The

Effect of the Collaborative Economy on

the Low-Income Bracket in the United States

What is the future of the collaborative economy for lower-income earners as it

relates to technology, society, and the economy?
Date: December 4, 2015
Prepared for: Professor Sam Miller
Prepared by: Bailey Amenabar, Tiphaine Delepine, Courtney Sampson,
Abigail Spellman, and Chelsea Williams

Table of Contents
I.
II.
III.
IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

VIII.
IX.

X.

Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 3
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 4
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 6
A. Definitions of Terminology ........................................................................................... 7
B. Relevance to Business .................................................................................................. 8
Topic in Context ....................................................................................................................... 9
A. Current Assessment ..................................................................................................... 9
B. Stakeholder Analysis .................................................................................................. 12
C. Forces of Change ........................................................................................................ 14
1. Advancement and Accessibility of Technology ............................................... 15
2. Desire for Community and Increased Trust .................................................... 15
3. Changes in Unemployment Rate .................................................................... 15
4. Ownership Preferences ................................................................................. 15
D. Forecasting Strategy ................................................................................................... 16
1. Units of Measure of the Impact of the Collaborative Economy ....................... 16
2. Indicators of the Growth of the Collaborative Economy ................................. 16
a) Independent Variables ...................................................................... 16
b) Dependent Variables ......................................................................... 17
E. Supporting Research Questions .................................................................................. 17
F. Potential Uncertainties .............................................................................................. 18
Evidence-based Baseline Forecast: Sharing is Caring ............................................................... 19
A. Advancement and Accessibility of Technology ........................................................... 19
B. Desire for Community and Increased Trust ................................................................. 21
C. Changes in Unemployment Rate ................................................................................ 23
D. Ownership Preferences .............................................................................................. 23
E. Business Insights ........................................................................................................ 25
Analysis of Alternative Future Scenarios ................................................................................. 26
A. Transformation: Collaboration Nation ........................................................................ 28
B. Collapse: Corruption Destruction ............................................................................... 31
C. Constraint: Limitation Frustration .............................................................................. 34
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 37
References ............................................................................................................................. 38
A. Works Cited ............................................................................................................... 38
B. Expert Contributions .................................................................................................. 39
Appendix ................................................................................................................................ 42

I. ABSTRACT
This report analyzes the future of the collaborative economy - an economy in which commonly available
technologies allow people to get what they need from each other - and how it might affect the low-
income population of the United States.
The collaborative economy is becoming more prevalent today as shared services companies, like that of
Airbnb and Uber, are gaining popularity and threatening traditional business models. These shared
services are appealing to both consumers and workers as it establishes new standards of convenience,
quality, and price. The main forces of change driving the collaborative economy include the
advancement and accessibility of technology, the desire for community and increased trust, changes in
the unemployment rate, and shifts in ownership preferences. Additional uncertainties include the
government regulation of this economy and the potential unionization of collaborative providers.
In the following report, four potential futures of the collaborative economy are developed using the
number of providers (or workers) in the collaborative economy, the unemployment rate, and the
number of users of shared services and technologies as units of measurement. Baseline forecasts and
the Alternative Futures method are used to delineate potential future scenarios. The four scenarios
include: Sharing is Caring (Growth), Collaboration Nation (Transformation), Corruption Destruction
(Decline), and Limitation Frustration (Constraint). While Sharing is Caring, or growth, is the expected
scenario for the collaborative economy, the three other futures could be reality given the appropriate
triggers.

II. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report would like to acknowledge Sean Ness, the Director of Business Development at Institute for
the Future, for his insights into the future of the collaborative economy. With his help, the importance
of social capital in the collaborative economy was made clear and an emphasis to human preferences
was added to this report.

III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The focus of this project is to project potential futures of the collaborative economy and how it may
affect people who are categorized as low-income earners in the United States. The collaborative
economy is defined as an environment in which people acquire goods and services from each other
rather than from established corporations. However, due to the immense size of the collaborative
economy, this report focuses on two major sectors: the gig economy and the slack economy. The gig
sector is composed of services that allow individuals to hire someone temporarily for a short task, while
the slack sector is made up of services that allow others to utilize the providers unused resources at low
costs. In addition, this report assumes that low-income earners are made up of individuals who earn
less than $50,000 in household income annually.

The collaborative economy is becoming increasingly relevant in the business world because there are
collaborative disrupters in almost every industry. An example that is used throughout this report to
demonstrate this disruption is the transportation industry. The collaborative structure likely comes as a
result of a shifting community mindset that calls for convenience, affordability, and customizability. As
the collaborative economy continues to expand to new industries, it is changing traditional marketplaces
and is having a direct effect on low-income consumers and workers. From one point of view, the
collaborative economy has been incredibly useful in providing unemployed workers the opportunity to
earn money. The opposing perspective argues that these business formats cannibalize traditional jobs
and force workers into unstable employment without job security.


After analyzing the potential factors of change in the collaborative economy, major forces were evident:
the advancement and accessibility of technology, the desire for community and increased trust, changes
in the unemployment rate, and shifts in ownership preferences. With a rise in the use of smartphones,
applications, and other mobile technologies, a higher number of people have the accessibility to
participate in sharing communities. Individuals also have more trust in the commons, leading to
opportunities to foster community and the collaborative economy. In addition, because of the recent
economic turmoil and the need for additional funds, the collaborative economy has gained popularity;
as an alternative or supplemental form of employment and income by using skills or resources that they
already have. Societal ownership preferences have also shifted to more affordable options within the
collaborative economy to compensate for low disposable income.
These forces of change were assessed through both independent and dependent variables, along with
the uncertainties attached to the collaborative economy. The independent variables applicable to this

question include innovations in technology, government regulations, user preferences and interests, and
the changing state of the economy. Dependent variables, on the other hand, include the number of
collaborative companies in the industry, the number of people who opt into these collaborative
communities, income levels for collaborative business employees, and the monetary valuation of both
individual companies and the collaborative economy as a whole. Lastly, one relevant uncertainty
surrounding this question is how collaborative workers will respond to this general economic format.
Through the use of the Alternative Futures Scenario Development method, a comparative matrix, and
an analysis of the four forces of change, this report has constructed four potential scenarios for the
future of the collaborative economy. The baseline forecast, Sharing is Caring, anticipates growth for the
collaborative economy with much of the current trends continuing with little change. In this situation,
the use of technology continues to grow, societal attitudes provide a favorable environment for
collaborative companies, and in time, the collaborative economy develops a reputation of being safe
and reliable. As a result, there is a gradual transition from traditional business structures to collaborative
companies; however, rather than a cannibalization of traditional business, there is a coexistence of both
types of companies. This provides business opportunity for traditional businesses, but especially for
startups in the collaborative economy. The low-income community benefits from both business
structures.
The transformation scenario, Collaboration Nation, sees the collaborative model taking over modern
life. The general population will rely solely on the work of independent contractors associated with
shared services companies due to a societal preference shift toward independent contracting. One
major effect of this transformation is the elimination of traditional businesses. This empowers low-
income people to work on their own time using the skills and resources they already possess. In
Collaboration Nation, new business opportunities arise in places not expected before and existing
collaborative startups thrive.
The third scenario, Corruption Destruction, the collapse scenario, takes the story to a dreary future by
discussing the decline of the collaborative economy. In this scenario, crime after crime is committed in
relation to the collaborative economy, whether it be an Uber driver physically assaulting someone or a
hacker stealing the information of TaskRabbits users. In addition, acts of discrimination occur in
businesses like TaskRabbit where minorities are profiled based off of the information they share on their
contact pages. In the blink of an eye, the public loses trust in the system and each collaborative

