A Connected Architecture for U.S. Corp-to-Corp Staffing: Representation, Rate Traceability, and Workforce Operations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56830/IJSIE202612Keywords:
corp-to-corp staffing, workflow architecture, right to represent, rate traceability, human oversightAbstract
The architecture described here is targeted at the U.S. market for corp-to-corp (C2C) staffing services. Requirements, representation agreements and negotiation of the rates to be paid are frequently spread out over email threads and messaging groups. Approach. A practitioner-informed conceptual design for such recruitment is developed here from the founder’s descriptions of his current workflow, supplemented by a focused narrative discussion of recruitment accountability, explainable AI and human oversight. The design here comprises six stages. Architecture. A candidate signs the right-to-represent (RTR) agreement(s) for that candidate’s submission and the employing organization acknowledges representation of the candidate(s) by the submitting organization(s). Where a subsequent rate change is negotiated with the candidate a new signature from that candidate is required. Unreadable screenshots require human review to evaluate agreement. A mismatch between the entered hours on a timesheet and the corresponding evidence uploaded by the employee (e.g. a photo of a time card) to verify those hours will block approval and, consequently, invoice transmission until that mismatch has been corrected by the employee. Status and Limitations. All of the features described here are under current development by the founder and there are currently bugs to be fixed. As far as has been reported, the integrated workflow described here has not yet undergone a structured evaluation and the diagrams provide logical components and controls to be developed and verified as required against a variety of test cases rather than a verified deployment topology. The paper reports no measured efficiency improvements, accuracy improvements, placement improvements or fairness improvements as yet.
References
Adadi, A., & Berrada, M. (2018). Peeking inside the black-box: A survey on explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). IEEE Access, 6, 52138–52160. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2870052.
Bertino, E., Ferrari, E., & Atluri, V. (1999). The specification and enforcement of authorization constraints in workflow management systems. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, 2(1), 65–104. https://doi.org/10.1145/300830.300837.
Buneman, P., Khanna, S., & Tan, W.-C. (2001). Why and where: A characterization of data provenance. In J. Van den Bussche & V. Vianu (Eds.), Database theory—ICDT 2001, (pp. 316–330). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44503-x_20.
Chen, Z. (2003). Ethics and discrimination in artificial intelligence-enabled recruitment practices. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), Article 567. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02079-x.
Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). Artificial intelligence for decision making in the era of Big Data – evolution, challenges and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 48, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.021.
Gebru, T. M. (2021). Datasheets for datasets. Communications of the ACM, 64(12), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1145/3458723.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Nonstandard employment relations: Part-time, temporary and contract work. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 341–365. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.341.
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174.
Mitchell, M., Wu, S., Zaldivar, A., Barnes, P., Vasserman, L., Hutchinson, B., et al. (2019). Model cards for model reporting. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, (pp. 220–229) Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287596.
Moreau, L., Groth, P., Miles, S., Vazquez-Salceda, J., Ibbotson, J., Jiang, S., et al. (2008). The provenance of electronic data. Communications of the ACM, 51(4), 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1145/1330311.1330323.
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.844354.
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302.
Raghavan, M., Barocas, S., Kleinberg, J., & Levy, K. (2020). Mitigating bias in algorithmic hiring: Evaluating claims and practices. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, (pp. 469–481). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372828.
Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation– augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072.
Sandhu, R. S., Coyne, E. J., Feinstein, H. L., & Youman, C. E. (1996). Role-based access control models. Computer, 29(2), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1109/2.485845.
Simmhan, Y. L., Plale, B., & Gannon, D. (2005). A survey of data provenance in e-science. ACM SIGMOD Record, 34(3), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/1084805.1084812.
Tolone, W., Ahn, G.-J., Pai, T., & Hong, S.-P. (2005). Access control in collaborative systems. ACM Computing Surveys, 37(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1145/1057977.1057979.
van der Aalst, W. M., ter Hofstede, A. H., Kiepuszewski, B., & Barros, A. P. (2003). Workflow patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 14(1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022883727209.
