franco update

8/8/2019 Franco Update

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/franco-update 1/110

AN INTERACTIVE INFORMATIONMANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR

RESEARCH COLLABORATIONS

by

Mwogeza Resty KamyaReg.No: 2003/HD18/1443U

BSc Educ (MUST), C.C.N.A

Email: [email protected], mobile: +256772867858

A Project Report Submitted to School of Graduate Studies in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of the Degree

of Master of Science in Computer Science of Makerere University

OPTION: Computer Information Systems

April, 2010



Declaration

I, Mwogeza Resty Kamya, do hereby declare that this Project Report is original and has not been

published or submitted for any other degree award to any other University before.

Signed: .......................................................... Date: ...........................................

Mwogeza Resty Kamya

BSc.Educ, (MUST),CCNA

Department of Computer Science

Faculty of Computing and Information Technology

Makerere University.

i



Approval:

This Project Report has been submitted for Examination with the approval of the following

supervisors

Signed: .......................................................... Date: ...........................................

Dr. John Ngubiri

Department of Computer Science



Signed........................................ Date....................................

Mr. Peter Wakoli

Department of Information Systems



ii



Dedication

I dedicate this project to my husband Joseph Lwanga for pushing me to my destiny, darling baby

Franko, daddy John MULERO and more especially to my late mummy JANE MULERO.

iii



Acknowledgments

I am greatly indebted to a number of people who have in many ways, contributed to the success

of this study.

I thank my final team of supervisors; Dr. John Ngubiri and Mr. Peter Wakoli for enabling my

successful completion of the project. Thank you Fancy, Connie, Nancy, Andrew and Mummy

Joseph for your encouragement, you made me believe that i could make it despite the hard times.

Special thanks go to my friends and classmates who have been supportive through out the

course; Tomusange David, Muhinda Patie, Omita Suliman, Joweria, Martin and Suszan Sansa.

Only God can reward you.

Finally, I wish to thank God who has seen me through this project.

THANK YOU ALL.

iv



Table Of Contents

Declaration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background to the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.3 General Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.4 Specific Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.5 Scope of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.6 Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Literature Review 5

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.1.1 Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

v



2.1.2 Collaboration Models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.1.3 Collaboration Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.1.4 Team Collaboration Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.1.5 Interactive Information Management tools For Research Collaborations 14

2.1.6 Benefits of Interactive Collaborative Information Management Tools. 15

2.1.7 Challenges of E-Collaboration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.1.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3 METHODOLOGY 19

3.1 System Study and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.3 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.4 Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4 Interactivity 22

4.1 Background of the Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4.2 Interactivity Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4.2.1 User-to-User Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4.2.2 User-to-Documents Interactivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.2.3 User-to-System Interactivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.3 Interactive Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

vi



4.3.1 Interactive Technologies used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

5 SYSTEM STUDY 35

5.1 The System in Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.1.1 Structure and Mode of Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.1.2 Monitoring and Coordination of the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5.1.3 Management of the Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5.1.4 Data Flow in Existing System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5.1.5 Strengths with the Existing system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

5.1.6 Problems with the Existing system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

6 SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN. 39

6.1 System Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

6.1.1 User Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

6.1.2 Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

6.1.3 Non-Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

6.1.4 Hardware Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

6.1.5 Transaction Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

6.2 System Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

6.3 Database Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

6.3.1 Conceptual Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

vii



6.3.2 Enhanced Entity Relationship Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … 45

6.3.3 Logical Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

6.3.4 Physical Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

6.4 System Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

6.5 Testing and Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

7 CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE WORK 67

7.1 Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

7.2 Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

7.3 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

viii



List of Figures

2.1 The center model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.2 The peer-to-peer model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.3 Mixture model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.4 Reference model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.5 Team collaboration Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4.1 Four Models of User-to-User Interactivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.2 Four Models of User-to-Documents Interactivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4.3 Four Models of User-to-System Interactivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5.1 System level data flow diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

6.1 System model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

6.2 Enhanced Entity Relationship Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

6.3 System Component Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

ix



APPENDIX A: Questionnaire/Interview Guide for Knowledge Acquisition……61

APPENDIX B: FEEDBACK ON SYSTEM TESTING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

APPENDIX C: SAMPLE CODE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

APPENDIX D: Graphical user Interfaces………………………………………. 64

x



LIST OF ACRONYMS

CBR Center for Basic Research

MIS Management Information Systems

ICT Information Communication Technology

WWW World Wide Web

RCIMS Research Collaborative Information Management System

EERD Entity Relationship Diagram

DBS Database Systems

IS Information Systems

IT Information Technology

xi



Abstract

People undertaking research collaborations in dispersed environments are continuously traveling

to meet their team members and research coordinators in meetings and workshops while

compiling the final research reports for publication. Although developments in in-formation and

communication technologies have provided greater communication between coalitions,

information overload is still a problem due to a lack of information management besides the

many operational tasks involve in team collaboration. This has tremendously weighed a lot on

the final research paper/budget and time of a given project.

In an effort to make research collaborations efficient and faster, this project report describes the

design and implementation of an interactive information management system for collaborative

research. The system is based on current literature on collaborative tools, latest software

application and interactivity of both machines and human. It involves capturing of useful

information on team meetings and project progress by exploiting the interactive capabilities of

CSCW. Interviews and literature survey were the main data collection techniques used. Data

flow diagrams and entity relationship diagrams were used in system analysis and design. The

implementation was done using SQL for the creation of the database, Visual C-sharp for the

graphical user interfaces.

The system was used to capture and store information for the project life cycle. The sys-tem has

forms that are used to capture and insert data into the database, delete records, generate reports,

search, a version control utility and provide user rights to authenticated users. Overall, the study

achieved the objective of putting together an interactive information management system for

collaborative research that enhances communication/interaction between the team and

coordinator as well as the stakeholders using systematic interactions, recording, reminders, and

online document management.

xii



Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background to the Study

In this new environment, the internet has gone from being the communication tool of scientists to

a primary route of information exchange for everyone from fashion designers to financial

analysts (Mohsen, 2002). Since the internet provides an interactive working environment for

users, Virtual or distributed work groups are becoming more common but with inadequate

communication and interaction channels. To support such varied distributed work processes,

virtual teams have turned to an array of collaborative work tools from postal mail and telephones

to e-mail, instant messaging, and software tools specially designed to support cooperative work.

With such tools, collaboration has become possible whenever, wherever, and with whomever.

Dispersed team members from multiple disciplines are working cooperatively to adapt to

competitive situations (Townsend, 1998).

Employees are assembling in cyberspace and communicating via electronic meetings, which is

becoming commonplace in our intensely competitive and global marketplace but information

overload is still a problem due to a lack of information management. Jassawalla and Sashittal

(1998); Tjosvold (1986); Tsao and Tjosvold (1989) asserted that Collaborative success increases

when groups have high levels of cooperative interaction and information sharing, strong

processes for coordination of activities, and mechanisms for developing a shared vision for their

group project. Bartunek and Louis (1996); Bickel and Hattrup (1995) assert that,

1



collaboration is more successful when the collaborators share a clear understanding about their

roles and responsibilities. More still, Amabile; Patterson; Mueller; Wojcik; Odomirok; Marsh;

Kramer (2001) cited three factors that could lead to collaborative success namely: project-

relevant skill and knowledge, collaboration skill, and attitudes and motivation in addition to a

common core of understanding the problem domain; Finally Hackman (1991) and McGrath

(1984) identified three indicators of success; progress toward achieving the goals of thecollaboration, effective team functioning and benefits for the individual members of the

collaboration. Although collaboration has significant benefits, earlier studies have identified that

problems and failures among collaborative companies are more common than successes because

of existing difficulties in participants relationship, participants dissatisfaction with outcome or

organization and structure of the collaboration ( Lewis, 1990). It’s from the above that the

researcher developed a model of managing and monitoring research collaborations.

