Uploaded on

it is related to IT outsourcing

it is related to IT outsourcing

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
423
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
22
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. IT OUTSOURCING SUCCESS:A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL, CONTEXTUAL PERSPECTIVE ON OUTSOURCING OUTCOMES Sara Cullen Department of Information Systems The University of Melbourne scullen@cullengroup.com.au Peter B. Seddon Department of Information Systems The University of Melbourne p.seddon@unimelb.edu.au and Leslie P. Willcocks London School of Economics L.P.Willcocks@lse.ac.uk Submitted to the Second information Systems Workshop on global Sourcing: Service, Knowledge and Innovation Copyright ©Cullen, Seddon, and Willcocks January 2008. All Rights Reserved
  • 2. IT OUTSOURCING SUCCESS: A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL, CONTEXTUAL PERSPECTIVE ON OUTSOURCING OUTCOMESABSTRACTThis paper proposes and demonstrates the usefulness of a new conceptualization of informationtechnology outsourcing (ITO) success. Based on results from three ITO surveys conductedduring 1994-2000, a review of the literature, and data from 49 in-depth ITO cases, it is arguedthat although some organizations may, at times, seek outcomes from outsourcing similar to otherorganizations, fundamentally what each firm seeks from outsourcing is different. Accordingly, itis argued, studies that recognize the idiosyncratic and changing nature of outcomes sought arelikely to offer greater insight into what comprises successful outsourcing. Developing this idea,the paper proposes an ITO outcomes framework consisting of a list of 25 goals that organizationsfrequently pursue when outsourcing IT. The list reflects most goals pursued by mostorganizations, but only some of these goals are expected to be applicable to any givenorganization at any given time.The key argument in this paper is that ITO success should be assessed by, first, askingorganizations to nominate the outcomes that were/are most important to them at various times inthe life of the contract, then second, gauging the extent to which each organization has achievedits nominated outcomes during the period when those outcomes were being pursued. Theusefulness of the framework is assessed using seven in-depth case studies and a 2007 surveywith responses from 56 large organizations. The results from these 63 organizations show that(a) all 25 goals were considered “applicable” by at least 20% of these organizations, (b) noorganization set out to achieve all 25 goals, (c) the goals pursued changed with time, and (d) noimportant goals were missing (except, perhaps, relationships). It is therefore suggested that theinstrument presented in Appendix A is a useful tool for future research into ITO success. 2
  • 3. INTRODUCTIONPervasive adoption has made information technology outsourcing (ITO) a growing multi-billiondollar industry Dibbern et al, (2004). The market is ever maturing, suppliers and their offeringsever expanding, and technology advancements are increasingly enabling the separation ofmanagement, delivery, and operations. Furthermore, with “offshore outsourcing” attractingincreasing attention, the level of ITO activity seems set to grow even larger.However, despite over decade of research into ITO, the dependent variable for much ITOresearch, ITO success, is surprisingly under-researched. In their comprehensive reviews of theliterature, Hui and Beath (2002) and Dibbern et al. (2004) attribute disparate conclusions on ITOsuccess, at least in part, to the lack of an accepted success construct. Supporting this view, Leeet al. (2004)—who used the Grover et al. (1996) instrument to measure ITO Success—suggestthat metrics of success need further development: “As outsourcing grows in complexity,researchers need to develop more sophisticated metrics to assess the success of outsourcingventures”.One of the key issues concerning the ITO success construct is whether a certain outcome, e.g.,cost savings, is desirable and therefore applicable to every outsourcing initiative, or whether ITOsuccess is so idiosyncratic that one must assess it against each organization’s own, different,criteria. Dibbern et al. (2004), for instance, argue that ITO is such a complex phenomenon thatcontext plays a much more significant role in ITO than in other areas of IS success measurement.They further argue that expectations, and their realization, are critical to any research into ITOsuccess and are more closely tied to predefined criteria and actual results. Echoing this view,Lacity et al. (1996) report that the criteria that drove an organization’s perception of successvaried between organizations, and elsewhere Lacity and Willcocks (2001) explicitly recognizethat outcomes are more appropriately assessed relative to each organization’s goals rather thanassuming that all organizations want the same things to the same degree (e.g., cost savings).Unrecognized in most of the literature is that outcomes sought from outsourcing have a temporaldimension, as well as varying from organization to organization. Only two studies by King and 3
  • 4. Malhotra (2000) and Hui and Beath (2002) explicitly recognize the temporal nature of anorganization’s outsourcing goals. In both these studies, short-term outcomes were defined asoperational, mid-term as tactical and learning, and long-term as strategic. However, associatinga particular outcome to a time-period for benefit realization does not recognize the fact thatorganizations’ operational, tactical, and even strategic goals for outsourcing may change over thelife of the contract.In response to these three concerns, i.e., prior researchers’ arguments that (a) further work isrequired to refine the ITO success construct, (b) what constitutes ITO success may differ fromorganization to organization, and (c) organizational goals for ITO change over time, theobjective of this study is to provide a comprehensive framework for conceptualizing andassessing ITO success. To demonstrate the contribution of our framework, we compare it towhat we regard as the best instrument currently available for measuring ITO success, namelythat of Grover et al. (1996) 1. We identify some difficulties with their framework and provide asolution to those difficulties in the form of the new instrument in Appendix A. The contributionsof this study are the new conceptual framework; the evidence that different organizations do seekdifferent outcomes from outsourcing; the evidence that these goals change over time; the insightthat satisfaction is a valid perceptual measure of ITO success because it draws on therespondent’s goals, not on some researcher’s pre-defined list; and the ITO Success measurementinstrument presented in Appendix A that is constructed around these insights. Use of the newconceptual framework proposed in this study will, we hope, help future researchers build bettertheories to explain why some outsourcing projects are more successful than others.New conceptual frameworks correspond to what Gregor (2006) calls Analysis theories. Gregor’scriteria for evaluating Analysis theory are as follows: ‘If any classification system is developed, implicit claims are that the classification system is useful in aiding analysis in some way, that the category labels and groupings are meaningful and natural, and that hierarchies of classification are appropriate (most important divisions are shown at the highest level). The logic for the placement of phenomena into categories1 In July 2007, Google Scholar reported 164 citations to the Grover et al. (1996) paper. 4
  • 5. should be clear, as should the characteristics that define each category. In addition, important categories or elements should not be omitted from the classification system, that is, it should be complete and exhaustive. A previous classification system could be revised as new entities come to light, or some preferable way of grouping or naming categories is identified. A judgement as to the degree to which the theory satisfies these criteria allows one to assess the contribution to knowledge’. (p.264) In this study, we attempt to satisfy all the above criteria for making a successful contribution to an Analysis theory of ITO Success measurement. In addition, however, the current study offers more than just a taxonomy of different possible types of outcome from IT outsourcing. Our framework also embodies the important insight that not all organizations pursue all possible outcomes listed in the framework. This means that in assessing ITO success, each respondent must first indicate which goals were important to his/her organization at the time of interest, then ITO success should be evaluated in terms of the achievement of those goals, not the achievement of all possible goals. To present our case for the validity and usefulness of this new ITO success framework, the paper proceeds as follows. First, the framework is presented and justified in Section 2. Second, in Section 3, the usefulness of the framework is assessed using data from (a) seven in-depth case studies conducted during 2003 and 2004, and (b) 56 responses from a 2007 survey of large organizations with ICT outsourcing contracts. Finally, some further justification of the framework is presented in the Discussion section, Section 4, along with a discussion of the generalizability of the empirical findings from Section 3.A FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING IT OUTSOURCING SUCCESS Table 1 contains what we claim is a comprehensive (25-point) list of the most commonly intended outcomes from ITO. It represents a collective view of the goals of many organizations (as opposed to any single organization). As mentioned earlier, a research instrument for assessing ITO success based on this framework is presented in Appendix A. 5
