Skip to main content
Log in

Review of the empirical business services sourcing literature: an update and future directions

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Information Technology

Abstract

The 2010 Journal of Information Technology (JIT) article, ‘A Review of the IT Outsourcing Empirical Literature and Future Research Directions,’ analyzed 741 findings on the determinants of Information Technology Outsourcing (ITO) decisions and outcomes from 164 empirical articles published between 1992 and 2010. Using the same coding method, the 2011 JIT article, ‘Business Process Outsourcing Studies: A Critical Review and Research Directions,’ analyzed 615 findings on the determinants of Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) decisions and outcomes from 67 empirical articles published between 1996 and 2011. Taken together, these two reviews found that the preponderance of evidence from both ITO and BPO research streams produced largely consistent results pertaining to the categories of independent variables that affected outsourcing decisions and outcomes. To investigate the most current research findings on business services, which comprise ITO and BPO, and to compare the results with the prior JIT reviews, we replicated the method used in the prior JIT reviews. In this update, we examined 174 newly published articles across 78 academic journals published between 2010 and 2014. We found that researchers have significantly expanded the variables of interest in the last 4 years. In all, researchers investigated 69 new variables. Compared with earlier research, this review of recent articles found a deeper exploration of the direct effects of transaction attributes, sourcing motivations, client and provider capabilities, and governance on sourcing decisions and outcomes. Researchers have also studied a broader variety of sourcing decisions, including shared services, captive centers, rural sourcing and backsourcing. This update also found a more nuanced understanding of relational governance and its interaction with contractual governance. We assessed the research progress that has been made on ten previously identified gaps in knowledge. We proposed a future research agenda that includes continued, incremental progress on ‘normal science’ research questions, as well as more ambitious research goals. We challenged researchers to investigate how sourcing clients, providers, and advisors can protect jobs, protect the environment, and ensure security in an increasingly automated world.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. From ‘Roundup of Cloud Computing’ on http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2015/01/24/roundup-of-cloud-computing-forecasts-and-market-estimates-2015/.

  2. 2015 Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report, http://www.verizonenterprise.com/DBIR/2015/.

References

  • * Indicates the article was coded in this review.

  • Accenture (2012). Exploring the Value Proposition from Impact Sourcing: The Buyer’s Perspective [www document] http://www.accenture.com/us-en/Pages/insight-exploring-value-proposition-impactsourcing.aspx, accessed 20 July 2015.

  • *Agrawal, S., Goswami, K. and Chatterjee, B. (2012). Factors Influencing Performance of ITES Firms in India, Information Resources Management Journal 25(4): 46–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Agrawal, P. and Haleem, A. (2013). The Impact of the Outsourcing of IT on Firm Performance: An empirical study, International Journal of Management 30(3): 121–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Agrawal, P. and Hall, S.C. (2014). Using Accounting Metrics as Performance Measures to Assess the Impact of Information Technology Outsourcing on Manufacturing and Service Firms, Journal of Applied Business Research 30(5): 1559–1568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, M., Kishore, R. and Rao, H.R. (2006). Market Reactions to E-business Outsourcing Announcements: An event study, Information & Management 43(7): 861–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ali, S. and Green, P. (2012). Effective Information Technology (IT) Governance Mechanisms: An IT outsourcing perspective, Information Systems Frontiers 14(2): 179–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Alvarez-Suescun, E. (2010). Combining Transaction Cost and Resource-Based Insights to Explain IT Implementation Outsourcing, Information Systems Frontiers 12(5): 631–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Amiruddin, R., Aman, A., Auzair, S.M., Hamzah, N. and Maelah, R. (2013). Mitigating Risks in a Shared Service Relationship: The case of a Malaysian bank, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management 10(1): 78–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Andries, P. and Thorwarth, S. (2014). Should Firms Outsource their Basic Research? The Impact of Firm Size on In‐House versus Outsourced R&D Productivity, Creativity and Innovation Management 23(3): 303–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ang, S. and Cummings, L. (1997). Strategic Response to Institutional Influences on Information Systems Outsourcing, Organization Science 8(3): 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Angeli, F. and Grimaldi, R. (2010). Leveraging Offshoring: The identification of new business opportunities in international settings, Industry and Innovation 17(4): 393–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Argyres, N. and Zenger, T. (2012). Capabilities, Transaction Costs, and Firm Boundaries, Organization Science 23(6): 1643–1657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Arnold, V., Benford, T., Hampton, C. and Sutton, S. (2010). Competing Pressures of Risk and Absorptive Capacity Potential on Commitment and Information Sharing in Global Supply Chains, European Journal of Information Systems 19(2): 134–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Aubert, B.A., Houde, J.F., Patry, M. and Rivard, S. (2012). A Multi-Level Investigation of Information Technology Outsourcing, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 21(3): 233–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Aubert, B., Rivard, S. and Templier, M. (2011). Information Technology and Distance-Induced Effort to Manage Offshore Activities, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 58(4): 758–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avasant/Rockefeller Foundation (2012). Incentives & Opportunities for Scaling the ‘Impact Sourcing’ Sector,2012. Corporate report by Avasant consultancy [WWW document] https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/app/uploads/Incentives-Opportunities-for-Scaling-the-Impact-Sourcing-Sector.pdf, accessed 3 February 2016.

  • Babin, R. (2008). Assessing the Role of CSR in Outsourcing Decisions, Journal of Information Systems Applied Research 1(2): 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Babin, R. and Nicholson, B. (2009). Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility in Global IT Outsourcing, MIS Quarterly Executive 8(4): 123–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Babin, R. and Nicholson, B. (2011). How Green is My Outsourcer? Measuring Sustainability in Global IT Outsourcing, Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal 4(1): 47–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babin, R. and Nicholson, B. (2012). Sustainable Global Outsourcing: Achieving social and environmental responsibility in global IT and business process outsourcing. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Babin, R., Briggs, S. and Nicholson, B. (2011). Emerging Markets Corporate Social Responsibility and Global IT Outsourcing, Communications of the ACM 54(9): 28–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Bachlechner, D., Thalmann, S. and Maier, R. (2014). Security and Compliance Challenges in Complex IT Outsourcing Arrangements: A multi-stakeholder perspective, Computers & Security 40(2): 38–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, L.P., Irani, Z. and Love, P.E.D. (2001). Outsourcing Information Systems: Drawing lessons from a banking case study, European Journal of Information Systems 10(1): 15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandyopadhyay, J. and Hall, L. (2009). Off-Shoring of Tax Preparation Services by US Accounting Firms: An empirical study, Advances in Competitiveness Research 17(1&2): 72–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Baraldi, E., Proença, J.F., Proença, T. and de Castro, L.M. (2014). The Supplier’s Side of Outsourcing: Taking over activities and blurring organizational boundaries, Industrial Marketing Management 43(4): 553–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhan, I., Mithas, S. and Lin, S. (2007). Performance Impacts of Strategy, Information Technology Applications, and Business Process Outsourcing in US Manufacturing Plants, Production and Operations Management 16(6): 747–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Barthélemy, J. (2011). The Disney – Pixar Relationship Dynamics: Lessons for outsourcing vs. vertical integration, Organizational Dynamics 40(1): 43–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benamati, J. and Rajkumar, T.M. (2002). The Application Development Outsourcing Decision: An application of the technology acceptance model, The Journal of Computer Information Systems 42(4): 35–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Betz, S., Oberweis, A. and Stephan, R. (2014). Knowledge Transfer in Offshore Outsourcing Software Development Projects: An analysis of the challenges and solutions from German clients, Expert Systems 31(3): 282–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Beulen, E., Tiwari, V. and van Heck, E. (2011). Understanding Transition Performance During Offshore IT Outsourcing, Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal 4(3): 204–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Bhagwatwar, A., Hackney, R. and Desouza, K.C. (2011). Considerations for Information Systems ‘Backsourcing’: A framework for knowledge re-integration, Information Systems Management 28(2): 165–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bharadwaj, S., Saxena, K. and Halemane, M. (2010). Building a Successful Relationship in Business Process Outsourcing: An exploratory study, European Journal of Information Systems 19(2): 168–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Bidwell, M. (2010). Problems Deciding: How the structure of make-or-buy decisions leads to transaction misalignment, Organization Science 21(2): 362–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Bidwell, M.J. (2012). Politics and Firm Boundaries: How organizational structure, group interests, and resources affect outsourcing, Organization Science 23(6): 1622–1642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bignoux, S. (2011). Partnerships, Suppliers, and Coercive Influence, Journal of Applied Business Research 27(3): 117–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Blaskovich, J. and Mintchik, N. (2011). Accounting Executives and IT Outsourcing Recommendations: An experimental study of the effect of CIO skills and institutional isomorphism, Journal of Information Technology 26(2): 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boell, S. and Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2015). On Being ‘Systematic’ in Literature Reviews in IS, Journal of Information Technology 30(2): 161–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borman, M. (2006). Applying Multiple Perspectives to the BPO Decision: A case study of call centers in Australia, Journal of Information Technology 21(2): 99–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Brcar, F. and Bukovec, B. (2013). Analysis of Increased Information Technology Outsourcing Factors, Organizacija 46(1): 13–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Brewer, B., Wallin, C. and Ashenbaum, B. (2014). Outsourcing the Procurement Function: Do actions and results align with theory? Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 20(3): 186–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. (2008). It is Good to Be Green: Environmentally friendly credentials are influencing business outsourcing decisions, Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal 1(1): 87–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budhwar, P., Luthar, H. and Bhatnagar, J. (2006). The Dynamics of HRM Systems in Indian BPO Firms, Journal of Labor Research 27(3): 339–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Bustinza, O.F., Molina, L.M. and Gutierrez‐Gutierrez, L.J. (2010). Outsourcing as Seen From the Perspective of Knowledge Management, Journal of Supply Chain Management 46(3): 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Cable, D.M., Gino, F. and Staats, B.R. (2013). Breaking Them in or Eliciting Their Best? Reframing Socialization around Newcomers’ Authentic Self-Expression, Administrative Science Quarterly 58(1): 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calantone, R. and Stanko, M. (2007). Drivers of Outsourced Innovation: An exploratory study, Journal of Product Innovation Management 24(3): 230–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Cao, L., Mohan, K., Ramesh, B. and Sarkar, S. (2013). Evolution of Governance: Achieving ambidexterity in IT outsourcing, Journal of Management Information Systems 30(3): 115–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, P., Subramanian, N. and Ching, K. (2006). Internal Audit Outsourcing in Australia, Accounting and Finance 46(1): 11–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmel, E., Lacity, M. and Doty, A. (2014). The Impact of Impact Sourcing: Framing a research agenda, in R. Hirschheim, A. Heinzl and J. Dibbern (eds.) Information Systems Outsourcing: Towards sustainable business value. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 397–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ceci, F. and Masciarelli, F. (2010). A Matter of Coherence: The effects of offshoring of intangibles on firm performance, Industry & Innovation 17(4): 373–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cezar, A., Cavusoglu, H. and Raghunathan, S. (2014). Outsourcing Information Security: Contracting issues and security implications, Management Science 60(3): 638–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Cha, H.S. and Quan, J. (2011). A Global Perspective on Information Systems Personnel Turnover, Journal of Global Information Technology Management 14(4): 4–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Chakrabarty, S. and Whitten, D. (2011). The Sidelining of Top IT Executives in the Governance of Outsourcing: Antecedents, power struggles, and consequences, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 58(4): 799–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Chaudhuri, S. and Bartlett, K.R. (2014). The Relationship between Training Outsourcing and Employee Commitment to Organization, Human Resource Development International 17(2): 145–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciravegna, L. and Maielli, G. (2011). Outsourcing of New Product Development and the Opening of Innovation in Mature Industries: A longitudinal study of fiat during crisis and recovery, International Journal of Innovation Management 15(1): 69–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Cordella, A. and Willcocks, L. (2012). Government Policy, Public Value and IT Outsourcing: The strategic case of ASPIRE, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 21(4): 295–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, S., Seddon, P. and Willcocks, L. (2005). Managing Outsourcing: The life cycle imperative, MIS Quarterly Executive 4(1): 229–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie, W., Michell, V. and Abanishe, A. (2008). Knowledge Process Outsourcing in Financial Services: The vendor perspective, European Management Journal 26(2): 94–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daityari, A., Saini, A. and Gupta, R. (2008). Control of Business Process Outsourcing Relationships, Journal of Management Research 8(1): 29–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Datta, P. and Bhattacharya, K. (2012). Innovation Returns and the Economics of Offshored IT R&D, Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal 5(1): 15–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, T. and Iyer, B. (2015). Bringing outsourcing back to machines The Wall Street Journal 1 July [WWW document] http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2015/07/01/bringing-outsourcing-back-to-machines/, accessed 20 July 2015.