The researcher established from interviews with staff CBR that there was no automated system

in use for coordinating research collaborations in Uganda . The purpose of this study was to

design a collaborative tool, aimed at enhancing interactions of research teams working on a

particular project in a geographically dispersed environment. This interactive tool was designed

to improve communication amongst team members thus offering the research coordinator an

automated tool to use when evaluating and assessing the progress of the life cycle of a given

project. The researcher came up with a well thought collaborative tool that will go a long way in

changing the way progress and interactions in collaborative research projects at research

Institutions can be quite monitored for substantial and quality publications.

2



1.2 Problem Statement

Although developments in information and communication technologies have provided greater

communication between coalitions, centralized interactive information management system for

monitoring collaborative research has not yet been adapted by research institutions in Uganda. A

major barrier to this integration remains the lack of a common real-time information technology

architecture that can manage the many operational tasks and information overloads of team

collaborating in a geographically dispersed environment.

1.3 General Objective

The general objective of this project was to develop a research collaborative system thatenhances interactive communication between the team members, coordinator and funders

working on a single project in a geographically dispersed environment.

1.4 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of the study were to;

(i) Investigate the current situations related to collaborative information management tools.

(ii) Identify user requirements for developing a system that enhances collaborations.

(iii) Develop a tool that shall enhance role allocation, interactions, record keeping and progress

monitoring of the team undertaking collaborative research in a geographically dispersed

environment.

(iv) Test and validate the developed tool

3



1.5 Scope of the Study

The study focused on research collaboration from the time the team is allocated an assignment to

the time of report publication. The study was basically limited to investigating how teams

working on given research projects in a geographically dispersed environment could share

information, interact and track their progress while being monitored and guided by a research

coordinator on real time.

1.6 Significance of the Study

The findings of this research will:

Contribute towards faster information sharing, increased communication, enhanced teamwork,and improved their problem solving skills, designs, augmented learning, and team building for

collaborative researchers.

In the academic community, the research work will be an important composition of the literature

about the role of collaborative tools in the research sector especially in the projects life cycles. It

will be a basis for further investigation into the need for improved collaborative tools in the

process of research collaborations and empowerment of project teams and coordinators in

geographically dispersed environment.

4



Chapter 2

Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the research literature on the current theories, developments, and standards

regarding collaborative research information management. The researcher aimed at adapting and

integrating interactive/E-collaborative technologies to improve collaborative research

management.

2.1.1 Collaboration

Collaboration, in general, is a purposive process that results from a desire or need to solve a

problem, create, or discover something. According to Merriam (1993) collaboration is defined as

working together especially in a joint intellectual effort and emphasizes that successful

collaborations in any business means two or more companies working jointly to: share common

information, plan based on that shared information and execute with greater success than acting

independently. Schrage, (1990) defines collaboration as a far richer process than communicationor straightforward teamwork. He emphases that it involves the creation of value beyond that

which could be created with traditional communication or teamwork and its only when team

members realize that they cannot do it all by themselves that they accept and respect the insights,

questions, and ideas from others. Jassawalla and Sashittal (1998), described collaboration as the

coming together of diverse interests

5



and people to achieve a common purpose via interactions, information sharing, and coordination

of activities. They further assert that there are three distinctions characterizing academic-

practitioner collaborations: people from different professions (academia and business);

collaborations between individuals or teams and the collaborators are not all members of the

same organization (cross-profession collaboration). Prior research has shown that re-search

collaboration involves the collection of information by individual members and the reciprocal

exchange of information which changes the thinking and actions of the people involved in the

collaboration process (Goodman and Abel, 1986).

Turani (2007) asserts that there are two main categories of collaboration: asynchronous, and

synchronous. The asynchronous collaborative learning can be performed at any time and at any

place, providing more freedom while synchronous is real time and has no time delays between

responses. Furthermore, Dasgupta (2000) noted that synchronous collaboration involves

individuals engaging in a common task using electronic technologies(e-collaboration) hence bringing geographically dispersed teams together for virtual meetings across great distances

which results in tremendous time and cost saving , decreased travel requirements, faster and

better decision-making besides improved communication flow throughout the organization thus

improving productivity, quality and efficiency of the group work. In other words, it is widely

believed that teams that collaborate effectively are more innovative, productive, and satisfied

than teams that do not collaborate. In this thesis, the researcher intends to focus on synchronous

collaboration, since it is closer to the face-to-face model and has the potential, if well designed,

to substitute for face-to-face due to several advantages mentioned below.

2.1.2 Collaboration Models

According to Yi-Jin (2007) there exits three collaboration models namely: Hierarchical,

Symmetric and Topical collaboration.

Hierarchical collaboration: Involves the student collaborating with supervisors, the researcher

collaborates with his manager. This form of collaboration is usually long-lived. It usually

depends on the available funding and is usually more conservative in nature. The lower you are

in the hierarchy, the more you work, usually.

6



Hierarchical collaboration

Figure 2.1: The center model

All collaborative requests are sent to the center first and then the center is responsible for

Assigning, tracking and managing them.

7



Symmetric collaboration: Involves two people writing papers by exchanging conjectures over

email. This form of collaboration does not scale well to large numbers: the communication

overhead grows quadratically.

Symmetric collaboration

Figure 2.2: The peer-to-peer model

The symmetric model means everyone can collaborate with all other member directly

8



Topical collaboration: The collaboration is usually project-centered. It is risky research because

it can suffer from communication problems but very fruitful. This was the basis of this study.

Topical collaboration

Figure 2.3: Mixture model

The mixture model has features of both the peer-to-peer model and the center model

9



Collaboration reference model

Figure 2.4: Reference model

This shows how each model communicates in the various collaborative functions.

1



0



2.1.3 Collaboration Technologies

There exists two categories of collaboration technologies; groupware and knowledge repository.

Groupware consists of technologies such as e-mail, telephone conferencing, videoconferencing,

remote presentation, instant messaging, chat rooms, and bulletin boards that enable

communication among members of a group. Knowledge repository is made up of systems thatstore knowledge for future use (Raven, 1997). However, according to Merono-Cerdan (2008),

there exist distinct collaborative technologies suitable for different purposes as stated below by

different researcher; Repositories that facilitate access to stored knowledge from experts and

more convenient for e-information (one-way company electronic information)( Fernandes,

2005), workflow systems that allow automation of business processes and basically support e-

transaction,( Bafoutsou and Mentzas, 2002), shared databases designed to sup-port predefined

electronic processes and facilitate e-transaction, (Wagner and Bolloju, 2005). They further assert

that another interactive collaborative technology is a discussion forum that enables knowledge

creation and sharing and enhance convenient for e-communication (two-way information

exchange).

On the other hand Mohsen (2002) asserted that there are seven major categories of collaboration

software which include:

Virtual meeting; where a team sets up a workspace on the web for sharing documents and

discussing ideas. These meetings are either synchronous (chat rooms), or asynchronous (message boards) and offers functionalities such as ; idea generation, brainstorming, group outlining,

voting and teleconference.

Team work; a group of geographically -dispersed employees, customers could assemble in a

cyberspace to use a web-based product to accomplish a task.

Project management; project teams access a special web site set-up as a hub for a given

project. This facilitates tasks, schedules to a vast repository of drawings and maps. Project teams

can simultaneously access schedules, reports, manipulate information and give instant feedback

and managers can delegate tasks, coordinate shared resources and receive status updates.

