IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v22y2011i2p289-305.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vendor and Client Interaction for Requirements Assessment in Software Development: Implications for Feedback Process

Author

Listed:
  • Rajiv Jayanth

    (School of Management, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75080)

  • Varghese S. Jacob

    (School of Management, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75080)

  • Suresh Radhakrishnan

    (School of Management, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75080)

Abstract

We study agency problems that arise when prototypes are used for requirements assessment. The precision with which the prototype helps a client assess his requirements depends on (a) the type of prototype provided by the vendor and (b) the client's feedback effort. The vendor can provide either a neutral or nonneutral prototype: The nonneutral prototype influences the client towards one particular set of requirements that may not be the true requirement, and the neutral prototype allows the client to assess his true requirements. This leads to the vendor's moral hazard problem. The client chooses to exert either the high or low feedback effort after the vendor provides the prototype. Because the effort is unobservable to the vendor, it can lead to the client exerting the low feedback effort: the client's commitment problem. In this paper we develop and discuss the role of the contract payment to provide the vendor with incentives to supply the neutral prototype, as well as for the client to commit to the high feedback effort. In this setting, we also examine the “anchoring” effect, wherein even a high-feedback effort can influence the client more toward a particular set of requirements with the nonneutral prototype. Our results highlight the interplay among the feedback effort, anchoring, and vendor payments.

Suggested Citation

  • Rajiv Jayanth & Varghese S. Jacob & Suresh Radhakrishnan, 2011. "Vendor and Client Interaction for Requirements Assessment in Software Development: Implications for Feedback Process," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 289-305, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:22:y:2011:i:2:p:289-305
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.1090.0248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0248
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.1090.0248?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anil Arya & Jonathan Glover & Suresh Radhakrishnan, 2007. "The Controllability Principle in Responsibility Accounting: Another Look," Springer Books, in: Rick Antle & Frøystein Gjesdal & Pierre Jinghong Liang (ed.), Essays in Accounting Theory in Honour of Joel S. Demski, chapter 0, pages 183-198, Springer.
    2. Demski, Js & Sappington, Dem, 1993. "Sourcing With Unverifiable Performance Information," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 1-20.
    3. Northcraft, Gregory B. & Neale, Margaret A., 1987. "Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 84-97, February.
    4. Kashi R. Balachandran & Suresh Radhakrishnan, 2005. "Quality Implications of Warranties in a Supply Chain," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(8), pages 1266-1277, August.
    5. Jean Tirole, 1999. "Incomplete Contracts: Where Do We Stand?," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(4), pages 741-782, July.
    6. Stanley Baiman & Paul E. Fischer & Madhav V. Rajan, 2000. "Information, Contracting, and Quality Costs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(6), pages 776-789, June.
    7. Russell L. Ackoff, 1967. "Management Misinformation Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(4), pages 147-156, December.
    8. Iny Hwang & Suresh Radhakrishnan & Lixin (Nancy) Su, 2006. "Vendor Certification and Appraisal: Implications for Supplier Quality," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(10), pages 1472-1482, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pei†Cheng Liao & Suresh Radhakrishnan, 2013. "A Commitment†Based Explanation for Outsourcing Multiple Tasks," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 1063-1081, September.
    2. Kai-Lung Hui & Ping Fan Ke & Yuxi Yao & Wei T. Yue, 2019. "Bilateral Liability-Based Contracts in Information Security Outsourcing," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 411-429, June.
    3. Min Chen & Varghese S. Jacob & Suresh Radhakrishnan & Young U. Ryu, 2015. "Can Payment-per-Click Induce Improvements in Click Fraud Identification Technologies?," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 754-772, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Min Chen & Varghese S. Jacob & Suresh Radhakrishnan & Young U. Ryu, 2015. "Can Payment-per-Click Induce Improvements in Click Fraud Identification Technologies?," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 754-772, December.
    2. Pei†Cheng Liao & Suresh Radhakrishnan, 2013. "A Commitment†Based Explanation for Outsourcing Multiple Tasks," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 1063-1081, September.
    3. Erica L. Plambeck & Terry A. Taylor, 2019. "Testing by Competitors in Enforcement of Product Standards," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1735-1751, April.
    4. Hong Wan & Xiaowei Xu & Tian Ni, 2013. "The incentive effect of acceptance sampling plans in a supply chain with endogenous product quality," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(2), pages 111-124, March.
    5. Yoo, Seung Ho & Cheong, Taesu, 2018. "Quality improvement incentive strategies in a supply chain," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 331-342.
    6. Yim, Andrew, 2010. "Quality Cost and Failure Risk in the Choice of Single versus Multiple Sourcing," MPRA Paper 27858, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Dionisia Tzavara and Adrienne Héritier, 2011. "Quality and Environmental Regulation: Verifying Compliance along the Supply Chain," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 16, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    8. Pun, Hubert & Sebastian Heese, H., 2014. "Outsourcing to suppliers with unknown capabilities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 108-118.
    9. Murat Erkoc & Haresh Gurnani & Saibal Ray & Mingzhu Jin, 2023. "Quality investment, inspection policy, and pricing decisions in a decentralized supply chain," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(1), pages 207-226, January.
    10. Yimin Wang, 2013. "Specification vagueness and supply quality risk," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(3), pages 222-236, April.
    11. Yang Dong & Kefeng Xu & Yi Xu & Xiang Wan, 2013. "Quality Assurance Contracts in a Multi-Level Supply Chain," Working Papers 0206mss, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    12. Erica L. Plambeck & Terry A. Taylor, 2016. "Supplier Evasion of a Buyer’s Audit: Implications for Motivating Supplier Social and Environmental Responsibility," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 184-197, May.
    13. Soo-Haeng Cho & Xin Fang & Sridhar Tayur & Ying Xu, 2019. "Combating Child Labor: Incentives and Information Disclosure in Global Supply Chains," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 692-711, July.
    14. Jing Chen & Hang Wei & Lei Xie, 2022. "Mitigating Product Quality Risk under External Financial Pressure: Inspection, Insurance, and Cash/Collateralized Loan," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(1), pages 304-317, January.
    15. Ying‐Ju Chen & Mingcherng Deng, 2013. "Supplier certification and quality investment in supply chains," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(3), pages 175-189, April.
    16. Hong Wan & Xiaowei Xu, 2008. "Technical note: Reexamination of all‐or‐none inspection policies in a supply chain with endogenous product quality," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 277-282, April.
    17. Aust, Gerhard & Bräuer, Ina & Buscher, Udo, 2014. "A note on “Quality investment and inspection policy in a supplier-manufacturer supply chain”," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(3), pages 910-915.
    18. Hsieh, Chung-Chi & Liu, Yu-Te, 2010. "Quality investment and inspection policy in a supplier-manufacturer supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 202(3), pages 717-729, May.
    19. Dionisia Tzavara & Adrienne Héritier, 2011. "Quality and Environmental Regulation: Verifying Compliance along the Supply Chain," RSCAS Working Papers 2011/16, European University Institute.
    20. Li Chen & Hau L. Lee, 2017. "Sourcing Under Supplier Responsibility Risk: The Effects of Certification, Audit, and Contingency Payment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(9), pages 2795-2812, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:22:y:2011:i:2:p:289-305. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.