outsourcing and offshoring engineering projects ...eprints.lse.ac.uk/39644/1/outsourcing and...
TRANSCRIPT
Leslie Willcocks, Ilan Oshri, Julia Kotlarsky and Joseph W.Rottman Outsourcing and offshoring engineering projects: understanding the value, sourcing models, and coordination practices Article (Accepted version) (Refereed)
Original citation: Willcocks, Leslie and Oshri, Ilan and Kotlarsky, Julia and Rottman, Joseph W. (2011) Outsourcing and offshoring engineering projects: understanding the value, sourcing models, and coordination practices. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58 (4). pp. 706-716. ISSN 0018-9391 DOI: 10.1109/TEM.2011.2128873 © 2011 IEEE This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/39644/ Available in LSE Research Online: September 2012 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final manuscript accepted version of the journal article, incorporating any revisions agreed during the peer review process. Some differences between this version and the published version may remain. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it.
IEEE
Proo
f
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT 1
Outsourcing and Offshoring Engineering Projects:Understanding the Value, Sourcing Models,
and Coordination Practices
1
2
3
Leslie Willcocks, Ilan Oshri, Julia Kotlarsky, and Joseph Rottman4
Abstract—In this paper, we review recent developments in the5field of outsourcing and offshoring and the implications for engi-6neering management. We examine three aspects involved in out-7sourcing and offshoring, namely, sourcing models, coordination,8and value extracted from outsourcing projects. We conclude that9additional research is needed on recent trends in outsourcing and10the impact of such change process on the practice of engineering11management.12
Index Terms—Engineering management, offshoring, outsourc-13ing, sourcing models, coordination.14
I. INTRODUCTION15
BY OCTOBER 2010, the size of the worldwide market16
for information technology outsourcing (ITO) was $27017
billion and the business process outsourcing (BPO) market was18
$165 billion. Recent estimates predict that between 2011 and19
2014, ITO will grow at 5%–8% per annum and BPO will grow20
at 8%–12% per annum. It is also expected that the BPO market21
will overtake the ITO market [1].22
Clearly, this ongoing growth in the outsourcing market has23
implications for engineering management and engineers in-24
volved in software development and other forms of product de-25
velopment. In the past, key engineering challenges were around26
the need to improve quality, enhance product features, integrate27
service with product offerings and speed up the innovation sys-28
tem. Nowadays, engineers are being asked to reorganize the29
product development function to accommodate outsourcing ac-30
tivities as part of the innovation process. This requires them to31
redefine 1) the way innovation is carried out within and outside32
the firm; 2) the boundaries of the product development func-33
tion; and 3) the mode of coordination through which work is34
performed globally. Firms also have to develop new capabilities35
to support the ever-changing business models in their sourcing36
engagements. Understanding how and where value is created37
Manuscript received November 29, 2010; accepted December 2, 2010.Review of this manuscript was arranged by Department Editor R. Sabherwal.
Q1 L. Willcocks is with the London School of Economics and Political Science,London WC2A 2AE, U.K. (e-mail: [email protected]).
I. Oshri is with the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University,Rotterdam 3000 DR, The Netherlands (e-mail: [email protected]).
J. Kotlarsky is with the Warwick Business School, Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.(e-mail: [email protected]).
J. Rottman is with the University of Missouri—St. Louis, St. Louis, MO63128 USA (e-mail: [email protected]).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEM.2011.2128873
in sourcing engagements comes as an additional challenge as 38
dependence on external partners increases. Executives responsi- 39
ble for innovation and information technology (IT) performance 40
have been revisiting their business models and rethinking the 41
roles of C-level managers, such as Chief Information Officers 42
(CIOs), within the firm. At the same time, vendors of outsourc- 43
ing services are more aware of growing demands from firms 44
for innovation and transformation through outsourcing engage- 45
ments, and are refocusing their effort to deliver value to clients 46
by improving performance management systems and extending 47
their offers. 48
This paper reviews the prominent changes that outsourcing 49
causes within and outside the firms, in the context of engi- 50
neering management. We take a practice-based approach in an 51
attempt to bring together the vast research on outsourcing from 52
both vendor and client sides, while also trying to provide some 53
guidelines for engineers in the context of changing global busi- 54
ness environments and reshaping of the practice of outsourcing 55
within product development. 56
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. After this 57
introduction, we explore sourcing models, project management, 58
coordination practices, and the notion of value in outsourcing 59
in the context of engineering management. We also offer links 60
to the papers published in this special issue. 61
II. SOURCING MODELS: OUTCOMES FOR PRACTICE 62
Choosing the appropriate sourcing model is a critical aspect in 63
planning an outsourcing project. The range of sourcing models 64
is diverse and includes single vendor, panel and multisourcing 65
settings. In a recent study, Willcocks and Lacity [2] suggest 66
that the ITO and BPO outsourcing markets will continue to 67
grow through multisourcing. Although ITO and BPO spend has 68
been increasing, in the last few years the average size and dura- 69
tion of individual contracts have been decreasing. How can we 70
reconcile smaller, shorter deals with an overall increase in the 71
ITO/BPO markets? The figures suggest that client organizations 72
are actively pursuing more multisourcing. Multisourcing has al- 73
ways been the dominant practice and overall growth is driven by 74
client organizations signing more contracts with more suppliers. 75
While multisourcing helps clients access best-of-breed suppli- 76
ers and mitigates the risks of reliance on a single supplier, it also 77
means increased transaction costs since clients have to manage 78
more suppliers. Multisourcing means also that suppliers incur 79
more transaction costs. Suppliers have to bid more frequently 80
because contracts are shorter, suppliers face more competition 81
0018-9391/$26.00 © 2011 IEEE
IEEE
Proo
f
2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
because smaller-sized deals mean that more suppliers are quali-82
fied to bid, and suppliers need to attract more customers in order83
to meet growth targets.84
These arguments were used in the early 1990s to try to per-85
suade customers to buy into large-scale long-term single sup-86
plier outsourcing arrangements. Critics argued that companies87
that signed long-term contracts lost control of their IT assets and88
capabilities (e.g., Strassmann [3]). An interesting fact that was89
lost in the focus on mega-deals, was that the dominant trend,90
even in the 1990s was not for long contracts. By 2000, there91
were only about 140 such deals worldwide. Research shows92
that in the U.S. and U.K. lead markets, over 75% of organi-93
zations consistently outsource 15%–50% of their IT budgets,94
