No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Crowdsourcing (CS) of micro tasks is a relatively new, open source work form enabled by information and communication technologies. While anecdotal evidence of its benefits abounds, our understanding of the phenomenon's societal consequences remains limited. Drawing on value sensitive design (VSD), we explore microtask CS as perceived by crowd workers, revealing their values as a means of informing the design of CS platforms. Analyzing detailed narratives of 210 crowd workers participating in Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk), we uncover a set of nine values they share: access, autonomy, fairness, transparency, communication, security, accountability, making an impact, and dignity. We find that these values are implicated in four crowdsourcing structures: compensation, governance, technology, and microtask. Two contrasting perceptions-empowerment and marginalization-coexist, forming a duality of microtask CS. The study contributes to the CS and VSD literatures, heightens awareness of worker marginalization in microtask CS, and offers guidelines for improving CS practice. Specifically, we offer recommendations regarding the ethical use of crowd workers (including for academic research), and call for improving MTurk platform design for greater worker empowerment.

The original 'stages of growth' model, as applied to the field of lnformation Systems (Gibson & Nolan, 1974), may be viewed as seminal, given the influence it has had on both theory and practice (Nolan, 1984;Sullivan, 1985; Ward, et al., 7990). This is so, despite the model's lack of substantiation based on empirical evidence, the overly simplistic assumptions on which it is based, and the limited focus of the original concept (Benbasat, et al., 1984; King & Kraemer, 1984).Since its first appearance, the model has been refined following many applications (Nolan, 1979(Nolan, , 1984. In addition, others have developed 'stages of growth' models of their own. For example, Somogyi & Galliers, (1 987a, b) provide a model depicting the move from basic data processing systems to strategic information systems, tracing fhe early days of commercial applications of computing through to the present day (Ward et al. 7990). Earl (1983, 1986, 1988, 1989) proposes a stages-model for informatiun systems planning, as does Bhabuta (1988), while Hirschheim, et al. (1988) have developed a more broadly focused model associated with the development of the information-systems management function. As a result of a review of the above and of a case study research undertaken inPerth, Western Australia, a revised model was developed, which takes account of current thinking and past experience in the application of the various 'stages of growth' models (Sutherland & Galliers, 1989). This paper sets out to review some of these models and proceeds to describe the process of developing, testing and applying the revised 'stages of growth' model. The model is more broadly focused than the original concept, incorporating strategic, organizational, human resource and management considerations. As a result, it is argued that this model has greater utility than its predecessors.

No abstract

No abstract

We review the IS strategizing literature and highlight its main strengths and weaknesses. Strengths include an account given to the relevance of tensions between planned and executed strategy, and associated tradeoffs such as rigidity and flexibility, formal and informal strategizing and the exploitation of static resources vis à vis the exploration of novel capabilities. Weaknesses relate to a predominant focus on an organizational level of analysis and a lack of power considerations. In this paper we aim to build on these strengths and to ameliorate these weaknesses by proposing a comprehensive IS strategizing framework that uses extant IS strategizing research as a foundation, rejuvenated by insights from the emerging strategy‐as‐practice literature. The paper extends our understanding of IS strategizing in light of the practice perspective by providing a multilevel account and incorporating power considerations.