Rethinking ERP-Outsourcing Decisions for Leveraging Technological and
Pre-serving Business Knowledge
Jens Dibbern, Lars Brehm, Armin Heinzl
Department of Information Systems (BWL VII)
University of Bayreuth, 95440 Bayreuth, Germany
Email: {Jens.Dibbern|Lars.Brehm|Heinzl}@uni-bayreuth.de
Abstract
During the selection, implementation and stabilization phases, as well as the operations and optimization phase of an ERP system (ERP-lifecycle), numerous com-panies consider to utilize the support of an external service provider. This paper analyses how different categories of knowledge influence the sourcing deci-sion of crucial tasks within the ERP lifecycle. Based on a review of the IS outsourcing literature, essential knowledge-related determinants for the IS outsourcing decision are presented and aggregated in a structural model. It will be hypothesized that internal deficits in technological knowledge in comparison to external vendors as well as the specificity of the synthesis of sp e-cial technological and specific business knowledge have a profound impact on the outsourcing decision. Then, a classification framework will be developed which facilitates the assignment of various tasks within the ERP lifecycle to their respective knowledge catego-ries and knowledge carriers which might be internal or external stakeholders. The configuaration task will be used as an example to illustrate how the structural model and the classification framework may be applied to evaluate the outsourcing of tasks within the ERP lifecycle.
1.
Introduction
The markets for ERP systems and external IS services have demonstrated impressive growth rates during the last decade. These market developments may have been mutually dependent.
ERP software packages are developed according to the general requirements of a business sector (e.g., in-dustry or business type), not according to the specific requirements of an individual company. The resulting standardization promotes the development of software markets, followed by the formation of service markets.
Before a company can utilize an ERP package, the software must first be configured in accordance with the company’s individual organizational processes and structures. The configuration consists of the setting of parameters within the limits of functionality provided by the ERP producer [3, 23].
Configuration problems may arise, however, when the functionality of the ERP package fails to meet the re-quirements of the company’s business processes [8]. In this case three alternative solution strategies might be appropriate. First, the business processes may be adapted to suit the software. Second, the source code of the ERP package may be changed; the term modification applies in this context [23, 28]. Third, adjunct software modules (satellite systems, e.g., Legacy Systems) may be used in conjunction with the ERP system [23].
Each of these activities requires not only knowledge of the product and functional characteristics of the ERP software, but also knowledge of the company’s require-ments. Both types of knowledge possess varying de-grees of relevance in the selection of an appropriate ERP package as well as in the implementation, the subsequent stabilization, and the operational phases of the ERP sys-tem (phases of the ERP-Lifecycle). With regard to the acquisition of software knowledge external service pro-viders have recognized that they are capable of realizing specialization advantages compared to a firm’s internal IS department. There are, at present, numerous ERP service providers available, e.g., systems integrators or consulting firms, which likely are cooperative partners with the ERP producers. Whereas these providers are familiar with the ERP system and have specialization ad-vantages with regard to product and functionality, the clients possess the specific business knowledge [21, p. 285f.]. Based on this asymmetry of knowledge, various forms of interfirm division of labor have developed dur-ing the execution of tasks which arise durdur-ing the phases of the ERP lifecycle. In the following, these sundry forms of demands of the service market are understood as variants of IS outsourcing.
The term “IS outsourcing” may be explicated by means of the dimensions range, duration and ownership structure. The range of IS outsourcing is determined not only by the object, but the degree of outsourcing as well. Research has differentiated between various IS func-tions: e.g., applications development and tailoring of standardized software; maintenance and support of ap-plication systems and hardware; system operations / data center; design, operations and maintenance of net-works; telecommunication centers; user support and training; as well as IS planning and management [41]. For the execution of tasks relating to each of these func-tions, physical and human resources are necessary in various degrees. These resources can be either selec-tively or completely assumed by an external service pro-vider and/or be made available by them. If only the physical resources remain in the ownership of the client, it is referred to as facilities management. Yet another distinctive form of outsourcing which relates in particular to ownership involves the transition of IS functions to a pure (100%) subsidiary. In this case, it is referred to as a “spin-off” [20]. Given mutual capital, it is a joint venture. The contractual relationships with the external service provider may be long or short-term (e.g., limited to the project or hourly).
When an ERP system is introduced into a company, various IS functions will be affected. Within the func-tion of applicafunc-tions development, a shift from develop-mental to tailoring activities occurs [21]. If a client-server-based infrastructure is not in place at the firm in-troducing the ERP system, vast networking planning and implementation efforts need to be undertaken. Further-more, training must be provided for users, and the help desk must be prepared for the new line of inquiry from users.
In principle, the introduction of an ERP system can bring about changes in all IS functions. With each and every change, the question arises of whether resources and capabilities are sufficient to carry out the individual tasks internally. If knowledge deficits become obvious two questions arise: (1) Which risks might result from outsourcing these tasks? (2) Could these risks be allevi-ated through appropriate outsourcing arrangements, contractual design or relationship management?