company goes out of business, while traditional business gains back market share. As a result, the low-
income population is left unemployed and collaborative workers fight for traditional jobs.
Lastly, Limitation Frustration is a constraint scenario which results in the stifling of the collaborative
economy due to government regulations. The government passes the aforementioned regulations due
to fear that traditional business models would be eliminated completely and collaborative workers
would be in danger of poor treatment, especially because independent contractors are not afforded
benefits by law. These circumstances would cause a slow transition back to the traditional economy due
to the revoking of freedom formerly awarded to collaborative companies. In this scenario, collaborative
companies that have already overcome this hurdle will be at an advantage. There is also potential
opportunity for businesses who can solve the new issues posed; for example, a company that offers
insurance specifically for gig workers.

IV. INTRODUCTION
This report aims to examine and project potential futures of society with special consideration given to
the collaborative economy. Due to the significant growth of collaborative businesses in recent years,
this topic is incredibly important - the disruption will affect almost every industry and no one will go
without feeling its impact. Specifically, this report aims to answer the following question:
What is the future of the collaborative economy for low-income earners in the United States as
it relates to technology, society, and the economy?
Within the collaborative economy, there are many different types of markets - the two areas in which
this project will focus are the gig economy and the slack economy. Money lending, crowdfunding, and
custom product procurement markets are out of project scope and will not be investigated.
Additionally, historic consideration will begin at the Industrial Revolution and analysis will go 10 years
into the future.

DEFINITIONS OF TERMINOLOGY
When discussing the collaborative economy, it is important that the definitions of commonly used terms
are clearly established.
Collaborative Economy: an economy in which commonly available technologies allow people to
get what they need from each other. In this report, it is also sometimes referred to as the
Sharing Economy.
Gig Economy: services that allow
individuals to hire someone temporarily for
a short task (for example, TaskRabbit or
Uber)
Slack Economy: services that allow others
to utilize the providers unused resources
(for example, Airbnb)
Providers: people who offer up their own
skills or resources for the use of others
Participants: users of the collaborative economy who are paying for the aforementioned skills
and resources
In addition, this report assumes low-income earners are citizens who earn less than $50,000 in annual
household income (NCCP 2015). One caveat of these classifications is that, when someone earns less
than $50,000 annually, they must be striving to earn more - someone who chooses not work because
they dont have to does not apply.
With these definitions in mind, this report aims to evaluate how the collaborative economys effect on
low-income earners is relevant to business as a whole.

RELEVANCE TO BUSINESS
The format of the collaborative economy is being applied to a variety of markets in ways that people
would have never imagined. In sectors such as food, transportation, private goods, and hospitality,
consumers are adapting to the community mindset by finding methods of sharing their own
belongings and time with others in close proximity. What makes this new economy special is that there
is human feedback given after each interaction, so people can build reputations and profiles that boost
their status within these collaborative communities; with a better profile comes more trust, which
brings more steady business for the provider, a strong incentive.
The first industry of note is the hospitality industry: the collaborative economy has the potential to
change consumers expectations of comfort when traveling. Thanks to companies such as Airbnb,
consumers may begin to expect affordable accommodations that dont compromise quality. Because
there are few overhead fees, the providers can charge less than traditional hotels; as a result,
preference for this type of travel has grown exponentially in recent years and will likely continue to do
so should no major disruption to the market occur.
Another major industry affected by the rise of the collaborative economy is the transportation industry.
Collaborative companies who operate in the transportation space have completely altered the system
structure - taxi companies are no longer as dominant of a force and the average person can go into
competition with them at little to no cost. With the rise of technology, people looking for rides in
foreign cities are able to compare prices based on GPS location and time; consequently, customers are
no longer as helpless and vulnerable as they once were.
As shown by these industry snapshots, it is clear that collaborative companies can have huge effects on
what otherwise may have been impenetrable industries. The rest of this report explains the status of
the collaborative economy today, the expected evidence-based baseline scenario of its future, and three
alternative future scenarios with their business implications.

V. THE TOPIC IN CONTEXT

CURRENT ASSESSMENT
The timeline below describes the development of the collaborative economy. The year, 1978, marks the
first mention of the term collaborative consumption. Following this, between 1995 and 2005, some of
the first types of collaborative companies were launched, including, Ebay, Craigslist, and Etsy, which
were all initially accessed on computers. After 2007 and the introduction of the iPhone, Uber and Airbnb
were founded. In 2011, Time Magazine recognized the potential of Collaborative Consumption, and in
early 2015, two industry terms were added to the dictionary.

Several experts in the field, including thought leader of the collaborative economy Rachel Botsman,
value the sharing economy at $110 billion with an estimated 80,000 American adults who participated in
the sharing economy in 2014. However, when consumers were asked if they had heard of the sharing
economy or collaborative consumption the majority claimed they had not. These same consumers
were then given an explanation on the sharing economy and, when asked again, the rate of awareness
only increased by 12% (Burnett 2014). This is quite alarming because, despite the size, the collaborative
economy is relatively unknown; having seen many of the effects it has already had, possibilities for the
future - when everyone becomes aware of these terms - are astonishing.
The collaborative economy is currently growing at an incredible pace. Sharing economy-centered
businesses are starting to expand across the United States and infiltrate many different industries.
PricewaterhouseCoopers recently conducted a consumer study where they found that 44% of United
States consumers are familiar with the sharing economy (PwC 2015). PwC then further broke this down
and found that 19% of United States adults have participated in a sharing economy transaction, whether

that be from calling an Uber, ordering something from Etsy, or renting out a spare bedroom. On the
other hand, only 7% of the United States population are providers in the collaborative economy. Further
broken down by income bracket, 43% of providers make under $50,000, per year. The other 57% are
typically fall in a wealthier category who participate to make a little bit of extra money on the side. In
addition to those who are currently acting as providers, PwC found that, in 2014, 51% of people who
were familiar with the sharing economy could see themselves becoming providers in the next two years
(WSJ 2015). This means that not only are people aware of the changing economy, but they are also
beginning to recognize opportunities for employment. Airbnb, an accommodation rental service, hosts
about 425,000 guests on average per night, about 22% more than Hilton Worldwide. The collaborative
economy has grown to a level where it is threatening established corporations and even industries.

