to that group is a focus here.

---

Page 12

Virtual Reality and Environments

106

4. Encompassing Technologies – At this stage, technologies should include incorporation of

various virtual meeting and presentation/demo capabilities. Although management

structured and presented content is predominating, some end-user space definition and

creation is included.

4.3 Stage IIIar – Transversal Stage

The Transversal Stage (Stage IIIar) involves a deliberate incorporation of business

intelligence into presentation. It is at this level that we evaluate virtual working

relationships, compare process needs and create virtual business communities. The

following characteristics are anticipated from virtual workspaces at the Transversal Stage

(Stage IIIar) of the model:

1. Business Environment - The environment created by virtual workspaces at Transversal

Stage of the model is characterized by ability of end-users to interact and construct

“intuitively” with the virtual environment. Automated workflow and content

presentation are also anticipated.

2. Collaborative Tasks – Basic collaborative tasks include ability to team and structure flow

if work from within the environment. Transversal Stage also infers activity across

multiple virtual workspaces.

3. End-users – Although the focus would be on real world presentation of end-users,

avatar/digital proxies are available.

4. Encompassing Technologies – At this stage, technologies would include automated

workflow and content generation. A virtual work environment that allows for both

auto-generated and end-user construction.

4.4 Stage IV – Attainment Stage

The Attainment Stage IV describes the intersection of real world spatial imagery ultimately

forming a paraverse. From a more visual perspective, the ability to interact with data in-

world and then present that data in 3-D is also a virtual workspace building consideration.

Up to this point, most of the content has been presented via various 2D common formats

found in our daily interactions with browsers, application sharing software, document

viewers, videos, etc. To maximize the use of virtual workspace requires moving into the

realm of 3D content presentation and interaction.

At this point it is important to incorporate the concepts of interreality physics and how they

play a distinct role in the middle stages of this model. Interreality physics takes a systematic

viewpoint of Milgrams virtuality continuum (Milgram & Kishino, 1994). An interreality

system refers to the coupling of virtual reality systems with their real-world counterparts

comprising a real physical pendulum coupled to a pendulum that only exists in virtual

reality. According to Gintautas and Hübler (2007) an interreality system has two stable

states of motion: a "Dual Reality" state where the motion of the two pendula are

uncorrelated and a "Mixed Reality" state where the pendula exhibit stable phase-locked

motion which is highly correlated (Gintautas & Hübler, 2007). The following characteristics

are anticipated from of virtual workspaces at the Attainment Stage (Stage IV) of the model:

1. Business Environment - The environment created by virtual workspaces at Attainment

Stage of the model is characterized by the fluidity of the environment and its ability to

---

Page 13

ROTATOR Model:

A Framework for Building Collaborative Virtual Workspaces

107

intermesh and shift content and presentation between real and virtual. Both

synchronous and asynchronous collaborations are available and the virtual workspace

is able to support both persistence as well as well as streaming real-time flow of content

and environment structure.

2. Collaborative Tasks – From a virtual collaborative perspective this tends to substantiate

the movement notion of the ROTATOR model and a movement that flows between

virtual and real. Automated teaming and workflow events are constructed to meet

predetermined business requirements.

3. End-users – End-users are fully immersed within the environment with multiple sensory

inputs and outputs. End-users are able to select and real or proxy presentation (avatar)

within this virtual workspace.

4. Encompassing Technologies – At this stage, technologies would maximize the use and

scalability of virtual machine and cloud technologies.

4.5 Stage IIIvr – Transactional Stage

At the Transational State (Stage IIIvr) of the model, where the user content comes from is a

critical component to the business implementation and operation. There is an increasing

demand for rich data resources found across the web so access to resouces external to the

corporate environment capabilities with the virtual workspace is becoming critical. The

following characteristics are anticipated from of virtual workspaces at stage III of the model:

1. Business Environment - At this stage the process of housing generated content and

information becomes more critical and should be considered by the business attempting to

integrate virtual world environmental collaborations at this level. Additionally, businesses

may be more concerned than with security of auto-generated materials, risk involved with

interactions with client, customers or professional clients for example for doctors or

lawyers with professional requirements for protection of communications and data.