This paper analyses the outsourcing decision, with special consideration to technological and business-related knowledge, which is necessary to varying de-grees within the specific tasks of the ERP lifecycle. With this purpose in mind, the influence of knowledge on the IS outsourcing decision, as established by prior re-search, will first be examined. Reference will be made, in particular, to the theoretical core of the previous re-search. The critical tasks within the ERP lifecycle will then be explored and used to create a classification
framework. The framework will allow the assignment of the tasks to the various knowledge categories and to entities responsible for the tasks, henceforth referred to as task carriers, which might be internal or external stakeholders. Finally, the outsourcing decision will be illustrated via situational analysis of the tasks “configu-ration” and “operation of the ERP system.”
2.
The Importance of Knowledge in IS
Outsourcing
The knowledge aspect has been addressed in many empirical studies that examined the determinants of IS outsourcing. The majority of this research investigates the necessary and sufficient conditions for an organiza-tion to outsource IS funcorganiza-tions to external service provid-ers.
Two major arguments of the outsourcing decision may be distinguished [13]:
1. Organizations compare the production and trans-action costs for internal and external provision. The cost differences are dependent upon the characteris-tics of the IS functions (Transaction Cost Theory [44]).
2. Organizations evaluate their own IS resources and capabilities in comparison to the market, giving con-sideration to their strategic potential. The discovery of deficits within the company leads to consideration of market utilization with regard to complimentary re-sources and capabilities [19, 40] (Resource-based Theory [5]).
2.1.
Transaction Cost Theory
Within the framework of Transaction Cost Theory (TCT), the knowledge aspect is associated with human asset specificity. According to Williamson one can dif-ferentiate between necessary and sufficient conditions of human asset specificity. The intellectual capabilities of employees serve as a necessary condition. Sufficient criteria poses the question of whether or not the knowl-edge for the performance of tasks can only be achieved through a “learning by doing” process. As an example, Williamson states, “[K]knowledge of a particular firm’s filing system (...) can be highly specific (nontransfer-able)” [44, p. 563]. A possible organizational form for the development of this type of knowledge is teamwork [1, 44].
If an IS function poses a high degree of human asset specificity this leads to specific investments on the part of the external service provider. The external supplier
has to acquire the company specific knowledge to per-form the tasks. Based on the assumption that the vendor will behave opportunistically, he will attempt to over-compensate for these investments during the life of the contract. In order to avoid this behavior, considerable costs are incurred for the planning, adapting, and moni-toring task completion within the individual IS functions (transaction costs). Moreover, external vendors, in this case, are unable to realize any cost advantages in per-forming the tasks within the IS function(s) (production costs), i.e., realize economies of scale; thus, a cost com-parison that favors external provision is unlikely.
In the confirmatory research reviewed, asset specific-ity often is measured as a mixture of human and physical asset specificity. In addition human asset specificity is regarded to both business knowledge and technological knowledge. In constructs that focus primarily on the specificity of hardware and software components [26, 33] or on the functional complexity [2] (physical asset speci-ficity), no influence on the degree of outsourcing could be determined. However, a negative impact on the de-gree of IS outsourcing was ascertained in operationaliza-tion relating to tacit technological knowledge [33], tech-nological and business process specific knowledge [2] or the necessity of company or division specific knowl-edge, an approach custom tailored to the company and costliness of outsourcing or changing providers [35]. In a study concerning small and mid-sized firms, no correla-tion between the asset specificity of human capital in IS functions (necessity of knowledge regarding working procedures in and between departments as well as team and project work extending beyond the department) and the degree of outsourcing could be determined [14].
2.2.
Resource-based Theory
The study conducted by Dibbern and Heinzl [14], however, confirms the hypothesis that small and mid-sized firms increasingly outsource IS functions given resource deficits - gaps in present performance and fu-ture knowledge - compared to the market [14]. This cau-sality is based on Resource-based Theory (RBT). With regard to deficits in the quality of personnel and IS sup-port it has already been proven by the research of Teng et al. [41]. There is also a series of studies, which, though not explicitly referring to RBT, cite similar argu-ments. Loh supports the hypothesis that advantages are associated with IS outsourcing via access to new tech-nology, expert knowledge, and the promotion of innova-tive use of IS (technological imperainnova-tive) [26]. The result is a higher degree of IS outsourcing. The findings of the work by Poppo and Zenger confirm that companies will outsource IS functions, the more comprehensive the
demands for personnel with extensive knowledge and skills are [35]. Nelson et al. show that software develop-ment projects which are based on specific technology and advanced development environments, are either more likely to be outsourced or are connected to the ac-quisition of standard software [34]. Nam et al. show that strong systems heterogeneity is associated with a higher degree of outsourcing of IS functions [33].