Controversy arises when questioning the future of jobs: while some argue that the sharing economy is
generating jobs, others say that is deteriorating employment opportunities. A Wall Street Journal article
references, Andrew Keen, a British American entrepreneur and author, who states, In reality, todays
sharing economyat least in its current Silicon Valley 1.0 versionisnt providing high-quality, secure
jobs at all. Instead, it is compounding the increasingly precarious nature of 21st-century labor and
creating a new class of networked workers: the precariat. In other words, Keen argues that the new
companies making up the sharing economy are eliminating stable, traditional employment and replacing
it with part-time jobs (WSJ 2015). These new jobs often lack benefits like insurance and vacations that
are associated with full-time work. Further, there are fewer laws and regulations, like those regarding

10

minimum wage. Opponents of the sharing economy see it as a threat to currently employed workers
who could find themselves out of jobs in the near future.
Many argue the reverse - that the sharing economy is creating more jobs than it is destroying. Rachel
Botsman, the global thought leader of the collaborative economy, explains that the sharing economy is
empowering millions of people to unlock the value of their time, skills, and talents to make money in
ways and on a scale never possible before (WSJ 2015). She refers to these new workers as
micropreneurs and argues that the sharing economy is simply changing the definition of a good job. In
response to concern about fewer employment benefits, Botsman says that the sharing economy is not
the source of these issues and that they are natural in the historical cycle of technological innovation
outpacing employment law. In addition, social safety nets are already emerging. For example,
TaskRabbit has a minimum wage higher than any state minimum wage, some United States guilds are
looking for ways for workers to unite and gain discounted group benefits, and certain companies are
looking into sharing equity with their providers.
Bloomberg published a study with data to understand the differences between Uber and Airbnb workers
and the rest of the population. The chart below illustrates the median hourly earnings of sharing
economy workers and their non-sharing
equivalents. This graphic illustrates that,
on average, providers in the sharing
economy are making higher hourly rates
than their non-sharing counterparts. In
fact, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the median hourly wage in
the sharing economy was $18 per hour
compared to a $17.09 median of all
other occupations in 2014. However,
Bloomberg recognizes that this data
does not show the entire story. Sharing-
economy providers may be working
fewer hours total and paying bills, such as car insurance. Overall, the data shows that sharing economy
workers are, in fact, being treated well and earning generous wages compared to non-sharing economy
counterparts (Bloomberg 2015).

11

However, while much of the current research on the collaborative economy focuses on the users and
providers, it is important to understand the other parties involved. In the following pages, the
stakeholders involved in the collaborative economy are analyzed based on influence and interest levels.

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
a: part-time providers
b: unemployed individuals
c: participants
d: government
e: full-time providers
f: start-up headquarters
g: blue-collar workers
h: traditional corporations
As mentioned above, there are many
stakeholders in the collaborative
economy. The stakeholder diagram to
the left identifies the different parties
involved; it also shows their relative
influence and interest in comparison to
the other stake stakeholders.
a. PART-TIME PROVIDERS
The collaborative economy is heavily made up of laborers with only part-time jobs who seek a
supplement to their income. These part-time workers have little to no disposable income; thus,
they have a higher propensity to get involved in the sporadic jobs of a collaborative economy.
While part-time employees may have a high level of interest, they do not have quite as much
influence because they fulfill the opportunities created by the founders of the sharing economy.
b. UNEMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS
Unemployed workers have high interest in the collaborative economy because they are
potential employees. While they may not be able to generate a full income, the collaborative
economy could be a source of funds for them. However, their influence is relatively low
because the collaborative economy still operates without them.

12


c. PARTICIPANTS
One of the biggest influences on the collaborative economy is the participants, also known as
the customers using these services. Many of the ideas behind the shared-economy companies
stem from consumers wants and needs and, as a result, the participants reaction to each
product or service is highly influential. Additionally, because participants are the ones who
demanded the service, their interest is also very high.
d. GOVERNMENT
One potential important stakeholder when considering the expansion of the shared economy is
the government. Most of the companies that fall under the umbrella of the collaborative
economy are self-regulated, with policies outlined and not audited. This could make possible the
rise of issues like tax evasion and safety of consumers and providers. As a result, the
government may need to intervene in the future and, at that time, they would have a significant
amount of influence and interest.
e. FULL-TIME PROVIDERS
Full-time providers, or people who use the collaborative economy as their sole source of
income, have equal levels of influence and interest as part-time providers. These people
function on less stable incomes without any backup but have often built up significant networks
because of the time they commit to this business model - as a result, their good reviews make
them trustworthy in the eyes of users and can therefore generate more income.
f. START-UP HEADQUARTERS
Many of the most influential and interested stakeholders in the collaborative economy are the
founders of the startups designed with the collaborative model. These are the innovators who
are at the forefront of the focus on sharing across the community and the people who are most
conscious of the other stakeholders.
g. BLUE COLLAR WORKERS
Blue collar workers are heavily interested in the collaborative economy because their jobs are
being directly affected by sharing companies, and in some cases eliminated. With the increase in
consumer preference to use applications such as TaskRabbit and Uber, blue collar workers are
getting less business for services they rely on to make a living. Whats worse, though, is that

13

these workers have very little influence on the collaborative economy and cant do much to
counteract its effects.
h. TRADITIONAL CORPORATIONS
The traditional structure of large corporations is threatened by the rapid growth of the
collaborative marketplace. By introducing more appealing products and services at better prices,
the collaborative companies are able to steal business away from the standard market leaders.
As a result, traditional corporations have significant interest in the collaborative economy but
much less influence - to have an impact, major overhauls would be necessary and very
expensive.
It should be noted that the categories of stakeholders can easily overlap. An example of this
would be an Uber driver (part-time or full-time provider) who stays at an Airbnb, making the
driver a participant as well. While this overlap is important to acknowledge, the distinction
between the various stakeholders is crucial to have an effective analysis.
FORCES OF CHANGE
Forces changing the current system include advancements and accessibility of technology, desire for
community and increased trust, changes in unemployment rate, and ownership preferences.