typically to multiple suppliers [4]. Mega-deals, and especially95
single suppliers, have always been in the minority. One explana-96
tion for this is that most organizations want to reduce the higher97
risk profile inherent in large-scale outsourcing to third party98
suppliers [4].99
What are these risks in practice? As companies accumulated100
experience with IT outsourcing through the 1990s, practices101
that differentiated success from failure emerged. Lacity and102
Willcocks [5] find that the relative frequency with which se-103
lective outsourcing (20%–80% of the IT operating budget goes104
to external providers) decisions achieved expected cost savings105
was higher than in the case of total outsourcing (80% plus of106
the IT operating budget goes to external providers) or total in-107
sourcing (more than 80% of the IT operating budget remains108
within the organization). The rationale is that few vendors or109
internal IT departments possess the expertise to perform all IT110
activities in the most efficient way. Selective outsourcing allows111
organizations to select the most capable and efficient sources, a112
practice some refer to as “best-of-breed” sourcing. Indeed, the113
ability to focus in-house resources on higher value work can114
also be the justification for selective outsourcing. In most cases115
of total outsourcing, participant firms encounter one or more116
of the following problems in trying to realize the expected cost117
savings:118
1) extra fees for services beyond the contract, or extra fees119
for services the outsourcer assumed were included in the120
contract;121
2) “hidden costs” on both the client side (e.g., IT spend hid-122
den in decentralized budgets) and the supplier’s side (e.g.,123
cost of transferring software licenses);124
3) inflexible contracts not allowing for changes in tech-125
nology, market prices, business processes, or business126
direction.127
Between 2000 and 2005, research showed that detailed short-128
term contracts worked well if participant firms were able to de-129
fine requirements precisely. This ensured that they paid market130
prices, encouraged good vendor performance (based perhaps on131
threats to switch suppliers when the contract expired), allowed132
client firms to learn gradually how to outsource efficiently and,133
in some cases, allowed client firms to recover more quickly from134
any mistakes. More recent research reveals a number of emerg-135
ing practices, which, in principle, will achieve success by other136
means. These include flexible pricing, competitive bidding be-137
yond the baseline contract, beginning a long-term relationship138
with a short-term contract, and performance-based contracts 139
[6]. 140
The aforementioned findings and recommendations are hold- 141
ing up well in relation to outsourcing experiences and outcomes 142
since 2000. By 2005, “multisourcing,” as it came to be called [7], 143
was being portrayed as the main sourcing model being applied 144
by client firms for ITO and BPO. Unfortunately, many practi- 145
tioners overlooked the notion of selective sourcing of external 146
supply and also internal supply when warranted. Also over- 147
looked was the important question of what number of suppliers 148
was optimal. Clearly, the transaction costs involved in dealing 149
with multiple suppliers could reach formidable levels, and the 150
complexities involved in managing contracts and relationships 151
could be daunting. 152
In a recent report, Willcocks et al. [8] look in detail at the 153
tradeoffs between bundled services and multiple suppliers. By 154
bundled services, they mean 155
“A mix of business process and/or information technology services 156purchased separately or at the same time from the same supplier 157where synergies and efficiencies are sought in end-to-end processing, 158governance, relationship management, cost, and performance.” (p.?) 159
Their findings apply equally well to major engineering 160
projects involving choices about sourcing models and numbers 161
of suppliers. They can be summarized as follows. 162
1) Multisourcing may give the client more power and more 163
control over each individual supplier, and involve less de- 164
pendence on each. However, greater control comes at the 165
price of higher management costs, and more time, effort 166
and measurement. It can be argued also that bundling 167
outsourcing services makes the client larger and more im- 168
portant to the provider, which makes the provider more 169
responsive, and especially in terms of improvements and 170
innovation. In multisupplier environments, the retained 171
management capability needed to manage outsourcing 172
regularly costs between 4% and 10% of the total contract 173
value [4]. As multisourcing governance has moved up the 174
outsourcing agenda since 2007, these costs are rising [6]. 175
2) In terms of risk, while dependence on one or two suppliers 176
may be risky (much depends on their capabilities and their 177
financial strength) multisourcing brings new risks, includ- 178
ing cracks between service, security issues, hidden costs 179
of continued monitoring and renewal of contracts, and 180
possible replacement of suppliers. It is necessary to eval- 181
uate the size of the risks from bundling or not bundling, 182
relative to the risks a business faces in the course of its 183
main operations. Organizations often impose, quite incon- 184
sistently, higher levels of risk for back office deals than 185
for strategic business initiatives, for example. 186
On incremental bundling, Willcocks et al. [8] found that many 187
organizations adopted this route over time. They also found that 188
some organizations gained from major one-off bundling deals, 189
although this was rare for complex BPO arrangements. Much 190
depended on the abilities of both client and supplier to manage 191
these arrangements, capabilities that are quite specialized. Other 192
organizations adopted the approach of rationalizing their IT 193
and/or business processes, sometimes through a shared services 194
IEEE
Proo
f
WILLCOCKS et al.: OUTSOURCING AND OFFSHORING ENGINEERING PROJECTS 3
route, before seeking bundled outsourcing arrangements. This is195
a more tactical process and mitigates some of the risks inherent196
in outsourcing inefficient IT and processes, although depending197
on the savings on time and costs, such risks may be justified.198
The cost gains from bundling two or more business functions,199
for example, IT and human resources management (HR), or200
procurement and HR, rather than outsourcing them separately201
to different suppliers, could be of the order of 10%–15% [9]. The202
savings may be even higher if the supplier introduced a more203
standardized management and measurement process and is able204
to implement standardized business processes and IT. A prime205
contractor model which is a network of suppliers that is managed206
by one of the contractor accountable and liable for the delivery207
of the service represents a “half-way house,” but it is unlikely208
to achieve significant cost savings, process standardization, or209
innovation compared to a bundled outsourcing arrangement.210
A prime contractor model presents many risks and experience211
shows that they do not necessarily bring benefits.1212
So when do bundled outsourcing and fewer suppliers make213
operational sense? Willcocks et al. [8] find several advantages214
from bundling, such as that it:215
1) simplifies and expedites procurement and contracting216
(sole-source versus tendering);217
2) simplifies the governance process;218
3) reduces duplication of management layers, processes, and219
costs;220
