Crowd Working
INTRODUCTION
The nature of work is changing. From a fixed-hour, fixed-place and fixed pay job design, more recent job offers in current market suggest new developments in employment. In older work arrangements, employees are hired based on fixed-period contracts (usually renewable at employer's will and most consistently cancelled during periods of economic crunch and mass layoffs) and are compensated in return for labor hours spent in more or less fixed location and/or workplace layout design. The emergence of ICT innovations, particularly web-based workflow systems, has, however, introduced interesting novelties into how work can be done but also, probably more significantly, what work could and/or should be done. Specifically, by integrating enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms and applications into existing workflows (or, in more radical arrangements, replacing existing systems by completely new ones), a growing number of enterprises has come to rethink outsourcing specific functions to external contracted workers. The outsourcing of non-core business functions is not, in fact, a new phenomenon. Indeed, cross-border companies, particularly North American and European ones, have adopted outsourcing practice for decades, mainly to minimize costs and to focus on core business functions. The practice of crowd working borders on outsourcing but departs from conventional outsourcing in distinct ways. For current purposes, focus remains on crowd working as an emerging work arrangement which, under intensive debate, requires further exploration. If anything, one most common controversy about crowd working is that crowd working is displacing jobs away from firms and into web-based platforms sourcing multiple contractors (referred to as "crowd") to perform separate and/or integrated projects. This argument requires further qualification. To narrow down debate about crowd working, current focus remains on specific practices in specific industries. Further, crowd working is differentiated into paid and unpaid based on purpose and nature of enterprise. More broadly, a series of questions are developed – based on arguments made in exploring crowd working in specific contexts – in order to produce a judgment, if any, of whether crowd working is profitable or not for employers and/or employees. This paper aims, hence, to evaluate whether crowd working is actually displacing jobs from firms and into web-based platforms or not by exploring specific work contexts.
This paper is made up of six sections in addition to introduction: (1) Conceptualization, (2) Paid Crowd Working (3) Unpaid Crowd Working, (4) Compensation and (5) Conclusion. The Conceptualization section explores conceptual complexities of crowd working. The Paid Crowd Working section discusses paid forms of crowd working and cites specific case examples. The Unpaid Crowd Working section discusses unpaid forms of crowd working and cites specific case examples. The Compensation section develops a series of questions on compensation, financial and non-financial, for employers and employees. The Conclusion section wraps up main arguments and offers further insights.
CONCEPTUALIZATION
The experience of crowd working is a comparatively new one. In contrast to fixed-hour, fixed place and, not least, fixed pay salary, crowd working involves flexibility in performing functions not particularly well-established or defined and, for that matter, can be performed by "crowds" increasing or decreasing in number according to function in question. In an interesting "journalistic" experience, LJ Rich (2013) registered for different independent contracting jobs involving editing, gaming, creative writing and video reviews. The journalistic experience is concluded by emphasizing expertise and extensive efforts by independent contracts in return for reasonable, good pay (LJ Rich). This journalistic experiment uncovers, if anything, potentials and challenges in performing crowd working, an increasingly elusive concept as is.
For one, crowd working offers new opportunities as well as challenges to improve productivity, accelerate social mobility and changes patterns of global economy (Kittur et al., 2013). In offering work experience and job opportunities at a global scale (most frequently via web-mediated platforms), crowd working engages workers dispersed geographically to perform complex functions (Kittur et al.) ranging from multi-phase creative writing projects to sophisticated, multi-phase, multiple worker software architecture projects. There are, however, inherent challenges in performing crowd working by multiple workgroups across different geographical areas. Notably, disruptions are particularly weak points in crowd working for different reasons connected to twelve major areas of crowd working: workflow, task assignment, hierarchy, real-time response, synchronous collaboration, quality control, crowds guiding AIs, AIs guiding crowds, platforms, job design, reputation, and motivation (Kittur et al.).
The question of crowd working is further complicated by varying definitions blurring lines between different areas of crowd working, particularly ones based on web-based collaboration (Estellés-Arolas, & González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, 2012). To better understand crowd working, in context, accordingly, specific areas and examples are discussed to appraise whether crowd working is actually displacing jobs from firms and into web-based platforms.
PAID CROWD WORKING
In a new division of labor, crowd working shifts product and/or service concept, design, development and marketing from fully employed, office-based workers into (armies) of contracted workers participating in different functions. Predictably, software design and architecture is one most common area employed crowd workers. Performing web-based functions (conveniently delivered online), crowd workers implementing software development projects are shown to increase participation in open source software development, for example, by having lowered barriers to participation (e.g. geographical barriers virtually vanish) and, significantly, minimizing required periods to reach specific markets by working synchronously (LaToza, Towne, Adriano, & van der Hoek, 2014).