14

ADVANCEMENT AND ACCESSIBILITY OF TECHNOLOGY

The first major technological advancement allowing for ease of information accessibility was
IBMs invention of the first smartphone, Simon, in 1994, followed later by Apples iPhone in
2007. The invention of the smartphone and the ability for people to always be online has
connected the world and allowed the sharing economy to prosper (Rick 2013). Smartphones
have experienced a rapid increase in adoption by people worldwide since the invention of the
device, and the expected number of users in the United States by 2025 (Statista 2015). This
adoption is heavily driven by the millennial generation, who currently make up a large portion of
the main contributors and users of the collaborative economy.
DESIRE FOR COMMUNITY AND INCREASED TRUST
Next, societal changes are driving the rise of the collaborative economy. Primarily, people are
trending towards a desire to have a strong community. The sharing economy relies on trust
among strangers and sharing with each other for mutually beneficial outcomes. People are
enjoying the fact that this new economic format allows individuals to have more personal
relationships with their transactions, whether it be staying with a local host in a foreign country
or meeting the craftsman who made your product on Etsy.
CHANGES IN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
A major driving force is a rising level of unemployment in the economy, which was especially
prevalent during and after the 2008 recession when many people were forced to find alternative
means of income. With an increasing number of people searching for jobs, positions in sharing
companies allowed for employees to offer or rent out their available services and resources for
a decent rate, while giving employees the flexibility to search for other means of income.
OWNERSHIP PREFERENCES
In general, people are shifting their ownership preferences by increasing sharing and reducing
their personal possessions. As peoples ownership preferences change, the collaborative
economy has more opportunities for growth. As long as the alternatives the collaborative
economy provides are cheaper and higher quality than the corresponding industrys
competitors, these collaborative economy startups can be successful. For example, Ubers value
and convenience can surpass that of owning ones own car (KPMG 2015). In addition, one can
also usually find a room to rent on Airbnb for a lower price than a nearby hotel or apartment
rental (Rick 2013).

15

FORECASTING STRATEGY
UNITS OF MEASURE OF THE IMPACT OF THE COLLABORATIVE ECONOMY
Two potential units of measure for the impact of the collaborative economy include the number
of people who are employed by the collaborative economy and the unemployment rate.
Looking at these two factors together will reveal a relationship between the number of workers
in the new industry and any changes in employment rates. The number of people who are
employed by the collaborative economy will change simultaneously with the size of the sharing
economy, making this a relevant unit of measurement. Examining the amount of employees at
individual firms in the sharing economy both currently and at different points in history will
provide data to support changes in the size of the collaborative economy over time.

It will also be important to examine the unemployment rate by industry. This will provide clear
insights on the relationship of any change in the unemployment rate to a specific industrys
changes in the collaborative economy. For example, looking at the unemployment rate for the
transportation industry is a direct way to study employment changes in transportation and
allows for a comparison to developments in the sharing economys companies like Uber. The
unemployment rate as a unit of measurement also takes account for discouraged workers,
marginally attached workers, and workers who are part time for economic reasons. All of these
types of unemployment play a role in measuring the collaborative economy.

INDICATORS OF THE GROWTH OF THE COLLABORATIVE ECONOMY
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
The collaborative economy is affected by various independent variables, which are
external forces of change on the collaborative economy. One of the most important
independent variables is the government because the government has the power to
pass legislation that is either in favor of or against collaborative businesses. Another
important independent variable is innovation and technological advancement; these
factors could have significant impact in terms of the reach and convenience of
collaborative applications, so understanding any changes is vital. For example, before
the availability of the App Store and i-Fi connection, calling an Uber from your cellphone
was not even remotely feasible; now, its natural. Lastly, the state of the economy is an
independent variable that affects peoples need for employment and ability to spend.
This is a factor that must be observed in all topics, but especially with the collaborative

16

economy. In terms of societal factors, user preferences and trends change over time
and impact customer interests - this will dictate the success of each individual company.
These independent variables are often the triggers that bring about the dependent
variables, which are discussed below.

DEPENDENT VARIABLES
If the collaborative economy were to experience positive growth, expansion should be
expected and measured within collaborative companies and the collaborative economy
itself. The collaborative economy is currently in its very early stages of growth, and if
this trend were to increase, it is expected that the number of collaborative companies
would also grow. Another indicator would be an increase in the number of people
registering for these companies smartphone applications. Next, if a shared companys
consumer base continues to expand, it is expected that the companys value will have
measurable growth. This in turn relates to the income level of an employee of a
collaborative company. The development of collaborative companies is indicative of an
increase in job opportunities, specifically for workers in the lower-income bracket who
will benefit from new outlets for their underutilized skills and resources. The last
indicator is the value of the collaborative economy itself. Currently, it is valued at
around $110 billion by experts in the field (Burnett 2014). If the mentioned indicators
grow, it is expected that the value of the collaborative economy will grow
proportionally.
SUPPORTING RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The following are questions about the collaborative economy that help to examine its impact on
various aspects of society. Detailed research on these questions will be beneficial to the analysis
of potential future scenarios.
1. How has the technological breakthrough of the past few decades affected the expansion
of the collaborative economy?
2. Is there conclusive evidence to prove that the collaborative economy is sustainable,
based upon geographic and societal implications?
3. How greatly does the shift to more accessible and affordable services and products
affect current industries?

17

POTENTIAL UNCERTAINTIES
One major uncertainty that will potentially affect the outcome of the collaborative economy is
how people employed by these sharing companies will react to their lack of benefits and
protection. Currently, they do not receive any benefits, which could be motivation for them to
band together; this formation of a new type of union could be detrimental to the collaborative
economy, as much of its structure relies on the minimization of overhead costs. The lack of
history on this type of business structure will be harmful in any attempt to project where
workers mindsets will land with regards to organizing themselves.

18

VI. EVIDENCE-BASED BASELINE FORECAST: SHARING IS CARING

The expected scenario of the collaborative economy in the next ten years is Sharing is Caring, or growth.
In this situation, as discussed in the baseline forecasts, current trends continue. Technology continues to
advance and become more widespread. Not only are an increasing amount of people gaining access to
technology, primarily smartphones, but a greater number of people are also developing a persistent
usage of social media. Other technological advancements such as wearable technology (i.e. smart
watches) facilitate the boom of the collaborative economy. In addition, in the growth scenario, the
economy and society continue to provide a favorable environment for collaborative companies. Both
providers and participants adopt peer-to-peer interactions as the dominant style of doing business as
opposed to the past conventional structure of business-to-consumer interactions. This dependency
requires that society builds trust in the collaborative economy to ensure a reliable, safe environment.
Therefore, the expectations set for the usage of the collaborative structure are higher than the initial
outset, causing a surge in the quality of the goods and services provided.
A steady yearly increase in marginal growth is anticipated as the sharing economy become widespread
across large parts of the population including the lower-income communities. This involves full access in
all parts of urban areas and availability in suburbs with the demand to support the collaborative
platform. Growth is expected in the coming years because of the potential for the collaborative
economy to expand into new, unexpected communities, and to new geographic areas in general. Most
suburbs do not have the same accessibility to collaborative services as cities. The collaborative economy
has the potential to alter the services offered to specifically cater to lower-income communities.
Catering to a variety of users needs expands the customer base and success of the sharing economy.