  • 6. The method proposed for using this instrument is to: a. ask interviewees or survey respondents which of the 25 possible outcomes are (i) applicable to their organization, (ii) initial primary intended outcomes, (iii) current primary intended outcomes, and (iv) future primary intended outcomes; b. ask them to identify any other primary intended outcomes not in the list of 25; c. ask them to score on a Likert scale the extent to which those outcomes have been achieved; and d. if comparison with ICTO success in other organizations is intended, calculate an average score for intended outcomes at the relevant time in the life of the contract. Table 1: ITO Outcomes and References2Value for Money Other research studies that have discussed this goal1. Demonstrable value for money Fowler and Jeffs (1998), McAulay et al. (2002), Hui and Beath (2002) Mylott (1995), Apte and Sobol (1997), Klepper and Jones (1998),2. Market price under internal cost Fowler and Jeffs (1998), Lacity and Willcocks (2001), McAulay et al. (2002),Dibbern et al. (2004)Improved Financial Results Apte and Sobol (1997), Lacity and Willcocks (2001), McAulay et al.3. Ongoing cost reduction (2002), Lee et al. (2004) Mylott (1995), Grover et al. (1996) Q.6, Apte and Sobol (1997),4. Stabilise and predict costs Klepper and Jones (1998), Hurley and Costa (2001)5. Means of financing assets Apte and Sobol (1997), Klepper and Jones (1998) Cross (1995), Mylott (1995), Klepper and Jones (1998), Lacity and6. Convert capital to operating expense Willcocks (2001), Hurley and Costa (2001), Lee et al. (2002) Mylott (1995), Grover et al. (1996) Q.4&5, Klepper and Jones7. Aggregate total demand for economies (1998), Fowler and Jeffs (1998) Mylott (1995), McFarlan and Nolan (1995), Klepper and Jones8. Cash for sale of assets (1998), Lee et al. (2002)9. Reduce staff numbers Mylott (1995), Fowler and Jeffs (1998), McAulay et al. (2002)10. Rationalise/consolidate assets Fowler and Jeffs (1998), Lacity and Willcocks (2001)11. Remedy for poor performance [Anon3]Improved Operations Other research studies that have discussed this goal Fowler and Jeffs (1998), Domberger et al. (2000), Lacity and12. Improve service Willcocks (2001), Hurley and Costa (2001), McAulay et al. (2002), Dibbern et al. (2004)13. Obtain services not available internally Klepper and Jones (1998), McAulay et al. (2002)14. Improve discipline/ accountability Lacity and Willcocks (2001) 2 Items in bold correspond to those in Grover et al.’s (1996) ITO success measure, discussed later. 6
  • 7. Improved Operations Other research studies that have discussed this goal Mylott (1995), Grover et al. (1996) Q.2&3, Apte and Sobol (1997), Klepper and Jones (1998), Fowler and Jeffs (1998), Lacity and15. Obtain better/more expertise Willcocks (2001), Hurley and Costa (2001), McAulay et al. (2002), Lee et al. (2002)16. More flexible work practices Fowler and Jeffs (1998), McAulay et al. (2002)17. Align resource supply to demand/ Cheon et al. (1995), Mylott (1995), Apte and Sobol (1997), Klepper minimize capacity gap and Jones (1998), Hurley and Costa (2001), Lee et al. (2002) Mylott (1995), Grover et al. (1996) Q.7&8, Apte and Sobol (1997),18. Obtain better/more technology Klepper and Jones (1998), Fowler and Jeffs (1998), Hurley and Costa (2001), McAulay et al. (2002), Lee et al. (2002) Grover et al. (1996) Q.5, Lacity and Willcocks (2001), McAulay et19. Standardize technology al.(2002)20. Standardize services Lacity and Willcocks (2001), McAulay et al. (2002)Strategic Outcomes Other research studies that have discussed this goal Quinn and Hilmer (1994), Mylott (1995), Grover et al. (1996) Q.1,21. Concentrate on core business Fowler and Jeffs (1998), Quinn et al. (1990), Klepper and Jones (1998), Hurley and Costa (2001), Lee et al. (2004) Grover et al. (1996) Q.1, Apte and Sobol (1997), Klepper and Jones22. Refocus internal IT staff on high (1998), Fowler and Jeffs (1998), Lacity and Willcocks (2001), value/strategic activities McAulay et al. (2002), Lee et al. (2004) Klepper and Jones (1998), Hurley and Costa (2001), Lacity and23. Contribute to business Willcocks (2001), Hui and Beath (2002) Mylott (1995), Klepper and Jones (1998), Grover et al. (1996)24. Access to best practices, new Q.3&8, Fowler and Jeffs (1998), Lacity and Willcocks (2001), developments McAulay et al. (2002)25. Industry development Lacity and Willcocks (2001)The rationale for using the above method for measuring ITO success is that the success of anorganization’s outsourcing endeavors should be assessed against its own goals for the project,not in terms of some researcher-assumed goals. By contrast, our benchmark nine-iteminstrument from Grover et al. (1996) (a) assumes that its nine items are applicable in allsituations, and (b) does not ask about outcomes such as obtaining value for money, cost savings,and improved service quality, that (i) have been argued by authors such as Domberger (1998)Domberger et al. (2000) and to be fundamental reasons for outsourcing, and (ii) are the goalsmost frequently checked by respondents to our survey (reported below) as goals applicable totheir organizations. Since a respondent’s Satisfaction with ITO will be assessed againstwhichever goals are important to that respondent, we accept that any sensible question aboutsatisfaction with ITO, such as Grover et al.’s question 9: “We are satisfied with our overallbenefits from outsourcing”, will always yield a valid perceptual indication of ITO success (nomatter which goals the organization has decided to pursue, nor how much such goals havechanged since the inception of the deal). What distinguishes our measure is that we do not 7
  • 8. accept that it is valid to assume that the eight remaining questions in the Grover et al. (1996)instrument are always applicable to all respondents.Developing the 25-point list of possible intended outcomesThe following process was used for developing the list of possible intended outcomes in Table 1.First, the framework builds on answers to questions on ex ante goals and ex post outcomes fromoutsourcing in a series of three surveys on ITO conducted in 1994, 1997, and 2000 [Anon. 1,2,3].During the course of those surveys, the list of outcomes evolved from seven in the 1994 survey,to 15 in 1997, to 21 in 2000. Each successive survey incorporated lessons from open items fromthe prior surveys (e.g. respondents were always invited to suggest additional outcomes soughtnot in the lists provided) and new ideas from the literature. For instance, the 2000 survey hadbeen compared and reconciled with the twelve goals from the Lacity and Willcocks (2002a)survey.Second, the list of 21 commonly pursued ITO outcomes from the 2000 survey [Anon. 3] wasrefined into 25 by the lead author, based on (a) a review of the literature, and (b) a thoroughanalysis of 49 case studies of ITO projects. With respect to these case studies, the lead authorhad participated as a senior outsourcing consultant in 49 ITO projects spanning 51 countriesduring 1994-2002, and had detailed first-hand knowledge of the 49 cases. (A list of the types oforganization and year of each project is documented in [Anon. 4].) Working documentsreviewed for each project included plans, contracts, reports, evaluations, correspondence,presentations, minutes, reviews, and audit reports. The process involved scanning thesedocuments for each of the 49 projects looking for additional outsourcing goals not alreadycovered in the framework.Third, to ensure that we built on the insights of prior researchers, the 25 outcomes werecompared to goals and outcomes reported in the ITO literature. For each of the 25 possibleoutcomes identified in this study, prior studies that have discussed that outcome are summarizedin the right-hand column in Table 1. Not all studies used the same terms, so there is not an exactone-to-one mapping, but the underlying concepts are similar. In particular, we tried to identify 8
  • 9. indicators of ITO success that were not in our list. As one might expect, Table 1 shows thatalthough no prior study has reported all 25 outcomes, each outcome other than the eleventh(remedy for poor performance) has been discussed in at least one study by prior researchers.Finally, as with the Grover et al. (1996) study which grouped items into the three categories, the25 outcomes were grouped into what we think are four conceptually distinct categories.According to Gregor (2006) in an Analysis-theory paper: “The logic for the placement ofphenomena into categories should be clear, as should the characteristics that define eachcategory”. We compare our categorization scheme to that of Grover et al. (1996) in Table 2.Grover et al.’s three categories correspond almost exactly to the three most important “primaryreasons for outsourcing” reported by Saunders et al. (1997) (p.70), namely, technologicalconsiderations, cost savings, and strategic considerations. The reason for advancing ouralternative to Grover et al.’s and Saunders et al.’s categorization is that, as Domberger (1998)suggests, outsourcing is only worth doing if the net cost to the client organization drops as aresult of outsourcing, subject to the proviso that there is no drop in service quality. This suggeststhat two key constructs in assessing ITO success are service quality and cost.In our framework, the first construct, success in meeting the client organization’s service goals isassessed using the group of questions headed “Improved Operations” in Table 1. Meeting suchservice goals seems to be a more fundamental objective than achieving Grover et al.’s andSaunders et al.’s “Technological benefits”, which are (one hopes) a source of improved serviceoutcomes (Grover et al., 1996; Saunders et al., 1997). Second, success in meeting the clientorganization’s cost goals is assessed using the group of questions headed “Improved FinancialResults” in Table 1. This is similar to Grover et al.’s (1996) Economic success category (andSaunders et al.’s (1997) Cost Savings), but it also includes the notion of improved financialcontrol, which does not necessarily imply cost savings. Third, our “Value for money” categorythen assesses the organization’s success in balancing these service and cost objectives. There isno counterpart for this “value for money” construct in the Grover et al. instrument, but it hasbeen mentioned by Fowler and Jeffs (1998), McAulay et al. (2002), and Hui and Beath (2002).If one wanted a single measure of ITO success, Value for money would seem to be a goodcandidate. Finally, our “Strategic” category is very similar to that of Grover et al. (1996); it is 9
