The Role of Vendor Legitimacy in IT Outsourcing Performance: Theory and Evidence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information technology outsourcing (ITO) relationships today are facing increasingly turbulent environments. This research examines ITO performance by focusing on client firms’ perceived legitimacy of vendors, termed “vendor legitimacy,” consisting of pragmatic, cognitive, and moral dimensions. Based on our surveys with executives and managers at 200 ITO client firms, the study’s findings present the imperative to actively manage vendor legitimacy for achieving and sustaining ITO performance. Specifically, at the strategic level, clients’ perception of vendors as mutually aligned, long-term-oriented, tightly integrated partners is critical. At the operational level, clients should collaborate with vendors to design and establish interorganizational routines that undergird vendor legitimacy. At the managerial level, clients’ relational governance plays a pivotal role in attaining procedural justice, ethical standards, and fairness in the interorganizational collaboration. In sum, our study suggests that creating a dedicated corporate function or unit for continually overseeing and assessing a portfolio of vendors and swiftly identifying and responding to potential issues and crises related to vendor legitimacy would be a worthwhile investment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it