4) reduces operating risks by limiting points of failure;221
5) standardizes and simplifies operations;222
6) achieves operational synergies across business processes223
and between a business process and the supporting IT;224
7) mitigates delivery risk through simplified points of225
contact;226
8) reduces service provider costs/prices through simplified227
management and scale economies;228
9) supports preexisting standardized technology and pro-229
cess trajectories, e.g., use of enterprise resource planning230
(ERP);231
10) can drive wider holistic back-office changes.232
However, Willcocks et al. [8] conclude that this does not make233
bundled outsourcing the best option. These gains are possible,234
but much depend on the maturity and capabilities of client and235
supplier to deliver on the promises in the particular bundling236
deal. Thus, it is not surprising to find a range of client profiles237
when investigating outsourcing arrangements.238
The bundling sourcing model is particularly critical in relation239
to innovation and knowledge. Willcocks et al. [1] show that240
senior executives generally adopt one of four approaches to241
innovation, each with distinct knowledge objectives (see Fig. 1).242
“Do-It-Yourself” scores highly for retaining control and keep-243
ing the value of transformation within the company. However,244
success requires both funding and appropriate skills. This option245
is also most likely to encounter internal resistance if its impor-246
tance is not flagged by senior management. The “Management247
1In [2] and [5], the authors point to cases where management costs were notnoticeably lower than in other models, and best practice was not shared amongthe different suppliers.
Fig. 1. Options for back-office innovation [adapted from Willcocks et al. [1]).
Consultancy” route brings in external energy, is a clear signal 248
of the commitment to major change, and reduces political re- 249
sistance. The most significant risks from this approach are cost 250
escalation, lack of sustainability, and poor knowledge transfer. 251
“Fee-For-Service Outsourcing”—whether ITO or BPO—can re- 252
sult in small, usually one-off, innovation in inherited back-office 253
management practices, business processes, and investment in 254
new technology. However, the results are usually not long term. 255
Fee-for-service contracts are structured around cost/service is- 256
sues and do not incentivize the supplier to innovate. They signal 257
an over-reliance on the supplier to innovate in business areas 258
where new ideas should be an in-house problem. The supplier 259
tends to focus on selling extra services to increase its margins 260
and may become embroiled in immediate crises and operational 261
problems. The employer does not develop or employ more inno- 262
vative staff or make efforts to foster the contractual relationship. 263
Based on the learning from a major engineering project—the 264
building of Heathrow Terminal 5—Willcocks et al. [1] show 265
that some form of “Collaborative Innovation” is required if sus- 266
tained, significant IT or back-office, and business innovations 267
are to be achieved. The greater the motivation, the more likely 268
that the contract will include some form of risk-reward com- 269
ponent. Collaborative innovation can take the form of a formal 270
joint venture as in the case of several BPO deals and cases 271
of engineering collaborations. The paper, “Global multisourc- 272
ing strategy: integrating learning from manufacturing into IT 273
service outsourcing” (by Levina and Ning) in this special is- 274
sue extends these debates and practice points by integrating the 275
learning from research in the operations management and IS 276
fields and by developing a theoretical model of the tradeoffs 277
associated with the use of multiple vendors for IT services. 278
The authors produce a conceptual map of four configurations of 279
what can constitute a multivendor supply base, and extend the 280
debate even further by applying this map to analyze two global 281
financial service firms and their global sourcing strategies. 282
We next examine project management practices and their 283
relevance to managing engineering outsourcing projects. 284
IEEE
Proo
f
4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
III. PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN OUTSOURCING285
There is a long tradition of project management studies in286
the engineering and construction sectors, and some of these287
developments and practices can be applied to outsourcing and288
offshoring of IT projects. For example, Accelerating Change re-289
port [10] that describes a U.K. project conducted by the Strate-290
gic Forum for Construction, led by Sir John Egan, lists the291
most important drivers as being client leadership, integrated292
teams, and relevant employees. Central to the approach out-293
lined are partnering and collaboration. In relation to ERP im-294
plementation, the main problems are their large size, long time295
scale, complex, new or untried technology, and lack of clear de-296
tailed project staffing and management structures. Traditional297
“waterfall” systems development methods are not appropriate298
for implementing IT-based projects constituting real business299
innovation.300
Many IT outsourcing projects are run according to a “time301
box” philosophy [11] in which the IT-based business innovation302
must be delivered within foreseeable period of time and must303
be aligned with the organization’s overall IT architecture. It is304
sometimes possible to decompose such projects into smaller305
phases, each of which will deliver tangible business benefits.306
For example, in large-scale outsourcing projects, the transition307
phase, in which client systems are transferred to the vendor, is308
planned as a series of “waves” each taking from 2 to 3 months.309
Time discipline reduces the risk of a project failing to meet busi-310
ness requirements, ensures that some big projects are reduced311
to a series of more manageable units, that business benefits312
flow regularly, and that the team will remain focused be fully313
staffed over a limited period. In the outsourcing context, such an314
approach also makes it easier for client firms to ensure the con-315
tinuity of the business during transition. For the vendors, on the316
other hand, a “time-boxing” approach offers a clear association317
between deliverables and rewards. Within projects further time318
boxing can occur in relation to different parts of the development319
to reduce drift from the overall business delivery target.320
What is the role of suppliers in projects? Willcocks et al. [1]321
suggest that external perspectives and external knowledge can322
contribute much to the process of technical and business inno-323
vation. Suppliers can also compensate for in-house shortages in324
routine and specialized skills in order to ensure rapid delivery325
of the system. The routine, easily codifiable processes can all be326
outsourced [12]. Our research suggests that IT-based innovation327
means that suppliers are utilized most effectively if they are di-328
rected and controlled by the outsourcer, perhaps within the home329
company. “Insourcing” external skills, if properly managed, can330
release valuable transfer-of-learning effects.331
The alternative of outsourcing the management of IT-based332
innovation to a third party, places the external supplier in an333
invidious position. Technical work requiring the application of334
expert know-how and techniques can be outsourced to the ap-335
propriate specialists. The more complex (i.e., adaptive) the work336