  • Davenport, T. and Kirby, J. (2015). Beyond Automation: Augmentation, Harvard Business Review 93(6): 58–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Dedrick, J., Carmel, E. and Kraemer, K.L. (2011). A Dynamic Model of Offshore Software Development, Journal of Information Technology 26(1): 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Dekker, H.C. and Van den Abbeele, A. (2010). Organizational Learning and Interfirm Control: The effects of partner search and prior exchange experiences, Organization Science 21(6): 1233–1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmotte, J. and Sels, L. (2008). HR Outsourcing: Threat or opportunity, Personnel Review 37(5): 543–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Deng, C., Mao, J. and Wang, G. (2013). An Empirical Study on the Source of Vendors’ Relational Performance in Offshore Information Systems Outsourcing, International Journal of Information Management 33(1): 10–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Toni, A., Fornasier, A., Montagner, M. and Nonino, F. (2007). A Performance Measurement System for Facility Management, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 56(5/6): 417–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Devos, J., Van Landeghem, H. and Deschoolmeester, D. (2012). Rethinking IT Governance for SMEs, Industrial Management & Data Systems 112(2): 206–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Dey, D., Fan, M. and Zhang, C. (2010). Design and Analysis of Contracts for Software Outsourcing, Information Systems Research 21(1): 93–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Dibbern, J., Chin, W. and Heinzl, A. (2012). Systemic Determinants of the Information Systems Outsourcing Decision: A comparative study of German and United States firms, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 13(6): 466–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibbern, J., Goles, T., Hirschheim, R. and Jayatilaka, B. (2004). Information Systems Outsourcing: A survey and analysis of the literature, ACM SIGMIS Database 35(4): 6–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (eds.) (1991). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields, in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 63–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiRomualdo, A. and Gurbaxani, V. (1998). Strategic Intent for IT Outsourcing, Sloan Management Review 39(4): 67–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doh, J., Bunyaratavej, K. and Hahn, E. (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 

  • *Doloreux, D. and Shearmur, R. (2013). Innovation strategies: Are knowledge-intensive business services just another source of information? Industry & Innovation 20(8): 719–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Du, W. and Pan, S.L. (2013). Boundary Spanning by Design: Toward aligning boundary-spanning capacity and strategy in it outsourcing, IEEE Transactions On Engineering Management 60(1): 59–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, A. and Phillips, J. (2001). The Outsourcing of Corporate Tax Function Activities, The Journal of the American Taxation Association 23(2): 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Dutta, D., Gwebu, K. and Wang, J. (2011). Strategy and Vendor Selection in IT Outsourcing: Is there a method in the madness? Journal of Global Information Technology Management 14(2): 6–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, A. and Roy, R. (2005). Offshore Outsourcing: A dynamic causal model of counteracting forces, Journal of Management Information Systems 22(2): 15–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ee, O., Halim, H.A. and Ramayah, T. (2013). The Effects of Partnership Quality on Business Process Outsourcing Success in Malaysia: Key users perspective, Service Business 7(2): 227–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Agency Theory: An assessment and review, The Academy of Management Review 14(1): 57–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everest Group (2014). The Business Case for Impact Sourcing [WWW document] http://www.everestgrp.com/2014-09-the-business-case-for-impact-sourcing-sherpas-in-blue-shirts-15662.html, accessed 20 July 2015.

  • Fersht, P., Herrera, E., Robinson, B., Filippone, T. and Willcocks, L. (2011). The State of Outsourcing in 2011, Horses for Sources and LSE Outsourcing Unit, London, May–July [WWW document] www.hfsresearch.com, accessed 20 July 2015.

  • Fielt, E., Bandara, W., Miskon, S. and Gable, G.G. (2014). Exploring Shared Services from an IS Perspective: A literature review and research agenda, Communications of the Association for Information Systems 34(1): 1001–1040.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fifarek, B., Veloso, F. and Davidson, C. (2008). Offshoring Technology Innovation: A case study of rare-earth technology, Journal of Operations Management 26(2): 222–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fink, L. (2010). Information Technology Outsourcing Through a Configurational Lens, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 19(2): 124–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fjermestad, J. and Saitta, J. (2005). A Strategic Management Framework for IT Outsourcing: A review of the literature and the development of a success factors model, Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research 7(3): 42–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Freytag, P., Clarke, A. and Evald, M. (2012). Reconsidering Outsourcing Solutions, European Management Journal 30(2): 99–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frick, W. (2015). When Your Boss Wears Metal Pants, Harvard Business Review 93(6): 84–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gainey, T. and Klaas, B. (2003). The Outsourcing of Training and Development: Factors impacting client satisfaction, Journal of Management 29(2): 207–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Gao, G., Gopal, A. and Agarwal, R. (2010). Contingent Effects of Quality Signaling: Evidence from the Indian offshore IT services industry, Management Science 56(6): 1012–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *García‐Vega, M. and Huergo, E. (2011). Determinants of International R&D Outsourcing: The role of trade, Review of Development Economics 15(1): 93–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Gefen, D., Ragowsky, A., Licker, P. and Stern, M. (2011). The Changing Role of the CIO in the World of Outsourcing: Lessons learned from a CIO roundtable, Communications of the AIS 28(15): 233–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gewald, H. and Dibbern, J. (2009). Risks and Benefits of Business Process Outsourcing: A study of transaction services in the German banking industry, Information & Management 46(4): 249–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gewald, H. and Gellrich, T. (2007). The Impact of Perceived Risk on the Capital Market’s Reaction to Outsourcing Announcements, Information Technology and Management 8(4): 279–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Gholami, S. (2012). Critical Risk Factors in Outsourced Support Projects of IT, Journal of Management Research 4(1): 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilley, K., Greer, C. and Rasheed, A. (2004). Human Resource Outsourcing and Organizational Performance in Manufacturing Firms, Journal of Business Research 57(3): 232–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F. and Staats, B. (2012). The Microwork Solution, Harvard Business Review 90(12): 92–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Glaister, A.J. (2014). HR Outsourcing: The impact on HR role, competency development and relationships, Human Resource Management Journal 24(2): 211–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Gonzalez, R., Gasco, J. and Llopis, J. (2010a). Information Systems Outsourcing: An empirical study of success factors, Human System Management 29(3): 139–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Gonzalez, R., Gasco, J. and Llopis, J. (2010b). Information Systems Offshore Outsourcing: An exploratory study of motivations and risks in large Spanish firms, Information Systems Management 27(4): 340–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goo, J., Kishore, R., Rao, H.R. and Nam, K. (2009). The Role of Service Level Agreements in Relational Management of Information Technology Outsourcing: An empirical study, MIS Quarterly 33(1): 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Gopal, A., Espinosa, A., Gosain, S. and Darcy, D. (2011). Coordination and Performance in Global Software Service Delivery: The vendor’s perspective, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 58(4): 772–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Gopal, A. and Gosain, S. (2010). The Role of Organizational Controls and Boundary Spanning in Software Development Outsourcing: Implications for project performance, Information Systems Research 21(4): 960–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Gopal, A. and Koka, B. (2010). The Role of Contracts on Quality and Returns to Quality, Decision Sciences 41(3): 491–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Gopal, A. and Koka, B.R. (2012). The Asymmetric Benefits of Relational Flexibility: Evidence from software development outsourcing, MIS Quarterly 36(2): 553–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopal, A., Mukhopadhyay, T. and Krishnan, M. (2002). The Role of Software Processes and Communication in Offshore Software Development, Communications of the ACM 45(4): 193–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Gorla, N. and Lau, M. (2010). Will Negative Experiences Impact Future IT Outsourcing? Journal of Computer Information Systems 50(3): 91–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Gorla, N. and Somers, T.M. (2014). The Impact of IT Outsourcing on Information Systems Success, Information & Management 51(3): 320–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorp, D.V., Jagersma, P.K. and Livshits, A. (2007). Offshore Behavior of Service Firms: Policy implications for firms and nations, Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research 9(1): 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gospel, H. and Sako, M. (2010). ‘The Unbundling of Corporate Functions,’ The Evolution of Shared Services and Outsourcing in Human Resource Management, Industrial and Corporate Change 19(5): 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimpe, C. and 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 

  • *Gwebu, K.L., Wang, J. and Wang, L. (2010). Does IT Outsourcing Deliver Economic Value to Firms? The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 19(2): 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hahn, E.D. and Bunyaratavej, K. (2010). Services Cultural Alignment in Offshoring: The impact of cultural dimensions on offshoring location choices, Journal of Operations Management 28(3): 186–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hahn, E.D., Bunyaratavej, K. and Doh, J.P. (2011). Impacts of Risk and Service Type on Nearshore and Offshore Investment Location Decisions, Management International Review 51(3): 357–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. and Liedtka, S. (2005). Financial Performance, CEO Compensation, and Large-Scale Information Technology Outsourcing Decisions, Journal of Management Information Systems 22(1): 193–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Han, K., Kauffman, R. and Nault, B. (2011). Returns to Information Technology Outsourcing, Information Systems Research 22(4): 824–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Han, K. and Mithas, S. (2013). Information Technology Outsourcing and Non-IT Operating Costs: An empirical investigation, MIS Quarterly 37(1): 315–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Handley, S.M. (2012). The Perilous Effects of Capability Loss on Outsourcing Management and Performance, Journal of Operations Management 30(1): 152–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handley, S. and Benton, W.C. (2009). Unlocking the Business Outsourcing Process Model, Journal of Operations Management 27(5): 344–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Handley, S.M. and Benton, W.C. (2012). Mediated Power and Outsourcing Relationships, Journal of Operations Management 30(3): 253–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hätönen, J. (2010). Outsourcing and Licensing Strategies in Small Software Firms: Evolution of strategies and implications for firm growth, internationalisation and innovation, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 22(5): 609–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heeks, R. (2012). The Research Agenda for IT Impact Sourcing, blog. ICTs for Development [WWW document] http://ict4dblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/the-research-agenda-for-it-impact-sourcing/, accessed 20 July 2015.

  • Heeks, R. and Arun, S. (2010). Social Outsourcing as a Development Tool: The impact of outsourcing IT services to women’s social enterprises in Kerala, Journal of International Development 22(4): 441–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hodosi, G. and Rusu, L. (2013). How Do Critical Success Factors Contribute to a Successful IT Outsourcing: A study of large multinational companies, Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 14(1): 17–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, C., Khan, S.A. and Mirchandani, D. (2015). Developing an Interdisciplinary Cybersecurity Program in the Business School: Reflections and a view to the future, Regional Business Review 34: 51–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J., Gagliardi, D. and Malik, K. (2008). The Growth and Management of R&D Outsourcing: Evidence from UK pharmaceuticals, R&D Management 38(2): 205–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Huber, T.L., Fischer, T.A., Dibbern, J. and Hirschheim, R. (2013). A Process Model of Complementarity and Substitution of Contractual and Relational Governance in IS Outsourcing, Journal of Management Information Systems 30(3): 81–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IAOP (2009). Summary of Findings from the IAOP 2009 CSR Survey, an IAOP Research White Paper [WWW document] http://www.iaop.org/Content/23/126/1698/.