Information sharing; web sites with unlimited storage enable companies to take free space

1

1



for storage to be accessed from any browser and File Zone .Functionalities provided include:

indexing, storing and retrieving documents and images.

Virtual jam; Used by musicians to share online.

Supply chain collaboration; Business to Business (B2B), e-commerce

Internet broadcast; emerging cost-effective solution for large business meetings

simultaneously. In conclusion, all the above technologies fall either under synchronous or

asynchronous mode of communication but the researcher shall focus mainly on how

synchronous mode of communication specifically integrating Project management, team work

and Virtual meeting models to improve collaborative research.

2.1.4 Team Collaboration Model

The approach describes the model by defining the following; 1) the problem domain for the

model, (2) all the various collaboration stages that a team goes through to solve the problem, (3)

the meta-cognitive processes that guide team collaboration, (4) description of the information

processing components that the team performs to achieve each collaboration stage, (5) the

knowledge required to achieve each information processing component and (6) the

communication mechanisms used by the team to build the necessary knowledge along with

supporting the information processing (Norman, 2003)

This approach starts by addressing the major factors impacting collaborative teams such as; the

Collaborative Problem Environment, Operational Tasks, Collaborative Situation Parameters, and

Team Types and finally addresses the major components of the Model. (See figure below)

1



2



Team collaboration Model

Figure 2.5: Team collaboration Model (Norman, 2003)

This figure shows all the stages of team formation and their activities during collaboration.

1



3



Model Components

Inputs to Model. These inputs represent general information that is required prior to team

collaboration. This information includes ; (1) a description of the problem task to be solved, (2)

team member expertise, (3) organizational structure, (4) team members roles and responsibilities

and (5) projected events/future information, (6) resources available, (7) supporting collaborationtechnology, and (8) the certainty of the information. This representative domain information is

provided to the team during team formation to the degree that it is available.

Collaboration Stages. The model has four unique but interdependent stages of team

collaboration. The stages are: Team Knowledge Base Construction, Collaborative Team Problem

Solving, Team Consensus, and Product Evaluation and Revision. There is also a feedback loop

for revising team solutions.

Model Outputs. The output of the model reflects the type of product from the team

collaboration process. The product type will vary depending on the problem domain ad-dressed

by the team. This structural model of team collaboration focuses on the following product types:

selected course of action(s), recommendations, situation assessment, risk assessment, product or

tool, opinion and guidelines

2.1.5 Interactive Information Management Tools for Research

Collaborations

According to Dennis (1988), technology-based system that support group work are divided into

two broad categories: group decision support systems (GDSS) and computer-based systems for

cooperative work (CSCW). Desanctis and Gallupe (1985) defined GDSS as an inter-active

computer based system which facilitates solution of unstructured problems by a set of decision

makers working together as a group while Johnson (1986) defined CSCW as the use of computer

and electronic communication tools as a media for communicating. Chen (1991) asserts that

Research collaboration is a sub-area of CSCW where intellectual workers collaborate in order to

generate joint research. Given the fact that collaborative researchers require high-level

information modeling and management capabilities, many models of research

1

4



collaboration tools have evolved as follows: Lynch (1990) studied an integrated collaboration

Research systems(ICRS) that supports projects covering an extended time period while

employing multiple researchers who collaborate on a series of related topics and base their work

on information that is primary composed of non-numerical data. On the other hand, Greif (1986)

asserts that some systems such as collaborative editing system (CES) support part of the

activities in a research cycle and can be used by a group of co-authors working asynchronously

on a shared document.

Furthermore, Leland (1988) also cited Quilt as a computer based tool that provides annotation,

messaging, computer conferencing and notification facilities to support communication and

information sharing among the collaborators on document preparation. More still, Gorry (1988)

cited Visual Notebook designed to help biomedical researchers scan and filter information from

the environment and perform information management, decision making and document

preparation using information collected. Finally Mchenry, lynch and Good-man (1988) citedArizon Analyst information system(AAIS) that was designed to support collaborative research

on computer-related technology transfer and international technology trend and policy analysis,

it supports collaboration between researchers across the entire research cycle by facilitating

entry, indexing retrieval, analysis and writing of large volumes of textual information and

provides a means of information modeling and management and inter-researcher communication

in a dynamic, mult-task, collaborative environment. From the above the researcher intends to

integrate CSCW functionalities such as discussion forum, email, file storage/sharing and task

management along side a wiki-based system for collaboration which has version control. Video

conferencing will not be implemented in this project because it requires a more completed

platform/technology that may not be easily accessed and integrated at CBR besides Mulder

(2004) cited an important disadvantage of video-conferencing being lack of a collective

framework for meaning.

2.1.6 Benefits of Interactive Collaborative Information Management Tools

According to Attaran (2007) Collaborative computing technology enhances nearly every type of

inter-and intra-organizational communication. It can improve internal communication among

different departments, work groups, branches and individuals.

15



External communication contact to customers, vendors, suppliers, government agencies and even

competitors can also be greatly improved by the technology. The following are some of the

benefits of collaborative computing technology to consider:

(i) Increased efficiency. By using internet meetings technology, there is speeding up of team

formation and easy focusing of the group, enabling everyone to contribute, and keepingthe vocal few from dominating the discussion.

(ii) Improved productivity. As a result, the group can cut their meeting time by at least half, be

more innovative, and achieve better decisions and solutions.

(iii) Reduced costs. The improved meeting efficiency translates directly into reduced meeting

costs. According to an estimate by IntelliMeet (see www.intelli-meet.com)(2008) ,added to

that are the hidden savings gained when members are able to stay on their jobs and still

participate effectively on the team. You can also save a substantial amount of money on

travel costs.

(iv) Improved quality. Internet meetings have the added benefit of enabling the group achieve

superior decisions and solutions. Study has shown electronic meeting tools to be a valuable

contributor to both face-to-face and remote team meeting. They have accelerated team

formation and led to better designed meetings.

(v) Improved team relationships. Remote team interactions through well-designed and

facilitated electronic meetings contribute to positive, trusting team relationships.

(vi) Managing of information for decision making. Adeoti-Adekeye (1997) asserts that MIS

helps to make decisions, prepare plans and control activities through information obtained

from both formal and informal sources. Therefore without relevant information, no

manager can function effectively.

(vii) Storage and publication of written documents for resource sharing. Rowley (1996 ), argues

that while a strong research culture is developed when research is well managed, there isencouragement of both team and research institutions to publish as their research

progresses which demonstrates a close link between publication and teaching and indeed

makes a strong statement about the quality of the teams experience in research.

16



(viii) Innovation and creativity. Lindgren, (1986) asserts that the core of research management is

formed to create organizational structures and routines that allow innovation and creativity

to flourish while promoting the fulfillments of the organizational strategy. RCIMT ensures

that both basic and applied research at universities and research institutions are planned

and executed in a manner that continuously meets the expectations of their respective

interest groups, hence guaranteeing delivery of agreed upon results according to a

predefined schedule and cost. He further emphasizes that re-search management leads to

provision of right information at the right time and to the right interest groups but research

activity basically depends on the researcher himself for he determines how the research is

done.

(ix) Accessibility Fox (1997) concludes that with a globally accessible collection of electronic

thesis and dissertations, project reports, research teams can quickly search for works

related to their interest from anywhere in the world, and in most cases examine and learn

from those studies without incurring any cost.

2.1.7 Challenges of E-Collaboration

Turani (2007) identified three main challenges: resistance, control, and resources. In general,

team members and coordinators are reluctant to change. They are usually satisfied with the way

that they are used to, and are unlikely to change their attitudes unless they have the appropriate

support on how and when to collaborate. The second challenge is losing control. Instructors are

usually unsure of their ability to control collaborative sessions. They are afraid that a session will

lose its track if team members do not perform properly (Tastle , 2005).