Further indications for the fact that companies out-source IS functions in order to get access to state of the art skill sets and technological know-how, can be found in the exploratory works of Clark et al. [9], DiRomualdo and Gurbaxani [15], Lacity and Hirschheim [24], McLellan et al. [30] and Fowler and Jeffs [18].
The fact, however, that companies outsource IS due to their own knowledge deficit is also critically reflected in the literature. Based on their case research Lacity et al. warn: “Most of the companies in our study that out-sourced emerging technologies experienced disastrous results because they lacked the experience to negotiate sound contracts and evaluate supplier’s performance” [25, p. 91].
Whereas Lacity et al. refer primarily to the risk of higher post-contractual costs than originally expected, that partially result from opportunistic behavior of the external provider [25], some conceptual work emphasizes the risk of losing innovative capabilities within the com-pany [7, 17, 29]. In her conceptual study Duncan main-tains that external service providers often show strong technological knowledge with regard to the specification and functionality of information systems [16]. They are, however, lacking the firm knowledge necessary to make use of the full potential of the technology. Yet, at the same time, technological knowledge within the company is important in order to recognize the firm’s value in-creasing potential in the future. Duncan adds, “The key reason firms support an internal IS department is the perceived value in cultivating employees who combine both knowledge of technology and knowledge of the firm” [16] p. 681]. Filling knowledge gaps over the short-term with the help of an external provider brings the dan-ger of long-term erosion of knowledge, control, and flexi-bility in the recognition of IS potential. According to Duncan this goes beyond the danger of opportunistic behavior which plays a central role in TCT.
In contrast, Quinn and Hilmer argue that the accessi-bility to superior technological resources is not limited to the internal innovative process [36]. Although they do not deny that outsourcing involves strategic risks such as the loss of technological capabilities and corre-sponding control opportunities, they maintain that these risks can be minimized through appropriately structured contractual relationships. They do not, however, discuss how these contractual relationships should be formed,
nor do they consider the costs that would be incurred thereby.
2.3.
Structural Model of IS Outsourcing
The knowledge related logic of TCT and RBT may be summarized in a structural model that explains the vary-ing degree of outsourcvary-ing IS functions (Figure 1).
The literature survey shows that knowledge is not perceived as a single construct. This is due to the fact that for the completion of tasks within the IS functions, different kinds of knowledge are necessary in varying degrees, e.g. in applications development on the one hand knowledge is essential to understand the require-ments of the business units. On the other hand knowl-edge about modeling, construction and programming is needed to actually build the application. In the following both types of knowledge will be distinguished as busi-ness functional knowledge and technological knowl-edge.
The central element responsible for characterizing knowledge as to be specific is reflected by the degree of knowledge that can only be acquired through a long-term process of learning and experiences within an or-ganizational setting. Based on their case analysis Beath and Walker [6] argue that in case of the software acquis i-tion and implementai-tion process, external service pro-viders in particular hold tacit knowledge regarding the software. They can quickly adapt the knowledge about standard firm processes. However, in the case of unique processes, a significant amount of time has to be in-vested in understanding the work procedures. To enable this transfer of knowledge a “socio-technological clo-sure” must be achieved [38, p. 156]. This reflects the communication of knowledge via group exchange of learning and experiences. In Figure 1 this interaction pro-cess is illustrated as a “Synthesis” between special technological and specific business functional knowl-edge. The technological knowledge per se can rarely be classified as firm specific. It can be learned outside the boundaries of the firm. Its use and usefulness is not lim-ited to a specific organizational setting. It can vary in its specialty but not in firm specificity. Thus specificity of knowledge is determined by the need to acquire busi-ness knowledge, that can only be learned through a long-term learning-by-doing process or synonymously by the need to constantly interact with those stakeholders that possess the required business knowl-edge.
Outsourcing an IS function that includes the perform-ance of tasks requiring specific knowledge poses two different kinds of risks. Firstly there is the risk of an ex-ternal supplier to behave opportunistically in
overcom-pensating for this specific investment during the life of the contract. This reflects the logic of TCT. Secondly outsourcing a highly specific IS function increases the risk of loosing the strategic potential of that function. Strategic potential might be defined as the contribution of an IS function to reach the strategic goals of a com-pany (e.g. cost leadership or differentiation). Based on RBT only firm specific resources can fulfill this condition as they are nontradeable and difficult to imitate and sub-stitute by competitors [13]. Distinguishing between both types of risks, the following proposition can be deduced:
P1: The more firm specific the knowledge is to perform the tasks within an IS function, the higher the risks associ-ated with outsourcing this function.
Assuming that companies are generally risk avers, the following proposition can be stated:
P2: The higher the risks associated with outsourcing an IS function, the less this function will be outsourced.
The analysis of a firm’s necessary base of knowledge to perform the present and future tasks within an IS func-tion might bring to light own technological knowledge deficits. These gaps can be either closed internally or through contracting with an external supplier.