becomes, the more leadership is required and the greater become337
the requirements for multiple stakeholders to engage with defin-338
ing the problem and work together to come up with a solution.339
Adaptive challenges arise in situations where problems and so-340
lutions are unclear, multifunctional teams are needed, learning 341
is vital, innovation is usually necessary, and there is a general 342
business goal rather than precise metrics guiding the project. In 343
such situations, the role of leadership is to maintain direction 344
and shape the context and process that will accomplish this goal. 345
Moreover, the more radical and business focused the innovation 346
goal, the more crucial it is for the client to lead the project. 347
Willcocks and Lacity [2] show that in-house leadership is vital 348
for large-scale IT and back-office innovation and transformation 349
because they generally involve adaptive challenges. Even fee- 350
for-service outsourcing will involve some adaptive challenges, 351
which are often interpreted as technical challenges. 352
Offshore outsourcing introduces additional dimensions and 353
complexity to project management. Offshore outsourcing can 354
involve time zone and cultural differences [13], impose the 355
need for more control [14], [15], involve problems related to the 356
transfer of knowledge [16], require more precise definition of re- 357
quirements [17], and introduce difficulties in terms of managing 358
dispersed teams [18]. The transaction costs involved in offshore 359
outsourcing are considerably higher than those related to do- 360
mestic outsourcing [19]. Researchers have identified practices Q2361
and capabilities specific to offshore outsourcing [20] including 362
the use of middlemen [21], the design of special client-offshore 363
supplier employee interfaces [16], the use of larger numbers of 364
links [17], and others [22], [23]. 365
Governance models are also an important factor that influ- 366
ences success in outsourcing relationships. In their article in 367
this special issue, “Managing Software Outsourcing Relation- 368
ships in Emerging Economies: An Empirical Study of the Chi- 369
nese Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises,” Ren, Ngai, and 370
Cho explore three different governance models and their im- 371
pact on success of engineering projects in the emerging Chinese 372
outsourcing market. The authors analyzed three different in- 373
terorganizational models: contractual-based, relational-based, 374
and vendor-specific investment. By analyzing the success of 375
83 software engineering projects from 77 Chinese small- and 376
medium-sized firms, they found that both contractual and rela- 377
tional governance models were key contributors to successful 378
projects. Combined with vendor-specific investment, the three 379
models accounted for 45% of the variance in outsourcing project 380
success. Their study also showed that Chinese client firms utilize 381
vendor specific investment to protect their financial investment 382
connected to the relationship. The investment was shown to en- 383
hance the long-term partnerships client firms have with their 384
suppliers. As emerging economies continue to expand their role 385
in the software engineering landscape, this study also confirms 386
the importance of relational-based governance models and ven- 387
dor management. 388
Deeper insights into offshore outsourcing are provided by 389
Gopal et al. [24] who examine the effects of capability process 390
maturity (CPM) and communication/coordination practices on 391
ITO project outcomes, in the context of application development 392
projects outsourced to offshore suppliers. The authors find that 393
CPM quality processes reduce the level of project reworking, 394
increase project efforts, and have no effect on project duration. 395
CPM technical processes reduce the level of project effort, in- 396
crease project duration, and have no effect on the level of rework. 397
IEEE
Proo
f
WILLCOCKS et al.: OUTSOURCING AND OFFSHORING ENGINEERING PROJECTS 5
Also the greater the number of project status meetings, the more398
this increases project effort; and the more incremental releases,399
the less project rework but the more project effort.400
The paper “An empirical investigation of client managers”401
responsibilities in managing offshore outsourcing of software402
testing projects’ (by Jain, Poston, and Simon) in this special403
issue examines client managers’ responsibilities in the man-404
agement of offshore outsourcing of software testing projects.405
The authors point out that while this practice is increasing, lit-406
tle research has been done on the problems encountered by407
clients in managing projects with offshore vendors, or on the408
changes required to manage offshore outsourcing relationships409
effectively. The authors use a case study approach to identify410
six project management activities. They discuss the changes411
that were required and examine the coping strategies employed412
by client managers to deal with these project management ac-413
tivities. They describe how the interplay among multiple global414
boundary variables affects these activities, and integrate insights415
from global distributed teams, organizational communication,416
and the offshore outsourcing literature to ground the relation-417
ship theoretically, between the boundary variables and coping418
strategies.419
Another paper in this special issue “Information technology420
and distance-induced effort to manage offshore activities” (by421
Aubert, Rivard, and Templier) examines the role of distance and422
IT in the management of offshore activities. The study devel-423
ops a model of the effect of distance on the effort required to424
manage an offshore activity. This involves developing an under-425
standing of which aspects of distance and which features of the426
technology influence the effort required to manage an offshore427
activity, how this influence is exerted, and how IT and distance428
interact. The authors study 12 organizations in Canada, West-429
ern Europe, and Eastern Europe. The model they propose posits430
that perceived distance is a key antecedent to effort. Their model431
suggests that IT facilitates higher level formalization of the in-432
formation exchanged and moderates the impact of geographic433
distance on the effort required to manage offshore activity.434
In the next section, we examine coordination and knowledge435
management practices in the context of engineering manage-436
ment outsourcing projects.437
IV. COORDINATION AND KNOWLEDGE IN OUTSOURCING AND438
OFFSHORING ENGINEERING PROJECTS439
In large-scale engineering projects, coordinating the work is a440
primary management task. In the context of software engineer-441
ing, the unique properties of software make its development442
more difficult than other engineering disciplines. Software sys-443
tems are complex, not visualizable, and constantly subject to444
change. Software systems have to conform to the continuously445
changing environment of their application [25]. These inher-446
ent challenges make software engineering a complex discipline447
and increase the obstacles to management practice that relies448
on “traditional” coordination mechanisms, such as organization449
design, which encompasses formal structures such as hierar-450
chies, linking pins, teams, and direct contact; work-based mech-451
anisms, which include plans, specifications, standards, catego-452
Fig. 2. Coordination mechanisms for managing knowledge in globally dis-tributed teams (adopted from Kotlarsky et al. [15]).