  • *Ippolito, A. and Zoccoli, P. (2010). How Knowledge and Technology Relate in Creating Value: An Italian case of technology outsourcing, Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal 3(2): 72–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Iveroth, E. (2010). Inside Ericsson: A framework for the practice of leading global IT-enabled change, California Management Review 53(1): 136–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Jain, A. and Thietart, R.A. (2014). Capabilities as Shift Parameters for the Outsourcing Decision, Strategic Management Journal 35(2): 1881–1890.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Jain, R., Poston, R. and Simon, J. (2011a). An Empirical Investigation of Client Managers’ Responsibilities in Managing Offshore Outsourcing of Software-Testing Projects, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 58(4): 743–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Jain, R., Simon, J. and Poston, R. (2011b). Mitigating Vendor Silence in Offshore Outsourcing: An empirical investigation, Journal of Management Information Systems 27(4): 261–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa, S. and Mao, J. (2008). Operational Capabilities Development in Mediated Offshore Software Service Models, Journal of Information Technology 23(1): 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Jayaraman, V., Narayanan, S., Luo, Y. and Swaminathan, J.M. (2013). Offshoring Business Process Services and Governance Control Mechanisms: An examination of service providers from India, Production and Operations Management 22(2): 314–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Jean, R., Sinkovics, R. and Cavusgil, S. (2010). Enhancing International Customer – Supplier Relationships through IT Resources: A study of Taiwanese electronics suppliers, Journal of International Business Studies 41(7): 1218–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeyaraj, A., Rottman, J.W. and Lacity, M.C. (2006). A Review of the Predictors, Linkages, and Biases in IT Innovation Adoption Research, Journal of Information Technology 21(1): 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Ji-Fan Ren, S., Ngai, E.W.T. and Cho, V. (2011). Managing Software Outsourcing Relationships in Emerging Economies: An empirical study of the Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 58(4): 730–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Jorgensen, C. (2010). Offshore Supplier Relations: Knowledge integration among small businesses, Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal 3(3): 192–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kang, M., Wu, X., Hong, P., Park, K. and Park, Y. (2014). The Role of Organizational Control in Outsourcing Practices: An empirical study, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 20(3): 177–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kannabiran, G. and Sankaran, K. (2011). Determinants of Software Quality in Offshore Development – An Empirical Study of an Indian Vendor, Information and Software Technology 53(11): 1199–1208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenyon, G. and Meixell, M. (2011). Success Factors and Cost Management Strategies for Logistics Outsourcing, Journal of Management and Marketing Research 7(1): 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kern, T., Willcocks, L.P. and Van Heck, E. (2002). The Winner’s Curse in IT Outsourcing: Strategies for Avoiding Relational Trauma, California Management Review 44(2): 47–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Khan, S.A. and Lacity, M. (2012). Survey Results: Are client organizations responding to anti-offshoring pressures? Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal 5(2): 166–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, S.A. and Lacity, M.C. (2014). Organizational Responsiveness to Anti-Offshoring Institutional Pressures, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 23(3): 190–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kien, S., Kiat, L. and Periasamy, K. (2010). Switching IT Outsourcing Suppliers: Enhancing transition readiness, MIS Quarterly Executive 9(1): 23–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, G. (2008). E-Business Strategy in Western Europe: Offshore BPO model perspective, Business Process Management 14(6): 813–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klaas, B., McClendon, J. and Gainey, T. (2001). Outsourcing HR: The impact of organizational characteristics, Human Resource Management 40(2): 125–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kobelsky, K.W. and Robinson, M.A. (2010). The Impact of Outsourcing on Information Technology Spending, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 11(2): 105–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh, C., Ang, S. and Straub, D. (2004). IT Outsourcing Success: A psychological contract perspective, Information Systems Research 15(4): 356–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kotlarsky, J., Scarbrough, H. and Oshri, I. (2014). Coordinating Expertise Across Knowledge Boundaries in Offshore-Outsourcing Projects: The role of codification, MIS Quarterly 38(2): 607–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kroes, J.R. and Ghosh, S. (2010). Outsourcing Congruence with Competitive Priorities: Impact on supply chain and firm performance, Journal of Operations Management 28(2): 124–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kuruvilla, S. and Ranganathan, A. (2010). Globalisation and Outsourcing: Confronting new human resource challenges in India’s business process outsourcing industry, Industrial Relations Journal 41(2): 136–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kuula, M., Putkiranta, A. and Tulokas, P. (2013). Parameters in a Successful Process Outsourcing Project: A case from the ministry of foreign affairs, Finland, International Journal of Public Administration 36(12): 857–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacity, M., Feeny, D. and Willcocks, L. (2004). Commercializing the Back Office at Lloyds of London: Outsourcing and strategic partnerships revisited, European Management Journal 22(2): 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacity, M.C., Khan, S., Yan, A. and Willcocks, L.P. (2010). A Review of the IT Outsourcing Empirical Literature and Future Research Directions, Journal of Information technology 25(4): 395–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacity, M., Rottman, J. and Carmel, E. (2012). Emerging ITO and BPO Markets: Rural sourcing and impact sourcing. IEEE Readynotes, IEEE Computer Society: Los Alamitos, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lacity, M., Rottman, J. and Khan, S. (2010). Field of Dreams: Building IT capabilities in rural America, Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal 3(3): 169–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Lacity, M.C., Rottman, J.W. and Carmel, E. (2014). Impact Sourcing: Employing prison inmates to perform digitally-enabled business services, Communications of the AIS 34(1): 913–932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacity, M.C., Solomon, S., Yan, A. and Willcocks, L.P. (2011). Business Process Outsourcing Studies: A critical review and research directions, Journal of Information Technology 26(4): 221–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Lacity, M. and Willcocks, L. (2014). Business Process Outsourcing and Dynamic Innovation, Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal 7(1): 66–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahiri, S. and Kedia, B. (2009). The Effects of Internal Resources and Partnership Quality on Firm Performance: An examination of Indian BPO suppliers, Journal of International Management 15(2): 209–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, W. and Chua, A. (2009). An Analysis of Knowledge Outsourcing at Eduware, Aslib Proceedings New Information Perspectives 61(5): 424–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Langer, N., Slaughter, S.A. and Mukhopadhyay, T. (2014). Project Managers’ Practical Intelligence and Project Performance in Software Offshore Outsourcing: A field study, Information Systems Research 25(2): 364–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Lee, R. and Kim, D. (2010). Implications of Service Processes Outsourcing on Firm Value, Industrial Marketing Management 39(5): 853–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Miranda, S. and Kim, Y. (2004). IT Outsourcing Strategies: Universalistic, contingency, and configurational explanations of success, Information Systems Research 15(2): 110–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levina, N. and Ross, J. (2003). From the Vendor’s Perspective: Exploring the value proposition in IT outsourcing, MIS Quarterly 27(3): 331–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levina, N. and Su, N. (2008). Global Multisourcing Strategy: The emergence of a supplier portfolio in services offshoring, Decision Sciences 39(3): 541–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, A. and Peeters, C. (2006). Offshoring Work: Business hype or the onset of fundamental transformation? Long Range Planning 39(3): 221–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., Zhao, X., Shi, D. and Li, X. (2014). Governance of Sustainable Supply Chains in the Fast Fashion Industry, European Management Journal 32(5): 823–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Lioliou, E., Zimmermann, A., Willcocks, L. and 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Liu, C. (2012). Knowledge Mobility in Cross-Border Buyer-Supplier Relationships, Management International Review 52(2): 275–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loh, L. and Venkatraman, N. (1992). Diffusion of Information Technology Outsourcing: Influence sources and the Kodak effect, Information Systems Research 3(4): 334–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucena, A. (2011). ‘The Organizational Designs of R&D Activities and Their Performance Implications,’ Empirical Evidence for Spain, Industry and Innovation 18(2): 151–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Luo, Y., Wang, S., Zheng, Q. and Jayaraman, V. (2012). Task Attributes and Process Integration in Business Process Offshoring: A perspective of service providers from India and China, Journal of International Business Studies 43(5): 498–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y., Zheng, Q. and Jayaraman, V. (2010). Managing Business Process Outsourcing, Organizational Dynamics 39(3): 205–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macneil, I.R. (1980). The New Social Contract: An inquiry into modern contractual relations, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Madon, S. and Sharanappa, S. (2013). Social IT Outsourcing and Development: Theorising the linkage, Information Systems Journal 23(5): 381–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Maelah, R., Aman, A., Hamzah, N., Amiruddin, R., Sofiah and Auzair, M. (2010). Accounting Outsourcing Turnback: Process and issues, Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal 3(3): 226–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmoodzadeh, E., Jalalinia, S. and Yazdi, F. (2009). A Business Process Outsourcing Framework Based on Business Process Management and Knowledge Management, Business Process Management Journal 15(6): 845–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahnke, V., Overby, M.L. and Vang, J. (2005). Strategic Outsourcing of IT Services: Theoretical stocktaking and empirical challenges, Industry and Innovation 12(2): 205–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malik, A. (2009). Training Drivers, Competitive Strategy and Client Needs: Case studies of three business process outsourcing organizations, Journal of European Industrial Training 33(2): 160–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Malik, A., Sinha, A. and Blumenfeld, S. (2012). Role of Quality Management Capabilities in Developing Market-Based Organisational Learning Capabilities: Case study evidence from four Indian business process outsourcing firms, Industrial Marketing Management 41(4): 639–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malos, S. (2010). Regulatory Effects and Strategic Global Staffing Profiles: Beyond cost concerns in evaluating offshore location attractiveness, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 22(2): 113–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mani, D., Barua, A. and 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 

