Skip to main content
Log in

Task attributes and process integration in business process offshoring: A perspective of service providers from India and China

  • Article
  • Published:
Journal of International Business Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study addresses an important issue in designing and managing business process offshoring (BPO): process integration between an offshore service provider and its global BPO client. We applied the information-processing lens in global BPO and developed the logic that internationally disaggregated process integration requires a fit between process integration and BPO's task characteristics (i.e., task complexity and security) and task interdependence (task connectivity, stickiness, and dependency). This alignment is further moderated by the task context, such as the geographic dispersion of the global client's end-customers and the type of offshore provider (independent vendor vs captive and joint venture). Finally, we suggest that process integration has a positive but curvilinear relationship with the economic returns achieved by offshore providers. Our analysis of 308 BPO companies in India and China supports our propositions. We conclude that international managers monitoring and integrating globally disaggregated activities in BPO should establish a proper alignment with the BPO project's task traits and task interdependence, and look closely at the conditioning effect of external complexity. By redressing the paucity of research on governing global BPO, this study offers some insights into the integration–externalization dynamics for growing business/knowledge process offshoring.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Our concept of task stickiness is similar to that defined by Kumar et al. (2009) and Srikanth and Puranam (2011), with an additional inclusion of the nature of task content and operational risk as explained by Aron and Singh (2005) and Stringfellow et al. (2008), with the two groups capturing different elements underlying task stickiness in the BPO context.

  2. This study uses the dummy variable (1 if independent vendor, and 0 otherwise) to diagnose this effect. We did not further separate out between captives and joint ventures, because: (1) joint ventures are less common than other modes in BPO (Hutzschenreuter, Lewin, & Dresel, 2011); (2) in our sample the number of joint ventures is indeed relatively small (N=46), and in these joint ventures global clients tend to have majority ownership.

  3. We also employed an alternative approach to verify the effect of task stickiness. Using the survey information about the proxy of information and knowledge stickiness (difficulty in describing and transferring information, the degree of brainpower-oriented operation, ambiguity in defining and measuring task results). Although this measurement is not a full equivalence but a proxy got task stickiness, the results seem to be consistent with what is reported in Table 3 (significant main effect, p<0.05, and insignificant interaction effect, p>0.10).

  4. Integration in this study does not necessarily connote structural tightness. Business processes can be decomposed into process or functional components that may be mixed, matched, and reconnected in some ways by adhering to a standardized interface. Task features (e.g., task complexity, task connectivity, task stickiness, and task interdependence) may go hand in hand with modularization; the degree of modularity is affected and even determined by these task features.

  5. It is worth noting that not all BPO tasks would go noticed by end-customers (e.g., back offices). Our sample has only a small proportion of back offices (5% in China and 10% in India), with the majority being customer service, logistics service, marketing, and others that would interact with end-customers or end-users in some way.

References

  • Adams, M. 2007. Boeing delays delivery of 787: Outsourced work blamed for 6-month Dreamliner setback. USA Today 11 October: 7A.