rization systems, and representations of work-in-progress such 453
as prototypes and design documents; technology-based mech- 454
anisms, which enable information capture, processing, stor- 455
age and exchange (e.g., electronic scheduling, groupware, and 456
shared databases), and replace human input by automating cer- 457
tain tasks; and social mechanisms, which involve communica- 458
tion activities, working relationships and social cognition [26]. 459
A. Adapting Coordination Mechanisms for Outsourcing and 460
Offshoring Project Teams 461
Outsourcing and offshoring arrangements make coordination 462
more difficult due to the geographic, temporal, cultural, and 463
often organizational distance (in outsourcing arrangements) be- 464
tween the individuals involved in remote collaborative engi- 465
neering efforts [27]. The breakdown of traditional coordina- 466
tion mechanisms, an incomplete picture of what is happen- 467
ing in remote locations, the difficulties involved in working 468
across different time zones and delays in distributed collabora- 469
tive work processes have been reported in globally distributed 470
projects [28], [29]. Additional challenges arise when tools, pro- 471
cesses, and the information and communication technology 472
(ICT) infrastructures are different across different remote lo- 473
cations [30], [31]. 474
To deal with these challenges, coordination mechanisms for 475
globally distributed teams have been adapted to allow remote 476
teams to work across distance time zones. Coordination mecha- 477
nisms have become crucial knowledge management mechanisms 478
ensuring effectiveness and efficiency among globally distributed 479
teams and improving the utilization of knowledge across dis- 480
persed sites, in the pursuit of a joint collaborative outsourc- 481
ing/offshoring effort (see Fig. 2), as explained later. 482
Coordination mechanisms employed by global teams rely on 483
technologies, which enable rapid access and dissemination of 484
IEEE
Proo
f
6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
knowledge through intranets, knowledge databases, and repos-485
itories that in turn rely on sophisticated search and retrieval486
mechanisms [32], collaborative technologies, and social me-487
dia [26].488
Organization design mechanisms facilitate knowledge flows489
by providing a structure that allows dispersed outsourcing490
project teams whose members typically include representatives491
of the client, supplier(s), and consultancy firms, to channel and492
integrate their expertise. Coordination requires the knowledge493
that resides in different parts of a globally distributed project494
team to flow and be connected in a structured manner. The de-495
sign of the organizational structure of an outsourcing project496
team should make it clear who is supposed to know what, and497
who is supposed to communicate with whom, which makes498
knowledge flows more efficient [26], [32]. The organization499
design mechanisms that have proven successful in outsourc-500
ing and offshoring projects include implementing mirror orga-501
nization structures onsite and offshore, setting up miniteams502
to focus on a specific feature or subject and establishing cen-503
ters of excellence specializing in specific industry solutions or504
technologies, promoting direct contact between remote counter-505
parts, and appointing contact persons to liaise between remote506
members [26], [32]. Work-based mechanisms capture knowl-507
edge and make it explicit through specifications, blueprints and508
prototypes, which enable replication and facilitate standardiza-509
tion across remote sites. This helps to diffuse knowledge and510
expectations and render it useful to people working in dispersed511
locations. The division of work driven by the availability of ex-512
pertise (and not location), standardization and centralization of513
tools, and made accessible through the Web [29], implemen-514
tation of knowledge transfer methodology and mechanisms to515
facilitate knowledge retention [32] are some of the work-based516
mechanisms that improve the efficiency and effectiveness of517
coordination of outsourced and offshore projects.518
Finally, social mechanisms establish social capital and help519
individuals to learn who knows and does what. (What people520
are supposed to know and do is part of the organizational de-521
sign mechanisms discussed earlier.) Communications, tradition-522
ally recognized as an adaptive coordination mode, are essential523
in outsourcing and offshoring projects where individuals from524
client, supplier and other participating organizations may be en-525
countering unfamiliar circumstances and may be working with526
colleagues that they do not know. Through communications and527
engagement in joint social practices, they can establish a shared528
understanding and develop working relationships that enhance529
the accuracy of their expectations about others’ thinking, activi-530
ties, and expectations. The nature of outsourcing and offshoring531
projects creates barriers to social practices involving colleagues532
from different national and organizational cultures, working in533
geographically dispersed locations and in different time zones.534
Usually only top and middle management levels meet face-to-535
face, and while such meetings may be helpful, they are also536
generally very formal and taken up with discussion of project537
procedures and technical issues. Such face-to-face meeting is538
usually short and sporadic, which allows little opportunity for539
informal communication that might become the basis for in-540
terpersonal relationships and facilitate closer collaboration and541
understanding. Although ICT had advanced, it does not replace 542
the need for personal contact or facilitate the social capital that 543
is typically accumulated through face-to-face meetings [33]. 544
Implementing social coordination mechanisms in globally dis- 545
tributed teams requires dedicated management and activities that 546
vary according to the project lifecycle, and provide teams with 547
the tools and technologies to support remote social practices. 548
Table I, adapted from Oshri et al. [34], presents some activities 549
and practices for individuals, groups, and organizations in glob- 550
ally distributed teams. These are designed to build and maintain 551
social ties among remote counterparts before face-to-face meet- 552
ings or after they have met. 553
The paper Coordination and performance in global software 554
service delivery: the vendor’s perspective (by Gopal, Espinosa, 555
Gosain, and Darcy) in this special issue examines coordina- 556
tion and performance from the vendor’s perspective. They look 557
at coordination between client and vendor teams, and within 558
vendor teams. Software quality and development speed are the 559
performance outcomes studied in this paper. The authors show 560
that both client-vendor coordination and vendor team coordina- 561
tion positively influence the quality of project output, but not 562
the speed of development. This paper contributes to our un- 563
