Perspective-varying effects of peripheral knowledge in IT outsourcing: when vendor and client are collated

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to examine how the role of peripheral knowledge changes along with the perspectives of vendor and client in inter-organizational IT outsourcing. To this end, this study tests the effects of the peripheral knowledge of vendors and clients on IT outsourcing performance under three different combinations of performance-assessing views from both parties. Design/methodology/approach To contrast the effects of the peripheral knowledge of vendors and clients based on their views, this study collects matching data on 107 projects from both parties. The survey method is adopted to measure the peripheral knowledge levels of vendors and clients and IT outsourcing success. The associations between peripheral knowledge and IT outsourcing performance are then assessed when the views match, cross and agree to a certain level. Findings The peripheral knowledge of vendors plays a more significant role than that of clients in most IT outsourcing cases. Moreover, the agreement between the peripheral knowledge of vendors and clients shows a moderating effect only when the performance is assessed by clients than by vendors. Originality/value This study contrasts the peripheral knowledge of vendors and clients by altering performance-assessing views in IT outsourcing. This study also rationalizes why the peripheral knowledge of vendors is more important than that of clients, as well as explains whose perspective is more significant when the performance is assessed.

Relational dynamics in information technology outsourcing: An integrative review and future research directions

“…Managing opportunism–obligation helps achieve satisfactory transactional ITO objectives (Huber et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2013; Könning et al., 2020), including improved efficiency, cost savings, and quality performance (Gopal and Koka, 2012; Khan et al., 2019; Shim et al., 2019). These achievements may also result in contract extension (Koh et al., 2004; Mahnke et al., 2008; Susarla et al., 2010), enabling the relationship to progress to another stage as the client develops capabilities for managing a new relationship form (Shi et al., 2005).…”

“…Cost performance (Könning et al, 2020;Shim et al, 2019) Service & project quality (Gopal and Koka, 2012;Khan et al, 2019) Efficiency (Gopal and Gosain., 2010;Wiener et al, 2015) Trigger entries…”

“…Cao et al, 2013;(Lioliou et al, 2019) results in (e.g. Koh et al, 2004;Shim et al, 2019) F I G U R E 4 Transaction-stage entries for triggers, responses, and outcomes; the derived themes and relationships between them.…”

The impact of knowledge flows on asset specificity from the perspective of open innovation

“…In addition, according to the literature (Ardito et al, 2020), outbound knowledge flows are often linked with exploitative strategies and inbound flows are linked to explorative ones. Whereas many preceding studies (West and Bogers, 2014;Shim et al, 2019) mainly deal with inbound knowledge flows, this study adopted a more comprehensive approach by investigating both coupled and outbound flows, by examining the reverse onshore outsourcing activities. These vendor MNCs not only exploit their mature technologies for the successful commercialization of technologies in the market but also explore clients' knowledge, which are combined with their unused technologies to improve the performance of implementing outsourced projects (Zheng et al, 2018).…”

“…Therefore, different modes of knowledge flows (inbound, outbound and coupled) influence the degree of asset specificity. Some studies (Westner and Strahringer, 2010) have argued that when suppliers undertake the outsourced R&D projects, knowledge sharing and flows between clients and suppliers will promote the successful implementation of the outsourced projects (Shim et al, 2019). This will encourage the two parties to maintain closer relationships and establish long-term contracts, thereby leading to an increase in the degree of asset specificity (Masten and Crocker, 1985).…”