This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Although the initial concept for the human cloud was to create an eBay-like marketplace for talent and labor, there were obstacles. The simple auction model seemed ill-suited for large, complex undertakings. The model was also often perceived as too risky by managers, who had a hard time developing "virtual"rapport with workers. Today, four new human cloud models have developed, each aiming to overcome these problems in a distinct way: 1. The Facilitator model connects suppliers and buyers directly through a bidding process but offers increased visibility into the supplier's identity and work processes. Elance and oDesk are examples of this model. 2. The Arbitrator model enables buyers to compare the inputs of multiple providers before choosing which to purchase. Arbitrator platforms such as CrowdSpring and InnoCentive follow this approach. 3. The Aggregator model breaks down a job, such as proofreading, translation, transcription or tagging, into tiny bits of work -microtasks -and finds workers willing to complete these tasks, sometimes in the context of a game. Platforms like Amazon Mechanical Turk and CrowdFlower offer such capabilities. 4. The most sophisticated model, the Governor, provides project management, supplier certification and quality control to assure qualified coordination and management of complex projects. The authors note that harnessing the human cloud's power will -as with earlier outsourcing waves -require hard work and learning. Buyers may find it helpful to think about managing a human cloud initiative much the same way that they manage the main phases of any outsourcing engagement.

In studying strategic information systems (IS) alignment, it is important to examine the associated processes over time rather than view alignment as an isolated event. This article focuses on how organizations undergo a series of interdependent changes in business strategy and IS strategy to increase the alignment between them. Based primarily on detailed case studies of changes over long time periods in three organizations, the research suggests that this process of adaptation and change, which allows alignment to occur, is more complex than previously believed. Although efforts to achieve alignment between IS and the business do sometimes succeed, they often go astray. There are three such potentially problematic trajectories--excessive transformation, paradoxical decisions, and uncertain turnarounds. This article identifies some factors explaining why organizations might pursue these problematic trajectories and offers some suggestions for avoiding them.