Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,005

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

An Empirical Investigation of Information Technology Sourcing Practices: Lessons from Experience1

Lacity, Mary C., Willcocks, Leslie P.·1998·MIS Quarterly

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/249670

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

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

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.