The more special the required technological skills are, the higher is the specialization advantage of an external supplier, as he can leverage this knowledge through a broad range of customers. It can be concluded:
P3: The higher the degree of special technological knowl-edge to perform the tasks within an IS function, the higher is the perception of internal knowledge deficits compared to external service providers.
The higher the perceived comparative deficits, the higher are the perceived costs of adapting the knowl-edge internally which leads to the following proposition.
P4: The higher the perception of internal knowledge defi-cits compared to external service providers in per-forming the tasks within an IS function, the more this function will be outsourced.
The tendency of unreflectedly outsourcing an IS function due to technological knowledge deficits might, however, be lowered if the risks associated with outsourcing are perceived to be very high. Thus it can be stated:
P5: The higher the risks associated with outsourcing an IS function the lower will be the strength of P4.
The perception of high risks as a response to a high degree of knowledge specificity might, however, be lim-ited due to the awareness of ways of risk reduction.
Specificity of knowledge within IS-function(s) Business specific knowledge special technological knowledge
Risks associated with outsourcing IS function(s) Opportunistic behavior of external service provider Loss of strategic potential of IS Internal knowledge deficits within IS function(s) compared to the market Synthesis (P1+) Degree of outsourcing of IS function(s) ( P2 - ) (P4+) Ways of risk reduction (P6 - ) (P3+)
Not the focus of this paper Legend:
(P5-)
Figure 1: Structural model of the influence of knowledge on IS outsourcing
In general, mechanisms that reduce the risk ex ante through appropriate contractual arrangements [4] and ex post risk management techniques that are applied during the life of the contract might be distinguished, e.g. risk might ex ante be reduced through a joint venture; ex post reduction might be achieved through trust building mechanisms (living the joint-venture). It follows:
P6: Ways of risk reduction will lower the strength of P1.
This moderating effect would indirectly reduce the strength of P5
3.
Knowledge-Oriented Analysis of Tasks in
the ERP-Lifecycle
Before the structural model can be applied to analyze the ERP-outsourcing decision, the tasks that arise during the ERP lifecycle must first be determined. These tasks make up the potential objects of outsourcing and thus will substitute the term “IS function” within the model. In a second step the different types of knowledge neces-sary to perform the tasks within the ERP-lifecycle are identified. Finally the potential internal and external stakeholders are determined. The three dimensions serve as a basis for the creation of a framework, which enables the assignment of individual tasks in the ERP-lifecycle to various knowledge categories and internal or external stakeholders.
3.1.
Tasks in the ERP-Lifecycle
The software or application lifecycle covers the proc-ess of software development, use, and maintenance, which eventually ends with the uninstallment thereof. Generally, the software lifecycle is described using a series of phases and the corresponding activities per-formed during the phases [23]. The various models that describe the software lifecycle are based on custom-developed software. The suitability of these models for the description of the software lifecycle in organizations that employ an ERP package is, however, limited. The decision to deploy an ERP package results in a separate software lifecycle. Markus and Tanis [28], as well as Ross [37] elaborated four respectively five distinctive phases. Based on these two contributions we distin-guish the following four phases: (1) acquisition, (2) plementation, (3) stabilization, and (4) operation and im-provement.
The acquisition phase includes the sound selection of an ERP package and the planning of the implementa-tion project (including time schedule, budget and project leadership). During the implementation phase, activities take place, which are focused on incorporating the ERP system into one (or more) organizational unit(s) in pro-ductive operations. Following the propro-ductive start of the ERP system (referred to as ‘going-live’), many firms exp e-rience a phase of problems and reduced productivity before stabilization occurs, i.e., before normal business
operation is achieved. The stabilization phase generally continues for several months or, at times, even years. It is followed by the operation and improvement phase, during which the ERP system is supplemented with new functionalities through the deployment of updates and new releases. The operation and improvement phase concludes with the de-installation of the ERP system or the migration to yet another information system.
The general tasks of project management, which are present in all projects of this size, will not be closely ex-amined. Based on scientific [12, 28, 39] as well as practi-cal research [4, 27, 43], the primary ERP-related tasks for each phase are identified in Table 1.
Table 1: Tasks in the lifecycle of an ERP system
Phases Tasks
1) Acquisition
(several months)
• Define specification
• Select an ERP package
2) Implemen-tation
(6 months to 3 years)
• Define target concept, including a detailed description of the business processes to be supported (poten-tially after reengineering)
• Install IT-infrastructure and ERP-software package
• Configure and possibly modify the ERP package; also documentation
• Build interfaces to other systems & data conversion
• Test and rectify errors
• Train end-users (including user documentation)
• Roll-out and switching to productive operations
3) Stabilization
(up to 6 months)
• Rectify errors in ERP system (within the configuration or modification) or IT-infrastructure
• Modify business routines
• Improve systems performance (e.g., via expansion of hardware)
• Repeat training or provide additional training 4) Operation and Im -provement (10 - 15 years)
• Implement updates or new releases
• Support users and provide delta training
• Operate ERP-system (IT-infrastructure and ERP-Basis)
• Continuous process improvement and respective system tailoring
The tasks related to the ERP system are often subdi-vided into technical or functional, i.e. application related tasks [4, 27]. Technical tasks, on the one hand, relate to
the IT infrastructure, e.g., the installation and mainte-nance of the server (including the operational system, hard drive memory, etc.), the computer at the workplace, and the network. On the other hand, they consist of tasks directly related to the operation of the ERP system, e.g., the monitoring and optimization of the database, upon which the ERP system is based, memory manage-ment, user managemanage-ment, as well as printer and spool management. In SAP R/3, the latter are considered as so-called basis activities.