  • 10. concerned with whether outsourcing helps the client organization to focus on its core business.Table 2: Comparing success categories in this study with those from Grover et al. (1996)Outcome categories proposed in this study Grover et al.’s (1996) ITO Success categoriesCategory Definition Category* Definition (p.93)Value for money Value for money Economic “utilize expertise andImproved Cost reduction and stability economies of scale” “toFinancial Results manage its cost structure”Improved Improved service, including Technological “gain access to leading-edgeOperations access to new and better IT” technologyStrategic Focus on the core business Strategic “enable a firm to focus on its core business”*Note: This is a conceptual classification, not one backed by empirical evidence. In Grover etal.’s factor analysis, reported in their Table 3, p.102, all eight factors loaded on the one construct.In short, based on the process summarized above, it is argued that the 25-point ITO outcomesframework in Table 1 provides a comprehensive summary of most types of benefits thatorganizations have typically sought to achieve from ITO. The final list is not intended torepresent all possible goals that every organization may have for ITO - only those that wereobserved regularly. For example, excluded from the framework was the possible desiredoutcome of transferring public-sector staff to the private sector. This was a unique andinfrequent government-specific goal. Another example possible desired outcome also excludedfrom the framework was obtaining non-unionized labor. This was only applicable toorganizations in a troubled unionized environment.Different organizations pursue different outcomes from IT OutsourcingIn assessing ITO success, it is important to understand that only some of the 25 goals from Table1 are likely to be pursued in any given outsourcing deal. This is particularly apparent when oneexamines results from the 2000 survey [Anon. 3] (which had 235 responses from largeorganizations) where 17 goals from the 25 in Table 1 were included in that survey. As shown in 10
  • 11. Table 3, each of the 17 goals from the 2000 survey was a primary reason for outsourcing forsome organizations whilst being not applicable for others. In short, based on results from boththe 2000 survey (and the 49 case studies), it is clear that ITO success measurement mustrecognize that different organizations pursue different goals in different deals. This is why usinga “one size fits all” approach to ITO success measurement is inappropriate.According to Gregor (2006) the contribution of an Analysis-theory paper is assessed byconsidering the extent to which its new classification scheme is different to, and more helpfulthan, the old one. To enable such a comparison, the first eight items from the Grover et al.(1996) instrument are also shown in column 6 in Table 3. (The ninth question, quoted earlier,which asked about overall satisfaction is not considered further because it does not appear inGrover et al.’s subsequent analysis, e.g., see their Table 3.) Comparing columns 1 and 6 in ourTable 3 it is apparent that there is no clear match in the Grover et al. instrument for thirteenquestions in column 1, yet as shown in columns 2 and 3, considerable numbers of respondentsindicated that these outcomes were of primary or secondary interest to their organizations. Forexample, there is no clear match in the Grover et al. (1996) instrument for question 3 “Ongoingcost reduction”, or question 12 “Improve service”, or question 13 “Obtain services not availableinternally”, yet as shown in column 2, many respondents indicated that these were primaryreasons that their organizations entered into outsourcing contracts. In addition, there are somequestions in the Grover et al. instrument that are not relevant to some organizations. Forexample, in response to question 18 “Obtain better/more technology”, 41 of 185 organizationsthat answered this question indicated in column 4 that this was not a primary or secondary goalfor their organization, yet Grover et al. ask two questions (7 and 8) about this outcome. Likewise,in response to question 21 “Concentrate on core business”, 44 of 190 organizations indicated thatthis was not a primary or secondary goal for their organization. In proposing the new frameworkin this paper, our argument is simply that if an organization does not set out to achieve aparticular goal, it does not make sense to evaluate ITO success by asking if they have achieved agood outcome in respect of that non-desired goal. 11
  • 12. Table 3: Desired ITO Outcomes from the lead author’s Survey [Anon 3] matching Table 1 and items from the Grover et al.’s (1996) ITO Success Instrument SecondOutcome (numbered to Primary -ary Not Grover et al. (1996)correspond to Table 1) reason reason applic. Total (Column 1) (Col. 2) (Col. 3) (Col. 4) (Col.5) (Col. 6)3. Ongoing cost reduction 52 57 81 1904. Stabilise and predict 6. We have increased control of costs* IS expenses6. Convert capital to operating expense 24 45 112 181 4. We have enhanced economies of scale in human7. Aggregate total demand resources for economies* 5. We have enhanced economies of scale in technological resources8 Cash for sale of assets 3 17 161 1819 Reduce staff numbers 25 57 100 18210 Rationalise/consolidate assets 29 40 112 18111. Remedy for poor performance 6 21 154 18112 Improve service 64 65 56 18513 Obtain services not available internally 94 44 54 19214 Improve discipline/ accountability 25 69 89 18315. Obtain better/more 2. We have enhanced our IT expertise competence 3. We have increased access 115 61 17 193 to skilled personnel16 More flexible work practices 40 54 88 18217 Align resource supply to demand/ minimize capacity gap 71 60 53 18418 Obtain better/more 7. We have reduced the risk of technology technological obsolescence 8. We have increased access to key information 69 75 41 185 technologies21 Concentrate on core 1. We have been able to business 83 63 44 190 refocus on our core business22 Refocus internal IT staff 1. We have been able to on high value/strategic refocus on our core business activities 66 69 51 18623. Contribute to business 31 61 87 17924. Access to best 3. We have increased access practices, new to skilled personnel developments* 8. We have increased access to key information 12
  • 13. technologies 25 Industry development 18 30 130 178 * Item from Table 1 not included in the 2000 survey, but which matches a question from Grover et al. (1996)It is this conditional nature of the various possible outcomes from Table 1 that creates difficultiesfor conventional approaches to instrument development. For example, column 4 in Table 3shows that not all items apply to all organizations. This means it is not possible to useconventional first- or second-generation factor-analytic techniques to refine the list of 25 itemsinto an instrument for measuring ITO success or even to help in grouping them as we have donein Table 2. Instead, we had to rely on human judgment to group items that seemed similar underthe four headings in Table 1, i.e., Value for money, Improved Financial Results, ImprovedOperations, and Strategic outcomes.Desired outcomes also change over timeIn addition to recognizing that different organizations pursue different goals for ITO in differentdeals, it is also important when assessing ITO success to understand that the outcomes soughtfrom ITO change over time, even for the one deal. Management may start out with quiteambitious goals for an outsourcing project, encounter problems, then focus on some moretargeted, but more achievable, goals for their ITO deal. Since perceptions of success willnormally be gauged relative to current goals, it is suggested that in asking managers to identifyintended outcomes, care should be taken to distinguish between at least three types of intendedoutcome, namely: (1) initial primary intended outcomes – the focus at the outset of the deal; (2)current primary intended outcomes – the current focus of the deal; and (3) future primaryintended outcomes – the future focus of the deal.ASSESSING THE COMPLETENESS OF THE FRAMEWORKThe preceding section has presented a framework that corresponds to what Gregor (2006)describes as an Analysis theory of ITO success measurement. The framework is the list of 25types of outcome shown in Table 1, grouped into four categories as defined in Table 2, plus the 13