Finally, Bonk (2000) asserts that designing a collaborative activity is considered to be more

resource intensive for both facilitator, and team members; facilitators usually resist spending

more time in planning alternative pedagogies, designing activities, managing technical skills, etc.

team members feel that the face-to face method is easier. Designing and adopting E-Collaboration is even more challenging than face-to face. It requires significantly more time and

e ort from both coordinator and team members. In face-to-face settings, the coordinator can

facilitate and manage the session more effectively. In the online environment there is a virtual

distance that usually causes the isolation feeling and the missing of nonverbal

17



8



Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the procedures that were taken to accomplish this study. These include:

3.1 System Study and Analysis

To achieve objective (ii) of defining the requirements for designing the proposed system, a

system study and analysis for the organization was carried out as indicated bellow;

(i) Reviewing the existing literature.

The researcher referenced various textbooks, journals, reports, Internet, manuals, memos,

circulars, policy handbooks and any other related documents to supplement the

information that was gathered from interviews. The literature review assisted in identifying

the strengths and the weaknesses of RCMIS and different models of RCMIS that have

been previously developed in order to improve on the proposed system.

(ii) Interviews .

The researcher conducted interviews with a number of stakeholders who were categorized

as; the CBR research office and team members in order to get first hand information about

the current system as well as the specifications of the proposed sys-tem. Interviews were

19



used because they help in getting more specific data unlike other tools of analysis besides

time saving. A copy of the interview questions is attached in appendix A.

3.2 Design and Analysis

To achieve objective (iii) of analysis and designing the proposed system, the researcher used

interviews and observation methods to establish the user, transaction, hardware, functional and

non functional requirements. The database was designed using conceptual, logical, and physical

database design as recommended by Connolly and Begg (2005) more specifically enhanced

entity relation and system component diagrams to come with a system framework.

3.3 Implementation

The relational database was developed using SQL Server 2005 because its privilege and

password system is very flexible and secure, and provides a stable and reliable code base

environment for various different platforms.

Rapid Application Development (RAD) technique was deployed. The user interfaces were

designed using ASP.Net because of its rich collection of user interface controls that are user

friendly and require a very short period of time to design a user interface.

The programming language of choice was Visual C- Sharp because it’s an object oriented

language and can easily be used to implement a design made using the object oriented paradigm.

The fact that Visual C- Sharp is only available in the Microsoft Visual Studio Development

Environment, this automatically became the default design and development environment.

20



An existing Wiki was integrated on the developed system in order to integrate the version

control component as well as it’s semantic and authentication features.

The Open source development method used was the Agile method Extreme Programming

because of its iterative and incremental character besides the fact that Wiki is an open source

software.

3.4 Testing

To achieve objective (iv) of testing and validation, the researcher gave the prototype to the

research coordinator at CBR who used it with a team of six members working on a project. The

users’ views and comments were then integrated in the final prototype.

21



Chapter 4

Interactivity

4.1 Background of the Concept

Interactivity is a widely used term with an intuitive appeal, but it is an under defined concept

(Rafaeli, 1989). The following was an attempt to track the concept of interactivity. First the

concepts current placement in the fields of media and communication was discussed, and its

background in other traditions was addressed. This was followed by various interactivity models/

technologies, the disadvantages/ advantages and finally based on their levels of interactivity, an

appropriate platform was suggested.

Jckel (1995), among others, points out, the concept interactivity as having almost the same

meaning as the concept of interaction. A concept which generally means: exchange, interplay

and mutual influence.

However, if we focus on individual fields of scholarship, the concept takes on many, very

different meanings. In medical science, interaction describes the interplay between two

medications given at the same time. In engineering, interaction refers to the relationship between,

and actions of, two different materials under stress. In statistics, interaction represents the

common affect of several variables on an independent variable. In linguistics, it refers to the

influence on language behavior of bi-lingual children (Jckel, 1995).

In other words, the meaning of the concept interaction depends on the context in which it

2



2



is used. Such concepts with significantly different meanings or connotations according to their

use within different discourses are called multi-discursive (OSullivan, 1994). However, Jensen

(1998) asserted that none of the above definitions were particularly relevant in this technological

context and proposed the following three academic fields for defining interactivity 1) The

interaction concept of sociology, 2) the interaction concept(s) of communication studies, and 3)

the interaction concept of informatics.

Sociology view: Interaction occurs as soon as the actions of two or more individuals are

observed to be mutually interdependent, i.e. interaction may be said to come into being when

each of at least two participants is aware of the presence of the other, and each has reason to

believe the other is similarly aware, in this way establishing a state of reciprocal awareness

(Duncan, 1989). In other words a mutual exchange and negotiation regarding meaning takes

place between partners who find themselves in the same social context. Therefore within

sociology, it is possible to have communication without interaction (for instance listening to the

radio and/or watching TV) but not interaction without communication (Jensen, 1998).

The informatics concept of interaction deals with the relationship between people and machines

which in this tradition is often called human-computer interaction (HCI) or man machine

interaction.

The concept of interaction in communication and media studies is used as a broad concept that

covers processes that take place between receivers on the one hand and a media message on the

other. In other words the information is first transmitted to relatively well informed individuals

(opinion leaders); and in the next phase the information is brought to a broader, less well

informed public via interpersonal communication.

On the other hand, McMillan and Hwang (2002) offered an extensive review of the interactivity

literature by classifying the various definitions of researchers on basically on (1) process,

(2) feature, (3) perception, and (4) a combination of process, feature, and/or perception.

Such a classification shed some light on various definitions and operationalizations of

interactivity, but it still fell short in explaining how and why there are conflicting findings in the

literature regarding interactivity effects. In conclusion therefore the researcher suggested that

Interactivity be defined by focusing on the features of a medium, or capabilities involved in

creating interactive content or messages or potential for interaction in general.

23



4.2 Interactivity Models

According to McMillan (2002) there are three types of interactivity namely: User-to-User

Interactivity, User to-Documents Interactivity and User-to-System Interactivity.

4.2.1 User-to-User Interaction

This focuses on ways that individuals interact with each other and this model is based on human

communication research. User-to-user interaction clearly predates new media and extends back

to the earliest communication between sentient beings. Examples include; Interpersonal

interaction, Symbolic interaction, Social interaction and Interaction as Feedback. McMillan

(2002) further suggested four models of user-to-user interactivity based on the two dimensions;

the monologue model and Responsive dialogue model.

(i) The monologue model, utilizes primarily one-way, sender-controlled communication, for

instance some marketing communications and political communications environments that

focus primarily on getting the word out. but Feedback is often added to such sites when the

communicator wants to add interactivity to the environment. However, while feedback

tools such as e-mail links might theoretically open two-way communication channels, such

tools often provide the person who is giving the feedback with relatively little control over the communication exchange.

(ii) Responsive dialogue model, meets the criteria set forth in Rafaelas (1988) popular

definition in that each message reflects awareness of all earlier messages. However, in the

responsive dialogue model, the message sender still retains primary control. This model is

mostly found at Web sites that provide customer service or e-commerce. Mutual dialogue

is responsive, but it also gives more egalitarian control to all participants so that sender and

receiver roles become indistinguishable. Chat rooms and instant messaging tools often

facilitate mutual discourse.