The Sharing is Caring scenario provides a positive outlook on the future of the collaborative economy.
With favorable technological, social, and economic factors, new and existing collaborative companies
will thrive and empower the lower-income community as micropreneurs. Sean Ness, from the Institute
for the Future, predicts even if some people are being laid off traditional jobs, the decline will be slow
and allow people time to get retrained for the plethora of other job opportunities created by the
collaborative economy.
Advancement and Accessibility of Technology
The rise of smartphones and social media have created the perfect environment for the collaborative
economy to thrive. In the last five years, the number of smartphone users in the United States has more
than tripled, as shown by the graph below (Statista 2015). Consumers are looking for faster connectivity

19

to each other as well as to everyday services. This connectivity and frequent usage is how the
collaborative economy continues to speed up its rate of development. Consequently, the projected
growth of smartphone usage to the year 2025 indicates a higher accessibility to the collaborative
companies platforms.

Source: eMarketer
The quickly increasing trend in smartphone users supports the idea that technology has reached a new
community of users. As years have gone on since the smartphones initial introduction; the technology
has become more accessible to lower-income groups. This technology enables low-income communities
to take part in the collaborative economy and use its opportunities to their advantage.

20

Source: Pew Research Center

The expansion of technological innovation is a primary contributor to the increasing usage of social
media. This method of human connection is still relatively new, yet it has impeded on everyday aspects
of life; users are bombarded with ways to connect on social media through laptops, smartphones, iPods,
and wearable technology. Included above is a projection based upon data found from Pew Research
Center regarding the past and future ten years trends of social media usage, in terms of income
brackets. The projection demonstrates that while the higher income groups may have a larger rate of
participation in social media, the lower-income group is not left in the dust, and overall internet-based
connectivity is rapidly increasing (Pew 2015).
Desire for Community and Increased Trust
An essential driver of the collaborative economys successful hold on society is consumer involvement,
facilitated by social media, which constantly becomes more deeply embedded into everyday life. This
increase in users and their desire for connection exemplifies the trend will remain constant in the future
to drive the success of the collaborative economy.
In the Sharing is Caring baseline scenario, sharing becomes the new buying and ones reputation and
developed trust (e.g. customer Uber reviews) are of utmost importance. The collaborative economy has

21

undergone rapid transformation. Five years ago, the idea of sharing an apartment with a stranger would
have shocked the average person. Today, the idea of the sharing services is still intriguing, but the idea
has lost its shock-value to consumers and serves as a mere source of income. Consumers are likely to
know family or friends who have had positive experiences with the sharing economy. This trust built up
over years is expected to continue and will eliminate the hesitancy of consumers to use collaborative
economy. When consumers are more comfortable using services they will not second guess their
decision to use the services in the collaborative economy. Evidence of the shift in societal preferences
driven by consumer trust can be found in the rapid surge of collaborative economy participants. The
graph below exemplifies the dramatic increase in Airbnb users in the past years (McAlone 2015). The
trend is expected to continue past the year 2015 coinciding with the consumers increased trust toward
collaborative companies.

Although there may be minor issues in the collaborative economy that go against this trust between the
industry and consumers, these expected incidents will be relatively minor and not significant enough to
completely destroy the trust in the sharing economy. For example, there was an incidence of an Uber
driver taking advantage of a female passenger (Schmadeke 2014). Unfortunately, incidents like these
occur in industries across the board. Consumers will not view this as a sharing economy specific issue
and overall trust is expected to continue to increase through overall positive experiences.

22

CHANGES IN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

For users, collaborative companies are becoming
an economic norm. However, the more
important economic factor to note is that the
collaborative economy is becoming more than
just a chance to get workers back on their feet;
people have begun to rely on these jobs for a
larger portion of their income. Due to increased
popularity, they are able to do so without much
consequence. As exemplified in this graph from
the Bureau of Labour Statistics, the percentage of
temporary workers in the United States is on the
rise (Business Insider 2015). The indicated decline
of private-sector unionization shows that the
power of trade unions is not as valuable as the
potential to make more money in combination
with a work schedule that fits busy lives. It seems that the growth of the flexible labor structure will
only continue: as some temporary workers have already have entered the collaborative space, its clear
that many more will follow. With this momentum, there will be a continued growth of collaborative
companies and an inverse decline in traditional structures.
SHIFTS IN OWNERSHIP PREFERENCES
According to this research by Michael Sivak from the University of Michigan, since 2004, car ownership
in the United States has declined. This is a result of many different factors; however, since the decline
happened before 2008, it cannot be attributed to the economic recession. Factors that could affect this
downward trend include: increased availability of ride providers, decreased willingness to pay car
ownership costs and increased affordability of pay per ride alternatives.
The increase in ride providers is likely due to the rise of the collaborative economy - with the growth of
services like Uber and Lyft, the chance of being able to secure an inexpensive, reliable ride at the exact
moment you need it is very high.
With regards to minimizing personal costs, a report by KPMG argues that car ownership is losing
popularity because, spending approximately $30k for an asset that loses 11% of its value the minute
you drive it off the lot and then sits idle more than 90% of the time isnt the most rational economic

23

decision (KPMG 2015). By utilizing car ownership substitutes, participants in the collaborative economy
avoid insurance, gas, and maintenance costs in addition to the initial capital investment.

Furthermore, because ridesharing startups provide cheaper rides than those provided by the taxicab
industry, participating in services such as Uber and Lyft have become an appealing and convenient
substitute to owning a car. According to Sivaks research, the typical 2-car household is becoming less of
a norm. In fact, that number is on a decreasing trend and is projected to continue to decline in the
future (Sivak 2013).

24

BUSINESS INSIGHTS
There are opportunities for both the collaborative and traditional economy in the Sharing is
Caring scenario. As explained previously in the growth scenario, both the traditional businesses
and sharing companies coexist. The two have the potential to work together and neither are
necessarily forced out of business. The sharing economy has the opportunity to utilize the
established structures of traditional companies to grow and gain popularity. Once these small
startups become successful, they have the potential to be major competitors for the traditional
businesses. In this scenario, people in low-income communities are given the opportunity to
grow with the collaborative economy.
The main risk for the Sharing is Caring scenario is the increased competition in the industry. As
new startups and already successful companies in the collaborative economy continue to excel
at a constant rate, they will eventually pose a challenge for each other.
When considering the risks and opportunities associated with this growth scenario, stakeholders
must keep in mind significant ethical considerations. Especially in this scenario, as the
collaborative economy is growing at a constant rate it is essential that there is trust in the
sharing of goods and services. Because the collaborative economy is built upon trust, new
startup companies must continue to increase their credibility as their companies expand.