  • 14. argument that because different organizations pursue different goals at different times, ITOsuccess should normally be assessed against the currently sought goals of each individualorganization. The usefulness of this theory is assessed empirically in this section. The first halfof this section uses seven in-depth case studies as its source of data. The second half uses 56responses from a survey (plus results from the seven case studies) to extend that assessment to abroader range of organizations.The CasesA case-study methodology was the technique chosen for our first assessment of both thecompleteness of the framework in Table 1, and the extent to which outcomes sought had changedover time. The questions were: (a) Were any common objectives missing from the list inTable 1? (b) Which objectives motivated your organization to engage in outsourcing? and (c)Are those objectives still relevant today? For these case studies, in 2003 we invited 14 of the100 largest IT-using organizations in one State (anonymized for reviewing), to participate in thestudy. Seven of the 14 organizations accepted; each became the subject of a case study. Unlikethe 49 ITO case studies used in constructing the ITO-outcomes framework in Table 1, the leadauthor had no prior association with any of the organizations in these cases. The sevenparticipating organizations were from five different industries comprising communications andtransport services, manufacturing, mining, government and conglomerates of multiple industries.The size of the seven organizations ranged from US$ 2B to US$ 22B in per annum revenue andfrom 7,800 to 51,000 employees as shown in Figure 1 14
  • 15. Figure 1: Test Cases - Organization Size Size - Annual Reve nue Size - FTEs 25 60,000 20 50,000 Revenue (A$B) 40,000 15 FTEs 30,000 10 20,000 5 10,000 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Case CaseGuided by Lacity and Hirschheim’s (1993) observation that much of the ITO literature tends tobe over optimistic because the evaluation is often too early in the agreement, i.e., during the“honeymoon period”, it was decided to focus on a major contract in each of these sevenorganizations that had been in operation for at least two years. After discussions with the CIOsat the seven organizations, seven contracts were selected. With the exception of Case 6 for whichthe contract was completed in one year, the contracts had been in operation for no less than twoyears, and up to five years, at the time of the interviews. Overall, as documented later inFigure 2, cases 1 and 7 would probably be called failures. Their average ITO success scores asmeasured by our instrument were 1.9 and 2.8 out of five, respectively. By contrast, cases 4 and 5would be considered successes. Their average ITO success scores were 4.1 and 4.5,respectively.The seven cases involve contracts signed between 1999 and 2001, ranging from US$1 million to$133 million per annum. Using the guidelines of [Anon. 5] for describing key features of thesecontracts, these contracts are summarized in Table 4. Service scope ranged from whole-of-IT toselective services; geographic scope from state-based to global; supplier grouping from panels tosole suppliers; financial scale from large to small; pricing from fixed to unit-based; duration fromlong to short-term; resource ownership from the supplier owning all the service deliveryresources to the supplier providing purely the labor component; and commercial relationshipstructures from arms-length to co-sourcing. 15
  • 16. Table 4: Configurations of the Seven Test Cases Case 1: Case 2: Case 3: Case 4: Case 5: Case 6: Case 7: MAN1 SERV1 MIN1 GOV1 GOV2 CON1 MAN2 Apps Single Note All IT except Data center Whole of develop- Whole of app Service book networks & facility, ops, IT ment and IT develop- mgmt apps & equip(1) Scope support mentGrouping Parent, all All units, Parent, Parent and All Parent and Recipient units, all all spin Parent subsidiaries subsidiaries schools subsidiaries subsidiaries offs optional Geographic National National Global State State National National Best of(2) Supplier Grouping Sole Prime Prime Sole Sole Sole Breed(3) Not Relative 80% 15% 33% 26% 23% 25%Financial trackedScale Absolute $40M $30M $133M $31M $1M $16M $10M(4) Pricing Framework Fixed Unit Hybrid Unit Fixed Fixed Fixed Rollover Rollover Rollover Rollover(5) Duration (years) Fixed (5) Fixed (5) Fixed (1) (7+1+1) (3+3) (6+ TBD) (3+2) Supplier - Supplier – Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier – Supplier –(6) Resource ownership all labor – all – labor – labor all all(7) Commercial Arms Co- Value Arms Co- Arms Value-addRelationship length sourcing add length sourcing lengthDetailed semi-structured interviews totaling 34 hours were conducted with the CIO and the topcontract manager by the lead author at the headquarters of each firm. As explained earlier, theinterview questions are attached in Appendix A. Two senior managers per organization wereinterviewed to reduce reliance on a single source of evidence. The interviews were digitallyrecorded, manually recorded on the instrument form (Appendix A), and then coded into adatabase. In addition, documents such as contracts, correspondences, and performanceevaluations were used to substantiate each interviewee’s statements and perceptions.To explore the extent to which intended outcomes for outsourcing change, interviewees at eachcase organization were first asked to identify which of the 25 ITO outcomes in Table 1 (a) wereapplicable to their organization (as potential outcomes that could have been sought), and (b)their organization had pursued as desired outcomes. In addition, they were asked if any desiredoutcomes were missing from the list. In response to this last question, one additional outcomementioned in two of the seven cases, was “good relationships with suppliers”. This outcome,which is an outcome driver rather than a desired outcome per se, is discussed in more detail in 16
  • 17. the Discussion section below.As required by the instrument, three timeframes were used for classifying outcomes sought: 1 initial primary intended outcome – the focus at the outset of the deal, 2 current primary intended outcome – the current focus of the deal, and 3 future primary intended outcome – the future focus of the deal.The degree to which each desired outcome was achieved was assessed on a five-point Likert-type scale: 1 = very poor outcome against expectations 2 = poor outcome against expectations 3 = no perceptible outcome against expectations 4 = good outcome against expectations 5 = very good outcome against expectationsCase-study findingsTable 5 summarizes outcomes that were judged by the managers in the case study organizationsto be applicable to their organization (heading “AO”), initial primary outcomes sought (“IPO”),current primary outcomes sought (“CPO”), and future primary outcomes sought “FPO”). Atick/check in the AO column means that the interviewees said that outcome was applicable totheir organization. In other words, it would have been meaningful for their organization to try toachieve that goal. A tick/check in any of the three columns to the right of the AO columnindicates that the interviewees said that this was a goal of interest to their organization either inthe past, now, or in the future. The blacked-out cells indicate outcomes that were judged to benot applicable to the organization in question. They had no tick in the AO column. 17
  • 18. Table 5: Applicable and Intended Outcomes per Case Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7Outcome Attributes AO IPO CPO FPO AO IPO FPO AO IPO CPO FPO AO IPO CPO FPO AO IPO AO IPO CPO FPO AO IPO CPOValue for Money01. Value for money02. Price under internal costImproved Financial Results03. Ongoing cost reduction04. Cost stability05. Finance assets06. Convert to operating expense07. Aggregate demand08. Cash from asset sales09. Reduce staff10. Rationalize assets11. Remedy for poor performanceOtherImproved Operations12. Improve service13. Obtain services not available internally14. Improve discipline/ accountability15. Obtain better/more expertise16. Flexible work practices17. Scalability18. Obtain better/more technology19. Standardize technology20. Standardize servicesOtherStrategic Outcomes21. Focus on core business22. Refocus internal IT staff23. Contribute to business24. Access best practice, developments25. Industry developmentOther Total attributes 24 23 2 8 14 4 7 27 10 4 3 22 5 7 5 9 7 23 10 9 9 25 4 5Notes:1. AO = Applicable outcome, IPO = initial primary outcome sought, CPO=current primary outcome sought, FPO=future primary outcome sought. Blacked-out cells mean “outcome not applicable”.2. Case 2 had no current goals. The Case 5 contract had ended, thus had only initial goals. Case 7 had not identified any future goals at the time of the study.3. “Other” comprises: Case 3: financial – “utility purchasing form” and strategic – “use of the innovation fund”; Case 4: strategic – “technology adoption by users”; Case 5: operational – “risk management”; and Case 6 strategic -“partnering-style relationship”, Case 7 strategic – “controlled relationship”. 18
