IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v27y2018i2d10.1007_s10726-018-9557-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Decision Tool for Business Process Crowdsourcing: Ontology, Design, and Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Nguyen Hoang Thuan

    (Can Tho University of Technology)

  • Pedro Antunes

    (Victoria University of Wellington)

  • David Johnstone

    (Victoria University of Wellington)

Abstract

As the crowdsourcing strategy becomes better known, the managerial decisions necessary to establish it as a viable business process are becoming increasingly important. However, a divide and conquer approach, currently dominant in the field, leads to scattered decision support for the crowdsourcing processes. We propose an ontology-based decision tool that supports the whole business process crowdsourcing. The advantage of the ontology approach is that it collects and consolidates knowledge from the existing literature to provide a solid knowledge base for the tool construction. Operationalising the ontology, the tool helps make the decision to crowdsource or not, and choose appropriate design alternatives for the crowdsourcing process. We evaluated the tool through a controlled experiment with 190 participants. The obtained results show that the tool is useful by significantly increasing: (1) the performance in making the decision to crowdsource or not, and (2) the design of crowdsourcing processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Nguyen Hoang Thuan & Pedro Antunes & David Johnstone, 2018. "A Decision Tool for Business Process Crowdsourcing: Ontology, Design, and Evaluation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 285-312, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:27:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-018-9557-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-018-9557-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-018-9557-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-018-9557-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yuxiang Zhao & Qinghua Zhu, 2014. "Evaluation on crowdsourcing research: Current status and future direction," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 417-434, July.
    2. Nguyen Hoang Thuan & Pedro Antunes & David Johnstone, 2016. "Factors influencing the decision to crowdsource: A systematic literature review," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 47-68, February.
    3. Nicola Guarino & Daniel Oberle & Steffen Staab, 2009. "What Is an Ontology?," International Handbooks on Information Systems, in: Steffen Staab & Rudi Studer (ed.), Handbook on Ontologies, pages 1-17, Springer.
    4. David Geiger, 2016. "Personalized Task Recommendation in Crowdsourcing Systems," Progress in IS, Springer, edition 1, number 978-3-319-22291-2, March.
    5. Louise Muhdi & Michael Daiber & Sascha Friesike & Roman Boutellier, 2011. "The crowdsourcing process: an intermediary mediated idea generation approach in the early phase of innovation," International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 14(4), pages 315-332.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Silvia Blasi & Silvia Rita Sedita, 2018. "Leveraging the power of creative crowds for innovative brands: the eYeka crowdsourcing initiatives," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0228, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".
    2. Xuefeng Zhang & Bengang Gong & Yaqin Cao & Yi Ding & Jiafu Su, 2022. "Investigating participants’ attributes for participant estimation in knowledge-intensive crowdsourcing: a fuzzy DEMATEL based approach," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 811-842, September.
    3. Ayomikun Idowu & Amany Elbanna, 2022. "Digital Platforms of Work and the Crafting of Career Path: The Crowdworkers’ Perspective," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 441-457, April.
    4. Olivera Marjanovic & Vijaya Murthy, 2022. "The Emerging Liquid IT Workforce: Theorizing Their Personal Competitive Advantage," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 1775-1793, December.
    5. Nguyen Hoang Thuan & Pedro Antunes & David Johnstone, 2016. "Factors influencing the decision to crowdsource: A systematic literature review," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 47-68, February.
    6. Schenk, Eric & Guittard, Claude & Pénin, Julien, 2019. "Open or proprietary? Choosing the right crowdsourcing platform for innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 303-310.
    7. Yiwei Gong, 0. "Estimating participants for knowledge-intensive tasks in a network of crowdsourcing marketplaces," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-19.
    8. Yiwei Gong, 2017. "Estimating participants for knowledge-intensive tasks in a network of crowdsourcing marketplaces," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 301-319, April.
    9. Xu, Hui & Wu, Yang & Hamari, Juho, 2022. "What determines the successfulness of a crowdsourcing campaign: A study on the relationships between indicators of trustworthiness, popularity, and success," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 484-495.
    10. Evangelos Mourelatos & Manolis Tzagarakis, 2018. "An investigation of factors affecting the visits of online crowdsourcing and labor platforms," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 95-130, December.
    11. Livio Cricelli & Michele Grimaldi & Silvia Vermicelli, 2022. "Crowdsourcing and open innovation: a systematic literature review, an integrated framework and a research agenda," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 1269-1310, July.
    12. Regina Lenart-Gansiniec, 2018. "Methodological Challenges of Research on Crowdsourcing," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 4(4), pages 107-126.
    13. Hai Zhu & Xingsi Xue & Hongfeng Wang, 2022. "Matching Ontologies through Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm with Relevance Matrix," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-12, June.
    14. Till Blesik & Markus Bick & Tyge-F. Kummer, 2022. "A Conceptualisation of Crowd Knowledge," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 1647-1665, October.
    15. Xuanwei Zhao & Enjun Xia, 2016. "Research On The Operation Mechanism Of Network Crowdsourcing System And Constitutions Of Crowdsourcing Capability," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(07), pages 1-18, October.
    16. Henner Gimpel & Vanessa Graf-Seyfried & Robert Laubacher & Oliver Meindl, 2023. "Towards Artificial Intelligence Augmenting Facilitation: AI Affordances in Macro-Task Crowdsourcing," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 75-124, February.
    17. Chiara Belletti & Daniel Erdsiek & Ulrich Laitenberger & Paola Tubaro, 2021. "Crowdworking in France and Germany," Working Papers hal-03468022, HAL.
    18. Marta Poblet & Esteban García-Cuesta & Pompeu Casanovas, 2018. "Crowdsourcing roles, methods and tools for data-intensive disaster management," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 1363-1379, December.
    19. Lee, Jung & Seo, DongBack, 2016. "Crowdsourcing not all sourced by the crowd: An observation on the behavior of Wikipedia participants," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 55, pages 14-21.
    20. Bal, Anjali S. & Weidner, Kelly & Hanna, Richard & Mills, Adam J., 2017. "Crowdsourcing and brand control," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 219-228.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:27:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-018-9557-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.