Vol. 9 No. 2 (2021): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal

Relationship between requirements analyzability, interpersonal trust, and software project performance: Moderating role of customization

Dilek Erdoğan
Asst. Prof., Gaziantep University
Tuğba Gürçaylılar Yenidoğan
Prof. Dr., Akdeniz University

Published 2021-06-25


  • Software Development Project,
  • Information Processing Theory,
  • Task Complexity
  • Yazılım Geliştirme Projesi, Bilgi İşleme Teorisi, Teknolojik Karmaşıklık

How to Cite

Erdoğan, D., & Gürçaylılar Yenidoğan, T. (2021). Relationship between requirements analyzability, interpersonal trust, and software project performance: Moderating role of customization. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 9(2), 456-471. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v9i2.1782


Based on the information processing perspective, this study empirically investigated the effects of requirements analyzability, an indicator of technological complexity and interpersonal trust as the soft factor of buyer-supplier relationships on software project development performance. Beyond that, the possible moderator role of the degree of software customization was examined on the analyzability-interpersonal trust and analyzability-performance links. Data were collected from 138 companies through a questionnaire-based survey of IT purchasing managers in Turkey. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling was used to test the research hypotheses. This study indicated that requirements analyzability and interpersonal trust have a significant effect on software performance. Overall, the study provides evidence that interpersonal trust mediates the relationship between requirements analyzability and software project performance. The research findings support the moderation role of customization in the relationship between requirements analyzability and software project performance. However, partial support is provided for the moderating effect of customization on the relationship between requirements analyzability and interpersonal trust.


Download data is not yet available.


