Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 28 Next »


The Platform for Economic Inclusion is a multi-sided global pull-market platform that aims to address unmet needs by connecting consumers at the margins with producers and suppliers at the margins. The platform puts focus on reducing barriers to market entry for indie developers, small enterprise and youth entrepreneurs and providing training and engagement opportunities for unemployed youth.


Related Projects:


Project Outside In

P4A Design Community Workshop. Dec.2014


1Design Process

Briefly introduce P4A Stakeholders, value propositions and use cases


P4A Flow Chart

P4A Flow Chart-Functionalities

Explain the P4A Flow Chart and different sections of the system
Comments from the meeting:
  • Identify the parts that need to be created within the system and the parts that can be hosted and users can be pointed to other destinations (e.g. Do we really need to create accounts within the system or create networks or user can use their other networks and accounts to use P4A, etc.)
  • While identifying the components, try to keep the system as open and porous as possible
  • Clarify the purpose of developer's space. Is it going to be a part of the GPII unified listing or is it a separate section?
  • What is exactly the GPII market place and unified listing? are there two separate spaces or one unified place to advertise your services and market your product?
  • The Small, Medium and Large scale in the current usecases are defined based on the consumer's request, however, a small request may end up requiring great efforts to be accomplished.
  • Projects should be kept flexible, thus, a small project can evolve into larger projects or Vice Versa.
  • The line between 'Call to Actions' and 'Challenges' is blurry. Separating them may cause lots of confusion for the user when they create a project. It may be better to have one depository for all the projects. The differentiation can happen when these projects are being created. Depending on the type of information the consumer has provided while creating the projects they can have different importance scales.
  • Rethink the curation and approval process. We don't want any barriers for submitting a project to P4A,however, we don't want to overpopulate the platform either.
  • Instant Help requests can be used for evaluation and data collections or as an initial idea for further explorations and developing new products and services. For example, if there are too many small projects for image description, maybe an app could be developed to address this issue.
  • The Small, Medium and Large categorization is not just based on the scope, it is also based on complexity.
  • We have to be able to address immediacy in P4A (e.g. I want a description of this image right now otherwise it's not useful for me.)
  • Allow for anonymous accounts and consider the privacy issue (e.g. I don't want people to see all the P4A projects that I am associated with once the search my name or search a specific project.)
  • P4A is an expanded version of the Tetra Society of North America



P4A Design Community Workshop. Jan 14 .2015


1Quality Control

Apply usecases to discuss Quality Control Approaches for different P4A services including AoD, Media & Material, Developer's Space and GPII


Usecase: Arizona State Ministry of Transportation

Topic: How to ensure quality and consistency for projects that are split into chunks and done by several people?


  • Matching the service with people who have the required badges + Looking into feedback and reviews + Checking people's credentials
  • People who want to participate but do not have the required badge can be paired with a person who has the badge for mentorship opportunities
  • Feedback/reviews can be used as Micro-potential for payments
  • Creating virtual connected co-working spaces that allow for job sharing/ Personalized environments that allow people to connect with others that fit their team or project
  • In job sharing people can be teamed up based on their credentials/ past experiences
  • There could be an automated verification process for each chunk to increase consistency across several chunks (spell check, proof reading, etc)
  • Reviews should also tell you about the reviewer
  • Recognize contribution: measure based on ability to contribute rather than the amount of work that is done per week or so
  • Badges can be revokable, an annual check for the credentials may help to keep badges updated.
  • Work can be split based on type rather than amount (i.e. instead of splitting a document based on the number of pages, split it to images that need description, tags, voice over, etc)

Usecase: Steven

Topic: How to approach quality Control in AoD scenarios (when user need feedback immediately)?


  • Building trust and preventing fraud is the big issue
  • The person who is asking for help doesn't have the same level of expertise as the person who is giving help. Thus, the reviewer may not be aware of what's happening when the service is provided.
  • Including additional approval steps
  • Controlling the quality and approving service provider in access points prior to the point of interaction between asker and provider
  • Look into Open Source Governance models
  • Have gatekeepers or members with trustworthy badges
  • New members who don't have a review or badge should be able to participate
  • Constraining the forms of AoD to lower risks types
  • Open risky functionalists only to people who are in your circle of trust
  • AoD can be a form of personalized GPII that only connects you to the certified people or services rather than providing them

Usecase: Marry

Topic: How to ensure the sources that are included in the developer's space follow have good quality?


  • The important point here is not the quality of pieces that are included in the open source, but it is the quality of training modules, instructions and tutorials that are provided for developers to make the best use of those pieces.
  • P4A should not be a gated community, it should be an open connection point that connects people and developers to the right people or services
  • The robustness of the open source repository comes from use over time
  • system should be able to backtrack all the changes and edits (version control)
  • P4A should not force people to leave their communities. It should enable them to connect these communities and create these bigger communities. It should simply be the facilitator.



  • No labels