2. Collaborative Tasks – Building a virtual workspace capable of automating the content

collection process and generating unique content for academic or business delivery is

another way business manages these environments. An example of this might be

similar to the way many online newspapers are being auto-generated today. Team

projects or course assignments generate rules for collection and assignment bots

perform the tasks of locating and presenting the content for users to manage and

disseminate in the appropriate way or form.

3. End-users – Integration with team members, especially from outside the corporate

infrastructure are expected. Sharing of corporate knowledge-based from within the

virtual workspace becomes critical. Extensive use of digital proxy/avatar with infusion

of real presentation of end-user.

4. Encompassing Technologies – At this stage, technologies focus on auto-generation of

virtual workspace content and structure. There is a sense of both time and persistence

within the environment.

4.6 Stage IIvr – Involvement Stage

The Involvement Stage (Stage IIvr) describes the basic collaborative functionalities utilized in

virtual online sessions. Text chat, image depictions, including static slide presentations,

document viewers, and whiteboards are common collaborative tools incorporated early in

---

Page 14

Virtual Reality and Environments

108

virtual workspace developments. It should be noted here, that these tools are replications of

2-D tools used in real world (RL) applications. Additionally, the content from these tools is

housed within the virtual world solution itself and is not generally pulled from external

resources or over the Internet. Content for slide presentations and document viewings are

often uploaded directly to the virtual world environment for viewing. The following

characteristics are anticipated from of virtual workspaces at the Involvement Stage (Stage

IIvr) of the model:

1. Business Environment - The environment created by virtual workspaces at Involvement

Stage of the model is characterized by manually management established workflows

and auto construction of the virtual workspace. Teaming is controlled at the

management level as well. Management ability to track resource time and activity, and

provide automated task assignment.

2. Collaborative Tasks – Basic collaborative tasks would include: enhanced communication

from avatar including use of non-verbal cues such as avatar position, movement and

gestures. The Involvement Stage also describes the inclusion of audio and video

collaborative features incorporated beyond basic in-world collaboration functionalities.

These may include use of voice chat, avatar body gesturing (i.e. pointing, raising hand,

laughing, etc.) and use of video streams. As with basic in-world collaborations

discussed previously, the content from background audio is housed within the virtual

world solution itself and is not generally pulled from external resources. Content from

voice chats and basic avatar action and gesturing is logged and maintained internally

within the virtual world solution.

3. End-users – Although most of the virtual workspace is pre-created for the end-user,

there is some capability for workspace definition by the end-users. End-users are

involved in formal and informal socializing, virtual meetings, conference calls, and

webinar type sessions.

4. Encompassing Technologies – At this stage, technologies would include built-in voice/text

chat capabilities. Access to social sites and user interaction. Extensive use of digital

proxy/avatar within the virtual workspace. Sharing of corporate/private

correspondence, document collaboration, and virtual social gatherings are supported.

4.7 Stage Ivr – Rendering Stage

The focus at the Rendering Stage (Stage Ivr) is on creation of a shared presence and

experience with the user. The virtual workspace are designed with specific processes in

mind that are temporal or lasting for a finite period of time. The physical laws of the real

world are applicable aiding in familiarity and assimilation with spaces and business

processessupported. At this beginning stage, businesses will have encorporated visually

appealing, immersive and and systematically-generated virtual workspaces. The following

characteristics are anticipated from virtual workspaces at the Rendering Stage (Stage Ivr) of

the model:

1. Business Environment - The environment created by virtual workspaces at Rendering

Stage of the model is characterized by displays and exhibits, architectural design and

modeling, virtual tourism, and marketing. Predefined virtual workspaces. Most content

is static and persistent with minimal fluidity to the content of the environment.

Management has full control of virtual workspace design.

---

Page 15

ROTATOR Model:

A Framework for Building Collaborative Virtual Workspaces

109

2. Collaborative Tasks – Basic collaborative tasks would include a limited exchange with

system data internal to the virtual environments infrastructure. This stage is focused on

the management collaborating with individual end-users.

3. End-users – Other than general interaction within the virtual environment itself, end-

users would have minimal to no object creation or manipulation. There may or may not

be an avatar proxy for end-user visualization and use. The emotional realism you might

experience with your avatar or digital proxy would be limited to non-existent. It should

be noted here that use of a digital proxy or avatar can have a certain degree of

anonymity to it that can encourage more personal exploration; where shy users are

more likely to participate (Lesko & Pickard, 2011).