This aspect of mass collaboration is shown to promote innovation for more optimum organizational performance. Notably, open innovation processes involving mass collaboration can enhance enterprise resource planning (ERP) in an organizational context by enabling active participation of potential lead users, particularly in business-to-business interactions (Leimeister, Huber, Bretschneider & Krcmar, 2014). Put differently, by encouraging lead users of enterprise resources, performance of regular users can be enhanced following lead of key users. True, collaboration on a mass scale can be web-based or not, paid or not. However, what is most critical, for current purposes, is how crowd working enable sourcing of multiple workers across different business functions and geographical areas by pooling together different capabilities in decentralized (or not) platforms (virtual or not) to complete specific functions and/or projects. From a corporate governance perspective, crowd working is, accordingly, a powerful organizational method which can be used to pull together different organizational resources for more effective performance.
In another significant area of applying crowd working, i.e. product development and design, crowd working is shown to enhance product development and design benefits from a customer perspective. In an empirical study on how innovative ideas from customers can contribute to product feature novelty, benefit and feasibility for customers, results show crowd pooling, or sourcing, ideas from customers complement efforts of development and design professionals to generate new offerings (Poetz & Schreier, 2012). These findings highlight, if anything, major opportunities companies, customers can reap from crowd working.
If any company is said to successfully employ crowd working strategies, Apple ranks high. Generally, Apple has a reputation for a marketing edge among customers in spite of higher product price compared to competitors. This powerful market positioning among willing customers has not prevented Apple from crowd sourcing both customers and professional IT developers in order to better enhance her mobile applications. For example, in 2008 Apple made available company's mobile platforms for third part IT developers (Bergvall-Kåreborn & Howcroft, 2013). In so doing, Apple has managed to effectively crowd source high-skilled workers at minimum cost but also, more significantly, to develop an innovative business model by which web-enabled mobile sets and digital content are streamlined into an open source platform (Bergvall-Kåreborn & Howcroft). From a corporate perspective, Apple has managed to effectively pool enterprise resources (based, partly, on company's market power) in order to deliver more optimized mobile applications at minimum costs. From a crowd worker perspective, employed workers experience differential success for financial returns (Bergvall-Kåreborn & Howcroft). Since coding and software development requires particularly advanced knowledge and skill base in a highly competitive job market, crowd workers – located in different geographies and posses different skill sets and educational backgrounds – are more likely to be compensated differentially and in accordance to corporate policies which might not be in a crowd worker's best interest. This compensation gap (discussed in further detail under "Compensation") uncovers a fundamental fault line in crowd working debate namely, whether crowd working is rewarding enough for all to effectively replace conventional work forms inside firms.
Thus, paid (directly or not) crowd working is a highly contextualized work practice and is, significantly, well embedded in organizational practices adopted by each and every enterprise. True, web-based crowd working (particularly coding and software engineering) dominate discussions on crowd working. However, existing practices, as just shown, uncover how context matters and, if anything, crowd working cannot simply be decontexualized simply because one or more functions are performed in virtual ecosystems. The next section explores unpaid crowd working in order to further highlight crowd working in more contexts.
UNPAID CROWD WORKING
In contrast to paid crowd working, unpaid crowd working receives less attention. Both modes share numerous similarities including, for example, pooling mass crowds of workers, streamlining recruitment efforts (by sorting out candidates and ideas) and achieving one common purpose, goal or project. The paid and unpaid modes of crowd working diverge, however, along a number of dimensions. Notably, where paid crowd working is comparatively shorter in period, more limited in scope and requires, above anything else, specific skill and knowledge base to perform a common purpose, unpaid work can be much longer in duration, has far broader scope (which can evolve as a project proceeds) and requires no specific skills for participation. Two main instances emerge as representative of unpaid crowd working: public service and competition-based customer invitations.
For one, urban planning has made an effective use in recent years of crowd working or sourcing. By offering up web-based platforms in order for local residents to generate ideas for an urban project, professional urban planners find in mass crowding of ideas for planned or in process urban projects an increasingly effective method of not only involving residents (i.e. main stakeholders) in planned or in process projects but also, more significantly, eliciting ideas which professional urban planners might not be able to generate by a conventional, expert-only approach (Brabham, 2009). The redevelopment of Boston City Hall Plaza is a case in point.
The Mayor of Boston, Marty Walsh, has publicly (via Mayor's official Twitter account) requested residents to submit proposals for Boston City Hall Plaza (Sturgis, 2015). The city has received numerous proposals by architects and ordinary residents. In a fashion similar to earlier projects implemented by appealing to local residents of Boston, Boston City Hall Plaza has seen a plethora of propositions and suggestions, all made more visible by proactive (digital and non-digital) campaigns (Sturgis). Yet, Boston has a specific character compared to different cities making similar appeals to local residents to submit development proposition and suggestions. In essence, Boston is inhabited, mostly, by young well-educated, tech-savvy residents (Sturgis). This demographic makeup, albeit not made up of experts in architecture, let alone urban planning, is indicative of informed propositions required from crowd workers / stakeholders in order to produce more effective outcomes. This demographic makeup is, moreover, supported by a proactive campaign which has made possible large-scale distribution of ideas. In a final analysis, only informed propositions made at crowd level can be of real value, particularly for civic engagement, unpaid work.