Functional tasks are related to functionality provided by the ERP system and its use. They include the con-figuration of the ERP package, possible modifications, integration and tests of the ERP system, training of the end user, and organization of roll-outs. Functional tasks are often organized according to individual mo dules.
3.2.
Knowledge Categories in the Lifecycle of
the ERP System
In order to be able to analyze the knowledge neces-sary to perform the tasks within the ERP lifecycle, it is useful to subdivide this knowledge into categories. Based on the authors’ own findings from 25 personal interviews with IS representatives in 15 companies, this paper suggest seven different knowledge categories: 1. IS-Infrastructure and ERP Basic Knowledge: This
knowledge category refers to the technical tasks in the ERP lifecycle. Knowledge of hardware (e.g., server, computers at the workplace, and networks, software included) and basis services of the ERP package (data bank, ERP core, user management, among others) are essential. This knowledge is de-pendent upon the IS infrastructure and the ERP package used. With the exception of certain “tricks,” it can be learned through training.
2. Programming Knowledge: This category includes knowledge of the programming language of the ERP package (e.g., ABAP/4 in SAP R/3) and the architec-ture of the ERP software. This knowledge is neces-sary in order to be able to modify the ERP package. It can be learned in respective handbooks and courses. 3. ERP-Functionality Knowledge: This knowledge
refers to the functionality available in ERP software packages that reflects the reference processes de-picted in the software. It includes knowledge of the full rang of parameters and their setting for configura-tion. This knowledge is highly dependent on the ERP package in use. Although it is partly docu-mented by the ERP producer, actual application re-quires a learning process due to the complexity of the ERP package.
The ERP producers offer training for these three knowl-edge categories. Nonetheless, substantially more experi-ence is required to be able to effectively apply this knowledge.
4. Legacy-System Knowledge: This knowledge refers primarily to custom-developed applications. Knowl-edge of the specifications is typically attributed to an individual and is poorly documented. During ERP implementation, data from the old system is often converted. It is also possible that Legacy-Systems work together with the ERP system productively. 5. Best-Practice Knowledge: This category includes
the knowledge regarding the best standard procedure for business processes and the appropriate organiza-tional structure within an industry or business type. Many consulting firms maintain that they have ac-quired, refined and implemented this knowledge via numerous business process reengineering-projects within companies.
6. Business Process Knowledge: This knowledge in-cludes the unique manner in which business pro c-esses are performed within an individual firm. It is of-ten attributed to an individual or a group within the firm and involves a high degree of knowledge from
experience. Knowledge of relationships beyond de-partmental boundaries is especially pertinent. 7. Usage Knowledge: This category consists of the
knowledge regarding the correct use of the ERP ap-plications. It is vital to the achievement of the de-sired results in the daily use of the ERP package. It is acquired by end users primarily through training and learning-by-doing and often accessible in application documentation.
3.3.
Classification Framework
To illustrate the initial situation in the ERP-sourcing decision, the separate tasks and knowledge categories are confronted with the alternative internal and external stakeholders, i.e. task/knowledge carriers.
Regarding firm internal stakeholders, the employees of the IS department are the first to be considered. In large companies these employees usually are assigned to individual IS functions based on a division of labor. Ac-cordingly they may be assigned to specific tasks in the ERP lifecycle. Furthermore, it is possible that IS comp e-tency may have shifted to user departments while the IS function has enfolded throughout the organization [21]. Task Stakeholders Knowledge categories Program-ming IS-infrastructure & ERP basis Legacy System Usage Operation of IS-infrastructure & ERP basis
define specification
configuration
modification select an ERP package
...
Continuous process improvement interfaces to other systems
& data conversion install IS-infrastructure &
ERP package
Consultants IS-employeeTechnical Functional IS-employee Keyuser End user Freelancer Hardware supplier former IS-departments Systems integrators Generic outsourcer Business Process external internal Best Practice ERP functionality
In the ERP context, one speaks of “key users” which are to be distinguished from the average end users.
The external stakeholders may be subdivided into various types. According to the findings of the exten-sive research of Mitchell and Fitzgerald [31], there are five different IS service companies, namely (1) consult-ants, (2) systems integrators, (3) hardware providers, (4) former IS departments, and (5) generic outsourcers. A sixth category, (6) freelancers [22], should also be taken in consideration.
