Your tool for team work on texts.
One of the frequent and problematic tasks in the IT business and not only is the collective work on texts. Moreover, the need to solve this problem arises in many cases:
In all these cases there is no absolute tool for effective work. However, we quite effectively solved this problem within our company.
Continuing to promote the idea of ​​teamwork in various fields, we prepared a free service on the Google Wave platform.
You can try it on our website . For this you will need to register.
')
In addition, we offer to get acquainted with the results of statistical studies that identify the main problems and trends in collective work on texts. This information will be useful to anyone who in one way or another faces this task.
Types of collaboration: Studying collective authorship
original
There are various co-authorship options, starting with the situation when the author creates a finished document in the process of discussing and reviewing the work by his colleagues, and ending with the case when a group of people creates a single document together. Here, the term “co-authorship” means two or more people working on the creation of one text.
Studies of writing groups have revealed three types of strategies: parallel, sequential and combined.
In a parallel composition, the task is divided into subtasks, each of which is assigned to a specific team member. These subtasks are performed simultaneously.
Consistent writing implies that one part of the work must be done before the other, in other words, parts of the work are done in order.
The combined strategy is expressed in the fact that the group members work on the text together and simultaneously.
Each strategy has its own specific advantages and disadvantages. For each methodology, the key is how work is distributed.
It is impossible not to note the possibility of combining these approaches, which in turn allows you to create new writing strategies. Based on the research of L. Iida and E. Lunsford , seven organizational models were identified:
1. the team outlines the task, after which each writer prepares his part, and then the group draws up the parts and reads the entire document;
2. the team outlines the task, then one writer prepares a sketch, and the rest of the team edits and checks it;
3. one person makes a plan and makes a sketch, then the whole group reviews it;
4. one author makes a plan and makes a sketch, then one or several participants review it, without consulting with the author;
5. the group plans the work and sketches a draft version, after which one or several participants work with the prepared material without consulting the authors;
6. One participant distributes tasks in the group, each performs its own part, then it assembles everything together and corrects it;
7. One person dictates the text, the rest shorthand and rule.
According to the research results, the models described above use from 3% (model 5) to 31% (model 3) of writing groups.
In the above-mentioned study, participants from various professional organizations were interviewed about their writing experience. The results show how people prefer to work with such tasks - individually, as a group, or in combination.
Half of the respondents come up with ideas both alone and in a group. At the same time to generate ideas, the most common approaches are:
For information gathering and organizational planning, the distribution of shares is as follows - 53% for solo work, 46% for collective work.
Most of the respondents (63%) prepare the outline of documents on their own.
For the final stage of the preparation of documents, the combined votes received the largest number of votes - 39%, and for editing and proofreading an individual - 56%.
One of the issues related to efficiency is the use of standardized formats, as well as blanks and patterns in the document. Respondents noted that their use of blanks depends on the type of document.
In addition, technical writers believe that planning is important for group work on text. They also noted that a bad plan would certainly lead to failure.
At the same time, if a plan was created, then in 73% of cases the leader of the group did it, and in 23% of cases the entire group worked on drawing up a plan.
When the respondents were asked who was reading the document, 33% answered that the leader of the group did it, and 23% said that several members of the group were engaged in it.
In the case of technical writers, 50% noted that the reading of the document was done by the technical writer himself or the group editor.
The survey, which was conducted among a large group of writers (about 800 people), gives information about how much time is spent on different phases of writing the text. The results show that 14% of the time is spent on inventing, 13% on notes, 13% on organizational planning, 32% on draft, 15% on reviewing and 13% on reading and editing.
L. Iida and E. Lunsford also investigated joint authorship and found out that eight points affect the degree of satisfaction of the group during the work:
Another study (I. Beck) provides information on co-authorship for smaller samples. He, however, did not formulate a clear definition of co-authorship.
Most of the respondents discussed the context and structure of the document during its writing. Some of these discussions took place before the writing of the document or after it was finished. Generally speaking, such conversations involved all the group members, however, sometimes arose between members of subgroups. A review of the discussion of workflow organization revealed the following trends. Most team members discussed this at the time of writing. The most common were disputes that covered the whole team. But the subgroups did not avoid such discussions. Beck also draws attention to the fact that the role of each individual and their relationship was most often discussed during the work on the text.
Let's try to understand how to organize the process for productive work:
So, for sure you have the task of writing the text. It's time to try to do it with friends or colleagues.
Check how much it will increase efficiency !
- formulating ideas for startups and primary analysis;
- writing articles for blogs;
- writing and coordination of PR texts
- compilation of user documentation;
- drawing up and coordination of texts of contracts and commercial offers;
- reporting;
- marketing and other research;
- writing basic and periodic content for the site.
In all these cases there is no absolute tool for effective work. However, we quite effectively solved this problem within our company.
Continuing to promote the idea of ​​teamwork in various fields, we prepared a free service on the Google Wave platform.
You can try it on our website . For this you will need to register.
