IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2005.10731.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Commitment on Volunteer Crowdsourcing Platforms: Implications for Growth and Engagement

Author

Listed:
  • Irene Lo
  • Vahideh Manshadi
  • Scott Rodilitz
  • Ali Shameli

Abstract

Volunteer crowdsourcing platforms match volunteers with tasks which are often recurring. To ensure completion of such tasks, platforms frequently use a lever known as "adoption," which amounts to a commitment by the volunteer to repeatedly perform the task. Despite reducing match uncertainty, high levels of adoption can decrease the probability of forming new matches, which in turn can suppress growth. We study how platforms should manage this trade-off. Our research is motivated by a collaboration with Food Rescue U.S. (FRUS), a volunteer-based food recovery organization active in over 30 locations. For platforms such as FRUS, success crucially depends on volunteer engagement. Consequently, effectively utilizing non-monetary levers, such as adoption, is critical. Motivated by the volunteer management literature and our analysis of FRUS data, we develop a model for two-sided markets which repeatedly match volunteers with tasks. Our model incorporates match uncertainty as well as the negative impact of failing to match on future engagement. We study the platform's optimal policy for setting the adoption level to maximize the total discounted number of matches. We fully characterize the optimal myopic policy and show that it takes a simple form: depending on volunteer characteristics and market thickness, either allow for full adoption or disallow adoption. In the long run, we show that such a policy is either optimal or achieves a constant-factor approximation. Our finding is robust to incorporating heterogeneity in volunteer behavior. Our work sheds light on how two-sided platforms need to carefully control the double-edged impacts that commitment levers have on growth and engagement. A one-size-fits-all solution may not be effective, as the optimal design crucially depends on the characteristics of the volunteer population.

Suggested Citation

  • Irene Lo & Vahideh Manshadi & Scott Rodilitz & Ali Shameli, 2020. "Commitment on Volunteer Crowdsourcing Platforms: Implications for Growth and Engagement," Papers 2005.10731, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2005.10731
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.10731
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ross Anderson & Itai Ashlagi & David Gamarnik & Yash Kanoria, 2017. "Efficient Dynamic Barter Exchange," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(6), pages 1446-1459, December.
    2. Baccara, Mariagiovanna & Lee, SangMok & Yariv, Leeat, 2020. "Optimal dynamic matching," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(3), July.
    3. Itai Ashlagi & Maximilien Burq & Patrick Jaillet & Vahideh Manshadi, 2019. "On Matching and Thickness in Heterogeneous Dynamic Markets," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(4), pages 927-949, July.
    4. Francis Bloch & Nicolas Houy, 2012. "Optimal assignment of durable objects to successive agents," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 51(1), pages 13-33, September.
    5. Linda V. Green & Sergei Savin & Nicos Savva, 2013. "“Nursevendor Problem”: Personnel Staffing in the Presence of Endogenous Absenteeism," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(10), pages 2237-2256, October.
    6. Morimitsu Kurino, 2014. "House Allocation with Overlapping Generations," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(1), pages 258-289, February.
    7. Mohammad Akbarpour & Shengwu Li & Shayan Oveis Gharan, 2020. "Thickness and Information in Dynamic Matching Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(3), pages 783-815.
    8. Davide Crapis & Bar Ifrach & Costis Maglaras & Marco Scarsini, 2017. "Monopoly Pricing in the Presence of Social Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3586-3608, November.
    9. Xuanming Su & Stefanos A. Zenios, 2005. "Patient Choice in Kidney Allocation: A Sequential Stochastic Assignment Model," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 443-455, June.
    10. Kanoria, Yash & Saban, Daniela, 2017. "Facilitating the Search for Partners on Matching Platforms: Restricting Agents' Actions," Research Papers 3572, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    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. Julien Combe & Vladyslav Nora & Olivier Tercieux, 2021. "Dynamic assignment without money: Optimality of spot mechanisms," Working Papers 2021-11, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    2. Battal Doğan & M. Bumin Yenmez, 2023. "When does an additional stage improve welfare in centralized assignment?," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(4), pages 1145-1173, November.
    3. Jhan-Jia Lin & Yu-Tse Lee & Ja-Ling Wu, 2021. "The Effect of Thickness-Based Dynamic Matching Mechanism on a Hyperledger Fabric-Based TimeBank System," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-21, March.
    4. Naonori Kakimura & Donghao Zhu, 2021. "Dynamic Bipartite Matching Market with Arrivals and Departures," Papers 2110.10824, arXiv.org.
    5. Francis Bloch & David Cantala, 2017. "Dynamic Assignment of Objects to Queuing Agents," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 88-122, February.
    6. Panayotis Mertikopoulos & Heinrich H. Nax & Bary S. R. Pradelski, 2019. "Quick or cheap? Breaking points in dynamic markets," ECON - Working Papers 338, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    7. Jerry Anunrojwong & Krishnamurthy Iyer & Vahideh Manshadi, 2023. "Information Design for Congested Social Services: Optimal Need-Based Persuasion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(7), pages 3778-3796, July.
    8. Panayotis Mertikopoulos & Heinrich H. Nax & Bary S. R. Pradelski, 2019. "Quick or Cheap? Breaking Points in Dynamic Markets," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2217, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    9. Kim, Jaehong & Li, Mengling & Xu, Menghan, 2021. "Organ donation with vouchers," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    10. Dimakopoulos, Philipp D. & Heller, C.-Philipp, 2015. "Matching with Waiting Times: The German Entry-Level Labour Market for Lawyers," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 113153, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    11. Mohammad Akbarpour & Julien Combe & Yinghua He & Victor Hiller & Robert Shimer & Olivier Tercieux, 2020. "Unpaired Kidney Exchange: Overcoming Double Coincidence of Wants without Money," Post-Print halshs-02973042, HAL.
    12. Nicole Immorlica & Brendan Lucier & Vahideh Manshadi & Alexander Wei, 2023. "Designing Approximately Optimal Search on Matching Platforms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4609-4626, August.
    13. Francis Bloch & David Cantala, 2014. "Dynamic Allocation of Objects to Queuing Agents: The Discrete Model," Post-Print halshs-01109667, HAL.
    14. Philipp D. Dimakopoulos & Christian-Philipp Heller, "undated". "Matching with Waiting Times: The German Entry-Level Labour Market for Lawyers," BDPEMS Working Papers 2014005, Berlin School of Economics.
    15. Kostas Bimpikis & Wedad J. Elmaghraby & Ken Moon & Wenchang Zhang, 2020. "Managing Market Thickness in Online Business-to-Business Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(12), pages 5783-5822, December.
    16. Ali Aouad & Daniela Saban, 2023. "Online Assortment Optimization for Two-Sided Matching Platforms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 2069-2087, April.
    17. Itai Ashlagi & Alvin E. Roth, 2021. "Kidney Exchange: An Operations Perspective," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5455-5478, September.
    18. Ce Liu, 2020. "Stability in Repeated Matching Markets," Papers 2007.03794, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2021.
    19. Nick Arnosti & Peng Shi, 2020. "Design of Lotteries and Wait-Lists for Affordable Housing Allocation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(6), pages 2291-2307, June.
    20. Itai Feigenbaum & Yash Kanoria & Irene Lo & Jay Sethuraman, 2020. "Dynamic Matching in School Choice: Efficient Seat Reassignment After Late Cancellations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(11), pages 5341-5361, November.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:arx:papers:2005.10731. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.