2



4



Direction of Communication

Figure 4.1: Four Models of User-to-User Interactivity

2



5



4.2.2 User-to-Documents Interactivity

This type of interactivity can be seen in the ways that active audiences interpret and use mass

media messages. New forms of interaction with documents are also emerging in new media as

evidenced in areas such as active navigation of Web sites and active participation in creation of

interactive fiction. It involves both perceived interaction with content creators and actualcreation of content. The most common example is Para-social Interaction. McMillan (2002)

suggested four models of interactivity based on the two dimensions; packaged content model and

content-on-demand model.

(i) The packaged content model grows out of the mass media tradition in which content

creators package content and deliver it to relatively passive audiences. This limited form of

user-to-system interactivity can be found at many online newspapers and magazines.

(ii) The content-on-demand model assumes a more active audience. But the audience is not a

creator of content. Rather, individual members of the audience customize the content to

meet their individual needs. This model is reflected in some of the information science

literature and is also implemented in customized Web pages that deliver news, weather,

sports, and other content as specified by individual preferences. Content exchange assumes

that all participants can be either senders or receivers of content for example Bulletin

boards, Group decision support systems and interactive fiction.

2



6



Nature of Audience

Figure 4.2: Four Models of User-to-Documents Interactivity

2



7



4.2.3 User-to-System Interactivity

This refers to the interaction between people and the computer itself. The dimensions in the first

two models were incorporated and adapted for the user to system interactivity. In other words,

the control dimension, which was central to both figures above, remains central in this model as

well but with slight changes (McMillan, 2002). He suggested four models of interactivity basedon the following two dimensions;

(i) Computer-controlled interaction assumes that the computer will present information to

learners who will respond to that information. For instance, filling in Web-based forms.

However, human-controlled interaction assumes a much more active individual who uses

interface tools provided by programmers and designers to manipulate the computer and

obtain information. For example, use of tools such as databases, spreadsheets, and word

processors to manipulate and organize data.

(i) Adaptive communication assumes that the computer is still in command of the interaction,

but more responsive to individual needs. For example, advanced gaming, Virtual reality

systems and educational systems are able to adapt to changes in the individuals skill level.

28



Interface

Figure 4.3: Four Models of User-to-System Interactivity

2



9



4.3 Interactive Technologies

The interactive approaches in recent years are in the form of video recorders, videotext,

telephone-based voice response systems, ATM cards, automatic tellers, on-line services, in-

formation kiosks, intelligent household appliances and most importantly, computers and

multimedia, Internet, intranets and networked computers (Jensen, 1998).

However McMillan and Hwang (2002) asserted that the above approaches could be classified

along levels of their capabilities given the fact that interactivity represents a potential for

interaction hence media vary in terms of such potential. They suggested two approaches;

Traditional one-way mass media and interactive media.

Traditional one-way mass media such as newspapers, magazines, radio, and television have a

low potential for interaction because they are designed to deliver messages cost-effectively to amass audience that has little motivation to interact with content creators such as contributors or

editors, or commercial message sponsors (i.e. advertisers) for technical and economic reasons.

In contrast, interactive media such as the Web have a high potential for interaction. For instance,

an online newspaper allows for various interactions that would be cost-prohibitive to do in an o

line newspaper. In the online newspaper environment, readers can click on a writers email

address hyperlink to send a message easily and quickly with almost zero cost. They can alsoscroll down a page to find other related content, or interact in real time with other readers on a

topic of common interest. In addition, readers can click on an a link, which leads them to a

website, where they could obtain more information, or even complete a transaction such as

booking a low-fare flight.

The researcher therefore opted for the interactive media because it has a higher potential for

interaction or interactivity than traditional one-way mass media. The interactive media can

further be divided into synchronous and Asynchronous interaction for groupware. Synchronousapplications support closely-coupled interactions where users are immediately notified about the

updates produced by the other users while Asynchronous applications support loosely-coupled

interactions where users modify the shared data without having immediate knowledge of the

updates produced by the other users, (Nuno, 2005). The internet was the

3



0



selected interactive platform for the developed system and these internet technologies which are

either Synchronous or Asynchronous include; Discussion forums, email, wikis, Weblog, Video

and audio conferencing, Internet chat/ instant messaging, Video and audio streaming, Group

decision support system (GDSS), Static and database-backed web pages and Team management

tools, etc. The researcher focused at both the Synchronous and Asynchronous interactions in

detail:

3



1



Internet chat / instant messaging: Instant messaging is promoted through a number of free

services to serve tens of millions of users. Instant messengers enabled multiple conversation

modes from one-to many to many-to-many (De Maria, 2003).

Video and audio streaming: This emerged as a popular technology for broadcasting (one-to-

many communication). Unfortunately, almost all video and audio streams are neither indexed nor

search engine friendly. When streams are recorded, they facilitate different-time communication.

Also, records of communications require significant storage space, transfer speed, and human

time to read them (Wagner, 2004).

Video and audio conferencing: These are popular for one-to-one or one-to-many

communication, with partners meeting at the same time. Results can be recorded, but are usually

not indexed and not search engine friendly. Also, records of communications require significant

storage space, transfer speed, and human time to listen to them, (Horn, 1999 ).

Group decision support system (GDSS): These technologies have been highly popular for

small and medium-size groups meeting typically face-to-face and at the same time. Their

objective is not so much knowledge management, but collaborative idea generation (group

brainstorming) and consensus development (Gray, 1999). Nevertheless, GDSS were used in a

number of other application areas such as negotiation, learning, and crisis response, some of

which do have a considerable knowledge management component.

Weblog: A Weblog (Barger, 1997), is a personal web page, kept by the author in reverse

chronological diary form. It is a log on the web and a log of the web. As a log on the web, it is

kept first and foremost on the web, either on a static web page, or via a database-backed website,

enabled through blogging software. As a log of the web, it frequently refers to other Internet

locations via hyper linking.

Static and database-backed web pages: Promoted by numerous free ISP services, Internet

users broadcast their knowledge and commented on other peoples knowledge .The conversation

mode is generally one-to-many. But, due to the multitude of broadcasters, it can be considered

an unstructured, many-to-many conversation where communicators answer each other not

directly, but through new posts on their web sites.

3

2



Team management refers to techniques, processes and tools for organizing and coordinating a

group of individuals working towards a common goal.

Wikis allow distributed teams to collaboratively write and edit documents through the internet in

a shared online workspace, without the need for special HTML knowledge or tools. They have

features that support meta-conversation about the writing and editing of a page and allow users

to easily compare past revisions of a page. The revision control component allows users to track

and compare edits of a page and follow the evolution of a document hence providing minimum

protection against vandalism or unintentional loss of content. The flexibility of wiki technology

is a boon for increased cooperative work on large team projects (Wei, 2005).

E-mail is predominantly a one-to-one or one-to-many conversation tool without a central

knowledge repository or knowledge organization facility (unless provided as value-added

features of the e-mail software). E-mail is the most essential IT based communication

technology and the most widely used after the telephone.

Discussion forums are a key online conversational knowledge exchange and the core

technology for many on-line communities.

3



3



Advantages of Interactive Technologies

Interactive tools if effectively designed with a user-centered approach have the potential to

create high quality learning environments which actively engage the users, thereby promoting

deep learning (Cairncross, 2001). Interactivity positively influences learning outcomes, website

satisfaction, and time-on-task.

Control; Multiple scholars have noted that a key benefit of computer-mediated communication is

that it allows participants to communicate without being bound by constraints of time or

geography (Burgoon et al., 2000)

Disadvantages of Interactive Technologies

Interactivity has the power to significantly increase the amount of time users spend using such

interactive tools, this added time does not necessarily contribute to increased understanding of the material presented.

There is improper use as a results user of working with the interactive mode before they have

watched the animations sufficiently and simply begin guessing.

