Sharing Knowledge across Boundaries

Ciborra, Claudio; Andreu, Rafael

doi:10.1080/02683960110055103

Cited by 87 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…How can the knowledge transfer from the client organization to the vendor organization be managed more effectively? In this context, emerging tools for distributed software development or collaborative software development with substantial requirements engineering and knowledge management capabilities could facilitate the client vendor relationship, reducing extra costs in offshore outsourcing settings (Ciborra and Andreu 2001;Rus and Lindvall 2002). Finally, while our study has only focused on non-captive offshoring arrangements, the question is raised whether captive arrangements where the client holds part or all of the vendor capital may help to overcome some of the disruptive challenges of offshoring without leading to significant extra costs at the client side (e.g., for managing employee turnover) (for a recent study of differences between captive and non-captive arrangements see Levina 2006).…”

Section: Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining Variations in Client Extra Costs between Software Projects Offshored to India

Dibbern¹,

Winkler²,

Heinzl³

2008

MIS Quarterly

381

324

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gaining economic benefits from substantially lower labor costs has been reported as a major reason for offshoring labor-intensive information systems (IS) services to low-wage countries; however, if wage differences are so high, why is there such a high level of variation in the economic success between offshored IS projects? This study argues that offshore outsourcing involves a number of extra costs for the client organization that account for the economic failure of offshore projects. The objective is to disaggregate these extra costs into its constituent parts and to explain why they differ between offshored software projects. The focus is set on software development and maintenance projects that are offshored to Indian vendors. A theoretical framework is developed a priori based on transaction cost economics (TCE) and the knowledge-based view of the firm, complemented by factors that acknowledge the specific offshore context. The framework is empirically explored using a multiple case study design including six offshored software projects in a large German Financial Service institution. The results of our analysis indicate that the client incurs post contractual extra costs for four types of activities: (1) requirements specification and design, (2) knowledge transfer, (3) control, and (4) coordination. In projects that require a high level of client-specific knowledge about idiosyncratic business processes and software systems, these extra costs were found to be substantially higher than in projects were more general knowledge was needed. Notably, these costs most often arose independently from the threat of opportunistic behavior, challenging the predominant TCE logic of market failure. Rather, the client extra costs were particularly high in client-specific projects because the effort for managing the consequences of the knowledge asymmetries between client and vendor were particularly high in these projects. Prior experiences of the vendor with related client projects were found to reduce the level of extra costs but could not fully offset the increase in extra costs in highly client-specific projects. Moreover, cultural and geographic distance between client and vendor as well as personnel turnover were found to increase client extra costs. Slight evidence was found, however, that the cost increasing impact of these factors was also leveraged in projects with a high level of required client-specific knowledge (moderator effect).

show abstract

Section: Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining Variations in Client Extra Costs between Software Projects Offshored to India

Dibbern¹,

Winkler²,

Heinzl³

2008

MIS Quarterly

381

324

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Ciborra and Andreu (2001) reference S&R in connection with the concept of boundary objects. However, S&R do not develop this concept in their article, although the concept is a well-known one developed by Star in some of her other writings.…”

Section: Mistaken Referencing: Incorporating and Using Claims Not Dismentioning

confidence: 99%

Making Contributions From Interpretive Case Studies: Examining Processes of Construction and Use

Barrett¹,

Walsham²

2004

Information Systems Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we examine how contributions are established in interpretive case studies. By focusing on the introductory sections of articles, previous research in the organizational literature has recently shed light on how theorists construct opportunities for making contributions. Our theoretical approach is broader in scope, examining both the construction and use of contributions in all sections of an article. We use this approach to explore how a well-ited IS interpretive case study makes contributions. With respect to constructing contributions, our findings confirm previous strategies suggested by earlier research, and uncover the use of plural strategies. Our analysis of the use of contributions is more unexpected. For example, key theoretical and conceptual contributions that were central to the case study were rarely drawn on and incorporated by later texts. Rather, multiple audiences took up the softer, and simpler, conceptual contributions. Furthermore, our findings categorize a number of different types of referencing used by later texts in incorporating and using contributions, namely mistaken referencing, ambiguous referencing, incorporating into a new term, and related work referencing. We conclude by providing some suggestions as to how IS researchers can make better contributions from interpretive case studies

show abstract

“…There is also the phenomenon of 'drift', in which the software implementation in the organization takes a different course of action other than planned Ciborra & Andreu 2001). The implementing organization encounters unexpected circumstances that show the incompleteness and possible failure of an initial technological design without organizations having yet feasible alternatives (van Baalen & van Fenema 2005).…”

Section: Crisis In Application Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Groupware requirements evolution patterns

Pumareja¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sharing Knowledge across Boundaries

Cited by 87 publications

References 16 publications

Explaining Variations in Client Extra Costs between Software Projects Offshored to India

Explaining Variations in Client Extra Costs between Software Projects Offshored to India

Making Contributions From Interpretive Case Studies: Examining Processes of Construction and Use

Groupware requirements evolution patterns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About