The dynamics of the relationship between service recipient and service provider in IS outsourcing relationships recently gained increased attention as relationships are believed to have a considerable influence on IS outsourcing success. This study adds to this growing field of interest by developing an IS outsourcing relationship framework in the form of a process model. Three rather disjointed areas of research, namely contractual governance, relational norms, and control, have been set in a common context by interrelating them as the three main governance modes that jointly influence the relationship. One in-depth case study has been conducted in order to provide first empirical evidence and to gain deeper insights into the dynamics of relationship governance. The proposed model could be confirmed in general, revealing the following insights: first, contractual and relational governance modes determine the rules that govern the relationship while control is used to execute and enforce specified rules. All three jointly influence the state of the relationship. Second, relational norms have only been observed at an individual level and not at an organizational one. Third, formal control modes have been used to execute and enforce relational norms. This finding contradicts current control theory. Fourth, while contractual and relational governance are seen as complementary and equally important, relational norms have been left completely unmanaged in the observed organization due to a lack of adequate approaches. These results are discussed in detail to outline opportunities for further research.

Text Sample: Chapter 3.2.2, Towards an IS Outsourcing Relationship Framework: In order to answer the named research questions, a more specific understanding of the terms relationship and relationship governance has to be developed. A distinct set of constructs will be presented below, based on the concepts identified in the literature review. These constructs will then be related to each other in the subsequent chapter. So far, a few insights into the conceptual understanding of IS outsourcing relationships can be made. First, IS outsourcing relationships are determined by contractual and relational aspects, which is reflected by multiple theoretical groundings. Broadly speaking, economic theory in the form of transaction cost economics and agency theory, social theory, and relational exchange theory are often used as lenses in reviewed articles. Second, a fairly detailed understanding of contract design and contractual governance exists. Third, the understanding of relationship norms, characteristics and relational governance is rather heterogeneous, if not to say inconclusive. Fourth, control has been shown to be an appropriate and applicable measure to govern inter-firm relationships. Nevertheless, research about control in IS relationships has been limited to application development environments, lacking an examination of control in a non-project context. An integration of existing approaches seems to be difficult as frameworks and theoretical groundings are too different. This study therefore suggests consolidating prior research in the form of a conceptual framework based on existing definitions. The first aim is to clearly distinguish between the relationships in and of themselves and the mechanisms used to govern these relationships. The question of what constitutes a relationship itself is basically a question about inherent characteristics or properties whereby a relationship can be described. A characteristic is a distinguishing quality, understood as an essential and distinctive attribute. A property is a basic or essential attribute shared by all members of a class. Thus, qualifiers of a relationship have to be abstractions, abstract nouns, or terms, comparable to the category of attributes from Goles & Chin (2002). Referring to the relationship governance definition from Poppo et al. (2008), which is used in this study, governance is understood as the act of governing. Governing means to bring something into conformity with rules or principles of usage. Thus, relationship governance mechanisms have to be activities, routines, or processes. As a next step towards a relationship framework, relationship constructs identified in Chapter 2.2.3.2 Relational Governance, Table 7, are consolidated by merging corresponding products based on the definitions in respective articles. Macneil (1980) is excluded from this consolidation as his work was included in Table 7 for reference only. As a result, 14 distinct construct categories have been identified and listed in Table 11 together with their respective articles. One term from each category is selected to represent the underlying construct. The resulting terms are then grouped into attributes and processes based on previously derived definitions. Table 12 provides an overview of the grouped constructs together with an overview of articles using the respective constructs. As Table 12 shows, the framework from Goles & Chin (2002) is comprehensive, only leaving out the attributes forbearance and relationship durability. However, it can be argued that relationship durability is not an attribute but rather an outcome and may better serve as a construct to measure relationship quality than to characterize the relationship itself. Forbearance seems to be a reasonable attribute to describe relationships. Nevertheless, it is not further considered in this study for the following reasons. First, it has been used in only one article while all other constructs have been used in several papers, leading to a more robust foundation for comparisons of findings in this study to prior research. Second, a list of relationship attributes ought to be comprehensive but is unlikely to be exhaustive. A complete list of attributes is neither possible nor desirable due to the diversity of varying contexts. Thus, not to include single attributes does not have to result in an inconsistent research design. Third, the main purpose of this study is to examine the governance mechanisms, so the definition of a relationship itself is a necessary precondition. The focus of this study is the configuration and interrelation of governance modes, not the extension of existing relationship definitions. Findings are expected to be more reliable and more comparable if an existing relationship definition is adopted, using proven and accepted constructs as a basis. Named constructs and their interrelation are further detailed in the following chapter. Therefore, the framework of Goles & Chin (2002) is adapted as a theoretical foundation.

• Information Systems

• Outsourcing

• Relationship

• Governance

• Contract

• Control

• Relational Norms

Daniel Kuhlmann, Jahrgang 1980, studierte Betriebswirtschaftslehre mit Schwerpunkt Wirtschaftsinformatik an der Universität Mannheim. Während seiner Studienzeit arbeitete er als freiberuflicher Berater sowie in der Abteilung für IT Strategie und Organisation bei Horváth & Partners an diversen IT-Projekten. Aktuell ist er bei der European Space Agency in Rom im Bereich IT Service Management beschäftigt, wo er Partnerschaften mit IT Dienstleistern steuert und betreut.