derstanding of coordination within and between vendor teams, 564
and the impact that coordination has on software development 565
performance. 566
B. Role of Transactive Memory Systems in Coordinating 567
Knowledge in Outsourcing and Offshoring Projects 568
Globally distributed teams involved in outsourcing or off- 569
shoring focus their coordination efforts on managing knowledge 570
across remote locations using the four types of adapted coordi- 571
nation mechanisms described earlier. Over time, they become 572
familiar the responsibilities and knowledge of the members of 573
their dispersed project team. As their familiarity and knowledge 574
about their counterparts increase, the global team becomes more 575
efficient in dealing with cognitive labor. Team members develop 576
a Transactive Memory System (TMS) that is a combination of 577
individual memory systems and communications (or “transac- 578
tions”) between individuals which enable a shared division of 579
cognitive labor used to encode, store, and retrieve knowledge 580
from different, but complementary domains of expertise through 581
engagement in collective tasks. 582
Processes that enable the creation and renewal of a TMS are 583
directory updating, information allocation, and retrieval coor- 584
dination. Directory updating is associated with learning about 585
the areas of expertise of team members and creating awareness 586
about who knows what in the team or organization; informa- 587
tion allocation refers to communicating information to the rel- 588
evant experts for processing and storage; retrieval coordination 589
refers to requests to access unique stored information to enable 590
task performance [35]. The level of development of the group’s 591
TMS is characterized by its specialization which refers to the 592
degree of differentiation of the knowledge possessed by team 593
members; coordination that implies the team’s efficiency at pro- 594
cessing knowledge while working together; and credibility that 595
IEEE
Proo
f
WILLCOCKS et al.: OUTSOURCING AND OFFSHORING ENGINEERING PROJECTS 7
TABLE IINDIVIDUAL, TEAM, AND ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES SUPPORTING SOCIAL TIES BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER
FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGS (ADAPTED FROM OSHRI et al. [34])
refers to the team members’ beliefs about the reliability of other596
members’ knowledge [36]–[39].597
The development and activation of core TMS processes (di-Q3
598
rectory updating, information allocation, and retrieval coordi-599
nation) are supported by knowledge directories that point to600
where knowledge and expertise reside [40]–[42]. According to601
Oshri et al. [43], these directories can be codified (e.g., infor-602
mation systems and technologies, ICT, and knowledge manage-603
ment systems) or personalized (e.g., one’s own and other peo-604
ple’s memories), which is in line with codification-based and605
personalization-based knowledge approaches in the literature606
(e.g., [44], [45]). In outsourcing and offshoring contexts, cod-607
ified IT-based TMS directories available to dispersed workers608
typically include various corporate-wide and project-specific609
document- and knowledge-management systems, project por-610
tals, and expertise directories (e.g., “yellow pages”) that can be611
accessed from remote locations. Personalized directories that612
are formed through experience of working together and infor-613
mal social networks, typically, are less developed in globally614
distributed teams where members have few opportunities to615
use social coordination mechanisms that facilitate their devel-616
opment. Therefore, codified directories play a central role in617
facilitating the use of TMS in global teams.618
As individuals gain on the job experience, and as team mem-619
bership changes (which is common in large-scale long-term620
outsourcing contracts), a TMS develops and is continuously621
renewed by constant updating of codified and personalized di-622
rectories [43]. Because these teams rely on codified rather than623
personalized directories, technology-based coordination mech-624
anisms are critical for supporting the global team’s TMS.625
Work-based mechanisms facilitate the codification of knowl- 626
edge, which, if stored in repositories or databases supported by 627
efficient search capabilities, reduce the cognitive load of the 628
group by storing codified knowledge in organizational memory 629
systems, rather than the memories of individual group members. 630
Organization design mechanisms that provide a structure for 631
the efficient flow of knowledge within the global team “protect” 632
the TMS of the globally distributed team against deterioration 633
resulting from changes to organizational membership, by cap- 634
turing who is supposed to know what. For example, if a team 635
member is replaced, the role to be filled and responsibility it 636
entails (e.g., a specific system, portfolio of applications, or so- 637
lution) is familiar to the rest of the team. The new appointee will 638
be allocated the knowledge related to this area of responsibility. 639
Clearly, interpersonal relations and personalized TMS directo- 640
ries will suffer if individuals leave the team, and it takes time 641
for newcomers to develop relationships and be able to exploit 642
the group’s TMS. 643
Overall, coordination mechanisms adapted for globally dis- 644
tributed teams and TMS improve the utilization of dispersed 645
knowledge resources which in turn improve group performance. 646
The coordination challenges that arise in outsourcing and off- 647
shoring software engineering projects can be managed by focus- 648
ing coordination efforts on managing dispersed knowledge [26], 649
while a TMS facilitates the transfer and sharing of knowledge 650
among team members (e.g., [41], [43], [46]). 651
While the focus in TMS research is mostly on couples 652
engaged in close relationships, and small work groups (e.g., 653
[47], [48]–[50]), some studies investigate how a TMS is devel- 654
oped and activated in contemporary settings, such as globally 655
IEEE
Proo
f
8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
distributed and virtual teams (e.g., [43], [46], [51], [52]), or656
quick-response organizations such as emergency rooms or dis-657
aster recovery teams where, to save lives, individuals need to658
be able to integrate their knowledge and act quickly (e.g., [53],659
[54]). From an engineering perspective, Oshri et al. [43] study660
the role of a TMS in transferring knowledge between onsite661
and offshore teams involved in offshore outsourcing software662
development projects. Their research demonstrates how encod-663
ing, storing, and retrieval processes enable knowledge transfer664
between remote counterparts and proposes specific mechanisms665
to support the development of codified and personalized direc-666
tories between members based onsite and offshore.667
The paper “Hallowed grounds: The role of cultural values,668
practices, and institutions in TMS in an offshored complex669