Figure 2 illustrates the manner in which tasks may be classified according to knowledge category and internal or external stakeholders. Using the task of “configura-tion” as an example, a possible classification scenario is presented. Both knowledge of the functionality of the software and of the business processes, is necessary for the establishment of parameters in the configuration task. It is assumed that the required knowledge is dis-tributed asymmetrically. Whereas ERP functionality knowledge is located at a consultant, functional employ-ees in the internal IS department and key users hold the business process knowledge.
4.
Application of the Framework and the
Structural Model
The aforementioned example, however, leaves open the question regarding the implications of the division of knowledge on the sourcing decision. The causal rela-tionships presented in the structural model in Figure 1 may be used to answer this question. In the following, the application of the model will be outlined using the examples of “configuration” of the ERP system.
It is assumed that during the acquisition process the choice is made for a certain ERP package. In the case of configuration, the previously described initial situation is to be taken into consideration, i.e., internal deficits exist in the ERP functionality knowledge. The structural model indicates that when knowledge deficits are present, outsourcing takes place (P4). However this tendency will mitigate when the risks associated with outsourcing the configuration task are rated as to be high (P5). The question then arises, which risks result from outsourcing the performance of this task to an external supplier. To answer this question, the specificity of the configuration task must first be assessed. ERP functionality knowl-edge, per se, cannot be classified as to be specific. It is of a technical nature. However, it has to be kept in mind that the configuration requires a synthesis of ERP func-tionality knowledge and knowledge about the require-ments of the business (business processes). The latter here are classified as unique to the firm. The under-standing of the processes and the needs of the clients
would require an exchange of knowledge between inter-nal IS employees and key users, as well as exterinter-nal con-sultants. This means a specific investments by the exter-nal provider which he will strive to overcompensate during the course of the contract. Thus, the risk of op-portunistic behavior on the part of the external consult-ant and accordingly the danger of high transaction costs does exist (P1). To reduce this risk (P6) contractual ar-rangements alone might not be suffcient. Incentives can be used to motivate the consultant to a “voluntary” ex-change of knowledge. The ideal situation occurs when the consultant is able to utilize knowledge gained, e.g., special industry knowledge, at other client sites [6]. In this case, the consultant has the opportunity to use the client as a reference. This is a “win-win” situation, as the client also has the opportunity to absorb the ERP func-tionality knowledge of the external provider (= transfer of knowledge) and thus becomes more independent of the consultant. In this case the external supplier would only temporarily be engaged to overcome internal deficits and absorb the technological knowledge. As a consequence the strategic potential remains within the company and gets even strengthened through increasing its ability to absorb future technical and functional innovations.
Yet another scenario is conceivable, namely the as-sumption of the former internal IS employees being transferred to the external provider. The considerations in the aforementioned case apply to this case as well --with one exception: the client enters into a long-term, dependent relationship with the external consultant and loses owners of his specific process knowledge. Both the risk of opportunistic behavior of the supplier and losing strategic potential appear in this situation. This risk could be minimized via an interest in / equity share with the external provider (= joint venture). Currie and Willcocks found the supplier’s motivation to develop sector specific knowledge to be associated with the building of a joint venture [11]. In this case, however, one must be cognizant of the fact that the former internal IS employees now support external clients as well; thus, an erosion of firm specific process knowledge can hardly be ruled out.
5.
Conclusion
In summary we believe, that a differentiated analysis of knowledge that is required to perform the tasks within the ERP life cycle has a significant impact on the deci-sion to outsource these tasks. A review of the IS outsourcing literature showed that knowledge is not perceived as single construct. In particular technological and business knowledge can be distinguished. Depend-ing on the tasks within the ERP lifecycle both types are
required in varying degrees. Different kinds of techno-logical knowledge are needed in all tasks, e.g. knowledge of the software functionality in the configuration task. This type of knowledge can be differentiated according to its specialty. Often the external market is perceived as to be superior in providing this type of knowledge. The need of business knowledge varies from task to task. Its variance can be determined by the degree of its specific-ity which is reflected by the need to acquire business knowledge that can only be acquired through a long-term learning-by-doing process within the company. The specificity of knowledge plays a major role in both TCT and RBT. However its impact on the sourcing decision differs in both theoretical lenses. According to TCT it increases the risk of opportunistic behavior of the ven-dor. Based on RBT it increases the risk of loosing strate-gic potential of IS. The higher the perceived risk the less a risk avers company would outsource an ERP task. However, there might be various strategies of risk reduc-tion. These techniques were not the focus of this contri-bution and need further examination. Surprisingly view detailed information can be found in prior research about the arrangement of service level agreements as well as the role of ownership in contractual arrangements and of incentive systems to mitigate risk.