4. Encompassing Technologies – At this stage, technologies would be limited to manual

creation of virtual spaces. Spaces at this level have a degree of visual familiarity with

layout and objects within the space for the end-users. When applicable, the liberation

from the physical laws of the real world can make possible the creation of innovative

and imaginative spaces, activities and experiences.

5. Conclusions

So the ROTATOR model is a proposed staged theoretical model that moves from reality and

augmented reality towards collaborative virtualized environments or from purely virtual

environments towards reality in four like steps. The model is set up to allow organizations

to effectively understand and then evaluate their collaborative virtual workspace goals and

objectives in order to create a long term plan for implementation and deployment of those

workspaces. This model is just the first step in a larger framework the authors intend to

develop based on case study analysis of past and projected implementations to help

companies find the proper fit for their needs when using virtual spaces and like technology

options for company communication and work.

The ROTATOR model is built on the premise that businesses may be starting from either a

fully reality-based setting that does not yet use any virtualized communication mediums

and move towards more aggressive forms of virtual medium use by adding augmented

spaces to their systems. As the model moves towards the center space-labeled Section IV in

the model—businesses can evaluate the delivery of each stage of the virtualized medium

before reaching the fuller virtual reality space and/or plan for movement based on uses,

needs and goals of the organization.

On the far right of the ROTATOR model a business might begin to see ways to continue it’s

movement into the more complex arenas of fully immersive virtual reality as these

capabilities become more plausible for the organization to manage. It is anticipated that

along with the more aggressive stages, nearer to the center Stage IV of the model, there will

be greater risks for businesses to consider and a more difficult process of maintaining

business content that may increase cost and some exposure for these businesses. However,

this should not preclude some businesses from investing in the newest emergent options of

virtual reality tools.

The impetus behind the ROTATOR model is to provide a structured first step in assisting

businesses in evaluating and planning ahead for these kinds of implementations—be they

aggressive use of newer immersion techniques for business collaborations or more stable

---

Page 16

Virtual Reality and Environments

110

use of the mature, foundational collaborative toolsets. Further research will focus

incorporated use of the ROTATOR Model and its ability to more clearly articulate the

virtual workspace functionals needs and requirements.

6. References

Distance Education by Postsecondary Faculty: Indicator 47 . (2006). Retrieved July 11, 2009, from

National Center for Education Statistics:

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2006/section5/indicator47.asp

Virtual Worlds Platforms and User Numbers. (2007, October 1). Retrieved July 11, 2009, from

Virtual Worlds News: http://www.virtualworldsnews.com/2007/10/virtual-

worlds-.html

Metaverse Roadmap Forecasts - Part A. (2009). Retrieved October 12, 2009, from Metaverse

Roadmap: http://www.metaverseroadmap.org/inputs2A.html#trends

North America Internet Usage Statistics, Population and Telecommunications Reports. (2009).

Retrieved July 11, 2009, from Internet World Stats:

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats14.htm

What is a Virtual World? (2009). Retrieved Sept 10, 2009, from Virtual Worlds Review:

http://www.virtualworldsreview.com/info/whatis.shtml

Agarwal, A. (2009, May 30). Web 3.0 Concepts Explained in Plain English. Retrieved Sept 7,

2009, from Digital Inspiration: http://www.labnol.org/internet/web-3-concepts-

explained/8908/

Aker, B. (2009, July 6). The Race to Shape the Semantic Web. Retrieved July 9, 2009, from

AltSearchEngines:

http://www.altsearchengines.com/2009/07/06/the-race-to-

shape-the-semantic-web-–-score-one-microsoft/

Alavi, M., & Gallupe, R. B. (2003). Using Information Technology in Learning: Case Studies

in Business and Management Education Programs. Academy of Management

Learning and Education, 139-152.

Alem, L., & Huang, W. (2011). Recent Trends of Mobile Collaborative Augmented Reality Systems.

New York, NY: Springer Science and Business Media.

Amigoni, M., & Gurvis, S. (2009). Managing the Telecommuting Employee: Set Goals, Monitor

Progress, and Maximize Profit and Productivity. Avon, MA: Admas Media.