25

VII. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE FUTURE SCENARIOS

The collaborative economy has three other alternative future scenarios in addition to the baseline,
which can each have different effects on the low-income community. Because major technological,
societal, and economic transitions are likely in the next ten years within the collaborative economy, the
inductive method is ideal for scenario analysis. The steps in inductive scenario development are
identifying the key forces of change, explore disruptions in each force, mapping forces into four
scenarios, developing stories, and defining signposts.
There remain residual uncertainties, however. This report analyzes the potential effects of changes in
the aforementioned forces of change but does not touch on the potential implications of changing
global climates. Additionally, this report assumes that no catastrophic natural disasters will affect the
business opportunities available in the United States.
The four possible futures of the collaborative economy are as follows: Sharing is Caring (Growth),
Collaboration Nation (Transformation), Corruption Destruction (Collapse), and Limitation Frustration
(Constraint). They are summarized in the following charts and in the three alternative scenarios that are
discussed in detail in the following pages.

Above is a consolidated graph of the four potential future scenarios.

26

27

TRANSFORMATION: COLLABORATION NATION

Collaboration Nation is a societal shift triggered by technology. The number of participants in the
collaborative economy takes off at an exponential rate.

The general population will rely solely on the work of independent contractors associated with big
business, like those of Airbnb, TaskRabbit, and Uber. No longer are there large hotel chains or taxi
companies because the significant overhead costs of operation drove them out of business
collaborative economies undercut them one too many times in pricing wars. As a result of their
monopolistic tendencies, these businesses have found ways to infiltrate homes, public streets, and
transportation hubs with convenience buttons. One major signal indicating this scenario is the growing
popularity around Amazons Dash Buttons, which order products to a persons home with the click of a
button.
In Collaboration Nation, when someone walks out of the airport terminal and needs a hotel, there are
kiosks linked to Airbnbs website that help them find what theyre looking for and, when a person needs
a ride from one side of town to the other to get to this hotel, they can simply hit a button on the nearest
light post and Uber sends a driver their way. Even around their own home home, there will be little
buttons that enable users to ask for help without actually calling a service. Everything will be linked to
these small easy request controls and the collaborative economy will be a natural part of everyday life.

28

As a result, commonly-accepted norms, for example, everyone in a neighborhood owning a car will be
lost to history nobody needs the expenses associated with this if they can simply borrow the resources
of someone nearby.
The significant growth of the collaborative economy, while extremely convenient, also enables low-
income people to work on their own time using the skills they already possess. While traditional jobs
may no longer exist, the people who worked in said jobs are now relied upon to be the sole suppliers of
many services.

29

BUSINESS INSIGHTS
In the Collaboration Nation scenario, several opportunities arise for the rapidly growing startup
companies, their gig workers, and in areas of technological development. The startups are
expected to take off, providing gig employees with more opportunities than ever before.
Technological advancements will provide the a new and improved platform to drive the success
of the collaborative economy. These opportunities are especially beneficial to those in low-
income communities. In this scenario,
the collaborative economy successfully
provides new ways to increase income
using underutilized skills and services.
An artifact from the future, Zamazon,
exemplifies
the
technological
developments and the potential to
instantaneously rent anything from
around the world. In Collaboration
Nation new opportunities arise in
spaces never thought of before.
There are also risks associated with this transformation scenario. One major risk is over-
dependency on the collaborative economy. For example, the headline below could be a realistic
problem in the near future.
February 07, 2016: During Super Bowl, Homeowners sleep on street while Airbnb renters
sleep in their home.
In addition, lack of forward planning will negatively affect traditional businesses, as consumers
expect their needs to be instantaneously met by the services in the collaborative economy.
Instead of booking a hotel in advance, travelers will do last minute Airbnb rentals.
In the Collaboration Nation scenario, it is important to consider the ethical issues surrounding
the potential rise of monopolies. Once one or two companies have the bulk of the market share,
they have control over the consumers who depend on their services.

30

COLLAPSE: CORRUPTION DESTRUCTION

The Corruption Destruction scenario illustrates a collapse of the collaborative economy as triggered by
mainstream media reporting crimes associated with major players. For a short period of time the
collaborative economy is growing rapidly. Then, an event triggers its rapid downfall.

This caused many people to lose trust in this type of business structure because it asks consumers to
place their trust in strangers; one has to have a certain level of faith to feel comfortable spending a night
in a strangers home. Hundreds of thousands of people have had positive experiences using the
collaborative economy, but one terrible experience can turn the public against a company and change
the populations view on this business structure.
Already, there have been some signposts indicating this scenario. In November of 2014, an Uber Driver
assaulted an intoxicated female passenger before driving her home, raising questions about the
screening done for these drivers and causing many to lose trust for fear of being the next victim
(Schmadeke 2014). Airbnb has other horror stories, ranging from listing and renting fake addresses
online to charging high prices at the last minute (Bradford 2014). These types of interactions can put
the whole realm of the collaborative economy in a bad light.

31

In addition to physical crime, there is also potential for cyber crime. For example, prestigious
corporations, like Target, have recently been victims of large hacking schemes to steal private credit
card information. This could just as easily happen to a smaller collaborative business, causing users to be
wary of uploading their credit card information online, a prerequisite for many collaborative services
offered. In addition, people know how to manipulate the internet to make things different than they
appear. Whether that means staging Airbnb pictures to make a shack look like a mansion, or improving
your profile by hiding bad reviews, there is much room for deception.
According to Tawanna Dillahunt, an expert from the University of Michigans Social Innovation Group,
another factor that may compromise peoples trust in the collaborative economy is that of
discrimination. For example, according to a report on Airbnb discrimination by the Harvard Business
School, it was discovered that non African-American Airbnb hosts are able to charge approximately 12%
more than African American hosts, while holding location, rental characteristics, and quality constant
(Edelman 2014). In addition, African American hosts receive a larger price penalty for having a poor
location score relative to non-African American hosts. Companies like TaskRabbit also have potential for
discrimination, where consumers select whom they want to hire based off of a profile. If collaborative
companies are unable to prevent such discrimination, they will be at risk of losing customer trust and
loyalty.
In this collapse scenario, physical violence, cyber crimes, and discriminatory acts causes people to
completely lose trust in the commons. If the collaborative economy collapses, many of the providers,
who fall into the low-income classification, will suffer. People will be out of work and the once
empowered micropreneur will be searching high and low to revert back former sources of
employment.

