Journal of Information Technology

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 325–336 | Cite as

Determinants of vendor profitability in two contractual regimes: an empirical analysis of enterprise resource planning projects

  • Stefan Hoermann
  • Tobias Hlavka
  • Michael Schermann
  • Helmut Krcmar
Research Article


In this paper, we investigate the effects of four determinants of vendor profitability in enterprise resource planning (ERP) outsourcing projects under two contractual regimes: fixed price (FP) contracts and time and material (TM) contracts. We hypothesize that effect sizes are larger under FP contracts than under TM contracts. From a transaction cost economics perspective, we hypothesize that project uncertainty and project size are negatively associated with vendor profitability. From a knowledge-based view of the firm perspective, we hypothesize that industry knowledge and client knowledge are positively associated with vendor profitability. We tested these hypotheses on a comprehensive archival data set comprising 33,908 projects from a major vendor in the ERP software market. Our results confirm and extend previous research. Our results support the existence of two contractual regimes: effect sizes on vendor profitability are indeed much larger in FP contracts than in TM contracts. Also in line with prior research, our results suggest negative effects of project uncertainty and project size in terms of project budget on vendor profitability and positive effects of industry knowledge on vendor profitability. Contrary to prior knowledge, we find that project size in terms of project duration is significantly positively associated with vendor profitability in FP contracts. Also contrary to what is known, we find a significant negative effect of client knowledge on vendor profitability in both contractual regimes.


outsourcing transaction cost economics knowledge-based view vendor profitability enterprise resource planning 



Support for this project was provided by the German Research Foundation (DFG SCHE 1805). Support for this research was provided by the Technische Universität München (TUM) Graduate School and the TUM Center for Doctoral Studies in Informatics and its Applications (CeDoSiA). The authors would like to thank Carol Krcmar for editorial assistance.