Amoako-Gyampah, K. (2004). An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP

implementation environment. Information & Management Volume 41, Issue 6, 731-

745.

Avats, R. (2010, March 18). The Importance of Work-Life Balance: Aligning Staff Preferences and

Business Need to Achieve Business Success. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from

Corpmagazine.com:

http://www.corpmagazine.com/management/human-

resources/itemid/1369/the-importance-of-worklife-balance-aligning-staf

Azuma, R. (1997). A Survey of Augmented Reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual

Environments, 355-385.

Badrinarayanan, V. (2008). Effective virtual new product development teams: an integrated

framework. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 23, Issue 4, 242-248.

Bainbridge, W. (2007). The Scientific Research Potential of Virtual Worlds. Science, vol. 31],

472-476.

Barfield, W., & Caudell, T. (2001). Fundamentals of wearable computers and augumented reality.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.

---

Page 17

ROTATOR Model:

A Framework for Building Collaborative Virtual Workspaces

111

Bergiel, B. J., Bergiel, E. B., & Balsmeier, P. W. (2008). Nature of virtual teams: a summary of

their advantages and disadvantages. Management Research Review, 99-110.

Berners-Lee, T. (1998, September). Semantic Web Roadmap. Retrieved July 10, 2009, from

www.w3.org: http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Semantic.html

Book, B. (2008). Virtual Worlds Review: What is a Virtual World? Retrieved September 13, 2011,

from Virtual Worlds Review:

http://www.virtualworldsreview.com/info/whatis.shtml

Briggs, J. C. (1996). The promise of Virtual Reality. The Futurist, Volume 30, Issue 5, 13-18.

Browning, L. D., Saetre, A. S., Stephens, K. K., & Sornes, J.-O. (2008). Information and

communication technologies in action: Linking Theory and Narratives of Practice. New

York, NY: Routledge.

Burden, D. (2009, May 13). Toward Semantic Virtual Worlds - A Thinkpiece. Retrieved October

18, 2009, from Converj.com:

http://www.converj.com/sites/converjed/2009/05/toward_semantic_virtual_wo

rlds.html

Burke, T. (2005, May). Matchmaker, Matchmaker, Make Me a Match: Artificial Societies vs.

Virtual Worlds. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from weblogs.swarthmore.edu:

http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/scholarly-articles/artificial-societies-and-

virtual-worlds-digra-2005/html-version-of-my-digra-paper/

Cascio, W. F. (August 2000). Managing a virtual workspace. Academy of Management

Executive, 81-90.

Caudell, T., & Mizell, D. (1992). Augmented Reality: An Application of Heads-Up Display

Technology to Manual Manufacturing Processes. Proc. Hawaii International Conf. on

Systems Science, Vol. 2, 659-669.

Cherbakov, L., Brunner, R., Lu, C., & Smart, R. (2009, May 29). Enable far-reaching enterprise

collaboration with virtual spaces, Part 1: Introduction to the opportunities and

technologies. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from boulder.ibm.com:

http://download.boulder.ibm.com/ibmdl/pub/software/dw/webservices/ws-

virtualspaces/ws-virtualspaces-pdf.pdf

Crossman, A., & Lee-Kelley, L. (2004). Trust, commitment and team working: the paradox of

virtual organizations. Global Networks: A Journal of Transnational Affairs, 375-390.

Daden Limited. (2009). Cross Sector: Visualisation. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from

daden.co.uk: http://www.daden.co.uk/pages/cross_sector_visualisation.html

Davis, A., Murphy, J., Owens, D., Khazanchi, D., & Zigurs, I. (2009). Avatars, People, and

Virtual Worlds: Foundations for Research in Metaverses. Journal of the Association

for Information Systems, Volume 10, Issue 2, Article 1.

Demster, M. (2005, July). Team-building key for virtual workplace. Business Edge, Vol. 5, No.

27.

Ding, L., Finin, T., Joshi, A., Pan, R., Cost, R. S., Peng, Y., et al. (2004, November 9). Swoogle:

A Search and Metadata Engine for the Semantic Web. Retrieved August 31, 2009, from

Proceedings of the Thirteenth ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge

Management : http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/_file_directory_/papers/116.pdf

Djorgovski, S. G., Hut, P., McMillan, S., Vesperini, E., Knop, R., Farr, W., et al. (2009).