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aron, R., & Singh, J. V. 2005. Getting offshoring right. Harvard Business Review, 83 (12): 135–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aron, R., Bandyopadhyay, S., Jayanty, S., & Pathak, P. 2008. Monitoring process quality in off-shore outsourcing: A model and findings from multi-country survey. Journal of Operations Management, 26 (2): 303–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. 1989. Managing across borders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhalla, A., Sodhi, M. S., & Son, B. G. 2008. Is more IT offshoring better? An exploratory study of Western companies offshoring to South East Asia. Journal of Operations Management, 26 (2): 322–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J., Morrison, A., & Hulland, J. 1995. Structural and competitive determinants of a global integration strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 16 (8): 637–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D., & Wilson, S. 2005. The black book of outsourcing: How to manage the changes, challenges, and opportunities. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. 1988. The limits of explanation: Testing the internalization theory of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 19 (2): 181–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Click, R. L., & Duening, T. N. 2005. Business process outsourcing: The competitive advantage. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Contractor, F. J., Kumar, V., Kundu, S. K., & Pedersen, T. 2010. Reconceptualizing the firm in a world of outsourcing and offshoring: The organizational and geographical relocation of high-value company functions. Journal of Management Studies, 47 (8): 1417–1613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Macintosh, N. B. 1981. A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of information processing in organizational work units. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26 (2): 207–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dellestrand, H., & Kappen, P. 2012. The effects of spatial and contextual factors on headquarters resource allocation to MNE subsidiaries. Journal of International Business Studies, 43 (3): 219–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doh, J. P. 2005. Offshore outsourcing: Implications for international business and strategic management theory and practice. Journal of Management Studies, 42 (3): 695–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doh, J. P., Bunyaratavej, K., & Hahn, E. D. 2009. Separable but not equal: The location determinants of discrete services offshoring activities. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (6): 926–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23 (4): 660–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egelhoff, W. G. 1982. Strategy and structure in multinational corporations: An information-processing approach. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27 (3): 435–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egelhoff, W. G. 1991. Information-processing theory and the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 22 (3): 341–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egelhoff, W. G. 2010. How the parent headquarters adds value to an MNC. Management and International Review, 50 (4): 413–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ettlie, J. E., & Reza, E. M. 1992. Organizational integration and process innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 35 (4): 795–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, D. 2005. Offshoring: Value creation through economic change. Journal of Management Studies, 42 (3): 675–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. 1973. Designing complex organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner Inc. 2009. Gartner on outsourcing, 2009–2010. ID Number: G00173421. 23 December.

  • Ghoshal, S., & Nohria, N. 1989. Internal differentiation within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 10 (4): 323–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, M., Puryear, R., & Phillips, S. 2005. Strategic sourcing: From periphery to the core. Harvard Business Review, 83 (2): 132–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimpe, C., & Kaiser, U. 2010. Balancing internal and external knowledge acquisition: The gains and pains from R&D outsourcing. Journal of Management Studies, 47 (8): 1483–1509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. 1991. Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review, 16 (4): 768–792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, J. D. 2005. The evolution of BPO in India, Indo-American Chamber of Commerce and PricewaterhouseCoopers, Special Joint Report, April 2005.

  • Hagel III, J., & Brown, J. S. 2001. Your next IT strategy. Harvard Business Review, 79 (9): 105–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinkin, T. R. 1998. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1 (1): 104–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1): 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hui, P. P., Davis-Blake, A., & Broschak, J. P. 2008. Managing interdependence: The effects of outsourcing structure on the performance of complex projects. Decision Sciences Journal, 39 (1): 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, Jr., D. J., Griffith, D. A., Chabowski, B. R., Hamman, M. K., Dykes, B. J., Pollitte, W. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. 2008. An assessment of the measurement of performance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (6): 1064–1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutzschenreuter, T., Lewin, A. Y., & Dresel, S. 2011. Time to success in offshoring business processes. Management International Review, 51 (1): 65–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, P. 2009. A learning perspective on the offshoring of advanced services. Journal of International Management, 15 (2): 181–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaka, N. F., Kekre, S. S., & Sarangan, S. 2006. Benchmarking India's business process outsourcers. The McKinsey Quarterly July: 20–21.

  • Kedia, B. L., & Lahiri, S. 2007. International outsourcing of services: A partnership model. Journal of International Management, 13 (1): 22–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kedia, B. L., & Mukherjee, D. 2009. Understanding offshoring: A research framework based on disintegration, location and externalization advantages. Journal of World Business, 44 (3): 250–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kehal, H. S., & Singh, V. P. 2006. Outsourcing and offshoring in the 21st century. London: IDEA Group Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kenney, M., Massini, S., & Murtha, T. P. 2009. Offshoring administrative and technical work: New fields for understanding the global enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (6): 887–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1993. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24 (4): 625–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kshetri, N. 2007. Institutional factors affecting offshore business process and information technology outsourcing. Journal of International Management, 13 (1): 38–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, K., Fenema, P. C., & Von Glinow, M. A. 2009. Offshoring and the global distribution of work: Implications for task interdependence theory and practice. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (4): 642–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahiri, S., & Kedia, B. L. 2009. The effects of internal resources and partnership quality on firm performance: An examination of Indian BPO providers. Journal of International Management, 15 (2): 209–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, D. 2005. Offshoring in the new global political economy. Journal of Management Studies, 42 (3): 685–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, A. Y., & Peeters, C. 2006. The top-line allure of offshoring. Harvard Business Review, 84 (3): 22–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, A. Y., Massini, S., & Peeters, C. 2009. Why are companies offshoring innovation? The emerging global race for talent. Journal of International Business, 40 (6): 901–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, R., Feils, D. J., & Scholnick, B. 2011. Why are different services outsourced to different countries? Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (4): 558–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y., Zheng, Q., & Jayaraman, V. 2010. Managing business process outsourcing. Organizational Dynamics, 39 (3): 205–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mani, D., Barua, A., & Whinston, A. 2010. An empirical analysis of the impact of information capabilities design on business process outsourcing performance. MIS Quarterly, 34 (1): 39–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning, S., Massini, S., & Lewin, A. Y. 2008. A dynamic perspective on next-generation offshoring: The global sourcing of science and engineering talent. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22 (3): 35–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, X., Swaminathan, A., & Mitchell, W. 1998. Organizational evolution in the interorganizational environment: Incentives and constraints on international expansion strategy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43 (3): 566–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIvor, R. 2005. The outsourcing process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mudambi, R. 2008. Location, control and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Journal of Economic Geography, 8 (5): 699–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudambi, R., & Venzin, M. 2010. The strategic nexus of offshoring and outsourcing decisions. Journal of Management Studies, 47 (8): 1510–1533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayanan, S., Jayaraman, V., Luo, Y., & Swaminathan, J. M. 2011. The antecedents of process integration in business process outsourcing and its effect on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 29 (1–2): 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NASSCOM and McKinsey & Company. 2009. Perspective 2020: Transform Business, Transform India. April: 11–28.

  • Nieto, M. J., & Rodriguez, A. 2011. Offshoring of R&D: Looking abroad to improve innovation performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (3): 345–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. 1990. Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15 (2): 203–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5): 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollalis, Y. A. 2003. Patterns of co-alignment in information-intensive organizations: Business performance through integration strategies. International Journal of Information Management, 23 (6): 469–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poppo, L., & Zenger, T. 1998. Testing alternative theories of the firm: Transaction cost, knowledge-based, and measurement explanations for make or buy decisions in information services. Strategic Management Journal, 19 (9): 853–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramachandran, K., & Voleti, S. 2004. Business process outsourcing (BPO): Emerging scenario and strategic options for IT-enabled services. Vikalpa, 29 (1): 49–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A., & Verbeke, A. 2003. Extending the theory of the multinational enterprise: Internalization and strategic management perspectives. Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (2): 125–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schniederjans, M. J. 2005. Outsourcing and insourcing in an international context. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, Y. 2007. Today's solution and tomorrow's problem. California Management Review, 49 (3): 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, D. 2007. Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32 (1): 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow, E. 2003. Successful IT outsourcing: From choosing a provider to managing the project. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Srikanth, K., & Puranam, P. 2011. Integrating distributed work: Comparing task design, communication and tacit coordination mechanisms. Strategic Management Journal, 32 (8): 849–875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stringfellow, A., Teagarden, M. B., & Nie, W. 2008. Invisible costs in offshoring service work. Journal of Operations Management, 26 (2): 164–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter special issue): 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. 2003. Sticky knowledge: Barriers to knowing in the firm. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiwana, A., & Keil, M. 2007. Does peripheral knowledge complement control? An empirical test in technology outsourcing alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 28 (6): 623–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. A. 1978. Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Academy of Management Review, 3 (3): 613–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vivek, S. D., Banwet, D. K., & Shankar, R. 2008. Analysis of interactions among core, transaction and relationship-specific investments: The case of offshoring. Journal of Operations Management, 26 (2): 180–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, E. 1994. “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40 (4): 429–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, E. 1998. Economics of product development by users: The impact of “sticky” local information. Management Science, 44 (5): 629–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigelt, C. 2009. The impact of outsourcing new technologies on integrative capabilities and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30 (6): 595–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willcocks, L. P., & Lacity, M. C. 2006. Global sourcing of business and IT services. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Youngdahl, W., & Ramaswamy, K. 2008. Offshoring knowledge and service work: A conceptual model and research agenda. Journal of Operations Management, 26 (2): 212–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, A., & Venkatraman, N. 1995. Relational governance as an interorganizational strategy: An empirical test of the role of trust in economic exchange. Strategic Management Journal, 16 (5): 373–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zander, U., & Kogut, B. 1995. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science, 6 (1): 76–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K. Z., Poppo, L., & Yang, Z. 2008. Relational ties or customized contracts? An examination of alternative governance choices in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (3): 526–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Professor Ulf Andersson and the JIBS reviewers for their insightful comments and valuable suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yadong Luo.

