Web this concept. Web 2.0 is not

Web 2.

0 One thing to consider about externalcrowdsourcing is that the development of the Web 2.0 has helped with thedevelopment, sometimes even organic, of this concept. Web 2.0 is not atechnical update of the internet, it refers to a perception of how webapplications and knowledge are created, used and shared. Web 2.0 is integralfor the concept of external crowdsourcing, is when the web is used as aplatform for collective creation and idea exchange (O’Reilly,2005). Social media and wikis are a greatexample of this concept.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

The difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 is the wayusers interact with each other, web 2.0 leaning more to the side of interactingas a crowd for the same objective.

(Shen,2012). After this background review we cansay that the process of external crowdsourcing is in the early stages of beingdefined. Although there’s not much insight into this topic, we can find somecharacteristics that define important aspects of the process. In the next sectionwe include what we consider crucial for the understanding of externalcrowdsourcing.

 We found two major approaches fordefining the process. One is a “time-line” approach where the different phasesare defined as a step by step progression, while the second one is a systematicapproach that defines the dimensions to consider when designing crowdsourcingactivities. Although there is a difference in each approach they are notexclusive of each other, they can even complement. We will describe each approachin detail and see the similarities between the different sources, and then thesimilarities between the two approaches.

One thing to be aware of is that someof the models we will explain are aimed at both external and internalcrowdsourcing, for the purpose of our research we will only consider andexplain the steps related to external crowds. “Time-Line” Approach The first model we would want todiscuss is the one defined by Muhdi et al. In this model the authors definefive phases for the process of crowdsourcing in the early stages of innovation:Deliberation Phase, Preparation Phase, Execution Phase, Assessment Phase           and Implementation Phase. In theirresearch they use the concept of crowdsourcing, and therefore their model, astool for open innovation (Muhdi,Daiber, Friesike, & Boutellier, 2011), they also use the definition ofcrowdsourcing as the outsourcing of tasks to a crowd through an open callonline (Ebner,Leimeister, & Krcmar, 2009).

Therefore, this can be consideredas external crowdsourcing as the solutions come from people outside thecompany. The second model by Zhu,Sick, & Leker (2016) builds on the model by (Muhdiet al., 2011), they maintain their same fivephases but adds the design elements that should be included in each.  The design elements they mention are thechallenges and decision organizations need to consider when approaching anexternal crowdsourcing exercise.   Verschoore,Borella, & Bortolaso, (2015) proposes a much more fleshed outmodel that is not defined by phases but more by specific steps an organizationshould follow when tackling crowdsourcing.

 What makes this model interesting for external crowdsourcing is thethird and fourth step. “Directing the project to a specific community or makingit fully open to participation” and “detailing the participant’s profile”. Inthese two steps the authors make the distinction that the audience or crowdthat the organization chooses for solving the proposed problem needs to havemotivation, skills and functions that will make them create a relationship withthe problem and the solution (Verschooreet al., 2015). This moment is key for theorganization, here is when the decision to use an external or internal willtake place. The organization needs to be sure that what’s needed to solve theproblem will be provided better by an external crowd. We have compiled a table fordefining  and describing each of the fivephases according to the (Muhdiet al., 2011) and (Zhuet al.

, 2016), and how the steps on (Verschooreet al., 2015) model can fit into each.Verschoore’s steps don’t fit exactly in the same sequence as Muhdi and Zhu, buttheory relate closely as seen in table x.      Deliberation Phase Preparation Phase Execution Phase Muhdi et. Al. The initial period of a CS process Describes the necessary groundwork that must be accomplished The crowdsourcing question is poste online Zhu et. Al. Define expected outcomes Define kind of online platform it is using Define the task Define the crowd Define the incentives Define the procedure Mobilize and activate the crowd Keep up the activity level Verschoore et.

Al. Reducing the complexity of the CW project Defining the platform in which the project will be advertised and disclosed Deciding which company activities will be outsourced to the crowd. Defining which goals are pursued by the company in the CS Detailing the profile of Participants Analyzing the intrinsic and extrinsic forms of motivation Determining the type of compensation to the community Defining the forms of interacting and feedback between the company and the community     Assessment Phase Implementation / Post-processing Phase Muhdi et. Al. The idea generation is terminated and the question is taken offline The nest ideas are identified and rewarded Zhu et. Al. Needs a defined  Evaluation criteria and Evaluation mode (expert judges/peers) IP regulation Rewarding ceremony Prove feasibility of the ideas Feedback about next steps Verschoore et.

Al.   Making tests in the CW Platform.   “Systematic” As already mentioned the other waysome authors define the process of external crowdsourcing is by the dimensions.Instead of describing the steps or phases, they focus on the reasons why theorganizations should use this model.  (Catallo & Martinenghi, 2017) propose a four dimensions modelthat can be applied for defining the reasons for using crowdsourcing and makingsure crowdsourcing is the right model to apply, the four dimensions he suggestare:  What, Who, Why and How. (Catallo & Martinenghi, 2017). Here’s a brief explanation of eachdimension: What? – For thisdimension the authors offer three aspects that should be considered: the tasktype, the task features and the task output.Who? – Hereorganizations need to define who will be part of the crowd, the diversity,anonymity, hierarchy.