  • *Mann, A., Kauffman, R., Han, K. and Nault, B. (2011). Are There Contagion Effects in Information Technology and Business Process Outsourcing? Decision Support Systems 51(4): 864–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Manning, S. (2014). Mitigate, Tolerate or Relocate? Offshoring Challenges, Strategic Imperatives and Resource Constraints, Journal of World Business 49(4): 522–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Manning, S., Lewin, A.Y. and Schuerch, M. (2011). The Stability of Offshore Outsourcing Relationships, Management International Review 51(3): 381–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Manning, S., Ricart, J.E., Rique, M.S.R. and Lewin, A.Y. (2010). From Blind Spots to Hotspots: How knowledge services clusters develop and attract foreign investment, Journal of International Management 16(4): 369–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Martinez-Noya, A., Garcia-Canal, E. and Guillen, M.F. (2012). International R&D Service Outsourcing by Technology-Intensive Firms: Whether and where? Journal of International Management 18(1): 18–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Martins, V. and Martins, R. (2012). Outsourcing Operations in Project Management Offices: The reality of Brazilian companies, Project Management Journal 43(2): 68–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Massini, S., Perm-Ajchariyawong, N. and Lewin, A. (2010). Role of Corporate-Wide Offshoring Strategy on Offshoring Drivers, Risks and Performance, Industry & Innovation 17(4): 337–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Mathew, S. (2011). Mitigation of Risks Due to Service Provider Behavior in Offshore Software Development a Relationship Approach, Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal 4(2): 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Mathew, S. and Das Aundhe, M. (2011). Identifying Vendor Risks in Remote Infrastructure Management Services, Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research 13(4): 32–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Mauri, A.J. and de Figueiredo, J.N. (2012). Strategic Patterns of Internationalization and Performance Variability: Effects of US-based MNC cross-border dispersion, integration, and outsourcing, Journal of International Management 18(1): 38–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, K.J. and Salomon, R.M. (2006). Capabilities, Contractual Hazards, and Governance: Integrating resource-based and transaction cost perspectives, Academy of Management Journal 49(5): 942–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, K.J., Somaya, D. and Williamson, I.O. (2012). Firm-Specific, Industry-Specific, and Occupational Human Capital and the Sourcing of Knowledge Work, Organization Science 23(5): 1311–1329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFarlan, F.W. and Nolan, R. (1995). How to Manage an IT Outsourcing Alliance, Sloan Management Review 36(2): 9–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIvor, R., Humphreys, P., McKittrick, A. and Wall, T. (2009). Performance Management and the Outsourcing Process: Lessons from a financial services organisation, International Journal of Operations and Production Management 29(10): 1025–1047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *McIvor, R., McCracken, M. and McHugh, M. (2011). Creating Outsourced Shared Services Arrangements: Lessons from the public sector, European Management Journal 29(6): 448–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *McKeen, J. and Smith, H. (2011). Creating IT Shared Services, Communications of the AIS 29(34): 645–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenna, D. and Walker, D. (2008). A Study of Out-Sourcing Versus In-Sourcing Tasks within a Project Value Chain, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 1(2): 216–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, A., Armenakis, A., Mehta, N. and Irani, F. (2006). Challenges and Opportunities of Business Process Outsourcing, Journal of Labor Research 27(3): 323–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Mihalache, O.R., Jansen, J.J., Van Den Bosch, F.A. and Volberda, H.W. (2012). Offshoring and Firm Innovation: The moderating role of top management team attributes, Strategic Management Journal 33(13): 1480–1498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1978). Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Miozzo, M. and Grimshaw, D. (2011). Capabilities of Large Services Outsourcing Firms: The ‘outsourcing plus staff transfer model’ in EDS and IBM, Industrial & Corporate Change 20(3): 909–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Mithas, S., Tafti, A. and Mitchell, W. (2013). How A Firm’s Competitive Environment and Digital Strategic Posture Influence Digital Business Strategy, MIS Quarterly 37(2): 511–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monitor Group/Rockefeller Foundation (2011). Job creation through building the field of impact sourcing. Corporate Report by Monitor Consultancy, retrieved from Monitor Group/Rockefeller Foundation [WWW document] http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/Services/consulting/Strategy-Operations/strategy-consulting/index.htmRootchange.org.

  • *Mudambi, R. and Venzin, M. (2010). The Strategic Nexus of Offshoring and Outsourcing Decisions, Journal of Management Studies 47(8): 1510–1533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadkarni, S. and Herrmann, P. (2010). CEO Personality, Strategic Flexibility, and Firm Performance: The case of Indian business process outsourcing industry, Academy of Management Journal 53(5): 1050–1073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Nagpal, P., Nicolaou, A.I. and Lyytinen, K. (2014). Outsourcing and Market Value of the Firm: Toward a comprehensive model, Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management 21(1): 19–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage, Academy of Management Review 23(2): 242–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Narayanan, S. and Narasimhan, R. (2014). Governance Choice, Sourcing Relationship Characteristics, and Relationship Performance, Decision Sciences 45(4): 717–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Narayanan, S., Balasubramanian, S. and Jayashankar, M. (2011). Managing Outsourced Software Projects: An analysis of project performance and customer satisfaction, Production and Operations Management 20(4): 508–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Ndubisi, N.O. (2011). Conflict Handling, Trust and Commitment in Outsourcing Relationship: A Chinese and Indian study, Industrial Marketing Management 40(1): 109–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netemeyer, R.G., Brashear-Alejandro, T. and Boles, J.S. (2004). A Cross-National Model of Job-related Outcomes of Work Role and Family Role Variables: A retail sales context, Journal of the Academy of marketing Science 32(1): 49–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nieto, M. and 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 

  • *O’Regan, N. and Kling, G. (2011). Technology Outsourcing in Manufacturing Small‐and Medium‐Sized Firms: Another competitive resource? R&D Management 41(1): 92–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oshri, I. and Van Uhm, B. (2012). A Historical Review of the Information Technology and Business Process Captive Centre Sector, Journal of Information Technology 27(4): 270–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Palvia, P., King, R., Xia, W. and Jain Palvia, S. (2010). Capability, Quality, and Performance of Offshore IS Vendors: A theoretical framework and empirical investigation, Decision Sciences 41(2): 231–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Palvia, S.C., Palvia, P., Xia, W. and King, R. (2011). Critical Issues of IT Outsourcing Vendors in India, Communications of the AIS 29(11): 203–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, J. and Kim, J.S. (2005). The Impact of IS Outsourcing Type on Service Quality and Maintenance Efforts, Information & Management 42(2): 261–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patane, J.R. and Jurison, J. (1994). Is Global Outsourcing Diminishing the Prospects for American Programmers? Journal of Systems Management 45(6): 6–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Pearce, J.A. (2014). Why Domestic Outsourcing is Leading America’s Reemergence in Global Manufacturing, Business Horizons 57(1): 27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penfold, C. (2009). Off-shored Services Workers: Labour law and practice in India, The Economic and Labour Relations Review 19(2): 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinnington, A. and Woolcock, P. (1995). How Far is IS/IT Outsourcing Enabling New Organizational Structure and Competences? International Journal of Information Management 15(5): 353–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Plugge, A., Bouwman, H. and Molina-Castillo, F.J. (2013). Outsourcing Capabilities, Organizational Structure and Performance Quality Monitoring: Toward a fit model, Information & Management 50(6): 275–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poppo, L. and Lacity, M. (2006). The Normative Value of Transaction Cost Economics: What managers have learned about TCE principles in the IT context, in R. Hirschheim, A. Heinzl and J. Dibbern (eds.) Information Systems Outsourcing: Enduring themes, new perspectives, and global challenges, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 259–282.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Poppo, L. and Zenger, T. (2002). Do Formal Contracts and Relational Governance Function as Substitutes or Complements? Strategic Management Journal 23(8): 707–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2006). Strategy and Society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility, Harvard Business Review 84(12): 78–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2011). Creating Shared Value, Harvard Business Review 89(1/2): 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Poston, R., Simon, J. and Jain, Radhika. (2010). Client Communication Practices in Managing Relationships with Offshore Vendors of Software Testing Services, Communications of the AIS 27(9): 129–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Premuroso, R., Skantz, T. and Bhattacharya, S. (2012). Disclosure of Outsourcing in the Annual Report: Causes & market returns effects, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 13(4): 382–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Prikladnicki, R. and Audy, J.L.N. (2012). Managing Global Software Engineering: A comparative analysis of offshore outsourcing and the internal offshoring of software development, Information Systems Management 29(3): 216–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Qi, C. and Chau, P. (2012). Relationship, Contract and IT Outsourcing Success: Evidence from two descriptive case studies, Decision Support Systems 53(4): 859–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Qi, C. and Chau, P.Y. (2013). Investigating the Roles of Interpersonal and Interorganizational Trust in IT Outsourcing Success, Information Technology & People 26(2): 120–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Qin, L., Wu, H., Zhang, N. and Li, X. (2012). Risk Identification and Conduction Model for Financial Institution IT Outsourcing in China, Information Technology and Management 13(4): 429–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Qu, W.G., Oh, W. and Pinsonneault, A. (2010). The Strategic Value of IT Insourcing: An IT-enabled business process perspective, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 19(2): 96–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Qu, W.G., Pinsoneault, A. and Oh, W. (2011). Influence of Industry Characteristics on Information Technology Outsourcing, Journal of Management Information Systems 27(4): 99–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Quayle, A., Ashworth, D. and Gillies, A. (2013). BS 11000 for Health Commissioning, Clinical Governance 18(1): 18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Rai, A., Keil, M., Hornyak, R. and Wüllenweber, K. (2012). Hybrid Relational-Contractual Governance for Business Process Outsourcing, Journal of Management Information Systems 29(2): 213–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajeev, M. and Vani, B. (2009). India’s Exports of BPO Services: Understanding strengths, weaknesses, and competitors, Journal of Services Research 9(1): 51–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raman, S., Budhwar, P. and Balasubramanian, G. (2007). People Management Issues in Indian KPOs, Employee Relations 29(6): 696–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Ramchandran, V. and Gopal, A. (2010). Managers’ Judgments of Performance in IT Services Outsourcing, Journal of Management Information Systems 26(4): 181–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Redondo-Cano, A. and Canet-Giner, M.T. (2010). Outsourcing Agrochemical Services: Economic or strategic logic? Service Business 4(3): 237–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, M., Zeng, M. and Venjara, V. (2015). The Self-Tuning Enterprise: How Alibaba uses algorithmic thinking, Harvard Business Review 93(6): 66–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Reitzig, M. and Wagner, S. (2010). The Hidden Costs of Outsourcing: Evidence from patent data, Strategic Management Journal 31(11): 1183–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, E., Diekmann, A., Dietz, T. and Jaeger, C. (2010). Human Footprints on the Global Environment, MIT Press, Cambridge [WWW document] https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262512992_sch_0001.pdf, accessed 20 July 2015.

  • *Roses, L.K. (2013). Strategic Partnership Building in It Offshore Outsourcing: Institutional elements for a banking ERP system licensing, Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management 10(1): 61–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. and Beath, C. (2006). Sustainable IT Outsourcing: Let enterprise architecture be your guide, MIS Quarterly Executive 5(4): 181–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rottman, J. and Lacity, M. (2006). Proven Practices for Effectively Offshoring IT Work, Sloan Management Review 47(3): 56–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabherwal, R. (1999). The Role of Trust in Outsourced IS Development Projects, Communications of the ACM 42(2): 80–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sako, M. (2010). Technology Strategy and Management Outsourcing versus Shared Services, Communications of the ACM 53(7): 126–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Sakolnakorn, T.P.N. (2011). The Good Aspects of Managing an Organization with an Outsourcing and Subcontracting Strategy, International Journal of Management & Information Systems 15(3): 11–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salimath, M., Cullen, J. and Umesh, U. (2008). Outsourcing and Performance in Entrepreneurial Firms: Contingent relationships with entrepreneurial configurations, Decision Sciences 39(3): 359–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, N., Locke, A., Moore, C. and Autry, C. (2007). A Multidimensional Framework for Understanding Outsourcing Arrangements, Journal of Supply Chain Management 43(4): 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sarker, S., Sarker, S. and Jana, D. (2010). The Impact of the Nature of Globally Distributed Work Arrangement on Work-Life Conflict and Valence: The Indian GSD professionals’ perspective, European Journal of Information Systems 19(2): 209–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, C., Gebelt, M. and Hu, Q. (1997). Achieving Success in Information Systems Outsourcing, California Management Review 39(2): 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxena, K. and Bharadwaj, S. (2009). Managing Business Processes Through Outsourcing: A strategic partnership perspective, Business Process Management Journal 15(5): 687–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, F. and Shiel, M. (2006). From Business Process Outsourcing to Knowledge Process Outsourcing: Some issues, Human Systems Management 25(2): 145–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Sengupta, S. (2011). An Exploratory Study on Job and Demographic Attributes Affecting Employee Satisfaction in the Indian BPO Industry, Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal 4(3): 248–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sengupta, S. and Dev, S. (2013). What Makes Employees Stay? Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal 6(3): 258–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sengupta, S. and Gupta, A. (2011). Exploring the Dimensions of Attrition in Indian BPOs, International Journal of Human Resource Management 23(6): 1259–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah Bharadwaj, S. and Saxena, K.B.C. (2009). Building Winning Relationships in Business Process Outsourcing Services, Industrial Management & Data Systems 109(7): 993–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sharma, A. and Iyer, G. (2011). Are Pricing Policies an Impediment to the Success of Customer Solutions, Industrial Marketing Management 40(5): 723–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sharma, A., Sengupta, S. and Gupta, A. (2011). Exploring Risk Dimensions in the Indian Software Industry, Project Management Journal 42(5): 78–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Shearmur, R. and Doloreux, D. (2013). Innovation and Knowledge-Intensive Business Service: The contribution of knowledge-intensive business service to innovation in manufacturing establishments, Economics of Innovation & New Technology 22(8): 751–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sheehan, C. and Cooper, B.K. (2011). HRM Outsourcing: The impact of organisational size and HRM strategic involvement, Personnel Review 40(6): 742–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shih, H., Chiang, Y. and Hsu, C. (2005). Exploring HR Outsourcing and Its Perceived Effectiveness, International Journal of Business Performance Management 7(4): 464–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Shih, Y. and Lin, W. (2011). Effects of the Outsourcing of Information Systems on User Satisfaction: An empirical study among Taiwanese hospitals, International Journal of Management 28(3): 704–715.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sia, S., Koh, C. and Tan, C. (2008). Strategic Maneuvers for Outsourcing Flexibility: An empirical assessment, Decision Sciences 39(3): 407–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sivalogathasan, V.V. and Hashim, A. (2013). Changes in Employer-Employee Relationship: Impact of Perceived Organizational Support on Social Exchange of the Outsourcing Industry in Sri Lanka, Skyline Business Journal 9(1): 43–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spithoven, A. and Teirlinck, P. (2015). Internal Capabilities, Network Resources and Appropriation Mechanisms as Determinants of R&D Outsourcing, Research Policy 44(3): 711–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Srivastava, S.C. and Teo, T.S. (2012). Contract Performance in Offshore Systems Development: Role of control mechanisms, Journal of Management Information Systems 29(1): 115–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strassmann, P. (1995). Outsourcing: A game for losers. Computerworld 21 August.