32

BUSINESS INSIGHTS
While the Corruption Destruction scenario is mostly negative, the decline of the collaborative
economy does provide an upside for traditional business. For example, hotels and taxi services
will feel less threatened and gain back market share. With the collapse of the collaborative
economy comes a rise in unemployment due to the failure of the companies who operate in this
space. As a result, those low-income workers with limited skill sets will face a competitive job
market and likely remain unemployed for a significant period of time.
The biggest risk in the corruption destruction scenario is that there is so much crime that
collaborative economy startups have tainted reputations. People lose trust in the collaborative
economy and the startups cannot overcome their reputational damage. An example headline is
the following:
January 19, 2016, Bomb detonates in Uber car in Chicago, driver and passengers are
hospitalized and in critical condition. This is the third incident today - investigations are
under way.
An ethical issue in corruption destruction is how many crimes have to occur before action is
taken: what is the tipping point? In addition, what types of intervention will companies do to
make sure these issues do not happen? It is important to resolve issues properly and make sure
that the company responds in an honest way to the public.

33

CONSTRAINT: LIMITATION FRUSTRATION

Limitation Frustration is an alternative future that is based on the idea that the government will see the
extreme growth of the collaborative economy as a threat to traditional businesses and, in turn, the
economy. As a result of this trigger, legislators will pass new regulations that severely limit how these
innovative businesses function and how their structures fit into traditional law. In this scenario, the
number of participants in the collaborative economy gradually drops off.

One early indicator of this scenario is San Franciscos proposal to limit the amount of nights an Airbnb
host can rent out their space each year, which was a response to Airbnbs effect on the areas hotel
industry (Kokalitcheva 2015). Another indicator of this future is StrideHealth, a startup partnering with
collaborative companies to provide their employees with insurance, because this shows that the
companies may be starting to feel pressure about providing job benefits (Farr 2015).
In this scenario, the collaborative economy initially experiences significant growth people realize how
cost-effective it is to use these services. Instead of calling a repairman to fix their leaky sink, someone
uses an app to hire the man from a few blocks over to do the same job. Taxi cabs are so expensive that
people stop using their services because its cheaper to catch a ride downtown with someone whos
already headed that way. Paying for a hotel room when arriving at midnight and leaving at 6am is

34

ridiculous - theres no point in paying for amenities that they dont get to use, so people opt to sleep on
a strangers couch for significantly less.
As a result of this increased demand, more people become providers. With the extreme inequality of
pay that plagues the United States, people need to work multiple jobs just to get by, and when an
industry becomes lucrative, everyone wants to get involved. However, because the majority of these
workers are classified as independent contractors, these businesses are putting their providers at risk by
not giving them standard benefits. Should a person decide to be a provider full-time and leave their
more traditional job behind, they no longer have any of the benefits that are afforded to them by law.
Consequently, the government enacts more laws that limit the ability of these collaborative businesses
to grow. Additionally, since these businesses are threatening industries that employ many people, the
government limits certain operations, such as in the case of San Francisco as mentioned above. After
regulations are put into place, the collaborative economys growth stunts and a balance between the
collaborative economy and the traditional economy is established.
Overall, this scenario is initially beneficial for the low-income population, but then becomes harmful. At
first, the government regulations would help the low-income population by giving them a security
blanket of benefits. However, once such regulations are in place, the collaborative economy will not be
what it once was. It will essentially revert back to a traditional format and the businesses will need to
take larger portions of a suppliers pay in order to afford the benefits mandated by the government -
this takes the worker back to where they started.

35

BUSINESS INSIGHTS
In the Limitation Frustration scenario, existing business structures are being protected as
collaborative companies are trending towards those pre-existing structures. Further, there is
opportunity for collaborative companies who can address issues up front. The ability to enter
into the market having already addressed the issues will provide a competitive advantage. In
addition, there could be an opportunity for a new line of work in solving the issues and
regulations. One example is a new type of insurance company that provides insurance to gig
workers.
However, Limitation Frustration also comes with many risks for the collaborative economy. The
headline below is something that could soon become a reality.
September 16th, 2017: San Francisco makes short term renting Illegal, Airbnb forced out
of city. If regulations like this are created, the collaborative economy will suffer.
Ethically, it is important that certain regulations are in place. For example, it is important that
gig workers are properly insured and respected in the workplace. The government needs to find
the fine line between protecting workers rights and destroying the collaborative economy.

36

VIII. CONCLUSION
Overall, it is expected that as far as 10 years into the future, technological developments, changes in
consumer preferences and trust, changes in the unemployment rate, and changes in ownership
preferences will heavily impact the collaborative economy and people of low-income status. The
growth in the Sharing and Caring strategy is expected and preferred. This strategy leads to a robust and
thriving economy that encourages technological innovation, creates a friendly atmosphere for both new
and old collaborative businesses to thrive, and empowers people of lower-income status to use their
skillsets to their advantage.
Despite the promise of the Sharing and Caring scenario, it is also as possible for the other scenarios to
take place. In the Collaboration Nation Scenario, growth is also expected as advances in technology
change the way business and personal interactions are conducted. However, in this situation, the
collaborative lifestyle becomes fully integrated into society as the public relies on independent
contractors, resulting in the elimination of the traditional business models that we know today.
Corruption Destruction forecasts major crimes in the news that would cause participants to lose trust in
the commons. A lack of trust means that the collaborative economy would decline and eventually
business would revert to its traditional form. Finally, Limitation Frustration would see a gradual decline
in the collaborative economy as a result of government regulations that hinder its development.
Regardless of the route that the collaborative economy takes, it is clear that this economic structure will
have a significant impact on the low-income bracket in the future - in some cases it will be beneficial,
while in others it will be harmful.