Exploring the Use of Virtual Worlds as a Scientific Research Platform: The Meta-

Institute for Computational Astrophysics (MICA). In J. Lehmann-Grube, J.

Sablating, & a. et, Facets of Virtual Environments. Berlin: Springer Verlag .

---

Page 18

Virtual Reality and Environments

112

Driver, E., & Jackson, P. (2008, February 7). Getting Real Work Done In Virtual Worlds.

Retrieved October 13, 2009, from Forrester.com:

http://www.forrester.com/Research/Document/Excerpt/0,7211,43450,00.html

Duncan, R. B. (1972). Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 17, No. 3, 313-327.

Fain, N., Kline, M., Vukasinovic, N., & Duhovnik, J. (2010). The impact of management on

creativity and knowledge transfer in an academic virtual enterprise. Technical

Gazette, Volume 17, Issue 3, 347-351.

Fetscherin, M., & Lattemann, C. (2008). User Acceptance of Virtual Worlds. Journal of

Electronic Commerce Research, Vol 9, No 3, 231-242.

Gerben, C. (2009). Putting 2.0 and Two Together:What Web 2.0 Can Teach Composition

About Collaborative Learning. Computers & Composition Online, pp. 8-9.

Geumacs. (2009). VirtualLife D2.1 EndUserDefinitionAndNeeds. Rome, Italy: VirtualLife.

Ghaoui, C. (2003). Usability evaluation of online learning programs. Hershey, PA: Information

Science Publishing.

Gintautas, V., & Hübler, A. W. (2007). Experimental evidence for mixed reality states in an

interreality system. Physics Review E, Volume 75, 057201 , 1-4.

Goel, L., & Prokopec, S. (March 2009). If you build it wil they come? - An empirical

investigation of consumer perceptions and strategy in virtual worlds. Electronic

Commerce Research, 115-134.

Goldberg, L. B. (2003, May 1). Circular Organization Focuses on Cash, Not Personalities .

Retrieved October 12, 2010, from Turnaround.org:

http://www.turnaround.org/Publications/Articles.aspx?objectID=1988

Greenlee, D. (2003). Building a Community in the Virtual Workplace. Home Business Journal,

http://www.homebusinessjournal.net/a/virtual-workplace.asp.

Gruber, T. (February 2008). Collective knowledge systems: Where the Social Web meets the

Semantic Web . Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 4-

13.

Haller, M., Billinghurst, M., & Thomas, B. (2007). Emerging technologies of augmented reality:

interfaces and design. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

Hampshire, A., Seichter, H., Grasset, R., & Billinghurst, M. (2006). Augmented reality

authoring: generic context from programmer to designer. OZCHI '06 Proceedings of

the 18th Australia conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Design: Activities,

Artefacts and Environments, 409-412.

Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: online education as a new paradigm in learning. The

Internet and Higher Educaiton, 41-61.

Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current

empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 15, Issue 1, 69-95.

Howells, J. (1999). Research and Technology Outsourcing . Technology Analysis & Strategic

Management, Volume 11, Issue 1, 17-29.

Huifang, L., Deng, S., Guo, C., & Chen, G. (2009). Tactical Communication Equipment

Simulation Training Platform Based on VR. In WRI World Congress on Computer

Science and Information Engineering 2009 (pp. 19-23). Los Angeles, CA: CSIE.

iReport. (2009, July 20). White House Speaks in SL on High Technology in Government. Retrieved

November 3, 2009, from ireport.com: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-301274

K Zero. (2009, February 09). K Zero: 260M Registered Accounts for the 10-15-Year-Old Virtual

World Demo. Retrieved September 16, 2009, from VirtualWorldNews.com:

---

Page 19

ROTATOR Model:

A Framework for Building Collaborative Virtual Workspaces

113

http://www.virtualworldsnews.com/2009/02/k-zero-260m-registered-accounts-

for-the-1015yearold-virtual-world-demo.html

Koehne, B., Redmiles, D., & Fischer, G. (2011). Extending the Meta-design Theory: Engaging

Participants as Active Contributors in Virtual Worlds. In M. F. Costabile, Y.

Dittrich, G. Fischer, & A. Piccinno, End-user Development: Third International

Symposium, IS-EUD 2011 (pp. 264-269). Berlin-Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-

Verlag.