4.3.1 Interactive Technologies used

From the above, the following were relevant to this study; Wikis, E-mail, Discussion forums and

team management tools. In addition to the above advantages they were selected because of:

(i) The scope of user requirements of the developed system.

(ii) They are easy to manage as regards the infrastructure

3



4



Chapter 5

SYSTEM STUDY

5.1 The System in Place

Center for Basic Research (CBR) was established in 1988 as an educational trust, and then

registered in 1990 as a non-governmental organization in Uganda. Over the past eight years, the

number of research fellows working at CBR has grown from eight (8) to twenty eight (28). Their

fields and interests include history, political economy, sociology, political science, law,

education, and the sciences (www.gdnet.org, 2007).

5.1.1 Structure and Mode of Collaboration

Once a there is a project to be done, the team is identified and a coordinator is then assigned by

the research institute to monitor the life cycle of the project. The identified research team is

allocated roles /themes of the project in questions and a mode of communication is agreed upon.

When a team is working on a given project, there is no existing automated system to monitor the

entire research process from the time the team is assigned a task, interacts amongst themselves tothe time the final research report is stored in the database. Team members have to manually

check with the research coordinator and move to a focal point for meetings and workshops for

anything concerning their projects. Communication is mostly via email hence making it difficult

for the research coordinator to keep hands on those very important notes that could be useful for

administrative purpose.

3

5



5.1.2 Monitoring and Coordination of the Project

The research coordinator tracks the project progress by setting milestones at given points in the

project life cycle. At each milestone a meeting is arranged and once the final de-sired

deliverables are achieved, workshops are organized for presentations and discussion of findings

to the stake holders who then approve the reports for publication. This collaboration iscoordinated using emails, tele-conferencing and workshops (asynchronous tools) hence

inadequate communication amongst the team members.

5.1.3 Management of the Documents

CBR displays research works previously done but not in a retrievable form. The reports are

stored in hard copies using paper files. The researcher therefore, focuses at automating some

activities in the research office so as to ease management/storage of information of research

projects besides enabling online communication and interactions of team members and research

coordinator. This flow of events is summarized in the section that follows.

5.1.4 Data Flow in Existing System

Below is a diagrammatic representation of the flow of data in the existing research collaborative

monitoring system at CBR.

3



6



Figure 5.1: System level data flow diagram

3



7



5.1.5 Strengths with the Existing system

The biggest advantage of the existing system is that the teams can use face-to-face media to

share crucial knowledge on the extant norms, habits, and political relationships.

5.1.6 Problems with the Existing system

(i) In the existing system, updates are not immediately merged and each contribution tended

to be large hence users are not aware of information about the updates produced by other

users.

(ii) There is wastage of time and increased costs when team members have to travel to a given

focal point for meetings.

(iii) The projects reports are not stored in a retrievable form.

3



8



Chapter 6

SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN.

6.1 System Analysis.

6.1.1 User Requirements.

The following user requirements were established from the interviews

(i) Allocate roles to research team according to relevant themes of the projects.

(ii) Set milestones for the life cycle of the project.

(iii) Monitor performance of the research teams.

(iv ) Be accessible from anywhere on real time.

(vi ) Store Project reports in retrievable form.

6.1.2 Functional Requirements

The system was required to:

(i) Maintain a document filing application for the research team and the coordinator.

39



(ii) Maintain a to-do list page for the research coordinator to easily track what people in the

group are working on.

(iii) Maintain a page for each team meeting, along with an index page that points to all of

them(discussion forum).

(iv) Allow the research coordinator to establish a versioning routine for documents and pagelocking to avoid re-examing the whole document/chapters.

(v ) Maintain a Home page of the group containing announcements, links to important

information, and links to current issues on which feedback is required.

(vi ) Maintain a progress tracking report application.

6.1.3 Non-Functional Requirements

The following are the non functional system requirements:

(i) The system must be secure

(ii) Users should be involved at all stages

(iii) The system should be completed within the allocated time for the project

(iv) The design and implementation of the system shall aim to keep it simple

6.1.4 Hardware Requirements

The proposed tool will need a computer system with at least:

(i) 64MB of Random Access Memory (RAM)or More,

(ii) Processing speed of at least 166 MHz(Pentium I or higher).

(iii) Hard disk free space of 2GB.

4



0



6.1.5 Transaction Requirements

The following were identified as the transaction requirements for the design of the database

on which the above system would run.

(i) List research themes for a given team member.

(ii) Provide information on scheduled meetings between team members.

(iii) List dates that team members will make their final presentation to the stakeholders.

(iv) Enable the research coordinator monitor the set milestones of the life of the project.

(v) Enable team members read comments and remarks made by the research coordinator and

fellow team members.

(vi) Enable research office staff record received documents

(vii) Enable the research coordinator set meeting schedules.

(viii) Enable the team members to integrate their inputs and findings.

(ix) Enable research coordinator enter details about virtual presentations of the team members.

(x) Enable research coordinator monitor team members progress

(xi) Enable a team member monitor his/her progress

(xii) Capture contract details of a given team member

(xiii) List details of a project being done by a given team member

(xiv) Enable team members view dates for his project presentation

(xv) Enable research coordinator arrange project presentations

(xvi) Enable team members get alerts for missed meetings

(xvii) Enable team members get reminders for impending meetings

(xviii) Enable the coordinator choose and configure session parameters,

4



1



(xix) Enable the coordinator to integrate research materials as well as define the sessions

progress.

(xx) Enable coordinator edit, delete, duplicate and view the simulations of created sessions and

the finished sessions of the team members.

6.2 System Design

The system consists of four modules: Home module that analyses and manage teams and keeps

versions /document editing facilitates, a file sharing module which stores all the documents and

keeps history of the changes, the task management module that contains the do to list and assign

tasks to the team members as well as keeps track of their progress and finally the Mail module

which provides an environment for communication of the teams vie the web and emails.

In order for all the above modules to communicate, there was a need to create a framework that

integrates the various system components namely; the user interfaces, web technologies, network

and the database. Below is architecture of the proposed system.

4



2



System Architecture

Figure 6.1: System model

4



3



Above is an overview of the proposed system. This consists of two major elements; collaborative

servers and the client application along with the interfaces. The team member and team leader

computers present a graphical user interface (GUI) that resides on the client end of the system

while the coordinator GUI presents both the client and server side access.

The collaborative server is responsible for: storing all the information about the collaborative

environment for example research project proposals, team records, emails, project reports

besides routing event messages between the clients, and logging all the activities.

The client application is divided into two elements: the core element and the local collaboration

tools. The core element is responsible for managing the two way communication between the

collaboration tools and the collaborative server. The core element consists of the Sender that is

responsible for sending the messages in the form of HTTP requests to the collaborative servers,

and the Receiver, that is responsible for listening to all incoming messages from the

collaborative server via the HTTP stream and processing them appropriately based on their type.

The collaborative tools are responsible for: parsing messages delivered by the core element to

extract the update information and performing the appropriate action accordingly, encapsulating

any update in the tool, performed by the user, in an event message, and then delivering the

message to the core element, in order to be sent to the collaborative servers.

6.3 Database Design

According to Connolly and Begg (2005) the methodology divide into three main phases:

conceptual, logical, and physical database design

6.3.1 Conceptual Design

Connolly and Begg (2005) define conceptual design as the process of constructing a model of

data used in an enterprise, independent of all physical considerations.