Additional information

Accepted by Ulf Andersson, Area Editor, 24 January 2012. This paper has been with the authors for three revisions.

Appendices

APPENDIX A

Table A1.

Table A1 Literature review and summary on BPO governance, determinants, and BPO outcomes

APPENDIX B

MAJOR SURVEY ITEMS

1. Economic Returns Achieved by BPO Provider

(Hult et al., 2008; Lewin & Peeters, 2006; Poppo and Zenger, 1998)

Please rate the following as compared with your close domestic competitors (1=lowest 20% in the industry; 5=highest 20% in the industry).

  1. 1)

    Client satisfaction

  2. 2)

    Cost reduction

  3. 3)

    Reputation

  4. 4)

    Knowledge accumulation

2. BPO Process Integration

(Aron & Singh, 2005; Ettlie & Reza, 1992; Luo et al., 2010): 5-point Likert scale

  1. 1)

    Frequency of the global client's project management team in on-site checking of the service quality and security you offer at your location.

  2. 2)

    Frequency of communication and coordination between your company and the global client on project progress and implementation.

  3. 3)

    Process coupling between your company and the global client is so high that if your services are inferior, the global client's entire business or value chain will be significantly hurt.

  4. 4)

    Process integration is so high that you have to follow the same protocols, standards, and cultures specified by the global client to serve its global customers.

3. Task Complexity

(Stringfellow et al., 2008; Zander & Kogut, 1995): 5-point Likert scale

  1. 1)

    BPO task is always so sophisticated that you have to deploy a large workforce from different units to work on it.

  2. 2)

    BPO task fulfillment requires a great deal of specialized knowledge in different disciplines.

  3. 3)

    It is extremely difficult to standardize processes and procedures for your company's BPO projects.

4. Task Security

(Aron & Singh, 2005; Narayanan et al., 2011): 5-point Likert scale

  1. 1)

    The client always attaches the utmost important to information security.

  2. 2)

    Security is your overriding priority in training, services, and policymaking.

  3. 3)

    You have strict and stringent rules to safeguard customer information.

5. Task Connectivity

(Sparrow, 2003; Willcocks & Lacity, 2006): 5-point Likert scale

  1. 1)

    To what extent does your BPO task require interfunctional or interdepartmental collective efforts?

  2. 2)

    To what extent does your BPO task require coordination and interdependence among functions or processes?

  3. 3)

    To what extent is the entire BPO task indivisible, such that if one function or process fails the entire task will fail?

6. Task Dependence

(Luo et al., 2010)

Please rate the extent to which the global client must depend on your services:

  1. 1)

    Not very dependent

  2. 2)

    Somewhat dependent

  3. 3)

    Very dependent

7. Task Stickiness (coded by the authors)

(Aron & Singh, 2005; Kumar et al., 2009; Srikanth & Puranam, 2011)

  1. 1)

    Not sticky

  2. 2)

    Partial sticky

  3. 3)

    Fully sticky

8. End-Customer Geo-breadth

In about how many countries are the global client's end-customers or end-users located?

  1. 1)

    <10

  2. 2)

    11–20

  3. 3)

    21–30

  4. 4)

    Over 30

9. Relational Ties

(Zaheer & Venkatraman, 1995; Zhou, Poppo, & Yang, 2008): 5-point Likert scale

  1. 1)

    You frequently use personal contacts, help, and advice from the client throughout the BPO process.

  2. 2)

    You have established a culture such that every party or member cooperates with each other in the BPO process.

  3. 3)

    Teamwork spirit and mutual support prevail widely.

APPENDIX C

Table C1

Table C1 Task stickiness and offshore business processes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Luo, Y., Wang, S., Zheng, Q. et al. Task attributes and process integration in business process offshoring: A perspective of service providers from India and China. J Int Bus Stud 43, 498–524 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2012.8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2012.8

Keywords

Navigation