|
First, the
CSF are analyzed in regard to their general relevance. Here, we asked the
participants of the online survey to assess the degree of relevance of each
individual CSF. The assessment of the CSF was carried out by means of a Likert scale with values from 1 to 5, whereas 1 was equivalent to “not relevant” and 5 equivalent to “significantly
relevant”.
The Table "CSF relevance" ranks the 29 CSF by
the arithmetic mean (AM) and the standard deviation (SD) of their relevance
ratings in descending order. In line with our two-dimensional CSF model, the
table also indicates for each CSF, if this factor represents an internal
suitability (ISF), an internal management (IMF), an external suitability (ESF),
or an external management factor (EMF).
In
addition, the Table compares the relevance
ratings of all participants with the respective ratings of those participants
who possess a high experience with OSD projects. Through this, we aimed to find
out, if it makes sense to focus on the answers of more experienced participants
within the data analysis process.
Table: CSF relevance
|
|
All
participants
|
Participants
with high experience
|
|
Rank/
ID
|
CSF
|
CSF
Group
|
AM
|
SD
|
AM
|
SD
|
|
1
|
Definition of clear project goals
|
IMF
|
4.75
|
0.537
|
4.73
|
0.564
|
|
2
|
Continuous controlling of project results
|
EMF
|
4.73
|
0.509
|
4.75
|
0.437
|
|
3
|
Ensuring of a continuous communication flow
|
EMF
|
4.69
|
0.524
|
4.71
|
0.457
|
|
4
|
High quality of offshore employees
|
ESF
|
4.67
|
0.493
|
4.65
|
0.520
|
|
5
|
Good language abilities of the offshore employees in German and
English
|
ESF
|
4.55
|
0.763
|
4.56
|
0.639
|
|
6
|
Composition of an appropriate project team
|
EMF
|
4.54
|
0.623
|
4.52
|
0.577
|
|
7
|
Preparation of a detailed project specification
|
IMF
|
4.52
|
0.654
|
4.54
|
0.609
|
|
8
|
Creation of a partnership-like relationship
|
EMF
|
4.30
|
0.802
|
4.44
|
0.669
|
|
9
|
Sustained management support
|
ISF
|
4.29
|
0.859
|
4.40
|
0.846
|
|
10
|
Establishment of an efficient IT infrastructure
|
EMF
|
4.25
|
0.737
|
4.27
|
0.795
|
|
11
|
Ensuring of a bilateral know-how transfer
|
EMF
|
4.24
|
0.720
|
4.40
|
0.664
|
|
12
|
Definition of project standards
|
IMF
|
4.22
|
0.740
|
4.27
|
0.770
|
|
13
|
Financial stability of the offshore provider
|
ESF
|
4.21
|
0.695
|
4.21
|
0.667
|
|
14
|
Early internal change management
|
IMF
|
4.21
|
0.882
|
4.19
|
0.817
|
|
15
|
Standardized and documented processes
|
ISF
|
4.16
|
0.916
|
4.15
|
0.916
|
|
16
|
Standardized and documented processes on provider side
|
ESF
|
4.09
|
0.830
|
4.12
|
0.922
|
|
17
|
Definition of an accurate contract
|
EMF
|
4.06
|
0.927
|
4.00
|
0.840
|
|
18
|
Legal and political stability in the offshore country
|
ESF
|
3.95
|
0.922
|
3.98
|
0.939
|
|
19
|
Face-to-face meetings with the offshore provider on a regular basis
|
EMF
|
3.95
|
1.115
|
3.92
|
1.064
|
|
20
|
Selection of a suitable software component
|
IMF
|
3.93
|
1.182
|
3.90
|
1.241
|
|
21
|
Efficient internal organizational structure
|
ISF
|
3.83
|
0.864
|
3.81
|
0.817
|
|
22
|
Creation of a cultural sensibility among employees
|
IMF
|
3.67
|
1.033
|
3.69
|
1.001
|
|
23
|
Comprehensive industry knowledge of the offshore provider
|
ESF
|
3.59
|
1.004
|
3.65
|
1.046
|
|
24
|
Appropriate internal technical knowledge
|
ISF
|
3.59
|
1.175
|
3.46
|
1.128
|
|
25
|
Development of a comprehensive business case
|
IMF
|
3.42
|
1.133
|
3.58
|
1.177
|
|
26
|
Suitable company size of the offshore provider
|
ESF
|
3.28
|
1.033
|
3.15
|
1.036
|
|
27
|
Comprehensive experience with IT outsourcing projects
|
ISF
|
3.28
|
1.088
|
3.00
|
1.048
|
|
28
|
International corporate culture
|
ISF
|
3.22
|
1.093
|
2.92
|
0.987
|
|
29
|
Geographical closeness of the offshore provider
|
ESF
|
2.62
|
1.351
|
2.60
|
1.361
|
|
|
Average
|
-
|
4.03
|
0.869
|
4.02
|
0.847
|
According
to the results of our online survey, the „Definition of clear project goals” represents the most relevant
CSF. With 4.75, the arithmetic mean of this CSF almost reaches the maximal
relevance rating of 5.0. In addition, with 0.537, the CSF exhibits a low
standard deviation, which makes clear that the high relevance of this CSF was
confirmed by the great majority of the participants. Other CSF, which were
rated as significantly relevant for the success of an OSD project, are the “Continuous controlling of project results“,
the “Ensuring of a continuous
communication flow“, the “High
quality of offshore employees“, the “Good language abilities of the offshore employees in German and English“,
the “Composition of an appropriate
project team“, and the “Preparation
of a detailed project specification“. All of these CSF dispose of an
arithmetic mean of higher than 4.5.