This paper concentrated on the analysis of different tasks within the ERP lifecycle. This reflects the selective outsourcing behavior in practice. Implicitly it is assumed that these tasks are independent of each other. In future research potential task interdependencies that in turn could result in knowledge interdependency need to be considered [42]. Studies are needed that carefully inves-tigate the knowledge exchange behavior between differ-ent task carriers within the IS function. Even though em-ployees that perform technical tasks do not require busi-ness knowledge, they might be important internal sources of knowledge to evaluate new technological developments in the market.
The emergent market driven application service pro-vider (ASP) software delivery model serves as one of the more recent examples. Both ERP producers as well as IT service companies already offer ERP software via a ASP solution [10]. However, how can a company evaluate the option to provide the ERP applications via a standard browser without having competent employees inter-nally? Too easily in a case of missing internal techno-logical knowledge it gets neglected that ASP can also be established within the boundaries of the firm. A risk analysis might be needed that investigates the ASP model at first independent of the outsourcing option. Secondly the (leveraged) risks need to be determined that arise by realizing ASP through an external supplier. In the latter case the structural model developed in this paper might be of use as well. A starting point would be
to ask: Which tasks within the ERP-lifecycle are effected by pure ASP?
Bibliography
[1] Alchian, A.A. and Woodward, S., "Reflections on the Theory of the Firm," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Econom -ics; Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, vol. 143, no. 1, 1987, pp. 110-136.
[2] Ang, S. and Cummings, L.L., "Strat egic Response to Instit u-tional Influences on Information Systems Outsourcing," Organi-zation Science, vol. 8, no. 3, 1997, pp. 235-256.
[3] Appelrath, H.-J. and Ritter, J., R/3-Einführung: Methoden und Werkzeuge, SAP Kompetent, ed. Peter Mertens and Peter Zenke, Berlin u.a.: Springer, 2000.
[4] Bancroft, N.H., Seip, H., and Sprengel, A., Implementing SAP R/3, 2nd ed., Greenwich: Manning, 1998.
[5] Barney, J., "Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Ad-vantage," Journal of Management, vol. 17, no. 1, 1991, pp. 99-120.
[6] Beath, C.M. and Walker, G., "Outsourcing of Application Software: A Knowledge Management Perspective," in Proceed-ings of Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA, 1998, pp. 666-674.
[7] Beyah, G. and Gallivan, M.J., "Knowledge Management as a Framework for Understanding Public Sector Outsourcing," in Proceedings of Annual Hawaii International Conference on Sys-tem Sciences, Hawaii, 2001.
[8] Brehm, L., Heinzl, A., and Markus, M.L., "Tailoring ERP Systems: A Spectrum of Choices and their Implications," in Pro-ceedings of 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA, 2001, pp. 1-9.
[9] Clark, T.D., Jr., Zmud, R.W., and McCray, G.E., "The Outsourcing of Information Services: Transforming the Nature of Business in the Information Industry," Journal of Information Technology, vol. 10, 1995, pp. 221-237.
[10] Currie, W.L. and Seltsikas, P., "A Market Segmentation Strategy for Developing an ASP Business," in R. Hirschheim, A. Heinzl, and Jens Dibbern, ed., Information Systems Outsourcing in the New Economy, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag, forthcoming 2002.
[11] Currie, W.L. and Willcocks, L.P., "Analysing Four Types of IT Sourcing Decisions in the Context of Scale, Client/Supplier Interdependency and Risk Mitigation," Information Systems Journal, vol. Autumn, 1998, pp. 119-143.
[12] Davenport, T.H., Mission Critical: Realizing the Promise of Enterprise Systems, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2000.
[13] Dibbern, J., Güttler, W., and Heinzl, A., "Die Theorie der Unternehmung als Erklärungsansatz für das selektive Outsourcing der Informationsverarbeitung," Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft (ZfB), vol. 71, no. 6, 2001, pp. 675-699.
[14] Dibbern, J. and Heinzl, A., "Outsourcing der Informa-tionsverarbeitung im Mittelstand: Test eines multitheoretischen Kausalmodells," Wirtschaftsinformatik, vol. 43, no. 3, 2001, pp. 339-350.
[15] DiRomualdo, A. and Gurbaxani, V., "Strategic Intent for IT Outsourcing," Sloan Management Review, vol. Summer, 1998, pp. 67-80.
[16] Duncan, N.B., "Beyond Opportunism: A Resource-based View of Outsourcing Risk," in Proceedings of 31st Hawaii Inter-national Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA, 1998, IEEE, pp. 675-684.
[17] Earl, M.J., "The risks of outsourcing IT," Sloan Ma n-agement Review, vol. 37, no. 3, 1996, pp. 26-32.