  Hereis where the organization decides for an internal or external crowd.Why? – Theobjective of this dimension is to evaluate why will the crowd participate inthe organization’s crowdsourcing inciative. Because of intrinsic or extrinsicreasons.How? – Thedimension contains the question of what motivation techniques will be used onthe crowd to incentivize participation.  Alsotouches on the quality assurance priori and post crowdsourcing exercise. Estellés-Arolas & González-Ladrón-De-Guevara,(2012) researchhas its emphasis on what dimensions the organization focus on while defining a crowdsourcingproject. The diference between them and Catallo’s model is that the dimensionsae aimed at the element that has the most impact during the process.

The three elementsthat need to be consider are the crowd the initiators and the process. Afterdefining the elements, they give detonators questions for each one of them. Forthe Crowd they use: who forms the crowds? What’s the obejtective they mustachieve? And, what’s their incentive? For the Initiator its: Who is theinitiator? And, What’s the incentive of the initiator for using cs. And for TheProcess: What type of process it is? What type of call? (external or internal)and What medium will be used? (Estellés-Arolas & González-Ladrón-De-Guevara,2012) Looking at both dimensional modelswe can see that although the focus is on different subjects, the questions theorganization should ask themselves while using crowdsourcing are the same or similar. Similarities and how do they complement each other Both approaches, “Time-Line” and”Systematic”, are not exclusive of each other. In order to show how they couldrelate to each other we will use Catallo’s et al dimensions and organize therest of the authors’ ideas revised in our research according to the dimensionthey should be performed in.  For the “What” dimension, Amrollahi’s (2015) conceptual design phasecan fit into this dimension, while describing the task’s that should be tackledbefore the begging of the project. He mentions several points, such as:definition of tasks (Anderson, 2011; Nguyen et al.

, 2013; Schulze et al.,2012), making the strategic decisions (Sutherlin, 2013), establish goals(Lykourentzou et al., 2013), among others. He also mentions that a possibleoutcome can be a detailed plan of activities (Amrollahi, 2015). If you consider, the model of Muhdi,the further development of Zhu, and the definition of the phase, we can relatethe Deliberation phase of the external cx process to the What dimension.

Thereason for this is because in this step the organization must decide if crowdsourcing is the right methodologyand how appropriate is it to solve their internal problems (Muhdi et al., 2011).   Thisphase and dimension should end with the conceit decision to start the project,after considering all the different expected outcomes it can produce (Zhu et al., 2016). This dimensions alsorelates to the second phase: Preparation, here is where the tasks to beperformed will be selected.

Wazny, (2017) also adds to this dimensionby stating that there are different tasks more suitable for a crowdsourcing exercise. Forexample:  such as solving problems,completing tasks, being creative, developing products or ideas (Wazny, 2017). For the Who dimension (Amrollahi, 2015) defines this phase as theParticipant selection. This phase is key for the process of externalcrowdsourcing, here is where the organization needs to select what kind ofcrowd the project needs: external or internal (Bücheler and Sieg, 2011; Geigeret al., 2011; Park et al., 2013), create contact with the participants (Chenand Liu, 2012; Hildebrand et al., 2013; Lorenzi et al., 2013), and even runsome tests if necesary.

(Rossen and Lok, 2012; Stolee and Elbaum, 2010). ForMuhdi’s model we can see that this dimension relates directly to the secondphase, the preparation phase. This phase relates to many of Catallo’sdimensions, for this one in particular the relation is between the definitionof the crowd (Zhu et al., 2016). Another author that can relate to this dimension isWazny, when deciding to go for a external crowdsourcing project theorganization needs to be aware that the crowd should fill certain characteristics.  They describe many characteristics such asage, job satisfaction, career expectations, etc.

(Wazny, 2017). This is for both thecrowd as a whole, and the person who should be leading the crowd.In the Why dimension, the Preparation phase of the Mudhi model applies also forthis one. Here it is because the organization needs to find a reason for thecrowd to participate in the cs exercise. Has their model says they need to findthe incentives for the crowd to perform their task (Muhdi et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2016).Theincentive doesn’t have to necessarily economic.

The other phase that relates tothis dimension is the execution phase, here is where the organization’s plansfor keeping the crowd motivated and interested in finding the solution for theproblem are applied (Zhu et al., 2016). For the How we go back again to the Preparation phaseof Mudhi, here you define the procedure the crowd will follow to tackle theproblem they will be phasing. (Muhdi et al., 2011). Another important aspectto consider in this dimension is the platforms that will be used for thedesired task.

Amrollahi calls it Technical Design Phase (Amrollahi, 2015). There’s the option to useexisting platforms (Costa-jussà et al., 2014; Schulze et al.

, 2012; Stolee andElbaum, 2010) or develop a new platform for crowdsourcing that complies withthe needed requirements defined in the other dimensions. (Liu et al., 2012;Park et al., 2013)


I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out