  • 19. As shown in the “Total attributes” row at the bottom of Table 5, all 25 outcomes were judged tobe applicable to at least one of the seven case organizations, all 25 had been sought by at leastone of them, all seven case organizations had changed and reduced the number of outcomessought, and no two firms had the same portfolio of applicable, initially sought, or outcomessought now. Furthermore, although the list of 25 possible outcomes is not intended to be fullycomprehensive, none of the interviewees at the seven case organizations identified any commongoals that were missing from the list other than “good relationships with suppliers” (discussed inmore detail in the Discussion section below). These findings support our argument that (a) thelist of 25 potential outcomes is quite comprehensive, and (b) no single set of outcomes isapplicable to all organizations.In observing the changes to intended outcomes over time in Table 5, two trends appear. First,firms more experienced with outsourcing had fewer intended outcomes at the outset. The “firstgeneration” deals (first-time outsourcing) comprised of Cases 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 had an average of10.5 initial intended outcomes at the outset, nearly twice that of the “second generation” firmswhich had an average of 5.5. Second, all organizations became more focused over time. Asshown in Table 5, after the first few years of each deal, there was a general trend to reduceintended outcomes over time. The number of intended outcomes reduced to an average of 4.5current goals and 6.5 future goals. This suggests that an organization can focus on relatively fewoutcomes at any given time. It appears that organizations in first-generation deals may beunrealistic at the outset; however within a few years they develop more realistic expectations.Finally, as reported in [Anon. 2; 3], Figure 2 shows that outcomes that were initial intendedprimary outcomes were generally achieved to a greater extent than the outcomes that were notprimary goals. 19
  • 20. Figure 2: Outcomes Achieved – Primary Goals versus Non-primary Outcomes achieved Prim ary Initial Outcom es Primary Sought vs. Non-prim ary Non primary 5 Average Score 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CaseA Survey to assess the applicability of the frameworkIn addition to the above seven case studies, we also used a survey to assess the applicability ofthe items in the framework in a wide variety of organizations. The questions addressed by thesurvey were: (a) Is it correct to assume that only some of the outcomes in Table 1 are applicableto any one organization, or are some questions applicable to all organizations?, (b) What are themost frequent goals for outsourcing in large organizations in Australia, and (c) Do outcomessought change over time? To answer these questions we sent e-mails containing the URL for asurvey to senior IT managers in 1,000 of the country’s largest IT-using organizations invitingthem to complete a detailed on-line survey on ICT outsourcing in October 2006. Job titles ofthese 1,000 senior managers were IT Manager, Director IT, or similar (56%), CIO (18%),General Manager IT (12%). Many of those e-mails were deleted without being read, so wefollowed up in late October 2006 with a hard-copy version of the survey, then during December2006 and January 2007 individually telephoned over 900 organizations that had not responded.The questionnaire included the instrument in Appendix A along with many other questionsrelated to another study. It took approximately 30 minutes to complete. All respondents were 20
  • 21. offered free copies of a report based on the survey if they completed the questionnaire. Ourrecords indicate that by March 2007, 102 people had started to complete the on-line version ofthe survey. However, only 56 completed the full survey. The completed-survey response rate isthus only 56/960 = 6%. A response rate of 6% is not as high as we would have liked, but theopinions of these 56 senior IT managers about the outcomes from their largest ICTO contractprovide a lot of valuable information, discussed in sections 3.5 and 3.6. The generalizability ofthese findings is discussed in Section 4 below.Contextual informationIn order to make transferability judgments based on the analysis that follows (as suggested byPalmquist et al. (2004)) it is important to understand more about the respondent firms. For thatreason, details of the respondents’ industries, organization sizes, IT budgets, and degree ofinvolvement with IT outsourcing (which was often substantial) are provided in Tables 6 and 7.From these tables it is evident that respondent organizations (a) are from a wide range ofindustries and firm sizes, (b) operate in a wide range of different geographic regions, (c) havevery different percentages of ICT budget outsourced (both in the country under study andoffshore), and (d) typically have fewer than five ICT contracts. Table 6: Respondents by industry Industry Count Industry Count Industry Count Agriculture, forestry & fishing 1 Government - Federal 5 Media 2 Car Hire 1 Government – State 9 Minerals processing 1 Health & community Construction 1 services 1 Mining 1 Education 3 Health Insurance 1 Trade - Retail 3 Electricity, gas & water 3 Hospitality 1 Transport & storage 3 Finance & insurance 5 Law and Legal 3 Total 56 Government - City/local 4 Manufacturing 8 21
  • 22. Table 7: Characteristics of organizations in the sample Organization Attribute Count Percentage Organizational Attribute Count Percentage al attribute Range (of the 56 attribute Range (of the 56 orgs.) orgs.) Revenue $<100M 4 7 Percent ICT <10% 12 22 $100-499M 22 40 spend 10-49% 34 62 $500-999M 7 13 outsourced 50-90% 8 15 $1-4.9B 15 27 No answer 1 2 $5-20B 7 13 Percent ICT 0% 39 71 Employees <1000 12 22 spend offshore 1-9.9% 9 16 1000-4999 32 58 10-20% 4 7 5000-40000 11 20 100% 1 2 Geographic Local 5 9 No answer 2 4 coverage State 19 35 Number of 1 10 18 National 21 38 ICTO 2-4 29 53 Asia Pacific 2 4 contracts* 5-15 11 20 Global 7 13 20-120 4 7 No answer 1 2 0? 1 2 Annual ICT $<10M 21 38 Number of 1 10 18 Spend $10-99M 28 51 ICTO 2-4 29 53 $100-999M 6 11 suppliers* 5-15 11 20 20-100 4 7 * Number of contracts not equal to number of suppliers 0? 1 2Outcomes Applicable, Initially sought, and Currently soughtRespondents to the survey were presented with the instrument in Appendix A and asked toindicate goals that were applicable, initially sought, sought now, and to be sought, as well as toscore outcomes achieved on the five-point Likert scale in Appendix A. Results for the 56respondent firms have been combined with those from the seven case-study organizations (togive a total sample size of 63) and are reported in Table 83.3 There appears to have been some respondent fatigue at this stage of the survey, because only 31 of 56 respondentsactually checked any outcomes as “currently sought”. 22
  • 23. Table 8: ICT Outsourcing Outcomes applicable and sought (N=63: 56 responses from the 2007 survey combined with those from the 7 cases) Number of Mean respondents Outcome Initial Current who scored achieved Primary Primary their on a Outcome Outcome success in scale of Applicable sought Sought achieving 1=low to Outcome % (IPO) (CPO)* the outcome 5=high (Column 1) (Col. 2) (Col. 3) (Col. 4) (Col. 5) (Col. 6)Value for money1. Demonstrable value for money 97% 44 19 60 3.522. Market price under internal cost 70% 33 8 40 3.53Improved Financial Results3. Obtain ongoing cost reduction 79% 32 17 47 3.304. Stabilise and predict costs 86% 34 15 50 3.775. Means of financing assets 35% 11 3 18 3.786. Convert capital to operating expense 37% 12 3 15 3.937. Aggregate total demand for economies 59% 23 9 30 3.638. Obtain cash for sale of assets 21% 6 1 6 3.329. Reduce staff numbers 51% 24 5 27 3.6710. Rationalize/consolidate assets 40% 12 8 19 3.3811. Get remedy for poor performance 57% 22 5 34 3.49Improved Operations12. Improve service 94% 42 18 55 3.6413. Obtain services not available internally 84% 38 13 50 3.7714. Improve discipline/ accountability 63% 20 12 34 3.1215. Obtain better/more expertise 84% 40 11 50 3.4216. Allow more flexible work practices 48% 15 7 25 3.1217. Align resource supply to demand/ minimize capacity gap 55% 21 7 26 3.7318. Obtain better/more technology 70% 29 6 40 3.6219. Standardize technology 65% 27 7 35 3.8820. Standardize services 71% 32 8 41 3.82Strategic21. Concentrate on core business 79% 38 10 44 3.6122. Refocus internal IT staff on high value /more strategic activities 73% 29 14 42 3.5023. Contribute to business (i.e. joint R&D, joint commercialisation) 43% 11 8 20 3.0424. Access to best practices, new developments 70% 29 11 36 3.3125. Industry development 48% 13 7 21 3.10* Possibly due to respondent fatigue, only 31 of 56 survey respondents answered this question 23
  • 24. Lessons from Table 8 are as follows. First, all outcomes from Table 1 were considered“applicable” to at least some organizations. Three outcomes in particular, namely“Demonstrable value for money” (97%), “Improved Operations” (94%), and “Stabilize andpredict cost” (86%), were applicable to almost all organizations. Frequent selection of thesethree items is consistent with the argument presented in the justification of the categories inTable 2 that outsourcing is fundamentally a question about value for money. Second, based onthe scores in column 6, some outcomes, such as “standardizing technology”, “standardizingservices”, and even “concentrating on the core business” appear to be much more achievablethan others, such as “accessing best practices” and “obtaining ongoing cost reduction”. Thevalue of working with the list of outcomes presented in this paper (Table 1 and Appendix A) isthat it opens the researchers’ and respondents’ minds to this range of possible benefits. Withoutthe list, many of these possible benefits may not be considered. Finally, the scatterplot inFigure 3 (which only shows the 26 organizations that reported non-zero numbers of both initialand current primary outcomes sought) shows that the number of reported primary outcomessought by these 26 organizations certainly changed with time. If the number of primaryoutcomes sought had not changed, the dots in Figure 3—each representing a singleorganization—would all lie on the straight line shown sloping upwards from the origin. Theydon’t. Figure 3: Current Primary Outcomes (CPO) sought compared to Initial Primary Outcomes (IPO) sought for the survey respondents that reported non-zero CPO and IPO 24
