Purpose This paper aims to develop a conceptual taxonomy for building requisite knowledge capabilities for different supply chain network (SCN) types. Specifically, it examines knowledge capabilities required for three types of SCNs: efficient, collaborative and agile SCNs. Design/methodology/approach This paper integrates two bodies of thought (i.e. knowledge management and organisational learning) and applies them to SCNs. An abductive research process is used to develop this conceptual taxonomy. Findings The conceptual taxonomy details three archetypical knowledge capabilities – exploitation, exploration and ambidextrous. Those knowledge capabilities are required for efficient, collaborative and agile SCNs, respectively. Research limitations/implications This paper is conceptual and theory-based. The next stages of the research seek to further strengthen the explanatory value of the taxonomy through empirical validation. Practical implications The taxonomy developed in this paper provides a valuable and pragmatic tool for managerial decision-making in the context of SCNs. Specifically, it provides a roadmap for practitioners since the study develops an understanding of the relationship between knowledge capabilities and types of SCNs. Originality/value This is one of the earliest studies that attempt to unearth requisite knowledge capabilities for different types of SCNs.

Purpose -Contemporary offshore information system development (ISD) outsourcing is becoming even more complex. Outsourcing partner has begun "re-outsourcing" components of their projects to other outsourcing companies to minimize cost and gain efficiencies. This paper aims to explore intra-organizational information asymmetry of re-outsourced offshore ISD outsourcing projects. Design/methodology/approach -An online survey was conducted to get an overall view of information asymmetry between principal and agents (as per the agency theory). Findings -Statistical analysis showed that there are significant differences between the principal and agent on clarity of requirements, common domain knowledge and communication effectiveness constructs, implying an unbalanced relationship between the parties. Moreover, the authors' results showed that these three are significant measurement constructs of information asymmetry. Research limitations/implications -In this study the authors have only considered three main factors as common domain knowledge, clarity of requirements and communication effectiveness as three measurement constructs of information asymmetry. Therefore, researches are encouraged to test the proposed constructs further to increase its precision. Practical implications -The authors' analysis indicates significant differences in all three measurement constructs, implying the difficulties to ensure that the agent is performing according to the requirements of the principal. Using the agency theory as theoretical view, this study sheds light on the best contract governing methods which minimize information asymmetry between the multiple partners within ISD outsourcing organizations. Originality/value -Currently, to the best of the authors' knowledge, no study has undertaken research on intra-organizational information asymmetry in re-outsourced offshore ISD outsourcing projects.

Information Systems Development outsourcing (ISD-outsourcing) projects are notorious for not providing agreed deliverables within the stipulated time and budget. More alarmingly, it is estimated that 19% of ISD-outsourcing projects fail outright (Hastie and Wojewod 2015). This study investigates an ISD-outsourcing failure case which was attributed to issues in the requirements engineering process. Adopting a 'control theory' perspective and leveraging case study approach, we examine how the weaknesses in control portfolio contributed to project failure. We attribute the failure not to the absence of control portfolios, rather (i) employing particular control mechanisms incorrectly depending on the phase of requirements engineering process, (ii) dominance of a particular control mechanism, and (iii) insufficiency of particular control mechanisms.

No abstract

No abstract