Krause, A. (2007, November 14). Paraverse Meanderings. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from

worldofusablity.blogspot.com:

http://worldofusability.blogspot.com/2007/11/paraverse-meanderings.html

Kroeker, K. L. (2010). Mainstream Augmented Reality. Communications of the ACM, Vol: 53

Issue: 7, 19-21.

KZero.co.uk. (2008, September 4). Connecting Virtual Worlds With Myrl: KZero. Retrieved

October 30, 2009, from kzero.co.uk: http://www.kzero.co.uk/blog/?p=2449

Lesko, C. J., & Pickard, J. L. (2011). Data in Depth: Web 3-D Technologies Provide New

Approaches to the Presntation of Course Content. Journal of Online Engineering

Education, Volume 1, Issue 2, 1-6.

Lesko, C., & Hollingsworth, Y. (2010). Compounding the Results: The Integration of Virtual

Worlds With the Semantic Web. Journal of Virtual Worlds research, VOl. 2, Issue 5, 3-

20.

Liefman, G., Meir, R., & Tal, A. (September 2005). Semantic-oriented 3d shape retrieval

using relevance feedback. The Visual Computer, 865-875.

Lim, T., & Khalid, H. (2003). A framework on virtual collaborative customization in home

modification. Proceedings of 7th SEAES and 4th Malaysian Ergonomics Conference (pp.

354-361). Kuching: Unimas: Malaysian Ergonomics Conference.

Madhaven, R., & Grover, R. (1998). From embbedded knowledge to embodied knowledge:

New product development as knowledge management. Journal of Marketing, Vol.

62, 1-12.

Marica Rhodes. (2009, February 17). Telework Revs Up as More Employers Offer Work

Flexibility. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from WorkingFromAnywhere.org:

http://www.workingfromanywhere.org/news/pr021609.html

Martinez-Moyano, I. J. (2006). Exploring the Dynamics of Collaboration in

Interorganizational Settings. In S. Schuman, Creating a Culture of Collaboration (pp.

69-84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Masinsin, R. Q. (May 2008). Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellows Program: Final Report. New

York, NY: Time Warner/CNNMoney.

Merrill, D. (2009, July 24). Mashups: The new breed of Web app. Retrieved October 26, 2009,

from www.ibm.com: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-

mashups.html

Mescon, M. H., Albert, M., & Khedouri, F. (1988). Management, 3rd Edition. New York, NY:

Harper & Row Publishers.

Mikroyannidis, A. (2007). Toward a Social Semantic Web. Computer Institute of Electrical and

Electronics (IEEE), 113-115.

Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays. IEICE

Transactions on Information and Systems, E77-D(12), 1321-1329.

---

Page 20

Virtual Reality and Environments

114

Miller, C., & Ahmad, Y. (1981). Collaboration and partnership: an effective response to

complexity and fragmentation or solution built on sand? International Journal of

Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 20, Issue 5/6, 1-38.

Miller, P. (2009, September 22). September 2009: The Semantic Web Gang discuss Government

data and data.gov. Retrieved November 6, 2009, from The Semantic Web Gang:

http://semanticgang.talis.com/category/uncategorized/

Mitham, N. (2009, September 12). Growth forecasts for the Virtual Worlds sector. Retrieved

September 16, 2009, from www.kzero.co.uk:

http://www.kzero.co.uk/blog/?m=200909

Montoya, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Lockwood, N. S. (2011). 3D Collaborative Virtual

Environments: Exploring the Link between Collaborative Behaviors and Team

Performance. Decision Sciences, Volume 42, Issue 2, 451-476.

Murphy, D. M. (2008). Strategic Communication: Wielding the Information Element of

Power. In B. B. J., U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Issues (pp. 175-

187). Carlisle Barracks, PA: Army War College.

Murray, H. (1938). Explorations in Personality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Murugesan, S. (July-August 2007). Understanding Web 2.0. IT Professional, 34-41.

Myrl.com. (2009). Myrl - Immersive Entertainment Platform. Retrieved November 2, 2009, from

myrl.com: http://www.myrl.com/

O'Looney, J. (2005). Social Work and the New Semantic Information Revolution.

Administration in Social Work, Vol. 29, Issue 4, 5-34.