4



4



6.3.2 Enhanced Entity Relationship Diagram

Figure 6.2: Enhanced Entity Relationship Diagram

4



5



6.3.3 Logical Design

Connolly and Begg explain that the main objective of logical database design is to translate the

conceptual representation to the logical structure of the database, which includes de-signing the

relations. The relations for the logical data model below were derived from the conceptual data

model created in the preceding section.

Relational Model: Database schema

Project (ProjectId, ProjectName, ProjectDescription)

PK:ProjectId

Fk:None

user (userId, firstName, LastName, Email)

Pk:ProjectId

Fk:None

userlogin(userId, userName, password)

PK:userName

Fk:userId

Team(TeamId, TeamName, teamleaderId, ProjectId, description)

PK:TeamId

Fk:teamleaderId, ProjectId

Task(taskId, TaskName, startdate, expectedEndDate, ActualEndDate, projectId)

PK:taskId

Fk:projectId

4



6



Report(ReportNo, ReportName, Datecreated, comment, taskId)

PK:ReportNo

Fk:taskId

Comment(CommentId, Message, TimeStamp, userId, taskId)

PK:CommentId

Fk:userId, taskId

Subscription(SubscriptionId, DateOfJoining, DateOfLeaving, TeamId, UserId)

PK:SubscriptionId

Fk:TeamId, UserId

4



7



Entity attribute data dictionary

Table 6.1: Data Dictionary

Table Attributes Contents Type

Project ProjectId Unique Identifier Integer

ProjectName Char(15)ProjectDescription Char(30)

StartDate date/time

EndDate date/time

User userId Unique Identifier Integer

firstName Char(15)

lastName Char(15)

email Email address text

Userlogin userId Unique Identifier Integer

userName Char(15)

password Char(30)

Team TeamId Unique Identifier Integer

TeamName Char(15)

teamleaderId Char(30)

description Char(30)

ProjectId Char(15)

Task taskId Unique Identifier Integer

TaskName Char(15)

startdate date/time

expectedEndDate date/time

ActualEndDate date/time

projectId Char(15)

Report ReportNo Unique Identifier Integer

ReportName Char(15)

teamleaderId Char(15)

Datecreated date/timecomment momo

taskId Char(15)

48



Table 6.2: Data Dictionary

Table Attributes Contents Type

Comment CommentId Unique Identifier Integer

ReportName Char(15)

TimeStamp date/time

userId Char(15)

Message momo

taskId Char(15)

Subscription SubscriptionId Unique Identifier Integer

TeamId Char(15)

DateOfJoining date/time

DateOfLeaving date/time

UserId Char(15)

6.3.4 Physical Design

The DBMS used was SQL. The data types were determined to guide on the kind of valid entries

that the database can accept. The design also specified required fields and of which are optional,

field size (common for names and passwords), default value. These, among others provide for

integrity checking which is crucial for database security.

4

9



System Component Diagram

Figure 6.3: Component Diagram

This shows how the wiki was integrated to the developed system to keep versions of documents.

50



6.4 System Implementation

The system was implemented using: Design Technology: ASP.NET, Design Environment:

Microsoft Visual Studio 2005, Programming language used:.Net C+ and VB.Net. Wiki was

integrated in to the developed system using the Agile method Extreme Programming.

The system enables the following functionalities;

i). Authentication of authorized users by means of a password before access can be

allowed. The research coordinator has the administrative rights which include;

creation and management of new projects, teams and member accounts, allocation

of tasks and monitoring of progress of teams/project while the team members have

limited rights to basically participate in the project, view the allocated tasks and

interact through emails.

ii). Creation and management of new projects, teams and team member accounts by

the research coordinator.

iii). Creation and allocation tasks to team members.

iv). Track and monitor progress of each team member besides allowing team members

to track their own progress.

v). Communication vie emails and web.

vi). manage /upload and store research documents in the system

vii). View communication between the coordinator and other team members and

respond to comments besides viewing previous and current versions of the

document being worked on.

viii). Edit, make changes and save the work page.

ix). Print/send/view progress reports of teams.

x). The team member can view the project and tasks they have been allocated.



51



6.5 Testing and Results

The prototype was demonstrated and given to the research coordinator and a research team at

CBR in Uganda for feedback on their interaction with the system. The following is the summary

of feedback from respondents.

Strengths of the prototype:

(i) Requires authentication, thus applies basic security for the data in the system

(ii) Assigns user profiles

(iii) Allows upload and download of documents

(iv) The discussion forum function facilitates communication between research coordinator and team members while keeping versions.

(v) The supporting database is scalable and allows interoperability

(vi) The system is dynamic

(vii) System is web based (intranet based)

Weaknesses of the prototype:

(i) More functions such as the video and voice should be included.

Overall, it was found to satisfy its objective. The issues raised should be addressed in future

work.

5



2



Chapter 7

CONCLUSION,

RECOMMENDATIONS AND

FUTURE WORK

7.1 Summary and Conclusion

In this study, the researcher evaluated existing progress measurement and collaborative tools and

then analyzed the weaknesses that exist in these systems. Requirements for the pro-posed system

were defined and thus guided the design, implementation and testing of the interactive

information management tool for research collaborations. Overall, the researcher achieved the

objective of putting together a system that enhances communication between the team members

and research coordinators working on a given project in dispersed environment.

7.2 Recommendation

This tool should be adopted by the CBR and improved further to enhance communication of

teams involved in collaborative research. It may be rolled out to other Research institutions by

customizing it to their scenarios.

5



3



7.3 Future Work

I concentrated on interactions of more than one team being supervised by one research

coordinator and team members being involved in more than one project at a same time.

Integration of more collaborative tools such as video and audio in to system should be studied

further.

5



4



Bibliography

[1] Argyris, C. (1991), Management information systems: the challenge to rationality and

Emotionality, Management Science, p. 291

[2] AngelL.Merono-Cerdan, Pedro Soto-Acosta and Carolina Lopez-Nicolas(2008)Analyzing

collaborative technologies e ect on performance through intranet use orientations,Journal

of Enterprise Information Management Vol. 21 No. 1,pp. 39-51

[3] Aiman Turani(2007) A Pedagogical Application Framework for Synchronous Collabo-

ration A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of

Philosophy The University of Sydney,School of Electrical and Information Engineering

[4] Arjan Raven and KPMG Peat Marwick (1997) Team or Community of Practice Align-ing

Tasks, Structures, and Technologies, One Giant Brain. Harvard Business School Case

Study No. 9397108. Boston: Harvard Business School, 1997

[5] Andrei S. Lopatenko, Information retrieval in Current Research Information Systems.

Vienna University of Technology

[6] Bartunek, J. M.,and Louis, M. R. 1996. Insiderloutsider feam research. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

[7] Bickel, W. E.,and Hattrup, R. A. 1995. Teachers and researchers in collaboration: Re?

ections on the process. American Educational Research Journal, Vol.32 pp.35-62.

[8] Bonk, C.J. and Wisher, R.A. Applying Collaborative and e-Learning Tools to Military

Distance Learning: A Research Framework, United States Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences, Alexandria, 2000

5



5



[9] Balmelli, L., Brown, D., Cantor, M. and Mott, M. (2006). Model-driven systems

development. IBM Systems Journal, Vol.45 ,NO.3,pp. 569- 585

[10] Blake Ives, Scott Hamilton, Gordon B. Davis (1980) Management Science, Vol. 26, No. 9

pp. 910-934

[11] Connolly, T., Carolyn, E.B., Carolyn, B., and Strachan, A. (1998). Database Sys-tems A

practical Approach to Design, Implementation and Management. Addison Wesley.2nd

Ed.

