Description
[Key Words]
- Gig Economy, Platforms, Crowdsourcing, Freelancers, Work & Employment, Business Models, New Technologies, Innovations.
- Apple, Google, Amazon, Uber, People Per Hour, Lawyers on Demand, Deliveroo.
[General Requirement]
- 5500 Words, NOT including bibliography and appendices (Minimum 5000 Words)
- Harvard Style
- Structure:
- Executive Summary (Overview of the key findings from the report): 500 Words
- Introduction: 300 Words
- Main Content: 3200 Words (Approximately 800 words per assigned question)
- Final Discussion & Conclusion (Evaluation of the evidence with well-justified conclusions and main points of discussion): 1000 Words
- Please create CRITICAL ARGUMENTS and use SUFFICIENT academic references to support. (Reading list is indicated below)
[The Task]
The target audience for your report is CIPD(The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development), who would liketo commission an informed report analysing some of the key dimensions ofplatform work, with a view to circulating this report among itsmembers. CIPD have specified that they would like the report to focus onthe following key elements, with a view to providing a series ofrecommendations based on your discussion and analysis.
1. Whatattracts people to platform working? What are the characteristics ofpeople working on platforms (e.g., full-time/part-time, male/female,Global North/South, low-skilled/high-skilled, additional/main source ofincome, etc.)?
2. What are the working conditions of platformworking (for example, skill levels, type of tasks, remuneration,learning and development, career opportunities, social protection, andemployment rights)?
3. What is the reach and effectiveness of national/international employment regulation for platform workers?
4. Do platforms represent a new world of work?
AsHR professionals, members of CIPD are highly familiar with work andemployment issues generally, but less familiar with technological changeand its impact on working practices. Please ensure that in the report avoid telling them what they might already know.
[Background about the case study]
Thiscase study will investigate platforms as a new form of organisation andworking practices. Twenty years on from the dotcom crash, a number ofbig tech platform firms have emerged as the leading edge of emergingbusiness models (Rahman and Thelen, 2019). These firms are perceived aseven more intangible than their predecessors given the absence ofprofitability, assets, real estate and personnel which suggests theconstruction of a plausible business model is crucial for buildinglegitimacy, developing a brand and reputation, and attractinginvestment.
The increasing popularity of platforms has seengrowing numbers of organisations using them to source predominantlyunpaid or low wage labour, in order to create new ventures or increaseprofits. This method of sourcing labour uses Internet infrastructure toleverage the crowd to contribute to tasks that could alternatively beperformed internally by employees or contractors. The term crowdsourcingwas coined in 2006 and was presented as a new level of outsourcing, inthat rather than offshore jobs to low-cost locations, companies canoutsource functions to an amorphous and generally large pool ofindividuals using an open call over the Internet (Howe, 2008).However, over time, this modus operandi has expanded to include morehigh-skilled, highly paid tasks and activities, as some of the moretraditional professions (such as lawyers, accountants, and medics) shiftto platform-based work.
While sourcing labour via platformsundoubtedly appeals to some organisations, research has considered thebroader social and economic landscape in order to explain why firms areattracted towards sourcing labour externally.Some relate the changes tothe rise of network organizations and increasing globalisation, whileothers point to changes in work and employment patterns, ranging fromoutsourcing and flexibility, the attraction of boundaryless careers andthe need to access the talent of increasingly mobile knowledgeworkers.An alternative explanation could point to the more negativeaspects of changing labour markets that have witnessed risingself-employment, the emergence of zero hours contracts, projectificationof work, and increasing job insecurity.This raises interestingquestions regarding the future of work and employment, such as: What arethe socioeconomic forces which are structuring the employment choicesthat are available? What threats and opportunities do organizations facewhen sourcing activities and tasks to platforms? How influential is theplatform-based business model?
The aim of this project is toinvestigate platforms as a new form of work organisation. The increasingpopularity of crowdsourcing has seen growing numbers of organisationsusing digital platforms to attract predominantly low wage or unpaidlabour, in order to create new ventures or increase profits. This methodof sourcing labour uses Internet infrastructure to leverage the crowdto contribute to tasks that could alternatively be performed byemployees or contractors (Brabham 2012). The term crowdsourcing wascoined in 2006 (Howe, 2006)and was presented as a new level of outsourcing, in that rather thanoffshore jobs to low-cost locations, companies can outsource functionsto an amorphous and generally large pool of individuals using an opencall over the Internet (Howe, 2008).The most significant differences between crowdsourcing and atraditional workforce centres on flexibility, scalability, access to abroad range of skills and experiences at significantly less cost,coupled with the lack of employment regulations and employer security.