engineering services” in this special issue (by Jarvenpaa and670
Keating) examines how cultural differences among engineering671
team members affect the coordination of dispersed knowledge672
and the development of TMS, based on a longitudinal case study673
of a dispersed, cross-cultural team involving U.S. and Romanian674
engineers. The findings demonstrate that cultural differences in675
values, practices, and institutions have a major impact on TMS676
indicators of specialization, coordination, and credibility.677
So far the paper has focused on exploring outsourcing prac-678
tices in the context of engineering management. We now explore679
the notion of value in outsourcing projects.680
V. NOTION OF “VALUE” IN OUTSOURCING PROJECTS681
Extracting value from outsourcing engagements is a key ob-682
jective for client firms and vendors. Existing research (e.g., [6],683
[55]) focuses mainly on the risks associated with outsourcing.684
Work that examines the impact of ITO on firm performance685
(e.g., [56]) provides little explanation of how these firm perfor-686
mance indicators inform the long-term strategies of firms.687
More research is needed on whether clients see value from688
their outsourcing engagements. We refer to the notion of value689
not primarily as knowing the value of a particular activity in690
financial terms, but knowing how to value it, and why [57]. As691
outsourcing projects become ever more complex, and include692
multiple business functions and multiple vendors, client firms693
are finding it harder to realize the value these engagements694
bring to their organizations. A high degree of dependency be-695
tween outsourced business functions, especially in the case of696
a bundled service-sourcing model to try to improve the entire697
or part of the value chain, may erect even more hurdles to un-698
derstanding and measuring the value in complex outsourcing699
projects.700
While client firms often see value as a one-off cost savings701
resulting from the outsourcing projects, the impact of most out-702
sourcing projects, and especially those involving transformation703
and innovation, is much wider. A recent study by Oshri and704
Kotlarsky [58] aimed to understand whether client firms realize705
value from their outsourcing engagements, and the role of the706
CIO in the conceptualization of value within the client firm, as707
a first step towards capturing the notion of value in outsourc-708
ing. Their research was based on a survey of 263 CIOs and709
Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) from leading European firms710
with revenues between $500 million and $6 billion (71% over 711
$1 billion), representing industries that have been outsourcing 712
IT and business processes for some time, including financial 713
services, manufacturing, logistics, retail, utilities, and telecoms. 714
The survey was followed up with interviews with CIOs of several 715
leading European firms including ABN AMRO, Royal Dutch 716
Shell, Maersk, and Philips. 717
Results of this study highlight the difficulty in evaluating the 718
value in outsourcing engagements that involve multiple suppli- 719
ers and several business areas. For example, when clients expect 720
vendors to actively help them to achieve competitive advantage, 721
this adds additional difficulties in evaluating return on invest- 722
ment. The survey results support this with only 39% of CIOs and 723
CFOs believing that assessment of the financial contribution of 724
outsourcing activity is feasible. Also, more and more outsourc- 725
ing contracts are related to high-value activities, which often 726
require intense and ongoing collaboration in the form of joint 727
ventures between client and vendor, further inhibiting the trans- 728
lation of the benefits from outsourcing activities into financial 729
benefit. Only 28% of CIOs and CFOs believed that their orga- 730
nization was able to assess the business value of outsourcing 731
beyond the one-time project cost savings. 732
Some sophisticated vendors have perfected their performance 733
management systems with the development of metrics that cap- 734
ture and quantify the activities of their staff. Such metrics allow 735
these vendors to secure their margins and avoid the “winner’s 736
curse” syndrome [59]. On the other hand, most client firms tend 737
to rely on service level agreements (SLA) as a means to eval- 738
uate their satisfaction from outsourcing arrangements, which 739
shifts the focus to the micromanagement of day-to-day perfor- 740
mance with little attention to the long-term value from such 741
partnerships. One CIO described the approach to evaluating sat- 742
isfaction as the mean to assess the value of their outsourcing 743
arrangements: 744
“We try to simplify it. It’s too much over the top. We have everything 745we outsourced on service level agreements and we have a pretty good 746matching system.” 747
Quantifying the indications provided by SLA, however, is 748
also not straightforward: 37% of the CIOs and CFOs surveyed 749
never tried to quantify the financial benefits from outsourcing 750
arrangements. Another 20% of CIOs and CFOs had no idea 751
whether this has ever been attempted in their organization. Of 752
those CIOs and CFOs who did try to quantify the financial 753
benefits from outsourcing arrangements, 43% of them were not 754
confident about how returns were measured. One commented 755
that: 756
“That is the problem. You know what it costs but you don’t really 757know what the value is.” 758
When asked: why have you not tried to quantify the financial 759
contribution of your outsourcing arrangements? 51% of CIOs 760
and CFOs said that these benefits were difficult to quantify, and 761
41% assumed that they were positive. 762
It is evident that since ITO and BPO are critical for the com- 763
petitiveness of most firms, the role of the CIO and the retained 764
client organization that encompasses in-house capabilities 765
IEEE
Proo
f
WILLCOCKS et al.: OUTSOURCING AND OFFSHORING ENGINEERING PROJECTS 9
required to manage the outsourcing relationships, develop vi-766
sion for business and functions, and lead architecture planning767
and design [4] are becoming important to achieving business ob-768
jectives. Both parties are expected to act as connecting links be-769
tween the outsourcer’s business strategy and the market, through770
a smooth execution of the sourcing strategy. It is imperative that771
the CIO can make a business case to the board and act as a772
change agent within the firm to achieve business transformation773
and innovation via outsourcing partnerships. However, accord-774
ing to our survey, 64% of the CFOs did not think that CIOs775
are successful in communicating the potential financial benefits776
from outsourcing arrangements. This would seem to question777
the maturity and sophistication of the retained organization. One778
CIO offered this reflection:779
[. . .] in my network when I discuss with other CIOs and I ask them,780“How are you doing on your business case?” they said, “What do781you mean ‘business case’?.” I then say: “You need something to782describe against a report. If you don’t start with a business case, if783you don’t start with clear objectives, how are you going to report?”784