')
In addition, we offer to get acquainted with the results of statistical studies that identify the main problems and trends in collective work on texts. This information will be useful to anyone who in one way or another faces this task.
Types of collaboration: Studying collective authorship
original
There are various co-authorship options, starting with the situation when the author creates a finished document in the process of discussing and reviewing the work by his colleagues, and ending with the case when a group of people creates a single document together. Here, the term “co-authorship” means two or more people working on the creation of one text.
Studies of writing groups have revealed three types of strategies: parallel, sequential and combined.
In a parallel composition, the task is divided into subtasks, each of which is assigned to a specific team member. These subtasks are performed simultaneously.
Consistent writing implies that one part of the work must be done before the other, in other words, parts of the work are done in order.
The combined strategy is expressed in the fact that the group members work on the text together and simultaneously.
Each strategy has its own specific advantages and disadvantages. For each methodology, the key is how work is distributed.
It is impossible not to note the possibility of combining these approaches, which in turn allows you to create new writing strategies. Based on the research of L. Iida and E. Lunsford , seven organizational models were identified:
1. the team outlines the task, after which each writer prepares his part, and then the group draws up the parts and reads the entire document;
2. the team outlines the task, then one writer prepares a sketch, and the rest of the team edits and checks it;
3. one person makes a plan and makes a sketch, then the whole group reviews it;
4. one author makes a plan and makes a sketch, then one or several participants review it, without consulting with the author;
5. the group plans the work and sketches a draft version, after which one or several participants work with the prepared material without consulting the authors;
6. One participant distributes tasks in the group, each performs its own part, then it assembles everything together and corrects it;
7. One person dictates the text, the rest shorthand and rule.
According to the research results, the models described above use from 3% (model 5) to 31% (model 3) of writing groups.
In the above-mentioned study, participants from various professional organizations were interviewed about their writing experience. The results show how people prefer to work with such tasks - individually, as a group, or in combination.
Half of the respondents come up with ideas both alone and in a group. At the same time to generate ideas, the most common approaches are:
- 82% of engineers combine group and individual work;
- for chemists, 72% tend to work individually;
- technical writers have 40% for the combination of group and individual work.
For information gathering and organizational planning, the distribution of shares is as follows - 53% for solo work, 46% for collective work.
Most of the respondents (63%) prepare the outline of documents on their own.
For the final stage of the preparation of documents, the combined votes received the largest number of votes - 39%, and for editing and proofreading an individual - 56%.
One of the issues related to efficiency is the use of standardized formats, as well as blanks and patterns in the document. Respondents noted that their use of blanks depends on the type of document.
In addition, technical writers believe that planning is important for group work on text. They also noted that a bad plan would certainly lead to failure.
At the same time, if a plan was created, then in 73% of cases the leader of the group did it, and in 23% of cases the entire group worked on drawing up a plan.
When the respondents were asked who was reading the document, 33% answered that the leader of the group did it, and 23% said that several members of the group were engaged in it.
In the case of technical writers, 50% noted that the reading of the document was done by the technical writer himself or the group editor.
The survey, which was conducted among a large group of writers (about 800 people), gives information about how much time is spent on different phases of writing the text. The results show that 14% of the time is spent on inventing, 13% on notes, 13% on organizational planning, 32% on draft, 15% on reviewing and 13% on reading and editing.
L. Iida and E. Lunsford also investigated joint authorship and found out that eight points affect the degree of satisfaction of the group during the work:
- the degree of clarity of the formulation of goals and their reporting to the group members;
- degree of openness and mutual respect;
- degree of control of authors over the text;
- the degree of contact between authors and those who later change the text;
- confidence;
- reaching agreement in disputes and conflicts;
- the number and types of restrictions imposed on compilers - deadlines, technical and legal requirements;
- project status in the organization.
Another study (I. Beck) provides information on co-authorship for smaller samples. He, however, did not formulate a clear definition of co-authorship.
Most of the respondents discussed the context and structure of the document during its writing. Some of these discussions took place before the writing of the document or after it was finished. Generally speaking, such conversations involved all the group members, however, sometimes arose between members of subgroups. A review of the discussion of workflow organization revealed the following trends. Most team members discussed this at the time of writing. The most common were disputes that covered the whole team. But the subgroups did not avoid such discussions. Beck also draws attention to the fact that the role of each individual and their relationship was most often discussed during the work on the text.
Let's try to understand how to organize the process for productive work:
- Define the target as much as possible, if possible.
- convey the goal to the group members by making the Goal section in the wave "
- make a simple primary plan or assign a responsible
- It is important to remember that any discussion should be completed and either be deleted, or become part of the text, or become formalized knowledge.
- the platform we use (Google Wave) contributes to maximum openness in the process of work - it is always clear who writes what.
- Try to distribute competencies based on the interests of the participants - this will not only increase the level of satisfaction of the group, but also allow you to quickly achieve a result.
So, for sure you have the task of writing the text. It's time to try to do it with friends or colleagues.
Check how much it will increase efficiency !
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/120688/
All Articles