November 30th, 2006 by Abid
We launched a new feature yesterday that will allow Providers to forward emails from their odesk.com email account to their personal email accounts.
Some context:
- Buyers signup with their personal email address and are not given an odesk.com email account. All emails are sent to their personal email accounts
- Providers signup with their personal email address, and are given an odesk.com email account . All oDesk notifications and communications from Buyers are sent to their odesk.com email account
- Providers previously had to set up a desktop client (like Outlook Express) or log in through a web interface to check their oDesk email (https://secure.odesk.com/webmail/src/login.php)
Now, Providers can simply have all oDesk email auto-forwarded to their personal email accounts. They can enable or disable this at any time.
From our “What’s New” feature release log:
While this sounds like an obvious enhancement, our decision to proceed with it was the result of a bigger debate. The question that we face on a recurring basis is the extent to which, we, oDesk, should try to enforce best practices in our marketplace-workplace or we should just provide options and let our users decide how they want to work.
The debate is meaningful not only for the email issue, but for every part of our service,
- Should we require providers to communicate using only their oDesk email or not?
- Should providers pick any userid they want or should we standardize the userids?
- Should we allow providers to join oDesk with or without having taken a few minimal tests?
- Should we expect that all buyers and providers speak one language, English?
- Should we allow providers to apply to as many job openings as they want?
- Should we require buyers to prove they have the money to pay before hiring? before posting?
- Should we allow “offline hours” in the weekly timelog? Should we act when there are too many offline hours?
- Should we contract with providers and buyers or just offer templates and let users contract among themselves?
etc etc.
One could argue that enforcing discipline and processes would add friction and would limit our ability to grow. Besides, it is arrogant to believe that we, oDesk, know better than our users.
On the other hand we have seen that efficient networks of individuals have to rely on common structures, processes, protocols to work together.
What is the right balance?
|
Read more
-
Abid Mohsin
This entry was posted
on Thursday, November 30th, 2006 at 2:09 pm and is filed under Features.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 1st, 2006 at 1:38 pm
[…] oBlog oDesk - The Future of Work « Feature launched: Provider Email Forwarding […]
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:24 pm
* Should we require providers to communicate using only their oDesk email or not?
oDesk emails help to show that all providers work for the same big company… I think oDesk should allow other emails.
* Should providers pick any userid they want or should we standardize the userids?
standardized userids must be
* Should we expect that all buyers and providers speak one language, English?
yes, of course
* Should we allow providers to apply to as many job openings as they want?
no, that leads to more mess
* Should we require buyers to prove they have the money to pay before hiring? before posting?
yes, sure… before posting
* Should we contract with providers and buyers or just offer templates and let users contract among themselves?
oDesk dhould contract with providers and buyers
—-
That is my opinion…
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:26 pm
P.S. I meant “oDesk should NOT allow other emails”. Sorry for the misprint
December 5th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
1) Should we require providers to communicate using only their oDesk email or not?
–> allowing forwards is a nice feature. Currently, we use this feature in another method. We get all emails of all providers
in one place for easy followup and for ensuring our time is not wasted logging in and out and we lose patience in repetitive
tasks as such. I strongly feel same thing to many providers.
NOTE: if you donot mind about webspace that will be consumed, you continue hosting emails in the ODESK based email also
inparallel to EMAIL forwarding feature. that is it is not EITHER OR option but a nice complimentary effort from ODESK
insupport of it’s providers.
2) Should providers pick any userid they want or should we standardize the userids?
–> Standardised USERID’s are useful in ODesk based email ID’s as that way it donot waste time of provider in selecting
unique name for the email ID again. The Flexibility looks fun and enjoying but soon after we start brainstorming, sometime
most of them feel it is excessive freedom. Think on …. it si just my opinion, no view to conflict with others,
3) Should we allow providers to join oDesk with or without having taken a few minimal tests?