37

IX. REFERENCES
WORKS CITED
Botsman, R. (2012, June 11). The Currency of the New Economy is Trust [video].
Bradford, Harry. "Most Airbnb Rentals Go Perfectly. Then There Are These Horror Stories." The
Huffington Post. N.p., 29 July 2014. Web. 05 Nov. 2015.
Burnett, Leo. "The Sharing Economy: Where We Go from Here." The Sharing Economy: Where We Go
From Here (2014): n. pag. Leo Burnett Company, Inc., Nov. 2014. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.
Can the Sharing Economy Provide Good Jobs? (2015, May 10).
"Demographics." NCCP. The Trustees of Columbia University, 13 May 2015. Web. 30 Nov. 2015.
Dillahunt, T & Malone, A. (2015, April 1). The Promise of the Sharing Economy among Disadvantaged
Communities.
Edelman, Benjamin & Luca, Michael. Digital Discrimination: The Case of Airbnb.com. Harvard Business
School. 10 Jan. 2014. Web. 05 Nov. 2015.
Farr, Christina. "Stride Health: Gig Economy Band-Aid Or The New Social Contract?" Fast Company. N.p.,
03 Nov. 2015. Web. 05 Nov. 2015.
Kokalitcheva, Kia. "Airbnb to Face Voter Love and Hate in San Francisco. Fortune. N.p., 02 Nov. 2015.
Web. 05 Nov. 2015.
McAlone, Nathan. "This Chart Shows Exactly How Insane Airbnb's Growth Has Been over the past 5
Years." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc., 08 Sept. 2015. Web. 05 Nov. 2015.
Perrin, Andrew. "Social Media Usage: 2005-2015." Pew Research Center Internet Science Tech RSS. Pew
Research Center, 08 Oct. 2015. Web. 05 Nov. 2015.
Rick, T. (2013, August 23). The drivers behind the rise of the collaborative economy.
Rossa, J., & Riley, A. (2015, June 15). These Charts Show How the Sharing Economy Is Different.
Retrieved October 2, 2015. The Sharing Economy. (n.d.).
Schmadeke, Steve, and Michelle Manchir. "Prosecutors: UberX Driver Assaulted Intoxicated Female
Passenger." Chicago Tribune. N.p., 30 Dec. 2014. Web. 05 Nov. 2015.
Silberg, Gary. "Me, My Car, My Life... in the Ultraconnected Age." Me, My Car, My Life (2015): Iii-9.
KPMG. KMPG, 2014. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.
"Smartphone Users in the US 2010-2018 | Statistic." Statista. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.
"The 'On-Demand Economy' Is Reshaping Companies And Careers."Business Insider. Business Insider,
Inc, 04 Jan. 2015. Web. 18 Nov. 2015.
"There's an App for That." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 03 Jan. 2015. Web. 05 Nov. 2015.
Time Traveler. "Artifact From the Future: Sharing with Drones." Institute From the Future. IFTF, 3 Dec.
2013. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.

38

Weissmann, Jordan, and Michael Sivak. "Crash: The Decline of U.S. Driving in 6 Charts." The Atlantic.
Atlantic Media Company, 15 Nov. 2013. Web. 02 Dec. 2015.
EXPERT CONTRIBUTIONS
Mia de Villa, mia@thecollaborativelab.com
Mia de Villa is a colleague of Rachel Botsman, the thought leader on the collaborative economy,
whom the team was referred to by Botsmans personal assistant. De Villa is a project
coordinator at Collaborative Lab, an organization said to be the global experts on the
collaborative economy and how it will transform the way we live, work, bank, and consume.
She has also contributed to collaborativeconsumption.com with articles that bring together the
most important collaborative economy news of the week.
Communication Log:
9/13/15: Team reached out to Rachel Botsman
9/15/15: Response from personal assistant, who referred team to de Villa
9/16/15: Team made contact de Villa who offered to help once given specific questions
and referred team to papers on the topic
9/17/15: Team supplied de Villa with questions
9/17/15: de Villa pointed team in the direction of helpful resources
Tawanna Dillahunt, tdillahu@umich.edu
Tawanna Dillahunt is an Assistant Professor of Information at the University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor and the head of the Social Innovations Group there. She completed her Ph.D. at the
Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University and has been the recipient
of multiple related awards, including the IBM Ph.D. Fellowship (2011, 2012) and the Fran Allen
IBM Ph.D. Fellowship Award (2011). Dillahunt also served on the program committee for the
Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society in 2011. Dillahunt, in conjunction with Amelia
Malone, investigates the feasibility of finding temporary employment using sharing economy
principles, among other things. They even identified success factors and shortcomings of the
digital sharing economy for a population living in a United States city that faces economic
decline. In addition to reading their research paper, we had the chance to speak on the phone
with Tawanna Dillahunt. She provided the team with many insights and opinions on the
collaborative economy.

Communication Log:
9/30/15: Team reached out to Tawanna and Amy

39

10/01/15: Team heard back from Tawanna and Amy who offered to set up a call
10/15/15: Team spoke to Tawanna on the phone
10/15/15: Team followed up with Tawanna who supplied additional research
Sean Ness, sness@iftf.org
Sean Ness oversees business development at Institute for the Future in Palo Alto, CA. He focuses
on Technology Horizons and the Ten-Year Forecast Programs. Sean acted as a mentor and
helped to guide research and explain a variety of techniques to approach the question at hand.
Sean emphasized the Institute for the Futures qualitative approach to future forecasts through
exploring numerous possibilities with the workable futures initiative. He explained the
importance of suggesting a range of possibilities and examining who wins, loses, and benefits in
each scenario because prediction is impossible. Sean also suggested the alternative future
scenarios stem from growth, collapse, transformation and discipline or constraint.

Communication Log:

10/12/15: Professor Miller introduced team to Sean Ness over email

10/12/15: Sean Ness reached out and team set up a phone call

10/27/15: Phone call and follow up with Sean Ness
David Kastelman, Uber Headquarters Employee, david.kastelman@gmail.com
David Kastelman graduated from Yale in 2013 and now works in Business Operations at Uber
Headquarters in San Francisco, California. He runs data tests on usage of Uber services. David
helped provide our team with insights on the collaborative economy, especially where he could
see it going ten years out into the future. He mentioned the idea of increased peer-to-peer
instruction (cooking, guitar), collaborative full-time housing options (communes, co-habitation),
and the lack of car ownership, especially in cities. He also pointed out some challenges that Uber
is and will continue to face, the primary obstacle being regulations. Secondly, Uber is trying to
encourage more passengers to share seats with other customers. This would allow for increased
business opportunity, especially for those who live in suburbs. Finally, another challenge is
preparing the company for a time when cars can drive themselves.
9/30/15: Team reached out to David Kastelman
10/03/15: David responded saying he would be happy to speak with us
10/27/15: Team sent questions to David over email
10/29/15: David responded with insights from his perspective

40

Jacob Thebault-Spieker, thebault@cs.umn.edu

We were referred to Jacob Thebault-Spiekers work by another expert we reached out to, a
professor from the University of Michigan, Tawanna Dillahunt. Jacob is in his 5th year as a PhD
student at the University of Minnesota. Jacobs study is about the geographical implications
regarding crowdsourcing. The work is entitled, Avoiding the South Side and the Suburbs: The
Geography of Mobile Crowdsourcing Markets. Their results show that areas of lower
socioeconomic status are less able to take advantage of mobile crowdsourcing. In our
communication with Jacob, he elaborated on his study and about what the potential
implications are if collaboration becomes the future of work.
Communication Log:

10/27/15: Team reached out to Jacob and co-collaborators with questions

10/28/15: Jacob responded with extensive answers to questions posed
10/30/15: Team followed up with Jacob

41

X. Appendix

Timeline Progression Map

42