  • 25. 25 Count of Current Primary Outcomes sought 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Count of Initial Primary Outcomes soughtAveraged Outcomes-achieved Scores Compared to Overall SatisfactionAlthough the scores on the individual items are often of more interest than any overall averagemeasure, researchers often seek to compare ITO success across organizations. If one has accessto data like that summarized in Table 8, the best way to compare overall ITO success wouldseem to be to compare averages of perceived success in achieving intended outcomes. Thequestion is, “Are such averages useful for comparing ITO success across organizations?”As indicated earlier, overall satisfaction is likely to be a valid measure of ITO success becauseeach respondent will intuitively compare success against the goals relevant to his/herorganization. This means that one way to assess the validity of average outcomes-achievedscores is to compare them to overall measures of satisfaction. For that reason, two questionsrelated to satisfaction were included in Appendix A. 25
  • 26. Table 9 reports average overall satisfaction (Overall Satisfaction), satisfaction with the serviceprovider/s (Sat. with supplier), applicable outcome scores (Mean Outcome), primary outcomeinitially sought scores (Mean IPO), and primary outcomes currently sought as reported by the 63respondents. As noted earlier, only 31 of the 56 survey respondents checked any outcomes as“currently sought”. Their mean Outcomes-achieved scores for outcomes currently sought areconsiderably lower than those for outcomes overall, which could explain why they have becomea focus of management attention.Spearman correlation coefficients between the various measures are shown on the right of Table9 (together with the number of observations used for calculating each correlation coefficient).No statistical tests of significance have been calculated because it is not clear that the sample isrepresentative of the population of all large organizations in the country with ITO contracts. Thecorrelation coefficients show that the first five measures are highly correlated4. These highcorrelations suggest that all five measures are tapping similar constructs. This, in turn, providespreliminary evidence that averages of the outcomes-achieved measures for individual itemsselected by the respondents (i.e., Mean Outcome and Mean IPO) are likely to be useful measuresof ITO success. The lower mean score for Mean Primary Outcomes currently sought (CPO) andlower correlations between this and the other measures suggests that there is something differentabout outcomes currently sought that could be worth investigating in future research. Table 9: Means and Spearman correlation coefficients for Satisfaction with IT Outsourcing, Value for Money, and mean Outcomes scores (N=63: 56 responses from the 2007 survey combined with those from the 7 cases) Std. Spearman Correlation Coefficients (and number of observations) Overall Sat with Value for Mean Mean Mean Mean Dev Satisfaction supplier money Outcome IPO CPO Overall Satisfaction 3.42 0.96 1.000 .830 .689 .768 .752 .576 N 61 61 58 61 56 30 Sat with supplier 3.43 1.02 .830 1.000 .716 .687 .765 .4304 If the sample were judged to be representative, SPSS says that all correlations reported in Table 9 are significantlydifferent from zero at p<0.001, except for the correlations with Mean CPO, two of which are only “significant” atp<0.05. 26
  • 27. N 61 62 59 62 57 31 Value for money 3.56 1.01 .689 .716 1.000 .767 .723 .631 N 58 59 59 59 55 30 Mean Outcome 3.65 0.69 .768 .687 .767 1.000 .913 .725 N 61 62 59 62 57 31 Mean IPO 3.75 0.72 .752 .765 .723 .913 1.000 .458 N 56 57 55 57 57 26 Mean CPO 3.26 0.99 .576 .430 .631 .725 .458 1.000 N 30 31 30 31 26 31 Overall Satisfaction: Overall, how satisfied is your organization with this contract? Sat. with supplier: How satisfied is your organization with the outsourcing suppliers(s)? Value for money: Outcome-achieved score for Demonstrated value-for-money Mean Outcome: Mean of all the respondent’s outcome-achieved scores, equally weighted Mean IPO: Mean of outcome-achieved scores for primary outcomes initially sought, equally weighted Mean CPO: Mean of outcome-achieved scores for primary outcomes currently sought, equally weightedDISCUSSIONIdiosyncratic Nature of Outcomes SoughtAs suggested in section 2.2, the results in the previous section demonstrate that organizationsoutsource for different reasons. Future discussions of outsourcing success or outcomes mustrecognize this fact. For example, it is not valid to assume that all organizations seek cost savingswhen they outsource. As shown in Table 8, row 3, cost saving was not an applicable objectivefor 21% of organizations studied. For such organizations, it does not make sense to assess ITOsuccess by asking about cost savings. Consequently, any study of ITO success at the firm levelrequires a more detailed deconstruction of what success means for that organization.Furthermore, as demonstrated in the case studies (see Figure 2), intended outcomes are achievedto a greater degree than those that were not. This emphasizes, again, that understanding theunique nature of an organization’s desired outcome portfolio is vital for assessing ITO success.As explained in section 3.2 and Figure 3, not only did each firm have its own suite of desiredoutcomes, but these changed over time. In other words, an organization’s definition of success isnot static. The goal posts are always moving. The original intent of the deal may not reflect the 27
  • 28. current or future intent. Any discussion regarding success must therefore also be explicit aboutperiods during which specific outcomes were sought.Techniques Driving Success and Failure of IT OutsourcingThe fact that any one firm has achieved any given outcome or group of outcomes, does notautomatically mean that that same outcome or group of outcomes is achievable by any other firmthat outsources its IT. Various explanations were offered by managers in the case-studyorganizations for their outcomes, both successes and failures. These explanations provide quiterich insights into the case organizations and the way managers in those organizations think aboutboth outsourcing success and failure.For example, case organizations 2, 4, 5, and 6 reported that they had realized good value formoney, but each attributed it to a different reason. Case 2’s management attributed their successto offering suppliers a “take it or leave it” deal “give me as much labor as I need for an hourlyrate of 10% more than what it costs me inhouse”, Case 4’s to competitive tendering, Case 5’s tothe fixed-price nature of the contract, and Case 6’s to the long-term duration of the contract. Onemight infer then, that such techniques represent successful methods for achieving value formoney. However, the techniques that worked for these organizations were also identified asreasons for failure in other cases. For example, Case 5’s fixed-price configuration was alsoadopted by Case 1. However, in Case 1, this action caused the supplier to go bankrupt and was apoor value-for-money outcome, “we didn’t know the risk of the supplier not getting additionalclients and the sustainability of their business”. Case 6’s long-term duration solution was alsoadopted by Case 7. However, Case 7 had a poor value-for-money outcome because the price forservices in this case was higher than market rates (the second-generation deals with three newsuppliers, not just one, achieved 70% cost savings over the first-generation deal).Exploring the causes of poor outcomes led to a similar conclusion about the variability ofreasons for those outcomes. Cases 1 and 4 which realized very poor results in terms of beingable to refocus internal IT staff on strategic activities again attributed their outcomes to differentcauses. In an excellent example of Kern et al.’s Winner’s Curse (2002), Case 1’s management 28