–> Allow providers with out tests. No problem. Thing is, you encourage them to write tests in later time. Even in that
perspective, donot make it as mandatory as many providers who have proven track record outside odesk (who may be new to odesk
or who might have felt that His Work gives a clear picture about his/his team capabilities than the Brainbench or ODESK tests
and in such cases, he may not write more tests). So in my view, donot insist for TESTS and likewise tell to Buyers that TESTS
are one kind of estimating the capabilities of the Providers. It’s not the sole method. personally in our experience, I found
many people insisting for tests and test results even after seeing the works done by us which is quite embarassing in the
moment.
4) Should we expect that all buyers and providers speak one language, English?
–> English is fine and it will be minimum even though you can allow other languages in addition to English and not as
replacement to english. You need to ensure in this process that there is no discrimination on non-english speaking personnel
or any specific language speaking personnel in the process. I can understand that if both sides can speak english
communication gap can be eradicated in very effective way, but tolerances can be made available if both sides can understand
each other communication.
Ex: some may write better but not much verbal skills, then they try to avoid VOICE Discussion. this doesn’t mean they are
unfit for the job. likewise, when other languages are allowed, may be infuture if Buyers come from China or Japan, they may
ask only those languages, if they can speak english, definetely they can have more options and nice service too. I think I
had attempted to focus on the point, I will be happy if someone elaborates this much clearly, may be I will attempt later (if
required)
5) Should we allow providers to apply to as many job openings as they want?
–> No wrong in allowing more than 20/week, as when some provider is capable of doing justice to the accepted projects, and
all and when he finds room to more work, he can do that. When you open this, yes, it can become tougher time to buyers as
proposals will be done as a big heap compared to current situation. By adding highlight to provider capabilities in more
effective way (some more options in addition to individual/collective ratings that currently exist will be helpful)
Brainstorming in this section always generate better results to all Buyers, Providers and last but not least our dearest
ODesk. This can REDUCE “JOB EXPIRED” offers alot (most of the buyers are getting confused with the number of recieved
proposals and not able to decide upon one and some of them are posting in all other sites like guru.com, and more who are not
serious in finding provider in any one site). When this number of “JOB EXPIRED” offers reduces, it will become a plus to
everyone involved in different phases as listed above.
6) Should we require buyers to prove they have the money to pay before hiring? before posting?
–> YES, that can be helpful. Even though ODESK is running based on Hourly Rate Model in mainstream most of the Buyers are
expecting solid fixed price estimates from the provider.
There is no wrong in Buyer side for expecting that way as they fear that providers may prolong things to earn more money. In
my observation, the ODESK Team Software even though it gives screenshots, how many clients can enumerate the actual work done
in there?????? other than buyers (either individuals or companies who involve in development activity, those who outsource
jobs since they may not have time or in similar situations).
What I feel is, may be giving FIXED RATE MODEL as option to such situations (when Buyer Project Requirements are crystal
clear that can be worked out with minimum changes may be which donot affect seriously the project development schedules) will
always help Provider to give a FIXED PRICE ESTIMATE possible (inwhich while ODESK can collect it’s 1% fee to itself in the
total amount that has to be paid in SLABS) Think on, …. Sometimes, giving Hybrid Model option will be great and useful to
both Buyer & Provider as well. Managing things as a third party and maintaining things to one another (Buyer & Provider), yes
it is a big task, so, ODESK guys do some real brainstorming about this topic like previous one to get some nice results. I
hope more of our friends (other ODESK Users - both Buyers & Providers add their thoughts to this), Thank You
7) Should we allow “offline hours� in the weekly timelog?
–> YES, OFFLINE hours are really useful. Adding them with permission of Buyer is always an asset and useful to all Buyers/
providers and Even ODESK also.
Example:
For Buyers: To get work within TIMEFRAME in typical situations also in some scenarios.
