Relationship-Based Business Process Crowdsourcing?

  • Jacki O’Neill
  • David Martin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8120)


New technologies do not always benefit the worker, especially when harnessed by organisations seeking ever cheaper labour. Crowdsourcing is a technology-enabled way of working which offers the potential to bring work to far flung communities. However, it is something of a double-edged sword and there are many socio-technical and ethical challenges. In the micro-task market crowdsourcing platforms tend to be designed largely for the advantage of the organisation requesting work, rather than the worker. This paper contributes to research calling to redress this balance [2, 6]. It describes the findings of an ethnographic study of an outsourced business process – healthcare form digitization – as performed by workers in-office (India) and @Home (USA). It reveals the complexities of the relationships between worker and organisation and argues that designing some aspects of these relationships into crowdsourcing platforms and applications is as beneficial for the organisation as it is for the worker.


Crowdsourcing ethnography business process outsourcing relationship- based crowdsourcing 


  1. 1.
    Thies, W., Ratan, A., Davis, J.: Paid crowdsourcig as a vehicle for global development. In: CHI Workshop on Crowdsourcing and Human Computation (2011) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Felsteiner, A.: Working the Crowd. Employment and Labor Law in the Crowdsourcing Industry. Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law 32(1)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Silberman, M.S., Irani, L., Ross, J.: Ethics and tactics of professional crowdwork. XRDS 7(2), 39–43 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eagle, N.: txteagle: Mobile Crowdsourcing. In: Aykin, N. (ed.) IDGD 2009. LNCS, vol. 5623, pp. 447–456. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sachs, P.: Transforming Work: Collaboration, Learning and Design. Communications of the ACM 38(9), 36–44 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Suchman, L.: Making Work Visible. Communications of the ACM 38(9), 56 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hartswood, M., Procter, R., Rouncefield, M., Slack, R.: Making a Case in Medical Work: Implications for the Electronic Medical Record. CSCW 12(3), 241–266 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kochhar, S., Mazzochi, S., Paritosh, P.: The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Human Computation Engine. In: HCOMP 2010, pp. 10–17. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bernstein, M., Little, G., Millar, R., Hartmann, B., Ackerman, M., Karger, D., Crowell, D., Panovich, K.: A word processor with a crowd inside. In: UIST 2010, pp. 313–322. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Le, J., Edmonds, A., Hester, V., Biewald, L.: Ensuring quality in crowdsourced search relevance evaluation: The effects of training question distribution. In: SIGIR 2010, pp. 17–20 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Adda, G., Sagot, B., Fort, K., Mariani, J.: Crowdsourcing for Language Resource Development. In: 5th Language and Technology Conference, Poland (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bederson, B.B., Quinn, A.J.: Web workers unite! addressing challenges of online laborers. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA 2011), pp. 97–106. ACM, New York (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Irani, L., Silberman, M.S.: Turkopticon: Interrupting Worker Invisibility in Amazon Mechanical Turk. To appear in CHI 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karnin, E.D., Walach, E., Drory, T.: Crowdsourcing in the document processing practice. In: Daniel, F., Facca, F.M. (eds.) ICWE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6385, pp. 408–411. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rzeszotarski, J.: Worker Collaboration in Crowdsourcing Markets. In: ACM SIGCHI 2011 Workshop on Crowdsourcing and Human Computation (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kazai, G.: An Exploration of the Influence that Task Parameters have on the Performance of Crowds. In: CrowdConf 2010, San Francisco, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mason, W., Watts, D.J.: Financial Incentives and the “Performance of Crowds”. In: HCOMP 2009. ACM, Paris (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Horton, J.J., Chilton, L.B.: The labor economics of paid crowdsourcing. In: EC 2010, pp. 209–218. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huang, E., Zhang, H., Parkes, D.C., Gajos, K.Z., Chen, Y.: Toward automatic task design: a progress report. In: HCOMP 2010, pp. 77–85. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Silberman, M.S.: What’s fair? Rational action and its residuals in an electronic market. Unpublished manuscript (2010),
  21. 21.
    Khanna, S., Ratan, A., Davis, J., Thies, W.: Evaluating and Improving the Usability of Mechanical Turk for Low-Income Workers in India. In: ACM DEV 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bentley, R., Hughes, J.A., Randall, D., Rodden, T., Sawyer, P., Shapiro, D., Sommerville, I.: Ethnographically-informed systems design for air traffic control. In: CSCW 1992, pp. 123–129 (1992)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kumar, D., Martin, D., O’Neill, J.: The times they are a-changin: mobile payments in india. In: CHI 2011, pp. 1413–1422 (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Garfinkel, H.: Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1967)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wyche, S.P., Schoenebeck, S.Y., Forte, A. “Facebook is a Luxury”: An Exploratory Study of Social Media Use in Rural Kenya. In: CSCW 2013 (in press, 2013) Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    O’Neill, J., Roy, S., Grasso, A., Martin, D.: Form Digitization in BPO: From outsourcing to crowdsourcing? To appear in CHI 2013 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacki O’Neill
    • 1
  • David Martin
    • 1
  1. 1.Xerox Research Centre EuropeMeylanFrance

Personalised recommendations