  1. Bajari, P. and Tadelis, S. (2001). Incentives versus transaction costs: A theory of procurement contracts, The RAND Journal of Economics 32 (3): 387–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banerjee, A. and Duflo, E. (2000). Reputation effects and the limits of contracting: A study of the Indian software industry, Quarterly Journal of Economics 115 (3): 989–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management 17 (1): 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belsey, D., Kuh, E. and Welsch, R. (1980). Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity, New York: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bharadwaj, A. (2000). A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation, MIS Quarterly 24 (1): 169–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davenport, T. (1998). Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system, Harvard Business Review 76 (4): 121–131.Google Scholar
  7. Dibbern, J., Goles, T., Hirschheim, R. and Jayatilaka, B. (2004). Information systems outsourcing: A survey and analysis of the literature, SIGMIS Database 35 (4): 6–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dibbern, J., Winkler, J. and Heinzl, A. (2008). Explaining variations in client extra costs between software projects offshored to India, MIS Quarterly 32 (2): 333–366.Google Scholar
  9. Eriksson, L., Johansson, E., Kettaneh-Wold, N., Trygg, J., Wikstroem, C. and Wold, S. (2006). Multi- and megavariate data analysis: Advanced applications and method extensions, Umea: Umetrics.Google Scholar
  10. Ethiraj, S., Kale, P., Krishnan, M. and Singh, J. (2005). Where do capabilities come from and how do they matter: A study in the software services industry, Strategic Management Journal 26 (1): 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frost, L. (2012). Avantor files suit against IBM over failed SAP implementation, Chemical Week 174 (29): 12–12.Google Scholar
  12. Gartner Research (2012). Global IT spending forecast, Stamford: Gartner Research.Google Scholar
  13. Gefen, D., Wyss, S. and Lichtenstein, Y. (2008). Business familiarity as risk mitigation in software development outsourcing contracts, MIS Quarterly 32 (3): 531–542.Google Scholar
  14. Gemino, A., Reich, B. and Sauer, C. (2008). A temporal model of information technology project performance, Journal of Management Information Systems 24 (3): 9–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gopal, A. and Koka, B. (2012). The asymmetric benefits of relational flexibility: Evidence from software development outsourcing, MIS Quarterly 36 (2): 553–576.Google Scholar
  16. Gopal, A. and Sivaramakrishnan, K. (2008). On vendor preferences for contract types in offshore software projects: The case of fixed price vs. time and materials contracts, Information Systems Research 19 (2): 202–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gopal, A., Sivaramakrishnan, K., Krishnan, M. and Mukhopadhyay, T. (2003). Contracts in offshore software development: An empirical analysis, Management Science 49 (12): 1671–1683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grant, R. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm, Strategic Management Journal 17 (Special Issue): 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. and Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis, New Jersey: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  20. Hamilton, B. and Nickerson, J. (2003). Correcting for endogeneity in strategic management research, Strategic Organization 1 (1): 51–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hart, O. and Moore, J. (1988). Incomplete contracts and renegotiation, Econometrica 56 (4): 755–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error, Econometrica 47 (1): 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jiang, J. and Klein, G. (2000). Software development risks to project effectiveness, Journal of Systems & Software 52 (1): 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jun, L., Qiuzhen, W. and Qingguo, M. (2011). The effects of project uncertainty and risk management on IS development project performance: A vendor perspective, International Journal of Project Management 29 (7): 923–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kalnins, A. and Mayer, K. (2004). Relationships and hybrid contracts: An analysis of contract choice in information technology, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 20 (1): 207–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lacity, M. and Hirschheim, R. (1993). Information Systems Outsourcing: Myths, metaphors and realities, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  27. Lacity, M., Khan, S., Yan, A. and Willcocks, L. (2010). A review of the IT outsourcing empirical literature and future research directions, Journal of Information Technology 25 (4): 395–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levina, N. and Ross, J. (2003). From the vendor’s perspective: Exploring the value proposition in information technology outsourcing, MIS Quarterly 27 (3): 331–364.Google Scholar
  29. Luenendonk (2012). TOP 25 IT-Beratungs – und Systemintegrations-Unternehmen in Deutschland 2012, Kaufbeuren: Luenendonk.Google Scholar
  30. Maddala, G. (1983). Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Markus, L. and Tanis, C. (2000). The enterprise system experience: From adoption to success, in R. Zmud (ed.) Framing the domains of IT management: Predicting the future through the past, Cincinatti: Pinnaflex Educational Resources, pp. 173–207.Google Scholar
  32. McFarlan, W. (1981). Portfolio approach to information systems, Harvard Business Review 59 (5): 142–151.Google Scholar
  33. Mjoen, H. and Tallman, S. (1997). Control and performance in international joint ventures, Organization Science 8 (3): 257–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nidumolu, S. (1995). The effect of coordination and uncertainty on software project performance: Residual performance risk as an intervening variable, Information Systems Research 6 (3): 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, The Journal of Applied psychology 88 (5): 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Prahalad, C. and Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review1 68 (3): 79–91.Google Scholar
  38. Pressman, R. (2005). Software Engineering: A practitioner’s approach, New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
  39. Ragowsky, A., Somers, T. and Adams, D. (2005). Asessing the value provided by ERP applications through organizational activities, Communications of the AIS 2005 (16): 381–407.Google Scholar
  40. Ropponen, J. and Lyytinen, K. (2000). Components of software development risk: How to address them: A project manager survey, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26 (2): 98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sarker, S., Sarker, S., Sahaym, A. and Bjorn-Andersen, N. (2012). Exploring value cocreation in relationships between an ERP vendor and its partners: A revelatory case stury, MIS Quarterly 36 (1): 317–338.Google Scholar
  42. Sauer, C., Gemino, A. and Reich, B. (2007). The impact of size and volatility on IT project performance, Communications of the ACM 50 (11): 79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scheer, A.-W. and Habermann, F. (2000). Making ERP a success, Communications of the ACM 43 (4): 57–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Seddon, P., Calvert, C. and Yang, S. (2010). A multi-project model of key factors affecting organizational benefits from enterprise systems, MIS Quarterly 34 (2): 305–328.Google Scholar
  45. Shaver, M. (1998). Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance: Does entry mode choice affect FDI survival, Management Science 44 (4): 571–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Staehr, L., Shanks, G. and Seddon, P. (2012). An explanatory framework for achieving business benefits from ERP systems, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 13 (6): 424–465.Google Scholar
  47. Sumner, M. (2000). Risk factors in enterprise-wide/ERP projects, Journal of Information Technology 15 (4): 317–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Williamson, O. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations, Journal of Law and Economics 22 (2): 233–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Williamson, O. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach, The American Journal of Sociology 87 (3): 548–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wooldridge, J. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Yetton, P., Martin, A., Sharma, R. and Johnston, K. (2000). A model of information systems development project performance, Information Systems Journal 10 (4): 263–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zmud, R. (1980). Management of large software development efforts, MIS Quarterly 4 (2): 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Information Technology Trust 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Hoermann
    • 1
  • Tobias Hlavka
    • 1
  • Michael Schermann
    • 1
  • Helmut Krcmar
    • 1
  1. 1.Technische Universität München, Chair for Information SystemsGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations