بررسی طولی اداره مشارکتی در برون سپاری خارجی: یک هدف در حال حرکت

The complexity of the global marketplace is driving the growth of new corporate strategies that are centered on creating “synergistic alliances in procurement, distribution, marketing, and technology”. This study employs a grounded qualitative approach to investigate a growing belief that perspectives of relational governance and the resource-based view of the firm should be integrated to help explain the evolution of offshoring relationships in international marketing and supply chain settings. Specifically we ask—how well do general theories of organization correspond to governance in offshoring relationships? The premise of our longitudinal study found that offshoring relationships begin with calculative trust and opportunism, which later gives way to resource-based competency building and non-economic trust. Over time the offshoring relationships focus on building dynamic capabilities to increase process value through a trust-based relationship. In this way, offshoring relationships are a moving target in terms of governance of relationships from transactional to resource complementarity to a phase where trust and long-term orientation governs the offshored process or processes.

Outsourcing of business processes has increasingly become an accepted strategy across the globe (Huws, 2002). A 2002 Forrester report suggests that over 3.3 million jobs worth US $136 billion would migrate from the U.S. to lower wage countries between 2000 and 2015 (McCarthy, 2002). However, skepticism has also increased surrounding the success of offshoring of processes and services. Popular media is replete with reports suggesting that many offshore outsourcing arrangements seem unable to sustain an organized cultivation of value (Bielski, 2006 and Shahani, 2007). Firms often fail to maintain a cohesive sourcing strategy or even develop the right approach for assessing the skills and tools required to manage a successful relationship with offshore partners. Such reports point towards an increasing need for researchers to better understand the governance of offshore outsourcing (Youngdahl, Ramaswamy, & Verma, 2008). Much of the previous research in offshoring has primarily focused on manufacturing (see McCarthy & Anagnostou, 2004; Takeishi, 2001). Although these studies have used different theories to understand governance (Arnold, 2000; Auburt, Rivard, & Michel, 2004; Ellram et al., 2007; McCarthy & Anagnostou, 2004; Murray & Kotabe, 1999), most studies have used cross-sectional data sources which are likely to be better explained through the use of a single theory of organization. No research to date has followed the evolution of offshoring partnerships or whether the commonly used Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) framework explains all of the stages of development of an offshoring relationship (Vivek, Shankar, & Banwet, 2008). Thus, this study is among the first attempts to understand the governance of offshoring using longitudinal data. The specific purpose of this study is to investigate the governance of offshoring relationships over time, and attempt to examine the theoretical foundations. We use a grounded theory building approach to study the evolution of offshoring relationships and suggest that this new form of work organization can only partially be explained by a single theory of the firm. The findings of our study suggest that it is unlikely that TCE alone can explain the dynamics of governance in the offshoring of processes. The unique aspects of the evolution of offshoring relationships are only explicable by an integration of the theories of TCE, resource-based view of the firm (RBV), and relational governance. We define offshoring as the relocation of business processes to a region different from the home base of the business (van Eenennaam & Brouthers, 1996). The ultimate goal of this research is to create a holistic theoretical integration and robust understanding of the theoretical shifts in the governance of offshoring. Focusing on the offshoring of firm processes to new locations, we address the appropriateness of applying the theories of TCE, RBV, and relational governance to the offshoring context based on the progression of the relationship, above and beyond traditional decisions of structure and entry. Specifically, we examine the strategic initial focus of the offshorer; the roles of cost and opportunism; the impact of specific investments, uncertainty and transaction frequency; and the overall appropriateness of employing the above mentioned theories to the study of offshoring. In examining these issues, we attempt to build a more healthy understanding of the domain of offshoring research and assist in creating a stronger grounding for future research in this area. We also shed light on the dynamics of shifting governance approaches across a longitudinal frame of reference. This manuscript will begin with a review of the chief theoretical foundations. Research questions will follow—as will our grounded theory-based qualitative methodology. Results will be discussed including an analysis of the governance related assumptions of bounded rationality and opportunism and dimensions of uncertainty, specific investments, and frequency of transactions in an offshoring context. Finally we provide a discussion and conclusion section including both research and managerial implications.

Our research shows that even though offshoring relationships start with the primary objective of controlling and/or reducing transaction costs. Over time the demonstrated resource competence of an offshoree and the accumulating relationship experience changes the partnership to non- or less transaction cost focused. Specifically, increasing trust and mutually created capabilities drive the resource and relational modes of governance. During the growth phase, basic cost considerations become secondary and long-term value addition to the process results from the development of dynamic capabilities, i.e. the ability to develop new competencies and resources and new configurations in partnership exploration and relationship expansion (Day, 1994). Initial safeguards against opportunism hazards, as well as the extent of trust are adjusted by experience over time. In the long run, the offshoring relationships focus on building dynamic capabilities to increase process value through a trust-based relationship. In this way offshoring relationships create a moving theoretical target in terms of governance of such relationships from the transactional objective, to resource complementarity, followed by a phase when trust and long-term orientation towards the relationship governs the offshored process. 6.1. Managerial implications A key finding of this research is that offshoring relationships may drive long-term success under dynamic governance strategy. Apparently, providers value long-term relationships and make increasing efforts to add value to the processes of trusting clients. Whether or not the relationship changes from transactional to relational can be a major determinant to the value added to offshored process for the offshorer and partnership. For most firms who offshore not simply to cut costs, over time the parties gain experience by working with each other and determine capabilities that contribute to mutual benefits. Relational contracts also become more flexible and the clients (offshorers) transfer informal ownership of the process to the provider (offshoree). Increasing trust then shapes the relationship such that it adds continuous value to the offshored process. This suggests that clients should invest in an offshoring relationship for the long-term as long as resource and relational value is added to the partnership. Based on the extent to which trust is built on both sides, contracts should be made flexible so the service provider (offshoree) can improve processes to the benefit of the client (offshorer) and ultimately the partnership. 6.2. Limitations and future research We were limited in this research by the duration for which we could follow a case. As offshoring relationships here are in their growth stage, a further follow-up on the developments could bring new insights into the dynamic strategies that govern them. This could take up to a decade to complete. Secondly, although we interviewed firm leaders in our research, having been able to interview multiple managers at the operational level could have given us more insights into the operationalization of the three governance modes in this study at the supply chain level. Our research shows that mutual learning plays a crucial role in the value addition of processes. Further research should study how relational governance facilitates the knowledge processes in offshoring relationships. Also, the ownership of processes might change hands as trust builds up between the two partners, which can be the focus of future research. We ask, “do the governance structures undergo an extended life cycle?” This is an interesting question that can be taken up by researchers in the next few years.