The ongoing digitization of multiple industries has drastically reduced the half-life of skills and capabilities acquired by knowledge workers through formal education. Thus, firms are forced to make significant ongoing investments in training their employees to remain competitive. Existing research has not examined the role of training in improving firm-level productivity of knowledge firms. This paper provides an innovative econometric framework to estimate returns to such employee training investments made by firms. We use a panel dataset of small- to medium-sized Indian IT services firms and assess how training enhances human capital, a critical input for such firms, thereby improving firm revenues. We use econometric approaches based on optimization of the firm’s profit function to eliminate the endogenous choice of inputs common in production function estimations. We find that an increase in training investments is significantly linked to an increase in revenue per employee. Further, marginal returns to training are increasing firm size. Therefore, relatively speaking, large firms benefit more from training. For the median company in our data, we find that a dollar invested in training yields a return of $4.67, and this effect approximately grows 2.5 times for the 75th percentile-sized firm. A variety of robustness checks, including the use of data envelopment analysis, are used to establish the veracity of our results.
The introduction of product upgrades in a competitive environment is commonly observed in the software industry. When introducing a new product, a software vendor may employ behavior-based price discrimination (BBPD) by offering a discount over its market price to entice existing customers of the competitor. This type of pricing is referred to as competitive upgrade discount pricing and is possible because the vendor can use proof of purchase of a competitor's product as credible evidence to offer the discount. At the same time, the competitor may offer a discount to its own previous customers in order to induce them to buy its upgrade. We formulate a game-theoretic model involving an incumbent and entrant where both firms can offer discounts to existing customers of the incumbent. Although several equilibrium possibilities exist, we establish that an equilibrium with competitive upgrade discount pricing is observed only for a unique market structure and a corresponding unique set of prices. In this equilibrium, instead of leveraging its first mover advantage, the incumbent cedes market share to the entrant. Furthermore, the profits of both the incumbent and the entrant reduce with switching costs. This implies that the use of BBPD has product design implications because firms may influence the switching costs between their products by making appropriate compatibility decisions. In addition, lower switching costs result in reduced consumer surplus. Hence, a social planner may want to increase switching costs. The resulting policy implications are different from those prevalent in other industries such as mobile telecommunications where the regulators reduced switching costs by enforcing number portability.
A firm can upgrade relevant skills of its programmers by ensuring their participation in carefully chosen open source projects. Highly skilled programmers are more valuable for the firm but participating in open source projects reduces the time they spend doing the firm's projects. This tradeoff determines the optimal extent of programmer participation in open source for the firm. The extent of open source participation may also be influenced by the minimum compensation that must be paid to hire a programmer in the labor market. This is because providing better skills is a way of compensating the programmers by improving their future market value. Hence the firm may want to increase open source participation to keep direct wage payments in check.We develop an analytical model based on optimal control theory to characterize the employment contract that features the best mix of open source participation and wage payments. We also find that the firm benefits more from the presence of open source in a tight labor market (i.e., when programmers have good options besides the employment offered by the firm). On the other hand, programmers are compensated better in the presence of open source opportunities when they have few outside options. This benefit is more for less skilled programmers.
Many successful open-source projects have been developed by programmers who were employed by firms but worked on open-source projects on the side because of economic incentives like career improvement benefits. Such side work may be a good thing for the employing firms, too, if they get some strategic value from the open-source software and if the productivity of the programmers on these projects improves through learning-by-doing effects. However, the programmers may work more or less on these projects than what is best for the firms. To manage the programmers' efforts, the firms set appropriate employment policies and incentives. These policies and career concerns then together govern the programmers' effort allocation between the open-source and proprietary projects. We examine this relationship using a variant of the principal/agent model. We derive and characterize optimal employment contracts and show that firms either offer a bonus for only one of the two projects or do not offer any bonuses. However, if attractive alternate employment opportunities are available, they change their strategy and may offer bonuses for both projects simultaneously.
Multisourcing, the practice of stitching together best-of-breed IT services from multiple, geographically dispersed service providers, represents the leading edge of modern organizational forms. While major strides have been achieved in the last decade in the information systems (IS) and strategic management literature in improving our understanding of outsourcing, the focus has been on a dyadic relationship between a client and a vendor. We demonstrate that a straightforward extrapolation of such a dyadic relationship falls short of addressing the nuanced incentive-effort-output linkages that arise when multiple vendors, who are competitors, have to cooperate and coordinate to achieve the client's business objectives. We suggest that when multiple vendors have to work together to deliver end-to-end services to a client, the choice of formal incentives and relational governance mechanisms depends on the degree of interdependence between the various tasks as well as the observability and verifiability of output. With respect to cooperation, we find that a vendor must not only put effort in a "primary" task it is responsible for but also cooperate through "helping" effort in enabling other vendors perform their primary tasks. In the context of coordination, we find that task redesign for modularity, OLAs, and governance structures such as the guardian vendor model represent important avenues for further research. Based on the analysis of actual multisourcing contract details over the last decade, interviews with leading practitioners, and a review of the single-sourcing literature, we lay a foundation for normative theories of multisourcing and present a research agenda in this domain.