In the present competitive environment, outsourcing is not only a buzz word, it is an alternative for survival for organizations. Specifically, outsourcing of information technology services is common due to some obvious reasons. However, the decision to outsource differs from decision maker to decision maker as risk and return of outsourcing varies with decision maker’s attitude towards risk taking and their initiative. As the attitude of the decision maker towards the risk consequence plays an important role in decision making, measuring this parameter is a concern as it involves multi-criteria problem with a linguistic nature of the risk attitude resulting in a fuzzy situation. In this article, an attempt has been made to relate sustainability in decision with respect to information technology outsourcing, with a focus on attitude and decision making using a detailed case study of e-governance project in a university using AHP and fuzzy AHP.
ApplegateL.MontealegreR. (1991). Eastman Kodak Company: Managing information systems through strategic alliances. Harvard Business School Case, 9-192-030. Boston, MA.
2.
ApteU. M.SobolM. G.HanaokaS.ShimadaT.SaarinenT.SalmelaT.VepsalainenA. P. J. (1997). IS outsourcing practices in the USA, Japan and Finland: A comparative study. Journal of Information Technology, 12(4), 289–304.
3.
ArnettK. P.JonesM. C. (1994). Firm that choose outsourcing: A profile. Information and Management, 26(4), 179–188.
4.
BonissoneP. P. (1982). A fuzzy sets based linguistic approach: Theory and application. In GuptaM. M.SanchezE. (Eds), Approximate reading in decision analysis (pp. 329–339). Amsterdam: North Holland.
5.
CaldwellB. (1994). Farming out client-server. Information Week, 510, 5. Available at http://www.informationweek.com/510/05mtcs.html
6.
CarrizosaE.CondeE.FernandezF. R.PuertoJ. (1995). Multi-criteria analysis with partial information about the weighting coefficients. European Journal of Operational Research, 81, 291–301.
7.
ChaudhuryA.NamK.RaoH. R. (1995). Management of information systems outsourcing: A bidding perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(2), 131–159.
8.
ChenC. T. (2000). Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114, 1–9.
9.
ChenS. J.HwangC. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods and applications. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
10.
ChenS. M. (1997). A new method for tool steel materials selection under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 92, 265–274.
11.
ChengC. H. (1999). Evaluating weapon systems using ranking fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 107, 25–35.
12.
ChengC. H.LinY. (2002). Evaluating the best main battle tank using fuzzy decision theory with linguistic criteria evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research, 142, 174–186.
13.
ChengC. H.YangK. L.HwangC. L. (1999). Evaluating attack helicopters by AHP based on linguistic variable weight. European Journal of Operational Research, 116, 423–435.
14.
CheonM. J.GroverV.TengJ. T. C. (1995). Theoretical perspectives on the outsourcing of information systems. Journal of Information Technology, 10, 209–210.
DengH. (1999). Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 21, 215–231.
17.
DibbernJ. (2004). The sourcing of application software services: Empirical evidence of cultural, industry and functional differences. Berlin: Physika-Verlag, Reihe, Information Age Economy.
18.
FarnetiF.YoungD. (2008). A contingency approach to managing outsourcing risk in municipalities. Public Management Review, 10(1), 89–99.
19.
FentonN.NeilM. (2001). Making decisions: Using Bayesian nets and MCDA,Knowledge Based Systems, 10, 307–325.
20.
FitzgeraldG.WillcocksL. (1994). Contracts and partnerships in the outsourcing of IT. In de GrossJ.HuffS. L.MunroM. C. (Eds), Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) (pp. 91–98). New York: Association of Computing Machinery (ACM).
21.
GoddardJ.EtzkowitzH.PuukkaJ.VirtanenI. (2006). Supporting the contribution of higher education institutions to regional development,Peer Review Report, The Jyväskylä Region of Finland.
22.
HancoxM.HackneyR. (1999). Information technology outsourcing: Conceptualizing practice in the public and private sector. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).
23.
HeeksR. (2003). Most e-government-for-development projects fail: How can risks be reduced?i-Government Working Paper Series, paper no. 14, Manchester: Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester.
24.
HerreraF.Herrera-ViedmaE. (2000). Linguistic decision analysis: Steps for solving decision problems under linguistic information. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 115, 67–82.
25.
HollidayI. (2002). Building e-government in East and Southeast Asia: Regional rhetoric and national (in)action. Public Administration & Development, 22(4), 323.
26.
HuQ.SaundersC.GebeltM. (1997). Research report: Diffusion of information systems outsourcing: A reevaluation of influence sources. Information Systems Research, 8(3), 288–301.
27.