  • *Su, N. (2013). Internationalization Strategies of Chinese IT Service Suppliers, MIS Quarterly 37(1): 175–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Su, N. and Levina, N. (2011). Global Multisourcing Strategy: Integrating learning from manufacturing into IT service outsourcing, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 58(4): 717–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Susarla, A., Barua, A. and Whinston, A. (2010a). Multitask Agency, Modular Architecture, and Task Disaggregation in SaaS, Journal of Management Information Systems 26(4): 87–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Susarla, A., Subramanyam, R. and Karhade, P. (2010b). Contractual Provisions to Mitigate Holdup: Evidence from information technology outsourcing, Information Systems Research 21(1): 37–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Svejvig, P. (2011). A Successful Enterprise System Re-Implementation against All Odds – A Multisourcing Case Study, Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research 13(4): 3–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Swar, B., Moon, J., Oh, J. and Rhee, C. (2012). Determinants of Relationship Quality for IS/IT Outsourcing Success in Public Sector, Information Systems Frontiers 14(2): 457–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Tajdini, S. and Nazari, M. (2012). IS Outsourcing Decision: A quantitative approach, International Journal of Business and Management 7(2): 113–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Tambe, P. and Hitt, L. (2010). How Offshoring Affects IT Workers, Communications of the ACM 53(10): 62–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tate, W. and Ellram, L. (2009). Offshore Outsourcing: A managerial framework, Journal of Business and Industrial Management 24(3/4): 256–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Tate, W.L. and Ellram, L.M. (2012). Service Supply Management Structure in Offshore Outsourcing, Journal of Supply Chain Management 48(4): 8–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tate, W., Ellram, L. and Brown, S. (2009). Offshore Outsourcing of Services: A stakeholder perspective, Journal of Service Research 12(1): 56–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Teo, T.S. and Bhattacherjee, A. (2014). Knowledge Transfer and Utilization in IT Outsourcing Partnerships: A preliminary model of antecedents and outcomes, Information & Management 51(2): 177–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D. (2015). A World Without Work, The Atlantic Monthly 316(1): 51–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Tiwana, A. (2010). Systems Development Ambidexterity: Explaining the complementary and substitutive roles of formal and informal controls, Journal of Management Information Systems 27(2): 87–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Uriona-Maldonado, M., de Souza, L.L.C. and Varvakis, G. (2010). Focus on Practice Service Process Innovation in The Brazilian Electric Energy Sector, Service Business 4(1): 77–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veltri, N.F., Saunders, C.S. and Kavan, C.B. (2008). Information Systems Backsourcing: Correcting problems and responding to opportunities, California Management Review 51(1): 50–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ventovuori, T. and Lehtonen, T. (2006). Alternative Models for the Management of FM Services, Journal of Corporate Real Estate 8(2): 73–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Verner, J.M. and Abdullah, L.M. (2012). Exploratory Case Study Research: Outsourced project failure, Information and Software Technology 54(8): 866–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Vitasek, K. and Manrodt, K. (2012). Vested Outsourcing: A flexible framework for collaborative Outsourcing, Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal 5(1): 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vivek, S., Banwet, D. and 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 

  • Wahrenburg, M., Hackethal, A., Friedrich, L. and Gellrich, T. (2006). Strategic Decisions Regarding the Vertical Integration of Human Resource Organizations: Evidence for an integrated HR model for the financial services and non-financial services industry in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, International Journal of Human Resource Management 17(10): 1726–1771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Weeks, M.R. and Thomason, S. (2011). An Exploratory Assessment of the Linkages Between HRM Practices, Absorptive Capacity, and Innovation in Outsourcing Relationships, International Journal of Innovation Management 15(2): 303–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Weigelt, C. and Sarkar, M. (2012). Performance Implications of Outsourcing for Technological Innovations: Managing the efficiency and adaptability trade-off, Strategic Management Journal 33(2): 189–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Whitaker, J., Mithas, S. and Krishnan, M.S. (2010). Organizational Learning and Capabilities for Onshore and Offshore Business Process Outsourcing, Journal of Management Information Systems 27(3): 11–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Whitley, E. and Willcocks, L. (2011). Achieving Step-Change in Outsourcing Maturity: Toward collaborative innovation, MIS Quarterly Executive 10(3): 95–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitten, D. and Leidner, D. (2006). Bringing IT Back: An analysis of the decision to backsource or switch vendors, Decision Sciences 37(4): 605–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Wickramasinghe, V. (2010). Impact of Time Demands of Work on Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention, Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal 3(3): 246–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Wiener, M. and Saunders, C. (2014). Forced Coopetition in IT Multi-Sourcing, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 23(3): 210–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, M. and Saunders, C.S. (2014). Who is the Favored Bride? Challenges in Switching to a Multi-vendor Offshoring Strategy, in R. Hirschheim, A. Heinzl and J. Dibbern (eds.) Information Systems Outsourcing. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 289–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Willcocks, L.P. and Griffiths, C. (2010). The Crucial Role of Middle Management in Outsourcing, MIS Quarterly Executive 9(3): 177–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willcocks, L., Hindle, J., Feeny, D. and Lacity, M. (2004). Information Technology and Business Process Outsourcing: The knowledge potential, Journal of Information Systems Management 21(3): 7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. (1976). Franchise Bidding for Natural Monopolies in General and with Resoect to CAVT, Bell Journal of Economics XXVI(3): 497–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. (1991). Comparative Economic Organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives, Administrative Science Quarterly 36(2): 269–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wullenweber, K., Beimborn, D., Weitzel, T. and Konig, W. (2008). The Impact of Process Standardization on Business Process Outsourcing Success, Information Systems Frontiers 10(2): 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Zimmermann, A. and Ravishankar, M.N. (2014). Knowledge Transfer in IT Offshoring Relationships: The roles of social capital, efficacy and outcome expectations, Information Systems Journal 24(2): 167–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary C Lacity.

Appendices

Appendix A

Master codes

* Indicates a new variable that was not coded before in Lacity et al. (2010) or Lacity et al. (2011).

  1. 1

    Absorptive capacityClient: A client organization’s ability to scan, acquire, assimilate, and exploit valuable knowledge (e.g., Grimpe and Kaiser, 2010; Reitzig and Wagner, 2010).

  2. 2

    Absorptive capacityProvider: A provider organization’s ability to scan, acquire, assimilate, and exploit valuable knowledge (e.g., Luo et al., 2010). (Previously called ‘Absorptive Capacity – Supplier’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  3. 3

    Access to expertise/skills: A client organization’s desire or need to access provider skills/expertise (e.g., Currie et al., 2008; Lam and Chua, 2009).

  4. 4

    Access to global markets: A client organization’s desire or need to gain access to global markets by outsourcing to providers in those markets (e.g., Gorp et al., 2007).

  5. 5

    Adaptability: The extent to which a party is able to adapt a business service to meet changes in the environment (e.g., Sia et al., 2008).

  6. 6

    *Adherence to environmental standards: The degree to which an organization has embraced or been certified as following ecological standards such as ISO 26000, Carbon Disclosure Project, UN Global Compact (e.g., Babin and Nicholoson, 2011).

  7. 7

    *Asset complementarity: The degree to which a set of assets are uniquely complementary (e.g., Argyres and Zenger, 2012)

  8. 8

    Asset Specificity: The degree to which an asset can be redeployed to alternative uses and by alternative users without sacrifice of productive value (Williamson, 1976; Sia et al., 2008).

  9. 9

    Asset SpecificityHuman: The degree to which a human asset can be redeployed to alternative uses and by alternative users without sacrifice of productive value (e.g., Alvarez-Suescun, 2010).

  10. 10

    Asset SpecificityPhysical: The degree to which a physical asset can be redeployed to alternative uses and by alternative users without sacrifice of productive value (e.g., Alvarez-Suescun, 2010).

  11. 11

    *Boundary Spanning CapabilityClient: A client firm’s external BPs that bridge the internal and external boundaries. That is client firm processes that ease the organizational and national boundaries between clients and service providers (e.g., Du and Pan, 2013)

  12. 12

    *Boundary Spanning CapabilityProvider: A service provider firm’s external BPs that bridge the internal and external boundaries. That is provider firm processes that ease the organizational and national boundaries between clients and service providers (e.g., Du and Pan, 2013).

  13. 13

    Business Service Management CapabilityClient: The ability of a client organization to efficiently and effectively manage a BP/service using in-house resources (e.g., McIvor et al., 2009). (Previously called ‘Business Process Management Capability – Client’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  14. 14

    Business Service Management CapabilityProvider: The ability of a provider organization to efficiently and effectively manage a BP/service (e.g. Saxena and Bharadwaj, 2009). (Previously called ‘Business Process Management Capability – Supplier’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  15. 15

    Business Strategic Type: An organization’s strategy to address three fundamental business problems – entrepreneurial, engineering, and administrative. Categorized under the Miles and Snow typology as Defenders, Prospectors, Analyzers, and Reactors (Miles and Snow, 1978; Shih et al., 2005; Kenyon and Meixell, 2011.)

  16. 16

    Career Development of Employees: A client organization’s desire or need to provide better career opportunities for employees (e.g., Lacity et al., 2004).

  17. 17

    Centralization: The degree to which an organization’s resources, services or decision making are concentrated within a particular group or location (e.g., Delmotte and Sels, 2008). (Previously called ‘Centralization of Department’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  18. 18

    Change Catalyst: A client organization’s desire or need to bring about large scale changes in the organization (e.g., Gospel and Sako, 2010).

  19. 19

    Change Management CapabilityClient: The extent to which a client organization effectively manages change (e.g., Lacity et al., 2004). (Previously called ‘Change Management Capability’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  20. 20

    *Change Management CapabilityProvider: The extent to which a provider organization effectively manages change (e.g., Lacity et al., 2011).

  21. 21

    *CIO Power: The level of influence of the head of the IT function (e.g., Chakrabarty and Whitten, 2011; Gefen et al., 2011).

  22. 22

    ClientProvider Alignment: The degree to which client and provider incentives, motives, interests, and or goals are aligned (e.g., Sen and Shiel, 2006). (Previously called ‘Client–Supplier Alignment’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  23. 23

    ClientProvider Interface Design: The planned structure on where, when, and how client and provider employees work, interact, and communicate (e.g., Sen and Shiel, 2006). (Previously called ‘Client–Supplier Interface Design’ in Lacity et al., 2010.)