The case for Fiat Mio in Brazil is another insightful example of unpaid crowd working. By opening up competition to external stakeholders (i.e. existing or potential customers and interested amateurs), Fiat has managed to pool crowd sources in order to contribute to company's professional workgroup of designers and engineers (Markowitz, 2011). The final car design included around 10,000 propositions from contributors in over 160 countries (Markowitz).
In one final example of how unpaid crowd working can be employed to pool together resources from multiple sources, disaster relief is shown to be an area in which amateur citizens can offer volunteered geographic information in addition to professional services provided by mapping agencies and companies (Goodchild & Glennon, 2010). The quality of data remains, however, to be a concern for volunteered geographic information (Goodchild & Glennon) and hence unreliability of unprofessional geographic, crowd-generated information.
COMPENSATION
Overall, crowd working is a contested area of profitable (financial and non-financial) compensation for companies and workers. From a corporate perspective, companies can, under specific circumstances, get consistent, streamlined outcomes and minimize costs. If not well utilized, a crowd worker pool (employed on a web-based basis or in conventional, physical settings supported by web-medicated communication platforms) can add little value.
CONCLUSION
The case for crowd working is multilayered. The dominance of web-based functions performed by armies of crowd workers suppress arguments for another kinds of crowd working performed offline and unpaid. If coding and software engineering represent, understandably, most common examples of web-based crowd working, civil engagement, unpaid as well as competition-based crowd working represent growing areas of crowd working worthy of more research. The future of crowd working depends, largely, on how much (and what) crowd working functions can be performed. This depends, as well, on how socioeconomic differences across different geographies informs skill sets, knowledge base and pay required for crowd working.
REFERENCES
Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., & Howcroft, D. (2013). The Apple business model: Crowdsourcing mobile applications. Accounting Forum [Online] 37(4), 280–289. ScienceDirect. doi: 10.1016/j.accfor.2013.06.001 [Accessed: 19th April 2016]
Brabham, D. C. (2009). Crowdsourcing the Public Participation Process for Planning Projects. Planning Theory [Online] 8(3), 242-262. Sage Journals. doi: 10.1177/1473095209104824 [Accessed: 19th April 2016]
Estellés-Arolas, E., & González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, F. (2012). Towards an integrated crowdsourcing definition. Journal of Information Science [Online] 38(2), 189-200. Sage Journals, doi: 10.1177/0165551512437638 [Accessed: 19th April 2016]
Goodchild, M. F., & Glennon, J. A. (2010). Crowdsourcing geographic information for disaster response: a research frontier. International Journal of Digital Earth [Online] 3(3), 231-241. Taylor & Francis Online. doi: 10.1080/17538941003759255 [Accessed: 19th April 2016]
Kittur, A., Nickerson, J. V., Bernstein, M., Gerber, E., Shaw, A., Zimmerman, J., Lease, M., & Horton, J. (2013). The future of crowd work. CSCW '13 Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM: New York, NY [Online] 1301-1318. ACM Digital Library. doi: 10.1145/2441776.2441923 [Accessed: 19th April 2016]
LaToza, T. D., Towne, W. B., Adriano, C. M., & van der Hoek, A. (2014). Microtask programming: building software with a crowd. UIST '14 Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. ACM: New York, NY [Online] 43-54. ACM Digital Library. doi: 10.1145/2642918.2647349 [Accessed: 19th April 2016]
Leimeister, J. M., Huber, M., Bretschneider, U., & Krcmar, H. (2014). Leveraging Crowdsourcing: Activation-Supporting Components for IT-Based Ideas Competition. Journal of Management Information Systems [Online] 26(1), 197-224. Taylor & Francis Online. doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222260108 [Accessed: 19th April 2016]
Markowitz, E. (2011). The Case for Letting Your Customers Design Your Products. Inc., 20 September [Online]. Available from http://www.inc.com/ [Accessed: 19th April 2016]
Poetz, M. K., & Schreier, M. (2012). The Value of Crowdsourcing: Can Users Really Compete with Professionals in Generating New Product Ideas? Journal of Product Innovation Management [Online] 29 (2), 245–256. Wiley Online Library. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00893.x [Accessed: 19th April 2016]
Rich, L. (2013). So how much money can you make crowdworking? BBC, 7 September [Online]. Available from http://www.bbc.com/ [Accessed: 19th April 2016]
Sturgis, S. (2015). Why Crowdsourcing City Projects Actually Works for Boston. City Lab, 13 March [Online]. Available from http://www.citylab.com [Accessed: 19th April 2016]