Manyauthors view outsourcing work activity to platforms positively and seeit as an opportunity to both create and capture value with the sourcingof labour/expertise for low reimbursement (Chandler & Kapelner,2013; Djelassi & Decoopman, 2013; Hirth et al. 2013; Satzger et al. 2013; Scheitzer et al. 2012).Inthe case of remote online working, platforms generate appeal since theprocess of sourcing labour is highly organised, is not dependent onphysical location, thereby enabling the rapid scaling of work execution,without any significant transaction costs or logistical hurdles.Control is simultaneously at a distance while remaining powerful whendirecting work tasks and determining the level of remuneration.Relationships are fleeting and largely anonymous, and there is neither alegal nor moral obligation to provide social support for the workforce.
Whencrowdsourcing started to gain popularity, many of the activities werenot perceived as work in the traditional sense, but interpreted associalising, blogging, or contributing towards creativity and innovation(particularly on social networking platforms). By highlighting featuressuch as mass production and distribution with low monetary imbursement,Howe (2006)categorically relates crowdsourcing to outsourcing rather thanpeer-production and co-creation.This distinction is crucial as itcontrasts with the more prevalent view of crowdsourcing which isuncritically celebratory and praises its ability to democratize ideageneration and production. Rather than romanticising crowdsourcing assome form of creative commons, a number of platforms have generatedexcessive levels of financial value for platform owners.
Asplatforms have become more established the scope has increasinglydiversified and numerous models exist. Popular examples include Airbnb,which provides an online platform to allow individuals to rent out theirhomes, rooms or apartments to visitors.Similarly, crowdfunding sitessuch as FundedByMe have proved popular for reward-based, loan-based, andequity funding for European entrepreneurs.These types of platforms havegenerated media interest since they tap into popular concepts such ascollaborative consumption, community building, the sharing economy andsocial enterprise.However, the focus of this project lies in the labouraspect of platform work and so in order to separate it from examplesaimed at content creation or altruistic vocations the term platform workwill be adopted. These platforms differ widely with regard to the skilllevel used, the complexity of tasks, the material/virtual nature of thetask, remuneration, and the levels of control and autonomy that workersexperience.
Platforms function as a marketplace for themediation of both physical (such as transportation, logistics, DIY) aswell as digital services and tasks, although the majority concentrate ondigital/remote work.Of the platforms that operate in a virtual space,some platform owners deal directly with workers on a one-to-one basis,offering payment for specific tasks.However, a whole raft ofintermediaries has recently emerged. Some exist as facilitators of work,such as Upwork, whose platform was set up a decade ago and whichliaises between businesses who post jobs and workers who operate across arange of domains.In 2020, Upwork claim to provide over 5,000 skillsacross more than 70 categories of work.
While platforms such asUpwork and People Per Hour are positioned at the high-skilled end ofplatform work there are also numerous micro-task platforms, with AmazonMechanical Turk (MTurk) providing an emblematic case of a microworkplatform (Irani 2013).MTurk distributes tasks to a large number ofanonymous workers with Amazon mediating and selling work capacity.It iswell developed, commonly used, and initially cornered the market inonline tasks (Felstiner 2011).A number of intermediary organisationsoffering consultancy services have emerged to provide solutions forAMT requesters to help ensure that employing a digital workforce remainsviable, particularly for large-scale corporations.In order to ensurethat the benefits of low cost and low commitment are not to be negatedby the effort required to manage the workforce, intermediaries – wholiaise between large enterprises such as LinkedIn, the US Army, AOL,Coca-Cola, Walmart, Procter and Gamble – assist in clearly specifyingthe complexities of tasks, hiring and communicating with workers,inspecting output quality, and authorising payment.They also go some waytowards providing an algorithmically-mediated work environment(Iperiotis 2012) with a more automated approach to the hiring andmanaging of workers, thereby alleviating some of the problems ofscalability. Furthermore, employing the services of mediator firmsenables large corporations to create a chain of concealment whichobscures their identity, offloading the risk associated with payingworkers such meagre amounts.Many large corporations are built likeRussian dolls with multiple layers of concealment (Urry 2014) andopportunities to obscure their work and employment practices are oftenwelcomed.