  24. 24

    Client Age: The age of a client organization in years (e.g., Delmotte and Sels, 2008).

  25. 25

    *Client Business Change: The degree to which the client’s business structure or leadership change through mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, and/or C-suite turnover (e.g., Mathew and Das Aundhe, 2011).

  26. 26

    Client Experience with Outsourcing: The situation in which the client has prior outsourcing experience (e.g., Alvarez-Suescun, 2010).

  27. 27

    Client Management Capability: The extent to which a provider organization is able to effectively manage client relationships (e.g., Howells et al., 2008).

  28. 28

    Client Outsourcing Readiness: The extent to which a client organization is prepared to engage an outsourcing provider by having realistic expectations and a clear understanding of internal costs and services compared with outsourced costs and services (e.g., McIvor et al., 2009).

  29. 29

    *Client Power: The degree of power the client has over the provider, measured as a percentage of the provider’s revenues (e.g., Susarla et al., 2010b).

  30. 30

    *Client Prestige: The degree to which a client is widely regarded and respected (e.g., Handley and Benton, 2012).

  31. 31

    Client Size: The size of a client organization usually measured as total assets, sales, and/or number of employees (e.g., Handley and Benton, 2012).

  32. 32

    *Client SizeDepartment: The size of a client’s department or function considering outsourcing, usually measured as total assets, sales, and/or number of employees in that department (e.g., Chakrabarty and Whitten, 2011).

  33. 33

    Client-Specific Knowledge Required: The degree to which a unit of work requires a significant amount of understanding/knowledge about unique client systems, processes, or procedures (e.g., McKenna and Walker, 2008).

  34. 34

    *Client–Provider Coordination Processes: The extent to which coordination and communication processes are present between a provider and its client during project execution. These include aspects such as presence of provider liaisons, accurate and complete project documentation, project status reports, and issue remediation processes (e.g., Gopal et al., 2011).

  35. 35

    Commitment: The degree to which partners pledge to continue the relationship (e.g., Levina and Su, 2008).

  36. 36

    Communication: The degree to which parties are willing to openly discuss their expectations, directions for the future, their capabilities, and/or their strengths and weaknesses (e.g., Gainey and Klaas, 2003).

  37. 37

    *Competition in Client Firm Environment: The presence of multiple, reputable, and trustworthy firms within a client’s industry (e.g., Mithas et al., 2013).

  38. 38

    *Compliance: A client organization’s need to desire to improve compliance (e.g., Iveroth, 2010).

  39. 39

    Concern for Security/Intellectual Property: A client organization’s concerns about security of information, transborder data flow issues, and protection of IP (e.g., Wullenweber et al., 2008).

  40. 40

    Configurational Approach: The client firm matches multiple factors in configurations that maximize their chances of outsourcing success. For example, matching strategic intent with contractual governance, matching transaction attributes with contractual governance (e.g., Sen and Shiel, 2006; Saxena and Bharadwaj, 2009).

  41. 41

    Conflict Resolution: The degree to which clients and providers quickly, fairly, and meaningfully resolve disputes (e.g., Wullenweber et al., 2008)

  42. 42

    Conflict Resolution Approach: The type of approach used to handle a conflict between clients and providers. Types of approaches include integrating, accommodating, compromising, collaborative, and avoiding (e.g., Lacity and Willcocks, 2014).

  43. 43

    Contract Detail: The number or degree of detailed clauses in the outsourcing contract, such as clauses that specify prices, service levels, key process indicators, benchmarking, warranties, and penalties for non-performance (e.g., Handley and Benton, 2009; Luo et al., 2010).

  44. 44

    Contract Duration: The duration of the contract in terms of time (e.g., Willcocks et al., 2004).

  45. 45

    Contract Flexibility: The degree to which a contract specifies contingencies and enables parties to change contractual terms (e.g., Sia et al., 2008).

  46. 46

    Contract Management CapabilityClient: The extent to which a client organization is able to effectively prepare, negotiate and manage contracts with providers, including the ability to track service levels and verify invoices (e.g., Sanders et al., 2007). (Previously called ‘Contract Management Capability’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  47. 47

    *Contract Management CapabilityProvider: The extent to which a provider organization is able to effectively prepare, negotiate, and manage contracts with clients (e.g., Agrawal et al., 2012).

  48. 48

    Contract Size: The size of the outsourcing contract usually measured as the total value of the contract in monetary terms (e.g., Gewald and Gellrich, 2007).

  49. 49

    Contract Type: A term denoting different forms of contracts used in outsourcing. Examples include customized, fixed-priced, time & materials, fee-for-service, gainsharing and partnership-based contracts (e.g., McFarlan and Nolan, 1995; Poppo and Zenger, 2002; Ross and Beath, 2006; Gopal and Koka, 2010).

  50. 50

    *Contractual Governance: A general term that captures the overall formal and legally binding written rules designed to influence inter-organizational behavior (e.g., Bachlechner et al., 2014).

  51. 51

    Control Mechanisms: Certain means or devices a controller uses to promote desired behavior by the controlee (e.g., Daityari et al., 2008).

  52. 52

    Convenience: A client organization’s desire to select a sourcing option based on ease of use, convenience, and less frustration (e.g., McKenna and Walker, 2008).

  53. 53

    Cooperation: The degree to which client and provider employees are willing to work together in common pursuit (e.g., Wullenweber et al., 2008).

  54. 54

    *Coopetition: The degree to which competitors cooperate (e.g., Wiener and Saunders, 2014).

  55. 55

    *Corporate Social Responsibility CapabilityClient: A client organization’s ability to behave in a socially responsible way, such as promoting environmental responsibility, promoting fair labor practices, and engaging in philanthropy (e.g., Babin and Nicholson, 2011).

  56. 56

    Corporate Social Responsibility CapabilityProvider: A provider organization’s ability to behave in a socially responsible way, such as promoting environmental responsibility, promoting fair labor practices, and engaging in philanthropy (e.g., Brown, 2008). (Previously called ‘Corporate Social Responsibility-Supplier’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  57. 57

    Cost Reduction: A client organization’s need or desire to reduce costs of providing a service (e.g., Borman, 2006).

  58. 58

    Country: The nationality of the client or provider organization (e.g., Reitzig and Wagner, 2010).

  59. 59

    CountryBusiness Attractiveness: The degree to which a country is attractive to outsourcing clients or providers because of favorable business environmental factors such as economic stability, political stability, cultural compatibility, infrastructure quality, security of IP (e.g., Doh et al., 2009; Malos, 2010).

  60. 60

    CountryFinancial Attractiveness: The degree to which a country is attractive to outsourcing clients or providers because of favorable financial factors such as labor costs, taxes, regulatory, and other costs (e.g., Doh et al., 2009; Malos, 2010).

  61. 61

    CountryHuman Resource Attractiveness: The degree to which a country is attractive to outsourcing clients or providers because of favorable people skills and availability factors such as size of labor pool, education, language skills, experience, and attrition rates (e.g., Mehta et al., 2006; Malos, 2010)

  62. 62

    *Country Selection: A client or provider’s decision to locate in a particular country (e.g., Massini et al., 2010).

  63. 63

    *Country Size: The size of the country, typically measured by GDP, population, or services exports, and so on (e.g., Hahn et al., 2011).

  64. 64

    Criticality of Service: The degree to which a client organization views the business service as a critical enabler of business success (e.g., Klaas et al., 2001; Wahrenburg et al., 2006). (Previously called ‘Critical Role of Business Process – Organization’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  65. 65

    Cultural Distance: The extent to which the members of two distinct groups (such as client and provider organizations) differ on one or more cultural dimensions (e.g., Mehta et al., 2006).

  66. 66

    Cultural Distance Management: The extent to which client and provider organizations understand, accept, and adapt to cultural differences (e.g., Tate et al., 2009).

  67. 67

    Culture: Shared values, beliefs, practices, and assumptions that characterize a group (e.g., Rajeev and Vani, 2009).

  68. 68

    *Degree of InternationalizationClient: The geographic reach of a client – local, regional, country, international or global (e.g., Whitaker et al., 2010).

  69. 69

    *Degree of InternationalizationProvider: The geographic reach of a provider – local, regional, country, international or global (e.g., Cha and Quan, 2011).

  70. 70

    Delivery Capability: A provider’s ability to deliver a contracted service on time, on budget, and with agreed upon service quality (e.g., Howells et al., 2008).

  71. 71

    Department Performance: CXO’s, CEO’s, or organizational members’ perceptions of the function’s performance or competence (e.g., Klaas et al., 2001).

  72. 72

    Department Power: The level of influence of the department on the organization (e.g., Dunbar and Phillips, 2001).

  73. 73

    Department Size: The size of a department or business function usually measured as number of employees (e.g., Calantone and Stanko, 2007)

  74. 74

    Domain Understanding: The extent to which a provider has prior experience and/or understanding of the client organization’s business and technical contexts, processes, practices, and requirements (e.g., Luo et al., 2010).

  75. 75

    Evaluation ProcessClient Assessment: The client organization’s process for evaluating its own services to determine which are critical or outsourcing ready (e.g., Handley, 2012). (Previously called ‘Evaluation Process’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  76. 76

    Evaluation ProcessProvider Selection: The client organization’s process for evaluating and selecting providers (e.g., Handley and Benton, 2009). (Previously called ‘Evaluation Process’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  77. 77

    External Production Cost Advantage: The degree to which a provider is perceived to have an advantage over a client organization in production cost economies (e.g., Williamson, 1991; Rajeev and Vani, 2009).

  78. 78

    Fear of Losing Control: A client organization’s concerns that outsourcing may result in loss of control over the service (e.g., Lewin and Peeters, 2006; Sanders et al., 2007).

  79. 79

    *Firm Ownership StructureClient: The client’s ownership structure: private, public, jointly owned with primary provider (e.g., Rai et al., 2012).

  80. 80

    Firm Ownership StructureProvider: The provider’s ownership structure: private, public, jointly owned with primary client (e.g., Jayaraman et al., 2013). (Previously called ‘Supplier Ownership’ in Lacity et al., 2011).

  81. 81

    Flexibility Enablement: A client organization’s desire or need to increase the flexibility of the use and allocation of resources (e.g., Tate and Ellram, 2009).

  82. 82

    Focus on Core Capabilities: A client organization’s desire or need to outsource in order to focus on its core capabilities (e.g., Carey et al., 2006; Gewald and Dibbern, 2009).

  83. 83

    *Functional Spend: The annual operating budget for a function or department (e.g., Kobelsky and Robinson, 2010).

  84. 84

    Geographic Distance: The physical distance between two locations (e.g., Doh et al., 2009).

  85. 85

    Human Resource Management CapabilityClient: A client organization’s ability to identify, acquire, develop, retain, and deploy human resources to achieve its organizational objectives (e.g., Klaas et al., 2001).

  86. 86

    Human Resource Management CapabilityProvider: A provider organization’s ability to identify, acquire, develop, retain, and deploy human resources to achieve both provider’s and client’s organizational objectives (e.g., Kuruvilla and Ranganathan, 2010).

  87. 87

    Industry: The primary industry classification of a client organization. Common classifications include service vs manufacturing, SIC codes, and so on (e.g., Bardhan et al., 2007; Mani et al., 2010).

  88. 88

    Industry Growth: The increase or decrease in the size of a market (e.g., Budhwar et al., 2006).

  89. 89

    InfluencesCoercive: Influences that result from both formal and informal pressures exerted on an organization by other organizations upon which they are dependent (e.g., DiMaggio and Powell, 1991; Bignoux, 2011).

  90. 90

    InfluencesExternal and Internal: The combination of external media, provider pressure, and internal communications at the personal level among managers of companies (e.g., Borman, 2006).