HwangC. L.YoonK. (1981). Multiple attributes decision making methods and application. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
28.
KernT. (1997). The gestalt of an information technology outsourcing relationship: An exploratory analysis. Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 37–58), Atlanta.
29.
LacityM. C.HirschheimR. A. (1993). The information systems outsourcing bandwagon. Sloan Management Review, 35, 1, 73–86.
30.
LacityM. C.HirschheimR. A. (1995). Beyond the information systems outsourcing bandwagon. The in-sourcing response. Chichester/New York: Wiley.
31.
LaneJ.-E. (2000). New public management. London and New York: Routledge.
32.
LohL.VenkatramanN. (1992). Determinants of information technology outsourcing: A cross-sectional analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 9(1), 7–24.
33.
MahalikD. K. (2010). Outsourcing in e-governance: A multi criteria decision making approach. Journal of Administration and Governance, 5(1), 24–35.
34.
MahalikD. K. (2011). Information technology implementation prioritization in e-governance: An integrated multi criteria decision making approach. International Journal of Public Information Systems, 1, 49–64.
35.
MahalikD. K. (2012). An ANP approach for prioritizing risk in e-governance: A case discussion. Journal of Administration and Governance, 7(1), 52–70.
36.
MillerG. A. (1956). The magic number seven, plus or minus two. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.
37.
MillarV. (1994). Outsourcing trends, proceedings of the outsourcing, cosourcing and insourcing conference, University of California, Berkeley.
38.
National Research Council (2000). Outsourcingmanagement functions for the acquisition of federal facilities, Committee on Outsourcing Design And Construction-Related Management Services for Federal Facilities. Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council, National Academy Press, 2001.
39.
Pacific Council on International Policy. (2002). Roadmap for e-government in the developing world: 10 questions e-government leaders should ask themselves,Working Group on E-Government in the Developing World, Los Angeles, CA, available at: www.pacificcouncil.org, accessed 7 May 2005. pp. 257–309.
40.
PrekerA. S.HardingA.TravisP. (2000). Make or buy decisions in the production of health care goods and services: New insights from institutional economics and organizational theory. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78, 779–790.
41.
ReichardC. (1994). Umdenken imRathaus: neueSteuerungsmodelle in der deutschenKommunalverwaltung. Berlin: Edition Sigma.
42.
RibeiroR. A. (1996). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: A review and new preference elicitation techniques. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 78, 155–181.
SavasE. S. (1987). Privatization: The Key to better government. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.
45.
StrejeekG.TheilM. (2002). Technology push, legislation pull? E-government in the European Union. Decision Support Systems, 34, 305–313.
46.
TriantaphyllouE. (2000). Multi-criteria decision making methods: A comparative study. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
47.
WangWeiFentonNorman. (2006). Risk and confidence analysis for fuzzy multicriteria decision making (vol. 19, pp. 430–437). London: Elsevier Knowledge-Based Systems.
48.
WatthayuW.PengY. (2004). A Bayesian network based framework for multi-criteria decision making. In WhistlerB. C.. MCDM 2004, Canada, 6–11August2004.
49.
WescottC. G. (2001). E-government in the Asia Pacific region. Available at www.adb.org/Documents/Papers/E-Government/default.asp
50.
WibbelsmanD.MaieroT. (1994). Cosourcing, Paper presented at the Outsourcing, Cosourcing and Insourcing Conference at University of California, Berkeley.
51.
WillcocksL.LacityM. C. (1998). Strategic sourcing of information systems. Chichester: Wiley.
52.
WillcocksL. P.KernT. (1998). IT outsourcing as strategic partnering: The case of the UK inland revenue. European Journal of Information Systems, 7(1), 29–45.
53.
YagerR. R. (2002). On the evaluation of uncertain courses of action. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 1, 13–41.
54.
YehC. H.DengH. (1997). An algorithm for fuzzy multicriteria decision making,Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Processing Systems (pp. 1564–1568).
55.
YehC. H.DengH.ChangY. H. (2000). Fuzzy multicriteria analysis for performance evaluation of bus companies. European Journal of Operational Research, 126, 459–473.
56.
YehC. H.DengH.PanH. (1999). Multi-criteria analysis for dredger dispatching under uncertainty. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50, 35–43.
57.
YoungS. (2000). Outsourcing: lessons from the literature. Labour and industry, 10(3), April, 97–118.
58.
YoungS. (2007). Outsourcing: Uncovering the complexity of the decision. International Public Management Journal, 10(3), 307–325.
59.
ZadehL. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.
60.
ZimmermannH.J. (2001). Fuzzy set theory and its applications. Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