[18] Fowler, A. and Jeffs, B., "Examining Information Sy s-tems Outsourcing: A Case Study from the United Kingdom," Journal of Information Technology, vol. 13, 1998, pp. 111-126. [19] Grant, R.M., "The Resource-Based Theory of Compet i-tive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation," Califor-nia Management Review, vol. 33, no. 3, 1991, pp. 114-135. [20] Heinzl, A., Die Ausgliederung der betrieblichen Daten-verarbeitung : eine empirische Analyse der Motive, Formen und Wirkungen, Vol. 2. Aufl., Stuttgart: Poeschel, 1993.
[21] Heinzl, A., Die Evolution der betrieblichen DV-Abteilung: eine lebenszyklustheoretische Analyse, Heidelberg: Physica, 1996.
[22] Knolmayer, G., "Supporting the Recruitment of Inde-pendent Workers by Cybermediaries: A Case Study of Modified Outsourcing Relationships in Human Resource Management," in R. Hirschheim, A. Heinzl, and Jens Dibbern, ed., Information Systems Outsourcing in the New Economy, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag, forthcoming 2002.
[23] Krcmar, H., Informationsmanagement, Berlin u. a.: Springer, 1997.
[24] Lacity, M.C. and Hirschheim, R., "The Information Systems Outsourcing Bandwagon," Sloan Management Review, vol. 35, no. 1, 1993, pp. 73-86.
[25] Lacity, M.C., Willcocks, L.P., and Feeny, D.F., "IT Outsourcing: Maximize Flexibility and Control," Harvard Busi-ness Review, vol. May-June, 1995, pp. 84-93.
[26] Loh, L., "An Organizational-Economic Blueprint for Information Technology Outsourcing: Concepts and Evidence," in Proceedings of 15th International Conference on Information Systems, Vancouver, Canada, 1994, pp. 73-89.
[27] Lozinsky, S., Enterprise-wide software solutions : inte-gration strategies and practices, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1998.
[28] Markus, M.L. and Tanis, C., "The Enterprise Systems Experience - From Adoption to Success," in R.W. Zmud, ed., Framing the Domains of IT Research: Glimpsing the Future Through the Past, Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Educational Re-sources, Inc., 2000, pp. 173-207.
[29] McFarlan, F.W. and Nolan, R.L., "How to Manage an IT Outsourcing Alliance," Sloan Management Review, vol. 36, no. 2, 1995, pp. 9-23.
[30] McLellan, K., Marcolin, B.L., and Beamish, P.W., "Fi-nancial and Strategic Motivations Behind IS Outsourcing," Jour-nal of Information Technology, vol. 10, 1995, pp. 299-321. [31] Michell, V. and Fitzgerald, G., "The IT Outsourcing Mar-ket-Place: Vendors and their Selection," Journal of Information Technology, vol. 12, 1997, pp. 223-237.
[33] Nam, K., Rajagopalan, S., Rao, H.R., and Chaudhury, A., "A Two-Level Investigation of Information Systems Outsourcing," Communications of the ACM, vol. 39, no. 7, 1996, pp. 36-44.
[34] Nelson, P., Richmond, W., and Seidmann, A., "Two di-mensions of software acquisition," Communications of the ACM, vol. 39, no. 7, 1996, pp. 29-35.
[35] Poppo, L. and Zenger, T., "Testing Alternative Theories of the Firm: Transaction Cost, KnowledgBased, and Measur e-ment Explanations for Make-or-Buy Decisions in Information Services," Strategic Management Journal, vol. 19, 1998, pp. 853-877.
[36] Quinn, J.B. and Hilmer, F.G., "Strategic Outsourcing," Sloan Management Review, vol. 35, no. 4, 1994, pp. 43-55. [37] Ross, J.W., The ERP Revolution: Surviving Versus Thriving, Working Paper CISR WP 307, Sloan WB 4086, Center for Information System Research, Sloan School of Management, MIT, August 1999.
[38] Scarbrough, H., "The External Acquisition of Informa-tion Systems Knowledge," in L.P. Willcocks and M.C. Lacity, ed., Strategic Sourcing of Information Systems, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1998, pp. 137-161.
[39] Shin, H. and Lee, J., "A Process Model of Application Software Package Acquisition and Implementation," Journal of Systems Software, vol. 32, no. 1, 1996, pp. 57-64.
[40] Teece, D.J., Rumelt, R.P., Dosi, G., and Winter, S.G., "Understanding Corporate Coherence: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 23, 1994, pp. 1-30.
[41] Teng, J.T.C., Cheon, M.J., and Grover, V., "Decisions to Outsource Information Systems Functions: Testing a Strategy-Theoretic Discrepancy Model," Decision Sciences, vol. 26, no. 1, 1995, pp. 75-103.
[42] Thompson, J.D., Organizations in Action, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
[43] Welti, N., Successful SAP R/3 Implementation: Practical Management of ERP Projects, New York: Addision-Wesley, 1999.
[44] Williamson, O.E., "The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach," American Journal of Sociology, vol. 87, no. 3, 1981, pp. 548-577.