  91. 91

    InfluencesMimetic: Influences that arise from the perception that peer organizations are more successful; by modeling themselves based on peer organizations, the mimicking organization aims to achieve similar results (e.g., Klaas et al., 2001).

  92. 92

    *Information Asymmetry: The degree to which one party has information that is unknown to another party in a transaction (e.g., Devos et al., 2012).

  93. 93

    *Information Quality: The degree to which information fits its intended use and is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete (e.g., Bustinza et al., 2010).

  94. 94

    Innovation: A client organization’s desire or need to use sourcing as an engine for innovation (e.g., Ciravegna and Maielli, 2011).

  95. 95

    Innovation Effects: The extent to which outsourcing positively effects a client’s innovation, such as the effects on the number of patents filed or granted (e.g., Grimpe and Kaiser, 2010).

  96. 96

    *InnovativenessClient: The degree to which a client introduces new technologies, processes, services, and methods in their own organization (e.g., Weigelt and Sarkar, 2012).

  97. 97

    *InnovativenessProvider: The degree to which a provider introduces new technologies, processes, services, and methods in their own organization and/or the client’s organization (e.g., Jean et al., 2010).

  98. 98

    Key Performance Indicators: A set of measures to assess performance (e.g., De Toni et al., 2007; Mahmoodzadeh et al., 2009).

  99. 99

    *Knowledge Formalization: The degree to which clients and providers can formalize/codify requirements (e.g., Aubert et al., 2011).

  100. 100

    Knowledge Required: The degree to which a unit of work requires a significant amount of understanding/knowledge about unique, specialized, or advanced content (e.g., Lam and Chua, 2009).

  101. 101

    Knowledge Sharing: The degree to which clients and providers share and transfer knowledge (e.g., Mahmoodzadeh et al., 2009) (Previously called ‘Effective Knowledge sharing in Lacity et al., 2011).

  102. 102

    Legal and Political Uncertainties: The extent to which a location’s legal and political environments are uncertain, unstable, or unfamiliar (e.g., Currie et al., 2008; Penfold, 2009).

  103. 103

    Length of Relationship: The number of years a client and a provider organization has worked together (e.g., Gainey and Klaas, 2003).

  104. 104

    Loss of Control: The degree to which a client loses control over a business service after outsourcing (e.g., Sanders et al., 2007).

  105. 105

    *Loss of Knowledge: The degree to which a client loses knowledge about a business service after outsourcing (e.g., Kien et al., 2010).

  106. 106

    Measurement Difficulty: The degree of difficulty in measuring performance of exchange partners in circumstances of joint effort, soft outcomes, and/or ambiguous links between effort and performance (e.g., Tate and Ellram, 2009).

  107. 107

    Middle Management Commitment/Support: The extent to which middle managers provide leadership, support, and commitment to outsourcing (e.g., Levina and Su, 2008).

  108. 108

    *Mutual Agreement: The degree of agreement about behaviors, goals, obligations, and policies among partners (e.g., Lioliou et al., 2014).

  109. 109

    Mutual Dependency: The degree to which a client and a provider depends upon one another (e.g., Baraldi et al., 2014).

  110. 110

    Mutual Understanding: The degree of understanding of behaviors, goals, and policies among partners (e.g., Sen and Shiel, 2006).

  111. 111

    Opportunism: ‘Self-interest seeking with guile’ or ‘Making of false or empty, that is self-disbelieved, threats and promises’ (Williamson, 1976, 1991; Tate and Ellram, 2009).

  112. 112

    *Organizational Boundaries: The demarcation between the organization and its environment; in outsourcing, the demarcation between the client and provider organizations (e.g., Baraldi et al., 2014).

  113. 113

    *Organizational Learning: The degree to which organizations learn, often associated with the organization’s commitment to learn, open-mindedness and shared vision (e.g., Malik et al., 2012).

  114. 114

    *Outsourcing DecisionBacksourcing: A client organization’s decision to bring a previously outsourced service back in-house (e.g. Veltri et al., 2008).

  115. 115

    *Outsourcing DecisionBundled Services: A client organization’s decision to procure multiple services from the same provider, especially as it relates to the decision to deepen an existing provider relationship (e.g., Su and Levina, 2011).

  116. 116

    *Outsourcing DecisionCaptive: A client organization’s decision to operate a captive center in a non-domestic location (e.g., Massini et al, 2010).

  117. 117

    *Outsourcing DecisionCommercial Enterprise: A client organization’s decision to create a new commercial entity to provide outsourcing services to both internal and external customers (e.g., Freytag et al., 2012).

  118. 118

    Outsourcing DecisionDegree of Outsourcing: The amount of outsourcing as indicated by percentage of budget outsourced and/or type and number of business services outsourced (e.g., Gilley et al., 2004; Salimath et al., 2008).

  119. 119

    Outsourcing DecisionDegree of OutsourcingOffshore: The amount of offshore outsourcing as indicated by percentage of budget outsourced and/or type and number of business services outsourced (e.g., Khan and Lacity, 2012).

  120. 120

    *Outsourcing DecisionDomestic: A client organization’s decision to engage a domestic provider (e.g., Pearce, 2014).

  121. 121

    *Outsourcing DecisionImpact Sourcing: Hiring marginalized individuals (i.e., people who normally would have few opportunities for good employment) to provide IT, BP or other digitally enabled services (e.g., Lacity et al., 2014).

  122. 122

    Outsourcing DecisionMake or Buy: The fundamental make or buy decision (e.g., Williamson, 1991) in which a client organization decides to keep a business service in-house or decides to engage an outsourcing provider, measured as a binary variable (e.g., Lee and Kim, 2010).

  123. 123

    Outsourcing DecisionMultisourcing: A client organization’s decision to engage multiple service providers (e.g., Sia et al., 2008), primarily aiming for breath of providers (e.g., Su and Levina, 2011).

  124. 124

    Outsourcing DecisionOffshore: A client organization’s decision to engage an offshore provider (e.g., Fifarek et al., 2008; Lee and Kim, 2010).

  125. 125

    *Outsourcing DecisionOffshoreCounty: A client’s decision to select this country as an offshore outsourcing destination; a country’s location attractiveness to outsourcing clients in other countries (e.g., Datta and Bhattacharya, 2012).

  126. 126

    Outsourcing DecisionProvider Selection: A client organization’s reason(s) for selecting a particular provider (e.g., Howells et al., 2008). (Previously called ‘Outsourcing Decision – Supplier Selection’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  127. 127

    Outsourcing DecisionRenewal: The client’s decision to extend or renew an existing outsourcing contract (e.g., Bharadwaj et al., 2010).

  128. 128

    *Outsourcing DecisionRural: A client organization’s decision to engage a rural-based provider (e.g., Lacity et al., 2010).

  129. 129

    *Outsourcing DecisionShared Services: The client’s decision to share services across business divisions (e.g., Sako, 2010).

  130. 130

    *Outsourcing DecisionSwitch Providers: A client organization’s decision to switch outsourcing providers (e.g., Freytag et al., 2012).

  131. 131

    *Outsourcing OutcomesBacksourcing: The degree to which a client organization reports successful backsourcing of a business or IT service (e.g., Bhagwatwar et al., 2011).

  132. 132

    *Outsourcing OutcomesCaptive: The degree to which a client organization reports that the captive center is successful (e.g., Prikladnicki and Audy, 2012).

  133. 133

    Outsourcing OutcomesOrganizational Business PerformanceClient: The degree to which a client organization achieved organizational-level business performance improvements, as a result of an outsourcing decision, such as stock price performance, revenue growth, return on assets, expenses, or profits (e.g., Reitzig and Wagner, 2010).

  134. 134

    Outsourcing OutcomesOrganizational Business PerformanceProvider: The degree to which a provider organization achieved organizational-level business performance improvements, as a result of an outsourcing decision, such as stock price performance, return on assets, expenses, or profits (e.g., Rajeev and Vani, 2009).

  135. 135

    Outsourcing OutcomesPerformance Improvements: The degree to which a client organization reports business service improvements, as a consequence of outsourcing, such as reports of costs savings realized, better quality of services, better compliance, or tighter security (e.g., Mani et al., 2010). (Previously called ‘Outsourcing Outcomes – Process Performance Improvements’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  136. 136

    Outsourcing OutcomesPerformance ImprovementsOffshore: The degree to which a client organization reports business service improvements as a consequence of offshore outsourcing, such as reports of costs savings realized or better quality of services (e.g., Levina and Su, 2008). (Previously called ‘Outsourcing Outcomes – Process Performance Improvements – Offshore’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  137. 137

    Outsourcing OutcomesProject Performance: The degree to which a project is delivered on time, within budget, and meets requirements (e.g., Palvia et al., 2010).

  138. 138

    Outsourcing OutcomesProject PerformanceOffshore: The degree to which an offshored project is delivered on time, within budget, and meets requirements (e.g. Tate and Ellram, 2012).

  139. 139

    Outsourcing OutcomesSuccessClient: A client organization’s general perceptions of success and satisfaction with outsourcing (e.g., Sia et al., 2008). (Previously called ‘Outsourcing Outcomes – Success’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  140. 140

    Outsourcing OutcomesSuccessOffshore: A client organization’s general perceptions of success and satisfaction with offshore outsourcing (e.g., Vivek et al., 2008).

  141. 141

    *Outsourcing OutcomesSuccessProvider: A provider organization’s general perceptions of success and satisfaction with outsourcing/offshoring (e.g. Palvia et al., 2011).

  142. 142

    *Outsourcing OutcomesSuccessShared Services: A client organization’s general perceptions of success and satisfaction with shared services (e.g., Iveroth, 2010).

  143. 143

    *Outsourcing OutcomesSwitch Providers: A client organization’s report on the extent of success after switching service providers (e.g., Wiener and Saunders, 2014).

  144. 144

    Partnership View: A client organization’s consideration of providers as trusted partners rather than as opportunistic vendors (e.g., Willcocks et al., 2004; Sen and Shiel, 2006).

  145. 145

    Political Reasons/Influences: A client stakeholder’s desire or need to use a sourcing decision to promote personal agendas (e.g., Maelah et al., 2010).

  146. 146

    *Practical Intelligence: An individual’s ability to resolve project-related work problems that are unexpected, difficult, and cannot be resolved using established processes and frameworks (e.g., Langer et al., 2014).

  147. 147

    Prior Client/Provider Working Relationship: The situation in which the client and provider organizations have worked together in the past (e.g., Mani et al., 2010). (Previously called ‘Prior Client/Supplier Working Relationship’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  148. 148

    Prior Firm PerformanceClient: Client firm performance usually measured as net profits, return on assets, expenses, earnings per share, number of patents, and/or stock price prior to an outsourcing decision. (e.g., Dunbar and Phillips, 2001; Gilley et al., 2004).

  149. 149

    Prior Firm PerformanceProvider: Provider firm performance usually measured as net profits, return on assets, expenses, earnings per share, and/or stock price prior to an outsourcing contract. (e.g., Gewald and Gellrich, 2007; Nadkarni and Herrmann, 2010). (Previously called ‘Prior Firm Performance – Supplier’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  150. 150

    Product Quality: The quality of the end product delivered as part of an outsourcing/offshoring arrangement (e.g. Whitten and Leidner, 2006).

  151. 151

    Project Duration: The duration of the project in terms of time (e.g., Ramchandran and Gopal, 2010).

  152. 152

    *Project Management CapabilityClient: The ability of retained teams within client organizations to internally manage and coordinate project activities related to planning, execution, and feedback for an outsourced project (e.g., Gopal et al., 2011).

  153. 153

    *Project Management CapabilityProvider: The ability of delivery teams within provider organizations to internally manage and coordinate project activities related to planning, execution, and feedback for an outsourced project (e.g., Gopal et al., 2011).