  • 29. had chosen a new-entrant supplier that had priced its services too cheaply to make a profit andCase 1’s CIO and IT team became focused on managing disputes with the service provider ratherthan managing IT, “I was not the CIO for nine months, three days and four hours”. This was notthe reason for Case 4’s inability to refocus IT staff. Case 4 became focused on “micro-management of the users” in helping the users adopt the purchased technology becausemanagement had under-scoped the work outsourced and left out key areas that were not assignedto either party. IT staff had to carry out these activities on a reactive basis, meaning that desiredrefocusing was not achieved.Do these two cases mean that choosing a vendor that is not going to make money on the deal, orunder-scoping the work and the retained IT organization, are causes of failure? In these twocases is the answer yes, but in other cases the answer is no. For example, like Case 1, Case 5also chose a supplier that underbid the fixed price. However, Case 5’s supplier was able toabsorb the cost overruns and deliver a successful application, thereby winning substantial futurework and becoming “our number one preferred developer”. Case 5 never set out to refocus ITstaff, so that outcome was not relevant to it, but nor did it have to reallocate any staff to the“firefighting” as did Case 1 and 4. Finally, as stated earlier, Case 4 did not fully scope the worknor design carefully the retained organization. Neither did Case 3, but management there havebeen able to rescope and reshape the contract every day since signing, and it has been able torefocus IT staff well, “we have no worker bees anymore, we focus on strategy, business analysis,architecture, and relationship management”.In short, single-factor explanations of success as well as failure are too simplistic. In differentcontexts, techniques that drove successful outcomes in some cases led to failure in other cases.In addition, factors that led to failed outcomes in some cases yielded good results in others. Forthese reasons, the wide range of success advice and prescriptions appearing throughout theliterature must be viewed as highly conditional – not only in terms of the success constructs theauthor/s have adopted, but also in terms of the contextual situation of each of the organizationsinvolved. 29
  • 30. Is “Relationship with Supplier” an Outcome?As mentioned earlier, a question that arose during the conduct of the case studies was whetherthe relationship between the parties is an outcome or a means to obtain desired outcomes. Theframework in Table 1 does not explicitly recognize quality of the relationship as an outcome, yetmany practitioners and researchers argue that the key to success in outsourcing is good workingrelationships (see for example Alborz, 2005; Kern and Willcocks, 2002; Lacity and Willcocks,2000b). In terms of specific studies: Dibbern et al. (2004) note that success might only occur ifaccompanied by partnering-style behaviors; Grover et al. (1996) report that what they called“partnership”—a combination of two behaviors (supplier problem notification and the partieshelping each other) and two perceptions (supplier is trustworthy and the working relationship ishappy) by the client organization—was a major factor in explaining variance in perceptions ofoutsourcing success; and Corbett (2005) argues that outsourcing relationships replace many of anorganization’s traditional assets – people, technologies, facilities, methods, and know-how, andthat the relationship becomes a asset itself requiring ongoing investment. Based on these andsimilar studies, the importance of the relationship in achieving ITO success is indisputable.The question is, however, whether relationship goals should be treated as, say, a fifth category ofoutcomes in Tables 1 and 2 or as, say, a variable moderating or mediating other factors such asuse of selective sourcing that are posited to be drivers of ITO success. Within this study, at leasttwo of the seven case-study organizations had made achieving a better relationship a distinctgoal, albeit not at the outset of the deal. An example goal from one organization was as follows:“better change management and communications, recognize and manage the fact that differentbusinesses and countries have different relationships, having the vendor take a decision and takea risk”. Further, in the survey, respondents were asked “What importance to you attach to therelationship between the parties in this contract?” All 56 respondents chose to answer thisquestion. On a scale from 1=low to 5=high, their mean score for the Importance of theRelationship was a very high 4.70 (s.d. 0.60). Thus although relationship goals are not benefitsfrom outsourcing per se, future studies should at least consider the merit of adding relationship-type goals to the 25-point list. 30
  • 31. Generalizability of the findings from this studyThe response rate for the survey discussed in Section 3 was very low, so it is important to assessthe extent to which the results from this study are generalizable to (a) all large organizations inthe country studied, and (b) the rest of the world. Seddon and Scheepers (2006) argue that thekey to drawing generalizable conclusions from any survey with less than a 100% response rate isto demonstrate—through argument—that the sample is representative, in terms of the factors ofinterest in the study, of the population of interest.As explained earlier, 46 of 102 respondents started but did not complete the on-line survey.Their initial responses (captured on the survey website) are compared to the 56 organizations thatcompleted the survey in Table 10. The independent-samples t-test (equal variances not assumed)shows that ICT spend and the percentage of ICT expenditure outsourced are significantly higherfor the firms that completed the survey5. Assuming that non-respondent firms are more likethose who failed to complete the survey, this suggests that managers of organisations moreinvolved in outsourcing were more motivated to complete the time-consuming survey (it tookmany respondents 30 minutes to complete). The inference we draw from Table 10 is that thefindings reported in this study are likely to be more representative of organisations that makemore intense use of ICT and of ICT outsourcing than those that do not. 5 Inferential statistics (p-values) are meaningful here because the question is whether these two samplescould be random samples drawn from the same population. For average % of the ICT budget outsourced, the testsshow that this is highly unlikely. 31
  • 32. Table 10: Key statistics for organizations that completed the survey compared to those that did not The 56 The 46 firms that Difference in Significance complete started but did means, (2-tailed) responses to not complete the independent the survey survey samples t-statistic Average Revenue $2.0 billion $2.1 billion 0.375 0.709 Average Employment 3,600 4,600 0.776 0.442 Average ICT spend $44 million $41 million -2.177 0.033* Average % of ICT budget 29% 14% -3.047 0.003** outsourced Average % of outsourcing 3.2% 1.6% -0.775 0.440 budget offshore Average number of 7.5 3.8 -1.365 0.176 outsourcing contracts Average number of 6.5 5.4 -0.268 0.790 outsourcing suppliers *=p<0.05; **p<0.01Armed with this information, how generalizable are the claimed contributions of this study, first,to all large organizations in the country studied, and second, to other large organizations in theWestern world? The five claimed contributions of this study and comments on theirgeneralizability are summarized in Table 11. The analysis in Table 11 suggests that the resultsfrom this study are likely to hold true for all large organizations that outsource ICT in country X(country not specified to preserve anonymity during the review process). Further, since <othercontinents> (again, not specified to preserve anonymity) have similar institutional settings, wewould also expect the claimed contributions of this study to apply there as well.Table 11: Generalizability of claimed contributions of this study from the 63 organizations studied to all large organizations within Country X* Claimed contribution Comment on generalizability1. The new conceptual framework. Generalizable: It seems unlikely that other organizations with fewer outsourcing contracts would have more or very different desired outcomes. 32
  • 33. 2. The evidence that different Generalizable: If these 63 organizations have such organizations do seek different different mixes of goals it seems unlikely that outcomes from outsourcing. organizations with fewer outsourcing contracts would all have similar goals.3. The evidence that these goals Generalizable: If the goals of the 7 case study change over time. organizations have changed, and the outcome scores for the 31 organizations scoring current primary intended outcomes in Table 9 are so different, it seems unlikely that other organizations’ goals would not also change.4. The insight that satisfaction is a Generalizable: This was an insight based on logic, not valid perceptual measure of ITO data. It does not depend on the sample of data collected. success because it draws on the It provides the justification for the argument that the respondent’s goals, not on some correlation tests reported in Table 9 provide useful researcher’s pre-defined list. information.5. The ITO Success measurement This contribution is generalizable because the instrument based on the above contributions above are generalizable. insights.* Country name suppressed to maintain anonymity during the review process CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCHThis paper has focused on the measurement of outsourcing success. Its primary contribution isthe evidence that different organizations seek different outcomes from outsourcing and that thesechange over time. It follows that although ITO success may validly be assessed by askingquestions about overall satisfaction6—and possibly about achievement of the four broad sub-goals in Table 1 (Value for money, Improved Financial Results, Service delivery, and Strategicoutcomes), which seem to apply to most organizations—any attempt to assess ITO success interms of more detailed criteria, such as cost savings or focusing on core business, requiresidentification of the different criteria relevant to each organization for each different contract atthe time of the study.The 25 outcomes proposed in Table 1 represent a convenient catalog of frequently soughtoutcomes from ITO. Questions about the achievement of those that are relevant can be framed6 As explained earlier, satisfaction is an acceptable measure because the respondent in each organization may beassumed to use his or her organization’s own set of goals when assessing satisfaction. 33
  • 34. in terms of past, present, and future outcomes sought as well as assessed in terms of negative,null, and positive outcome realization as shown in Appendix A. In using such an instrument it isimportant to understand that organizations refine their desired outcomes from their ITO dealsover time. Thus while original outcomes sought may be met, longitudinal studies need toconsider the achievement of different outcomes at different times.Looking forward, future research might seek to explain why organizational goals for ITO change,and whether there is merit in including questions about the relationship between ITO client andvendor as an indicator of ITO success. Further progress in understanding outsourcing and thedrivers of ITO success also seems likely through studying interdependences between intendedoutcomes. Although Dibbern et al. (2004) did not find any study in this area, preliminary workcarried out by Rouse et al. (2001) found associations between cost reduction and strategicbenefits, and service and strategic benefits. In addition, Dibbern et al. called for intensiveresearch in the area of balancing multiple outsourcing outcomes and multiple stakeholderexpectations. Assessments of success are also likely to be different depending on who issurveyed and their expectations - in this study, CIOs, IT managers, and contract executives.What happens when different stakeholders are examined (i.e. users, business managers, supplierpersonnel) and the conflicting expectations that may surface, offers an interesting research path.Hirschheim and Lacity (1998; 2000) found that achieving multiple stakeholder goals is elusive, ifnot unrealistic, and involves many trade offs.These and many more research opportunities can be explored on a consistent and comparablemanner once a reasonably complete ITO success construct becomes sufficiently tested andadopted. It is hoped that this research has contributed to that goal. 34
  • 35. REFERENCES[Anon 1-5] Anonymous References withheld for anonymous refereeing.Alborz, S., Seddon, P.B. and Scheepers, R. (2005) The Quality of Relationship Construct in ITOutsourcing, Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems(PACIS), pp. 1118-1131.Apte, U. and Sobol, M. (1997) “IS outsourcing practices in the USA, Japan and Finland: acomparative study”, Journal of Information Technology, 12, (4) 289-304.Cheon, M.J., Grover, V. and Teng, J.T.C (1995) “Theoretical Perspectives on the Outsourcing ofInformation Services”, Journal of Information Technology, 10 (4) 209-210.Corbett, M. (2005) “Outsourcing: Just the end of the beginning” in Brudenall, P. (ed)Technology and Offshore Outsourcing Strategies, London: Palgrave Macmillan, x-xiiiCross, J. (1995) “IT Outsourcing at British Petroleum”, Harvard Business Review, May-June,94-102.Dibbern, J., Goles, T., Hirschheim, R, and Jayatilaka, B. (2004) “Information SystemsOutsourcing: A Survey and Analysis of the Literature”, ACM Data Base, 35 (4) 6-102.Domberger, S. (1998) The Contracting Organization: A Strategic Guide to Outsourcing, Oxford:Oxford University PressDomberger, S., Fernandez, P. and Fiebeg, D. (2000) “Modelling the price, performance andcontract characteristics of IT Outsourcing”, Journal of Information Technology, 15 (2) 107-118.Fowler, A. and Jeffs, B. (1998) “Examining information systems outsourcing: a case study fromthe United Kingdom”, Journal of Information Technology, 13, 111-126.Gregor, S. (2006) The Nature of Theory in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, 30(3) 611-642Grover, V., Cheon M.Y. and Teng J. (1996) “The Effect of Service Quality and Partnership onthe Outsourcing of Information Systems Functions”, Journal of Management InformationSystems, 12 (4) Spring 89-116.Hirschheim, R.A. and Lacity, M.C. (1998) “Reducing Information Systems Costs throughInsourcing: Experiences from the Field”, Proceedings of the 31st International Conference onSystem Sciences, Hawaii, 644-653.Hirschheim, R.A and Lacity, M.C., (2000) “The Myths and Realities of Information TechnologyOutsourcing”, Communications of the ACM, 43 (2) 99-107. 35
  • 36. Hui, P.P. and Beath, C.M. (2002) “The IT Sourcing Process: A Framework for Research”.Working Paper, Austin: University of Texas at Austin.Hurley, M. and Costa, C. (2001) The Blurring Boundary of the Organisation: OutsourcingComes of Age, Sydney: KPMG Consulting.Kern, T. and Willcocks, L.P. (2002) “Exploring Relationship in Information TechnologyOutsourcing: The Interaction Approach”, European Journal of Information Systems, 11(1) 3-19.Kern, T., Willcocks, L., and Heck, E. (2002) “The Winner’s Curse in IT Outsourcing: Strategiesfor Avoiding Relational Trauma”, California Management Review, 44(2) 47-69.King, W.R and Malhotra, Y. (2000) “Developing a Framework for Analyzing IS Outsourcing”,Information & Management, 37 323-334.Klepper, R. and Jones, W. O. (1998) Outsourcing Information Technology Systems & Services,NJ: Prentice Hall.Lacity, M.C. and Hirschheim, R.A. (1993) Information Systems Outsourcing: Myths, Metaphors,and Realities, Chichester: Wiley.Lacity M.C. and Willcocks, L.P. (1998) An empirical investigation of information technologysourcing practices: Lessons from Experience, MIS Quarterly 22(3) 363-408.Lacity, M.C. and Willcocks, L.P. (2002a) Inside Information Technology Outsourcing: A State ofthe Art Report, Templeton College, Oxford: Templeton Research.Lacity, M.C. and Willcocks, L.P. (2000b) “Relationships in IT Outsourcing: A StakeholderPerspective”, in Zmud, R. (ed.) Framing the Domains of IT Management Research: GlimpsingThe Future through The Past, California: Pinnaflex.Lacity, M.C. and Willcocks, L.P. (2001) Global Information Technology Outsourcing: Searchfor Business Advantage, Chichester: Wiley.Lacity, M.C., Willcocks, L.P. and Feeny, D.(1996) “The Value of Selective Sourcing”, SloanManagement Review, Spring 13-25Lee, J.-N., and Kim, Y.-G. (1999) “Effect of Partnership Quality on IS Outsourcing Success:Conceptual Framework and Empirical Validation”, Journal of MIS, 15(4) 29-61.Lee, J-N, Miranda, S.M. and Kim, Y-M. (2004) “IT Outsourcing Strategies: Universalistic,Contingency, and Configurational Explanations of Success”, Information Systems Research,15(2) 110–131.McAulay, M., Doherty, N. and Keval, N. (2002) “The stakeholder dimension in informationsystems evaluation”, Journal of Information Technology. 17 241-255. 36
  • 37. McFarlan, F.W and Nolan, R. (1995) “How to Manage an IT Outsourcing Alliance”, SloanManagement Review, Winter 9-23.Mylott, T.R. (1995) Computer Outsourcing: Managing the Transfer of Information Systems, NJ:Prentice Hall.Palmquist, M. et al. (2004). “Introduction to Generalizability and Transferability”. Website:http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/gentrans/pop2a.cfm (viewed June 2007)Quinn, J.B., Doorley, T. and Paquette, P. (1990) “Beyond Products: Services-Based Strategy”,Harvard Business Review, March-April 58-67.Quinn, J.B. and Hilmer, F.G. (1994) “Strategic Outsourcing”, Sloan Management Review, 35(4)43-55.Rouse, A., Corbitt B. and Aubert, B. (2001) “Perspectives on IT Outsourcing Success:Covariance Structure Modelling of a Survey of Outsourcing in Australia”, Working Paper,Montreal: Ècole des Hautes Ètudes Commericales de Montrèal, March.Saunders, C., Gebelt, M. and Hu, Q. (1997) “Achieving Success in Information SystemsOutsourcing”, Californian Management Review. 39(2) 63–79.Seddon, P.B. and Scheepers, R. (2006) Other-settings Generalization in IS Research,Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1141-1158. 37
  • 38. APPENDIX A – INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE AND SURVEY INSTRUMENT Indicate the outcomes achieved to date B. Primary A. Outcomes Achieved in section A and, in column B, the Outcomes Sought N/A Very Poor None Good Very Initially Sought To be primary outcomes sought poor good sought now sought Value for Money 1. Demonstrable value for money ____ ____ ____ 2. Market price under internal cost ____ ____ ____ Improved Financial Results 3. Obtain ongoing cost reduction ____ ____ ____ 4. Stabilise and predict costs ____ ____ ____ 5. Means of financing assets ____ ____ ____ 6. Convert capital to operating expense ____ ____ ____ 7. Aggregate total demand for economies ____ ____ ____ 8. Obtain cash for sale of assets ____ ____ ____ 9. Reduce staff numbers ____ ____ ____ 10. Rationalize/consolidate assets ____ ____ ____ 11. Get remedy for poor performance ____ ____ ____ 12. Standardize technology ____ ____ ____ 13. Standardize services ____ ____ ____ Other_________________________ ____ ____ ____ Operational 14. Improve service ____ ____ ____ 15. Obtain services not available internally ____ ____ ____ 16. Improve discipline/ accountability ____ ____ ____ 17. Obtain better/more expertise ____ ____ ____ 18. Allow more flexible work practices ____ ____ ____ 19. Align resource supply to demand/ ____ ____ ____ minimize capacity gap 20. Obtain better/more technology ____ ____ ____ Other________________________ ____ ____ ____ Strategic 21. Concentrate on core business ____ ____ ____ 22. Refocus internal IT staff on high value ____ ____ ____ /more strategic activities 23. Contribute to business (i.e. joint R&D, ____ ____ ____ joint commercialisation) 24. Access to best practices, new ____ ____ ____ developments 25. Industry development ____ ____ ____ Other ________________________ ____ ____ ____Overall satisfaction: On a scale of 1 to 5 (1=very dissatisfied, 5 =very satisfied): 1 2 3 4 5Overall, how satisfied is your organization with this contract?How satisfied is your organization with the outsourcing suppliers(s)? 38