The Table further clarifies that, apart from
the lowest ranked CSF “Geographical
closeness of the offshore provider“, the arithmetic means of all CSF are
above the median (3.0). This finding empirically confirms that these CSF can be
regarded as relevant for the successful implementation of an OSD project. With
regard to the relevance rating of the lowest ranked CSF, it is noticeable that
this value possesses a relatively low significance, due to a high standard deviation
of 1.351. Therefore, we decided to not remove this factor from our CSF list.
In
addition, the Table points out that the
assessment differences between all participants and those participants with a
high OSD project experience are rather marginal. In this context, the difference
of the average relevance ratings, granted by the corresponding participant
groups, only amounts to 0.01. For this reason, we decided to incorporate the
information provided by all of the participants within the data analysis process.
Table "CSF relevance
(classified by CSF dimensions)" ranks the 29 CSF by relevance
within the four CSF groups of our CSF model.
Table: CSF relevance (classified by CSF
dimensions)
|
|
Static
|
Dynamic
|
|
Internal
|
ID
|
Internal suitability factors (AM)
|
ID
|
Internal management factors (AM)
|
|
9
|
Sustained management support (4.29)
|
1
|
Definition of clear project goals (4.75)
|
|
15
|
Standardized and documented processes (4.16)
|
7
|
Preparation of a detailed project
specification (4.52)
|
|
21
|
Efficient internal organizational structure (3.83)
|
12
|
Definition of project standards (4.22)
|
|
23
|
Appropriate internal technical knowledge (3.59)
|
14
|
Early internal change management (4.21)
|
|
26
|
Comprehensive experience with IT
outsourcing projects (3.28)
|
20
|
Selection of a suitable software component (3.93)
|
|
28
|
International corporate culture (3.22)
|
22
|
Creation of a cultural sensibility among employees
(3.67)
|
|
|
|
25
|
Development of a comprehensive business case (3.42)
|
|
External
|
ID
|
External suitability factors (AM)
|
ID
|
External management factors (AM)
|
|
4
|
High quality of offshore employees (4.67)
|
2
|
Continuous controlling of project results (4.73)
|
|
5
|
Good language abilities of the offshore employees in
German and English (4.55)
|
3
|
Ensuring of a continuous communication flow (4.69)
|
|
13
|
Financial stability of the offshore provider (4.21)
|
6
|
Composition of an appropriate project team (4.54)
|
|
16
|
Standardized and documented processes on provider side
(4.09)
|
8
|
Creation of a partnership-like relationship (4.30)
|
|
19
|
Legal and political stability in the offshore
country (3.95)
|
10
|
Establishment of an efficient
IT infrastructure (4.25)
|
|
24
|
Comprehensive industry knowledge of the offshore
provider (3.59)
|
11
|
Ensuring of a bilateral know-how transfer (4.24)
|
|
27
|
Suitable company size of the offshore
provider (3.28)
|
17
|
Definition of an accurate contract (4.06)
|
|
29
|
Geographical closeness of the offshore provider
(2.62)
|
18
|
Face-to-face meetings with the offshore provider on
a regular basis (3.95)
|
When
calculating the average arithmetic means for each CSF group, it becomes
apparent that the external management factors represent the most relevant CSF
group (average arithmetic mean of 4.35), followed by the internal management
factors (average arithmetic mean of 4.10). This finding makes clear that these
CSF groups are particular important for the success of an OSD project. In
contrast, the participants of the online survey assessed the internal suitability
factors (average arithmetic mean of 3.73) and the external suitability factors
(average arithmetic mean of 3.87) as less relevant for the successful
implementation of such a project.
 References
|