O'Reilly, T. (2005, Sept 30). What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next

Generation of Software. Retrieved Sept 7, 2009, from O'Reilly:

http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html

Parsons, D., Stockdale, R., Bowles, J., & Kamble, V. (2008). If We Build It Will They Come?

Creating a Virtual Classroom in Second Life. 19th Australasian Conference on

Information Systems (pp. 720-729). Christchurch, Australia: 19th Australasian

Conference on Information Systems.

Peters, L. (2007). Identifying antecedents of virtual team collaboration. Team Performance

Management, Volume 13, Issue 3/4, 117-129.

Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: a review of current literature and

directions for future research. ACM SIGMIS Database, Vol 35, Issue 1, 6-36.

Regan, K. (2005, April 4). Vertical Search Market Quickly Becoming Crowded. Retrieved October

21, 2009, from ecommercetimes.com:

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/41982.html

Richards, J. (2007, October 24). Government to police virtual worlds. Retrieved November 2,

2009, from Times Online:

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/gadgets_and_gami

ng/virtual_worlds/article2731497.ece

Ritsos, P. D., Ritsos, D. P., & Gougoulis, A. S. (2011). Standards for Augmented Reality: a

User Experience perspective. International AR Standards Meeting-February 17-19, 1-9.

Ritzema, T., & Harris, B. (2008). The use of Second Life for distance education. Journal of

Computing Sciences in Colleges, 110-116.

Robidoux, C., & Andersen, R. (2011). Cultivating a Culture of Collaboration. Society for

Technical Communication Summit: 58th Annual Conference (pp. 90-98). Sacramento,

CA: Society for Technical Communications.

---

Page 21

ROTATOR Model:

A Framework for Building Collaborative Virtual Workspaces

115

Rosenthal, L. (2001). Graphical User Interfaces: 2D, 3D, and Web3D. Retrieved Sept 6, 2009,

from 3DeZine: http://www.3dezine.com/3DeZine_01/index.html

Rowley, C., & Jackson, K. (2009). Human Resource Management: The Key Concepts. New York,

NY: Routledge.

Ruohomaki, V. (2010). Knowledge work in distributed, mobile teams. Proceedings of the

International Conference (pp. 110-117). Helsinki, Finland: FInnish Institute of

Occupational Health.

Schmeil, A., & Eppler, M. J. (2010). malizing and Promoting Collaboration in 3D Virtual

Environments – A Blueprint for the Creation of Group Interaction Patterns. In F.

Lehmann-Gruge, & J. Sablatnig, Facets of Virtual Environments: Lecture Notes of the

Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering,

Vol. 33, Part 4 (pp. 121-134). Berlin, Germany: First International Coference, FaVE

2009.

Scott, T. (2009, Spring). Traversing the giant global graph. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from

www.pwc.com: http://www.pwc.com/us/en/technology-

forecast/spring2009/interoperable-data.jhtml

Shafia, M. A., Ebrahim, N. A., Ahmed, S., & Taha, Z. (2009). Innivation process is facilitated

in virtual environment of R&D teams. Proceedings of EDULEARN09 Conference (pp.

2157-2166). Barcelona, Spain: EDULEARN09.

Shih, J.-L., Nuutinen, J., Hwang, G.-J., & Chen, N.-S. (2010). Building Virtual Collaborative

Research Community Using Knowledge Management Approach. 2(3).

Shillabeer, A., Buss, T. F., & Rousseau, D. M. (2011). Evidence-Based Public Management:

Practices, Issues, and Prospects. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.

Simeon, S. (2003). Discovering Business networks in Virtual Marketplaces. Proceedings of the

14th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1-8). Perth, Australia: 14th

Australasian Conference on Information Systems.

Smart, J., Cascio, J., & Paffendorf, J. (2007). Metaverse Roadmap: Pathways to the 3D Web, A

Cross-Industry Public Foresight Project. Retrieved March 11, 2010, from

Metaverseroadmap.org:

http://www.metaverseroadmap.org/MetaverseRoadmapOverview.pdf

Smith, M. K., Welty, C., & McGuinness, D. L. (2004, February 10). OWL Web Ontology

Language Guide. Retrieved August 31, 2009, from World Wide Web Consortium:

http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/

Sole, D., & Edmunson, A. (2002). Situated Knowledge and Learning in Dispersed Teams.