  154. 154

    Project Scoping AccuracyProvider: A provider firm capability to estimate the contract scope accurately (not underbid or overbid) (e.g., Koh et al., 2004). (Previously called ‘Project Scoping Accuracy’ in Lacity et al., 2010.)

  155. 155

    *Project Size: The size of a project, usually measured as number of people or effort (e.g., Langer et al., 2014).

  156. 156

    *Provider Breadth of Service: The degree to which providers offer a wide variety of services (e.g., Gao et al., 2010).

  157. 157

    Provider Capabilities: a broad term that captures the overall level of a provider’s abilities (e.g., Su and Levina, 2011). (Previously called ‘Supplier’s Core Competences’ in Lacity et al., 2010.)

  158. 158

    Provider Competition: The presence of multiple, reputable and trustworthy service providers which can provide a range of choices for the clients (e.g., Levina and Su, 2008). (Previously called ‘Supplier Competition’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  159. 159

    Provider Dependency: The degree to which a client depends on a provider (e.g., Borman, 2006). (Previously called ‘Supplier Dependency’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  160. 160

    *Provider EmployeeAttitude: Attitude of employees toward their jobs or employers (e.g., Sarker et al., 2010).

  161. 161

    Provider Employee Performance: The client’s perception of the performance of individual provider employees (e.g., Daityari et al., 2008; Lam and Chua, 2009). (Previously called ‘Supplier Employee Performance’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  162. 162

    *Provider Employee Satisfaction: The degree to which provider employees are satisfied with their jobs and employers (e.g., Lacity et al., 2014).

  163. 163

    Provider Employee Turnover: The percentage of the workers that are replaced in a given time period, frequently measured as turnover intention (e.g., Budhwar et al., 2006) (Previously called ‘Supplier Employee Turnover’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  164. 164

    *Provider Employee Work Life Conflict: ‘The inter- (between) role conflict where the demands created by the job interfere with performing family-related responsibilities’(Netemeyer et al., 2004, p. 50, as cited in Sarker et al., 2010).

  165. 165

    Provider Firm Age: The age of a provider firm in years (e.g., Lahiri and Kedia, 2009). (Previously called ‘Supplier Age’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  166. 166

    Provider Management Capability: The extent to which a client organization is able to effectively manage outsourcing providers (e.g., Sanders et al., 2007). (Previously called ‘Supplier Management Capability’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  167. 167

    *Provider Power: The degree of power the provider has over the client (e.g., Barthélemy, 2011).

  168. 168

    Provider Reputation: The public’s perception of a provider’s capabilities based on past performance and financial status (e.g., Gewald and Gellrich, 2007). (Previously called ‘Supplier Reputation’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  169. 169

    Provider Size: The size of a provider organization usually measured as total assets, sales, and/or number of employees (e.g., Nadkarni and Herrmann, 2010). (Previously called ‘Supplier Size’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  170. 170

    Public Perceptions of Outsourcing: The degree to which the public has a negative perception of outsourcing or offshoring (e.g., Sen and Shiel, 2006).

  171. 171

    *Quality Improvement: A client organization’s desire or need to improve the quality of the client’s business, processes, or capabilities (e.g., Gewald and Dibbern, 2009).

  172. 172

    *Quality Management CapabilityProvider: The degree to which a provider has a total quality management philosophy and a focus on continuous improvement (e.g., Malik et al., 2012).

  173. 173

    R&D Spend: The amount of money an organization spends on R&D (e.g., Calantone and Stanko, 2007; Grimpe and Kaiser, 2010).

  174. 174

    Rapid Delivery: A client organization’s desire or need to speed up service delivery (e.g., Bandyopadhyay and Hall, 2009; Lam and Chua, 2009).

  175. 175

    Relational Governance: The unwritten, worker-based mechanisms designed to influence inter-organizational behavior (Macneil, 1980; Kim, 2008).

  176. 176

    Relationship Quality: The quality of the relationship between a client and provider (e.g., Sia et al, 2008; Saxena and Bharadwaj, 2009).

  177. 177

    Relationship-Specific Investment: Specific investments made over time which discourage opportunism, reinforce signals of the client firms, and create extendedness of the relationships (e.g., Tate and Ellram, 2009).

  178. 178

    Risk: The extent to which a transaction exposes a party (client or provider) to a chance of loss or damage (e.g., Wullenweber et al., 2008; Mathew and Das Aundhe, 2011).

  179. 179

    Risk Management CapabilityClient: A client organization’s practice of identifying, rating, and mitigating potential risks associated with outsourcing (e.g., Borman, 2006).

  180. 180

    *Risk Spread: The distribution of risk, typically by assigning work to multiple providers and or locations (e.g., Su and Levina, 2011).

  181. 181

    Scalability: The ability to scale volume of service up or down based on demand (e.g., Currie et al., 2008; Redondo-Cano and Canet-Giner, 2010).

  182. 182

    *Security Breach: A significant incident that results in unauthorized access of data, applications, services, networks and/or devices or loss or theft of IP (e.g., Gorla and Lau, 2010).

  183. 183

    Security, Privacy, and Confidentiality CapabilityProvider: The proven ability of a provider to protect client data through investments in technology, training, process controls, audits, and other management practices (e.g., Sen and Shiel, 2006). (Previously called ‘Security, Privacy, and Confidentiality Capability – Supplier’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  184. 184

    Senior Leadership: The extent to which the senior executives of an organization are effective leaders (e.g., Lacity et al., 2004).

  185. 185

    Service Complexity: The degree to which a service or project requires compound steps, the control of many variables, and/or where cause and effect are subtle and dynamic (e.g., Ventovuori and Lehtonen, 2006; Penfold, 2009). (Previously called ‘Process Complexity’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  186. 186

    Service Integration: The degree to which clients and providers are able to integrate services (e.g., Sen and Shiel, 2006). (Previously called ‘Process Integration’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  187. 187

    Service Interdependence: The level of integration and coupling among tasks; services that are highly integrated are tightly coupled and difficult to detach (e.g., Sanders et al., 2007). (Previously called ‘Process Interdependence’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  188. 188

    Service Quality: The quality of a service, frequently measured as a client’s perception of a satisfactory service performance by the provider (e.g., Lewin and Peeters, 2006).

  189. 189

    Service Standardization: The degree to which a service is standard (e.g., Tate and Ellram, 2009). (Previously called ‘Process Standardization’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  190. 190

    Slack Resources: Resources an organization possesses in excess of what is required to maintain the organization (e.g., Koh et al, 2004; Hall and Liedtka, 2005). (Previously called ‘Financial Slack’ in Lacity et al., 2010.)

  191. 191

    Social CapitalCognitive Dimension: Social capital arising from the sharing representations, interpretations, and systems of meaning among parties (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Willcocks et al., 2004).

  192. 192

    Social CapitalRelational Dimension: Social capital arising from personal relationships people have developed with each other through a history of interactions (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Willcocks et al., 2004).

  193. 193

    Social CapitalStructural Dimension: Social capital arising from the patterns of linkages between people or units including network ties, network configuration, and network appropriability (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Willcocks et al., 2004).

  194. 194

    Social Norms: An individual’s perceptions of the social pressures put on him or her to perform or not to perform the behavior in question. (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Raman et al., 2007).

  195. 195

    *Staff Transfer: The practice of transferring staff from the client to provider organization (e.g., Miozzo and Grimshaw, 2011).

  196. 196

    Stakeholder Buy-in: Gaining commitment and support from all parties involved in sourcing-related decisions (e.g., Tate and Ellram, 2009).

  197. 197

    Strategic Intent: A client organization’s desire or need to source for strategic reasons, such as developing new capabilities that can be leveraged in the marketplace (e.g., Sanders et al., 2007).

  198. 198

    Switching Costs: The costs incurred when a client organization changes from one provider or marketplace to another (e.g., Wahrenburg et al., 2006).

  199. 199

    *Task Programmability: The degree to which appropriate behavior by the agent (provider) can be precisely defined in advance (Eisenhardt, 1989) (e.g., Susarla et al., 2010a, 2010b).

  200. 200

    *Task Variety: The degree to which a task requires various activities, skills, and talents (e.g., Sengupta and Gupta, 2011).

  201. 201

    *Team Dispersion: The degree to which a team is geographically dispersed; often measured as a percentage of teammates onshore/offshore (e.g., Langer et al., 2014).

  202. 202

    *Team Size: The number of individuals assigned to a team (e.g., Gopal and Koka, 2012).

  203. 203

    *Team Turnover: The extent to which team members leave a team (e.g., Narayanan et al., 2011).

  204. 204

    Technical and Methodological CapabilityClient: A client organization’s level of maturity in terms of technical or process-related standards, and best practices (e.g., Bardhan et al., 2007).

  205. 205

    Technical and Methodological CapabilityProvider: A provider organization’s level of maturity in terms of technical or process-related and best practices (e.g., Sia et al., 2008; Shah Bharadwaj and Saxena, 2009). (Previously called ‘Technical and Methodological Capability – Supplier’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  206. 206

    *Technology Infrastructure QualityProvider: The degree to which the technology infrastructure the provider uses to support service delivery is nimble, scalable, and state-of-the-art (e.g., Kannabiran and Sankaran, 2011).

  207. 207

    *Technology Integration Imperative: A client organization’s need or desire to integrate technologies (e.g., Gefen et al., 2011).

  208. 208

    Technology Upgrade: A client organization’s need or desire to improve or upgrade technology (e.g., Bhagwatwar et al., 2011). (Previously called ‘Technical Reasons’ in Lacity et al., 2010).

  209. 209

    Time Zone Differences: The difference in local times between two locations as measured in hours (e.g., Mehta et al., 2006).

  210. 210

    Top Management Commitment/Support: The extent to which senior executives provide leadership, support, and commitment to outsourcing (e.g., Tate and Ellram, 2009).

  211. 211

    Training: The nature or extent of provider employee training by either the client or provider organization (e.g., Raman et al., 2007; Malik, 2009).

  212. 212

    Transaction Costs: The effort, time, and costs incurred in searching, creating, negotiating, monitoring, and administrating a service contract between buyers and providers (Williamson, 1991; Levina and Su, 2008).

  213. 213

    Transaction Frequency: The number of times a client organization initiates a transaction, typically categorized as either occasional or frequent (e.g., Wahrenburg et al., 2006).

  214. 214

    Transaction Size: The size of a transaction, often measured in terms of dollar value or effort (e.g., Luo et al., 2010).

  215. 215

    Transaction Type: The type of work, usually operationalized as a categorical variable, such as delineating among transactions involving development, maintenance, and reengineering work (e.g., Gopal and Koka, 2010) or between ITO and BPO (e,g., Lee and Kim, 2010).

  216. 216

    Transition Management CapabilityClient: The extent to which a client organization effectively transitions services to or from outsourcing providers or integrates client services with provider services (e.g., Luo et al., 2010).

  217. 217

    Transition Management CapabilityProvider: The extent to which a provider organization effectively transitions services from a client organization to the provider or integrates client services with provider services (e.g., Saxena and Bharadwaj, 2009). (Previously called ‘Transition Management Capability – Supplier’ in Lacity et al., 2011.)

  218. 218

    Trust: The confidence in the other party’s benevolence (e.g., Gainey and Klaas, 2003).

  219. 219

    Uncertainty: The degree of unpredictability or volatility of future states as it relates to the definition of requirements, emerging technologies, and/or environmental factors (Williamson, 1991; Mani et al., 2010).

Appendix B

Table B1

Table B1 Frequency with which dependent variables appear in this review by type of service

Appendix C

Table C1

Table C1 Frequency with which independent variables appear in this review by type of service

Appendix D

Table D1

Table D1 Relationship Data for all Independent Variables and Five Categories of Dependent Variables

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lacity, M., Khan, S. & Yan, A. Review of the empirical business services sourcing literature: an update and future directions. J Inf Technol 31, 269–328 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2016.2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2016.2

Keywords

Navigation