Platform owners play a central, orchestrating rolewithin a network of firms and individuals and, when combined, come to becollectively referred to as an ecosystem (Gawer 2014). Most platformsare based on a tripartite structure where the core firm develops theplatform upon which third-party requesters broadcast tasks to becompleted by externally sourced workers. These digital platforms have astandardised technical infrastructure that enables activities to beglobally distributed and repeated efficiently and with regularity. Theinterfaces are inscribed with assumptions and prescriptions that directthe manner that the user is permitted to take.The opening up ofplatforms to large numbers of external actors can stimulate networkeffects, whereby value increases geometrically as complementary productsand services attract more users (Cusumano 2010), extend the installedbase of users, and further expand the market (as in the case of big-techfirms such as Amazon, Apple, and Google).The very nature of networkeffects leads to cumulative benefits as those platforms that make itbeyond a tipping point become hard to dislodge (Gawer 2009), resultingin extreme dominance of a number of key firms.The enhanced marketposition boosts its negotiating power with suppliers, who are drawn tothe platform given the access to a broad consumer base.
Thevery nature of platforms – virtual, global, and unregulated – meansoperations may occur in one region while the parent company isregistered and geographically located in a different region.Given thefootloose and borderless nature of crowdsourcing, these platforms lacktransparency, operating outside sets of legislation or regulation,often going off-state and not subject to democraticoversight.Employment regulatory regimes have limited scope which leavesfirms to frame the interaction on their own terms. While thisunregulated environment undoubtedly appeals to some organisations,researchers have considered the broader social and economic landscape inorder to explain why firms are attracted towards utilising externallabour.Some relate the changes to transformational shift, such as therise of network organizations and increasing globalisation (Huizingh2011), while others point to changes in work and employment patterns,ranging from outsourcing and flexibility, the attraction of boundarylesscareers and the need to access the talent of increasingly mobileknowledge workers.Framing antecedents in such a way suggests powerrelations are tipped in favour of labour.An alternative explanationcould point to the more negative aspects of changing labour markets thathave witnessed rising self-employment (The Resolution Foundation 2014),the emergence of zero hours contracts (Brinkley 2013), increasing jobinsecurity (Berglund 2014) and work intensification (Thompson 2013).
[Reading List]
Amazon
#1 Bergvall-Kåreborn B and Howcroft D (2014), Amazon Mechanical Turk and the Commodification of Labour, New Technology, Work and Employment, 29: 3, 213-223, .
#2Culpepper PD and Thelen K. (2020) Are We All Amazon Primed? Consumersand the Politics of Platform Power. Comparative Political Studies,53(2):288-318. doi:10.1177/0010414019852687
Apple and Google
#1Bergvall-Kåreborn B and Howcroft D (2013), The futures bright, thefutures mobile: A study of Apple and Google mobile applicationdevelopers, Work, Employment and Society, 27: 6, 964-981.
#2 Froud et al (2014) Financialization across the Pacific: Manufacturing cost rations, supply chains and power, Critical Perspectives on Accounting. 25, 1, 46-57.
Uber
#1Calo, R. and Rosenblat, A. (2017). The Taking Economy: Uber,Information, and Power. Columbia Law Review, 117: 6, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2929643
#2 Thelen, K, (2018) Regulating Uber: The politics of the platform economy in Europe and the United States, American Political Science Association, 16(4), 938-953.
#3Naughton J (2021) Ubers UK supreme court defeat should mean bigchanges to the gig economy, The Guardian, 27/02/21, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb…
Other Academic Readings Regarding Platform Business & Gig Economy
#1 Platform Business Model
Rahman,K.S. and Thelen, K. (2019). The Rise of the Platform Business Model andthe Transformation of Twenty-First-Century Capitalism. Politics & society, 47(2), pp.177204.
#2 Crowdsourcing
Chandler, D. and Kapelner, A. (2013). Breaking monotony with meaning: Motivation in crowdsourcing markets. Journal of economic behavior & organization, 90, pp.123133.
#3 Crowdsourcing
Djelassi,S. and Decoopman, I. (2013). Customers participation in productdevelopment through crowdsourcing: Issues and implications. Industrial marketing management, 42(5), pp.683692.
#4 Technological Platforms
Gawer, A. (2014). Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Research policy, 43(7), pp.12391249.
#5 Open Innovation
Huizingh, E.K.R.. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31(1), pp.29.