  1. Anderson, J. C. (1995). Relationships in business markets: Exchange episodes, value creation, and their empirical assessment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 346-350. https://doi.org/10.1177/009207039502300415
  2. Arpaci, I. (2017). Design and development of educational multimedia: The software development process for mobile learning. In Khosrow-Pour, M. (Eds.), (2nd Ed.), Blended learning: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 366-384). Hershey, PA: IGI Global, Information Science Reference. https://doi.org/ 10.4018/978-1-5225-0783-3.ch018.
  3. Ashnai, B., Henneberg, S. C., Naudé, P., & Francescucci, A. (2016). Inter-personal and inter-organizational trust in business relationships: An attitude-behavior–outcome model. Industrial Marketing Management, 52, 128-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.05.020
  4. Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y. (1988). On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Jams 16, 74-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327.
  5. Barthélemy, J., & Quélin, B. V. (2006). Complexity of outsourcing contracts and ex post transaction costs: An empirical investigation. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1775-1797. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00658.x
  6. Bensaou, M., & Anderson, E. (1999). Buyer-supplier relations in industrial markets: when do buyers risk making idiosyncratic investments? Organization Science, 10(4), 460-481.
  7. Bensaou, M., & Venkatraman, N. (1996). Inter-organizational relationships and information technology: A conceptual synthesis and a research framework. European Journal of Information Systems, 5(2), 84-91.
  8. Cao, Z., & Lumineau, F. (2015). Revisiting the interplay between contractual and relational governance: A qualitative and meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Operations Management, 33-34(1), 15-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.09.009
  9. Carson, S., Madhok, A., & Wu, T. (2006). Uncertainty, opportunism, and governance: The effects of volatility and ambiguity on formal and relational contracting. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1058-1077.
  10. Chen, H.-G., Jiang, J. J., Chen, J.-C., & Shim, J. T. (2004). The impacts of conflicts on requirements uncertainty and project performance. Journal of International Technology and Information Management, 13(3), 15-168.
  11. Chen, I. J., & Paulraj, A. (2004). Towards a theory of supply chain management: The constructs and measurements. Journal of Operations Management, 22(2), 119-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2003.12.007
  12. Chin, W. W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7-16.
  13. Cusumano, M., MacCormack, A., Kemerer, C. F., & Crandall, W. (2003). A Global Survey of Software Development Practices. Center for eBusiness@ MIT, 178, 1-17.
  14. Deephouse, C., Mukhopadhyay, T., Goldenson, D. R., & Kellner, M. I. (1996). Software processes and project performance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(3,), 187-205.
  15. Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269-277. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.
  16. Dittrich, Y., Vaucouleur, S., & Giff, S. (2009). ERP customization as software engineering: Knowledge sharing and cooperation. IEEE Software, 26(6), 41-47. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2009.173
  17. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
  18. Galbraith, J. R. (1974). Organization design: An information processing view. Interfaces, 4(3), 28-36. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.4.3.28
  19. Gefen, Wyss, & Lichtenstein. (2008). Business familiarity as risk mitigation in software development outsourcing contracts. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 531-551. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148855
  20. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
  21. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Education Limited.
  22. Han, W.-M., & Huang, S.-J. (2007). An empirical analysis of risk components and performance on software projects. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(1), 42-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.04.030
  23. Haq, S. U., Gu, D., Liang, C., & Abdullah, I. (2019). Project governance mechanisms and the performance of software development projects: Moderating role of requirements risk. International Journal of Project Management, 37(4), 533-548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.02.008
  24. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
  25. Henderson, J. C., & Lee, S. (1992). Managing I/S design teams: A control theories perspective. Management Science, 38(6), 757-777. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.38.6.757
  26. Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture's consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage Publications.
  27. Jaffee, D. (2001). Organization theory: Tension and change. McGraw-Hill International Editions.
  28. Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., Wu, S. P. J., & Liang, T. P. (2009). The relation of requirements uncertainty and stakeholder perception gaps to project management performance. Journal of Systems and Software, 82(5), 801-808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2008.11.833
  29. Kern, T., & Willcocks, L. (2002). Exploring relationships in information technology outsourcing: The interaction approach. European Journal of Information Systems, 11(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000415
  30. Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of E-Collaboration, 11(4), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
  31. Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1995). The effects of perceived interdependence on dealer attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(3), 348-356. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151986
  32. Lacity, M. C., Khan, S., Yan, A., & Willcocks, L. P. (2010). A review of the IT outsourcing empirical literature and future research directions. Journal of Information Technology, 25(4), 395-433. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2010.21
  33. Lau, E., & Rowlinson, S. (2009). Interpersonal trust and inter‐firm trust in construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 27(6), 539-554. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190903003886
  34. Lioliou, E., Zimmermann, A., Willcocks, L., & Gao, L. (2014). Formal and relational governance in IT outsourcing: Substitution, complementarity and the role of the psychological contract. Information Systems Journal, 24(6), 503-535. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12038
  35. Liu, J. Y.-C., Chen, H.-G., Chen, C. C., & Sheu, T. S. (2011). Relationships among interpersonal conflict, requirements, uncertainty, and software project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 29(5), 547-556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.04.007
  36. Luna-Reyes, L. F., Black, L. J., Cresswell, A. M., & Pardo, T. A. (2008). Knowledge sharing and trust in collaborative requirements analysis. System Dynamics Review, 24(3), 265-297. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.404
  37. McManus, J. & Wood-Harper, T. (2007). Understanding the sources of information systems project failure. Management Services, 51(3), 38-43.
  38. Miranda, S. M., & Kavan, C. B. (2005). Moments of governance in IS outsourcing: Conceptualizing effects of contracts on value capture and creation. Journal of Information Technology, 20(3), 152-169. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000045
  39. Moynihan, T. (2000). Coping with “requirements-uncertainty”: The theories-of-action of experienced IS/software project managers. Journal of Systems and Software, 53(2), 99–109. doi:10.1016/s0164-1212(00)00049-2.
  40. Na, K.-S., Li, X., Simpson, J. T., & Kim, K.-Y. (2004). Uncertainty profile and software project performance: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Systems and Software, 70(1-2), 155-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0164-1212(03)00014-1
  41. 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), 191-219. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.6.3.191
  42. Nidumolu, S. R. (1996). A comparison of the structural contingency and risk-based perspectives on coordination in software development projects. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(2), 77-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1996.11518124
  43. Nooteboom, B. (2004). Inter-firm collaboration, learning and networks: An integrated approach. Psychology Press.
  44. Oza, N. V., Hall, T., Rainer, A., & Grey, S. (2006). Trust in software outsourcing relationships: An empirical investigation of Indian software companies. Information and Software Technology, 48(5), 345-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2005.09.011
  45. Parthasarathy, S., & Daneva, M. (2016). An approach to estimation of degree of customization for ERP projects using prioritized requirements. Journal of Systems and Software, 117, 471-487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.04.006
  46. Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32(2), 194-208. https://doi.org/10.2307/2091811
  47. Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K. & Saunders, C.S. (2005). Information processing view of organizations: An exploratory examination of fit in the context of interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), 257-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045841
  48. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408
  49. Qi, C., & Chau, P. (2015). Relationship or contract? Exploring the key factor leading to IT outsourcing success in China. Information Technology & People, 28(3), 466-499.
  50. Qi, C., & Chau, P. Y. K. (2013). Investigating the roles of interpersonal and interorganizational trust in IT outsourcing success. Information Technology & People, 26(2), 120-145. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-09-2012-0088
  51. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH. Boenningstedt.
  52. Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M. & Straub, D. W. (2012). Editor’s comments: A Critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in “MIS Quarterly”. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), iii-xiv. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410402
  53. Sargut, S. (2001). Kültürler arası farklılaşma ve yönetim. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi Yayınları.
  54. Schmidt, R., Lyytinen, K., Keil, M., & Cule, P. (2001). Identifying software project risks: An international delphi study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4), 5-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2001.11045662
  55. Srinivasan, S. S. (2009). Performance under requirements uncertainty: A personality perspective. Proceedings of Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, PACIS, Hyderabad, India.
  56. Standish Group Internatıonal, Inc. (2014). Third Quarter Research Report. Available at: https://www.projectsmart.co.uk/white-papers/chaos-report.pdf (access date: 11.02.2021)
  57. Susarla, A., Subramanyam, R., & Karhade, P. (2010). Contractual provisions to mitigate hold-up: Evidence from information technology outsourcing. Information Systems Research, 21(1), 37-55. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1080.0204
  58. Turner, J. (1992). A Comparison of the process of knowledge elicitation with that of requirements determination. In W.W. Cotterman et al. (Eds.), Challenges and strategies for research in systems development (pp. 415-430). New York: Wiley.
  59. Wade & Hulland. (2004). The Resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 107-142. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148626
  60. Wallace, L., Keil, M., & Rai, A. (2004). How software project risk affects project performance: An investigation of the dimensions of risk and an exploratory model. Decision Sciences, 35(2), 289-321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.00117315.2004.02059.x
  61. Wang, E. T. G. (2002). Transaction attributes and software outsourcing success: An empirical Investigation of transaction cost theory. Information Systems Journal, 12(2), 153-181. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2575.2002.0012
  62. Wang, E. T. G., Shih, S.-P., Jiang, J. J., & Klein, G. (2006). The relative influence of management control and user–IS personnel interaction on project performance. Information and Software Technology, 48(3), 214-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2005.04.003
  63. Zucker, L. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443-464.
  64. Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141-159. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.141
  65. Zowghi, D., & Nurmuliani, N. (2002). A study of the impact of requirements volatility on software project performance. Ninth Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp.3-11. https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2002.1182970