For Providers: they can do work when internet is unavailable or service interruption occur or internet facility is unstable
in the moment. Likewise, when the work is more of research oriented and Buyer clearly stated that he has limited budget for
initial phases, then if Provider works on ODESK from start to end, BILL grows more than the budget of Buyer which always
gives lot of trouble. While Provider want to grow with Buyer on ODESK, this OFFLINE hours methodology helps in doing the work
and calculating the billable hours which with the permission of Buyer be added in WORKDIARY. That way, morally also it will
be good as they gto associated through ODESK, they do work together based on it. if someone want to do maliciously, they can
always do, (in provider side, he can work on Team Software and try gaining more and more), likewise, both can bypass the
system if they trust each other. Anything is possible. That leaks are minimum as ODESK Services are cool to both Providers
and Buyers alike. In this process, Trust is the key which ensures result to both sides (quality work to buyers & fee to
providers).
Should we act when there are too many offline hours?
Should we contract with providers and buyers or just offer templates and let users contract among themselves?
–> In some situations, you Contracting providers and serving Buyers as a BIG AGENCY do good (Project Management Service is
always helpful to new companies/individuals who start in this field). While in some situations (When Providers have efficient
Project Managers and/or dedicated Project Management Group to handle things), allowing Buyers & Providers to work in
themselves do good as they feel the freedom and satisfaction of tacking challenges and planning/controlling every level of
the Project Development. Anyhow, end of the day, it all depends, I hope things are more clear now.
December 5th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
sorry everyone, for the bad formatting, (I forgot to disable wordwrap in the NOTEPAD before posting this in here), if possible, BLOG MANAGERS kindly do that if you donot mind, ad REMOVE THIS POST after doing that,
Thank You
January 4th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
If this is a frequent debate then are you missing an overarching “IDEOLOGY” to which you can refer for answers to such questions? Thus you examine either side of the equation and pick the one which best supports your ideology.
Eg: Contracts vs Templates?
If odesk has an ideology of being “a marketplace” then templates is the obvious conclusion; conversely a “value-added” or “qualified buyer/provider” ideology would suggest contracts.
Eg: Offline hours?
marketplace = “yes” as odesk only provides tools; it’s up to providers/buyers to choose which tools to use
value-add = “no” as odesk, as a regulator, has established that offline hours are not in the best interests of the community.
January 4th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Do oDesk still need to decide where they lie in the spectrum between providing a ‘buyer beware’ marketplace (a la ebay) or a regulator where buyers and sellers trust oDesk’s endorsement of the other party?
January 10th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
For all the questions regarding the regulatory environment I would say:
enable those features, but don’t force buyers/sellers to use them. Warn buyers/sellers of the pitfalls to not using a particular service, but still allow them to choose. Be a marketplace of freedom and choice.
One way of doing all this that I think would be good is on the project hiring screen you could have grid of the 5-10 features as checkboxes to enable/disable them.
So when I hire someone (or perhaps its done when the job is posted) I can choose to enable email logging and offline hours if I want. For example, for the first project with a particular provider I would enable email logging/tracking and ban offline hours. But as my trust grew and became more confident in the supplier I would consider allowing offline hours if there was valid reason.
The key ingredient is choice. Everyone likes to do business differently. I personally see ODesk as a “Guide” assisting the outsourcing process by enabling transactions that span borders, and letting me know if the outsourcing process I am taking is very risky. In the end its up to each buyer/seller to decide how much risk they are willing to take and how they like to do business.
I guess it’s like a lawyer assisting on an employment agreement. They serve to guide and advise on the risks and pitfalls of the way you want to formulate your employment agreements, but when it comes down to it the lawyer will still “let” their client choose how they want things drawn up (unless its illegal of course).
So in summary, features with freedom and choice is the way to go.
P.S
A great feature would be to allow logging Yahoo IM conversations to a “project board” using a Yahoo IM plugin. So I could check a box in the chat window “Log Chat”, the other chat users would be notified it was being logged, and the chat would be sent via webservice/email to odesk where I could view/search it at a later date. Ideally that would be part of the email logging feature, and all email/IM communications would be listed by date/time and searchable.