[12] Dyck, T(2003), Languages show striking growth; the Webs most dramatic change last

year was the 52 percent growth in Web servers hosting a dynamic server-side scripting

language, p. 45. 14

[13] Danziger, J.N. (1991). Management information systems and inter organizational re-

lations within the American governmental system, information and the public sector.

[14] Dasgupta, S., Granger, M. and McGarry, N. (2002), User acceptance of e-collaboration

technology: an extension of the technology acceptance model, Group Decision and

Negotiation, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 87-100.

[15] Desanctis,G.L and Gallupe,R.B(1985)Group decision support systems:a new

frontier.Database,16,3-9

[16] Rowley, J (1999), Developing research capacity: the second step The International

Journal of Educational Management, vol. No. Pp.208-212

[17] Dennis,A,R,George,J,F. Jessup,L,M,Nunamaker,J.F and Volgel,D.R (1988)informa-tion

technology to suport electronic meetings .The Management information sysytems

Quarterly,Vol.12,pp.591-624

[18] Dorothy E.Leidner,Sirkka L.Jarvanpaa(1995),The Use of information Technol-

ogy to Enhance Management School Education:A Theoretical view MIS Quar-

terly,Vol.19,No.3,special Issue on IS curricula and Pedagogy pp 265-291

[19] Edward fox (1997) The Guide for Electronic Theses and Dissertations,

http://etdguide.org/content

[20] Fernandes, K., Raja, V. and Austin, S. (2005), Portals as a knowledge repository and

transfer tool- VIZCon case study, Technovation, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 1281-9.

56



[21] Goodman,G.O.and Abel,M.J(1986).Collaboration research in SCL.Proceedings of the

conferere on Computer-supported cooperative work(CSCW86)pp.246251,Austin.TX

[22] Gorry,G.A,Burger,A.M,Chaney,R.J,Long,K.B.and Tausk,C.M(1988).Computer sup-port

for Biomedical work groups.Proceedings of the conference on computer-supported

cooperative work (CSCW88),pp.39- 51,Portland 18

[23] Greif,I.(1986).Data sharing in group work.proceedings of the conference on computer

supported cooperative work(CSCW,86).pp.175-183 Autin RX

[24] Hackman, J. R. (Ed.). 1991. Groups that work (and those that dont). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass. ,univesity of Arizona,Tucson,Arizonz 85721,USA

[25] Ingwersen, P. (1992) Information retrieval interaction. London, Taylor Graham.

[26] Justin R. Ervin (2000) Dynamic delivery of information via the World Wide

Web,Volume.18, Number 1. pp. 5560 15

[27] Johnson,B,Weaver,G,Olson,M,H.and Dunhman,R(1986)using a computer based too to

support collaboration: a ?eld experiment proceedings of the conference on computer

supportted cooperative work(CSCW86)pp.343- 353,Austin,TX

[28] Jassawalla, A. R., Sashittal, H. C. 1998. An examination of collaboration in high-

technology new product development processes. Journal of Product Innovation Man-

agement, Vol.15: pp.237-254. Jehn, K. A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the

[29] Lynch,K.J,Snyder,J.M,Mchenry,W.K,Goodman,S.E.and

Hoopes,L.M(1990).Requirements for next-generation collaborative research sys-

tems.Procceedings of the 23rd Annual HICS conference,Decision Support and knowledge

Based systems Track,pp.72-83,kailua-kona,HI

[30] Lewis, J.D. (1990), Partnerships for Pro?t: Structuring and Managing Strategic Al-liances,

The Free Press, New York, NY.

[31] Lane, H. W., and Beamish, P. W. 1990. Cross-cultural, cooperative behavior in joint

ventures in LDCs. Management International Review,Vol. 30 No:87 pp.102.

[32] Leland,M.D,Fish,R.S.and Kraut, R.E.(1998).collaborative document producation

using Quilt.Proceedings of the conference on computer-supported cooperative

57



work(CSCW),pp.206-215,Portland McGrath, J. E. 1984. Groups: Interaction and per-

formance.

[33] Laurie Ann Williams(2000)collaborative software process A dissertation submitted to the

faculty of The University of Utah in partial ful?llment of the requirements for the degree

of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Computer Science The University of Utah

[34] Lewis, J.D. (1990), Partnerships for Profit: Structuring and Managing Strategic Al-

liances, The Free Press, New York, NY.

[35] Lindgren, Niclas and Rautamki, Anita Managing strategic aspects of research, Ele-

mentum Ltd and Helsinki University of Technology

[36] Kothari, B, Claypool, M (2001), Dynamic Web pages: performance impact on Web

servers, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Vol. 11 No.1 , pp. 18-25

[37] Mchenry,W.K,Lynch,K.J and Goodman,S.E (1988)Handling textual information in a

GDSS database: experience with the Arizon Analyst information system.Proceedings of

21st Annual HICSS conference, Decision support and knowledge based systems

Track,pp.232-239,Kailua-kona,Hi

[38] Mike Hart and Tim Friesner, (2004) Plagiarism and Poor Academic Practice, Elec-tronic

Journal on e-Learning Vol. 2 No. 1 ,pp.89-96 16

[39] Jckel, Michael, (1995) Interaktion. Soziologische Anmerkungen zu einem Begri ,

Rundfunk und Fernsehen, no. 4.

[40] Merriam websters collegiate Dictionary(1993),Vol.10 pp.224

[41] Mohsen Attaran and Sharmin Attaran(2002)collaboration computing technol-ogy:the hot

new managing tool.team performance management :An international

Journal,Vol.8.No.1/2,pp.13-20

[42] Mohsen Attaran, (2007)collaborative computing:a new management strategy for in-

creasing productivity and building a better business,VOL. 8 NO. 6, pp. 387393,

[43] McGrath, J. E. 1984. Groups: Interaction and performance.Englewood Cli s, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

5

8



[57] OSullivan et al. (1994) Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural Studies, Lon-don:

Routledge.

[58] Teresa M. Amabile; Chelley Patterson; Jennifer Mueller; TomWojcik; Paul W.

Odomirok; Mel Marsh; Steven J. KramerAcademic-Practitioner Collaboration in Man-

agement Research: A Case of Cross- Profession Collaboration.The Academy of Man-

agement Journal, Vol. 44, No. 2. (Apr., 2001), pp. 418-431. 17

[59] Yi Jin and Min Huang,(2007)Study on the collaboration mechanism of the virtual

reference service,Volume:

25 Number:6

[60] Tastle, W., B., W. and Shackleton, (2005)P. E-Learning in Higher Education: The

Challenge, E ort, and Return on Investment. International Journal on ELearning,Vol.

4 ,No.2. pp.241-251.

[61] Wagner, C. and Bolloju, N. (2005), Supporting knowledge management in organiza-tions

with conversational technologies: discussion forums, Weblogs, and Wikis, Jour-nal of

Database Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 1

[62] Yong-Hyo, Young-soon, Kim, Dae-Joon, Hwang (2001) Developing integrated these and

dissertation system and improving university information infrastructure. The Ko-rean

experience.20

[63] www.intelli-meet.com (2008)

[64] www.gdnet.org(2008)

[65] ttp://www.it.CSUMB.edu/ departments/data/glossary/.html (2007)

[66] Portal. http://www.answers.com/search/definitionPortal.(accessed march 2007)

[67] Eiman Elnahrawy(2003)HTTP-ICE: An HTTP-Based Distributed Application Framework

For Interactive Collaborative Environments //WWW2003

[68] Sandra Cairncross and Mike Mannion(2001), Glasgow Caledonian University, UKIn-

novations in Education and Teaching International ISSN 1470-3297 print ISSN 1470-

3300 online 2001 Taylor and Francis Ltd

6

0



APPENDIX D: GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACES