The DOI matches its Crossref record.
An Empirical Investigation of Information Technology Sourcing Practices: Lessons from Experience1
Abstract
Following Kodak’s landmark information technology (IT) outsourcing decisions in 1989, the IT outsourcing market grew to 76 billion dollars in 1995. As the outsourcing market continues to grow and as new contracting options emerge, the accumulated experiences of firms offer significant opportunities for learning. This paper builds on a previous collection of data on 61 IT sourcing decisions made in 40 U.S. and U.K. organizations during the period 1991 to 1995. This paper reanalyzed transcribed interviews from 145 participants. Using “expected cost savings achieved" as an indicator of success, five best practices were identified in the case companies. First, selective outsourcing decisions had higher success rates than total outsourcing or total insourcing decisions. Second, senior executives and IT managers who made decisions together had higher success rates than either stakeholder group acting alone. Third, organizations that invited both internal and external bids had higher success rates than organizations that merely compared external bids with current IT costs. Fourth, short-term contracts achieved higher success rates than long-term contracts. Fifth, detailed fee-for-service contracts had higher success rates than other types of fee-for-service contracts. The critical elements of three contracting models are described: fee-for-service contracts, strategic alliances/partnerships, and buying-in of vendor resources. When the practices generated from the case studies are compared with current practices, we begin to understand which practices are proving robust and why new practices emerge. For example, in the participating companies, the rhetoric of a “partnership" was misused to describe contracts that are actually fee-for-service contracts. Today, practitioners who understand the inherent conflicts in fixed fee-for-service contracts are demanding what they perceive to be more favorable contracting options, such as flexibly-priced contracts, performance-based contracts, and strategic alliances based on shared risks and rewards. This analysis reconciles some of the apparent discrepancies in past findings about the best ways to source IT.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Hong, W., & Zhu, K. (2006) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.06.003 · Cited by 390
Sarker, S., Sarker, S., Sahaym, A., & Bjørn-Andersen, N. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41410419 · Cited by 367
Rai, A., Maruping, L. M., & Venkatesh, V. (2009) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/20650313 · Cited by 311
Blaskovich, J. L. (2008) · Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.2308/jis.2008.22.1.27 · Cited by 81
Koriat, N., & Gelbard, R. (2014) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.04.009 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Lacity, M. C., & Willcocks, L. P.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 1998-09-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 363-416
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W1519913602
- Cited by
- 1,005
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 26.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Empirical Investigation of Information Technology Sourcing Practices: Lessons from Experience1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/249670
- The paper
- Lacity, M. C., & Willcocks, L. P. (1998). An Empirical Investigation of Information Technology Sourcing Practices: Lessons from Experience1. MIS Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/249670
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.