British Journal of Management, Volume 13, Issue S2, S17-S34.

Staikos, K. S. (2009). History of the Private, Royal, Imperial, Monastic and Public Libraries.

Retrieved October 13, 2009, from www. libraries.gr:

http://www.libraries.gr/nonmembers/en/main.htm

Steuer, J. (1992). Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence. Journal of

Communication, 42(4), 73-93.

Strickland, J. (2009). Is there a Web 1.0? Retrieved Sept 6, 2009, from

computer.howstuffworks.com: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/web-10.htm

Sullivan, D. (2007, May 16). Google 2.0: Google Universal Search. Retrieved October 22, 2009,

from searchengineland.com: http://searchengineland.com/google-20-google-

universal-search-11232#what

---

Page 22

Virtual Reality and Environments

116

Sweeny, P. (2009, May 18). Web 3.0: The Web Goes Industrial. Retrieved September 3, 2009,

from SocialComputingJournal.com:

http://socialcomputingjournal.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=837

Tech-Faq. (2011). Augmented Reality. Retrieved September 19, 2011, from Tech-faq.com:

http://www.tech-faq.com/augmented-reality.html

Terry, J. B. (October 2002). Use of Intranet Technology has had an Increasingly Positive Effect on

Corporate Communications. Largo, MD: University of Maryland University College.

Thomas, J. C., & Streib, G. (2005). E-Democracy, E-Commerce, and E-Research: Examining

the Electronic Ties Between Citizens and Governments. Administration & Society,

Vol. 37, No. 3, 259-280.

Thompson, D. (2009, March 08). Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the

Virtually Human. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from blogoehlert.typepad.com:

http://blogoehlert.typepad.com/eclippings/2009/03/coming-of-age-in-second-

life-an-anthropologist-explores-the-virtually-human-dusan-writers.html

Toolbox for IT. (2007, June 19). Virtual Workspace. Retrieved October 15, 2010, from

It.toolbox.com: http://it.toolbox.com/wiki/index.php/Virtual_Workspace

Twine.com. (2009). The Technology: Twine. Retrieved November 2, 2009, from

www.twine.com: http://www.twine.com/technology

van Krevelen, D., & Poelman, R. (2010). A Survey of Augmented Reality Technologies,

Applications and Limitations. The International Journal of Virtual Reality, 9(2), 1-20.

VanLeuven, L. J. (March 2009). Optimizing Citizen Engagement during Emergencies Through

Use of Web 2.0 Technologies. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School.

Vartiainen , M., & Hyrkkänen, U. (2010). Changing Requirements and Mental Workload

Factors in Mobile Multi-Locational Work. New Technology, Work and Employment,

Vol. 25, Issue 2, 117-135.

Vashistha, A., & Vashistha, A. (2006). The offshore nation: strategies for success in global

outsourcing and offshoring. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional.

W3C. (2008, January 15). W3C Opens Data on the Web with SPARQL. Retrieved July 10, 2009,

from www.w3.org: http://www.w3.org/2007/12/sparql-pressrelease

W3C. (2009). Semantic Web Activity Statement. (W3C) Retrieved July 9, 2009, from

www.w3.org: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Activity

Wagner, C. S. (2005). International Collaboration in Science and the Formation of a Core Group.

Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam School of Communications Research

(ASCoR).

Wang, X. (2009). An Experimental Study on Collaborative Effectiveness of Augmented

Reality Potentials in Urban Design. CoDesign, Volume 5, Issue 4, 229-244.

Watkins, K. (1995). Workplace Learning: Changing Times, Changing Practices. New

Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, n68, 3-16.

Watts, S. A. (2007). Evaluative Feedback: Perspectives on Media Effects. Journal of Computer-

Mediated Communication, Volume 12, Issue 2, 384-411.

White, J. (2010, September 22). The ripple effect of workplace empowerment. Retrieved October

11, 2010, from Hrmreport.com: http://www.hrmreport.com/editors-blog/The-

ripple-effect-of-workplace-empowerment/

Wickens, C. D., Lee, J. D., Liu, Y., & Gordon-Becker, S. E. (2004). An Introduction to Human

Factors Engineering (2nd Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Shafia: Innovation Process is Facilitated in Virtual... - Google Scholar