The results of our survey and interviews show that some of785
the critical strategic benefits from outsourcing, such as business786
transformation and the ability to achieve a competitive edge are787
perceived by CFOs to be poorly communicated to the board by788
CIOs. The fact that many CIOs are not members of the executive789
board magnifies this problem. Put it simply, often the message790
that the CIO sends to the board through the CFO is “lost in791
translation.”792
A. Dynamic Nature of the Value and the Role of the CIO793
The results of the survey and the interviews with CIOs led794
to our first conclusion: value should be perceived as a dynamic795
concept. The desired value from an outsourcing arrangement set796
jointly by client and vendor at the start of the project is destined797
to change over time. Few firms are aware of this and even fewer798
take steps to mitigate this risk. If changes in value over the799
life of the outsourcing project are not acknowledged, tensions800
and disagreements will build up between the parties and will801
erode any benefit from the outsourcing arrangement. However,802
the dynamic nature of value does not mean that clients have803
the freedom to redefine their expectations autonomously. This804
needs to be a joint effort, in which the first step will be to develop805
mechanisms that will detect changes in value. Sensing mech-806
anisms should be supported by joint learning between client807
and vendor. The more opportunities there are for joint learning808
among client and vendor teams, the more likely that value as809
a dynamic concept can be monitored. The research found that810
value is most easily detected if outsourcing arrangements are811
based on relational value. This means that efforts will be made812
to develop the supply network relationships by responding to813
the changing nature of value.814
The second conclusion is that many CIOs still do not “speak”815
the “business language.” Most of them are not executive board816
members, and many have emerged from the IT/IS ranks and817
often had little exposure and involvement in formulating the818
firm’s business strategy. It has been argued that the role of CIO819
has become less strategic since IT is no longer a source of com-820
petitive advantage. However, since the mid-1990s, CIOs have 821
been asked to lead outsourcing projects and transform the way 822
that services are designed and delivered. Firm boundaries have 823
been redefined and sources of innovation reconsidered. Clearly, 824
nowadays the CIO is, if anything, more strategist than ever and 825
its role within the firm is destined to grow. However, to cope 826
with such changes CIOs need to learn. They need to learn the 827
“business language” spoken at the executive board. They need 828
to be able to formulate and argue a strong business case for 829
an outsourcing arrangement, at the strategic, operational, and 830
financial level. They need to learn to focus on business improve- 831
ment processes rather than service improvement processes and 832
on business transformation rather than IT improvements. Their 833
position within the organization should be more central, with 834
a direct influence on decisions made at the board level. A CIO 835
then should become a central figure and a driving force in im- 836
plementing the firm’s sourcing strategy. 837
The paper, “The sidelining of top IT executives in the gover- 838
nance of outsourcing: antecedents, power struggles, and conse- 839
quences” (by Chakarabarty and Whitten), in this special issue 840
demonstrates the importance of understanding the dynamics 841
between business executives and IT executives, as described 842
earlier. The authors focus on the relative power of each execu- 843
tive group and the implications for firm performance, arguing 844
that business executives have more power in IT outsourcing de- 845
cisions if firm’s financial performance has been poor and when 846
the firm did not have a sizeable IT workforce. This situation, ac- 847
cording to the authors, leads to poor firm performance. On the 848
other hand, when power concerning IT outsourcing decisions 849
lies with the IT executives, outsourcing performance is at best. 850
VI. DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 851
Since 1995, there has been an increase in the number of papers 852
published on the topic of outsourcing and offshoring. Clearly, 853
academics and practitioners are taking a greater interest in the 854
phenomenon since its impact across the entire firm value chain 855
has become more obvious. Although several areas related to 856
outsourcing and offshoring have been examined, we believe 857
that there are opportunities to advance our understanding of 858
this practice and its impact on organizations and societies. We 859
suggest three themes that would be particularly fruitful research 860
areas in the near future. 861
First, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been linked 862
to outsourcing and offshoring, but it is unclear whether “green- 863
ing” IT and applying CSR to outsourcing and offshoring projects 864
results in competitive advantage for client firms. The evidence 865
suggests that much of the CSR rhetoric and practice is geared to- 866
ward cost reductions. Such observations call for further research 867
to examine the strategic role that CSR plays in outsourcing and 868
how CSR is implemented in IT and BPO projects. 869
Second, research should look at the management of and strate- 870
gic approach to offshore captive centers [60]. Very few studies 871
have examined this phenomenon despite its growing importance 872
(e.g., [61]). In particular, the relationships between the parent 873
firm and the captive center are not well understood. 874
IEEE
Proo
f
10 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
Third, research on outsourcing tends to overlook innovation.875
Although outsourcing initially was focused on the software de-876
velopment and IT management function, there is an increase in877
the level of outsourcing of more core, high value knowledge-878
intensive activities that involve high degrees of innovation [62].879
How innovation is achieved and by what means are central ques-880
tions that should be investigated in the context of outsourcing.881
Understanding the impact of various sourcing models on inno-882
vation performance is another fruitful line of research.883
As outsourcing evolves, we would anticipate that other issues884
will become high on the research agenda, including new sourc-885
ing models (e.g., Cloud Services), sophisticated engagement886
modes (e.g., multisourcing, bundled services), and outsourcing887
performance (a shift from focus on SLAs to measuring the value888
in its holistic sense). Within these broad themes there will be889
numerous opportunities to advance understanding and expand890
the body of literature on outsourcing and offshoring.891
REFERENCES892
[1] L. Willcocks, S. Cullen, and A. Craig, The Outsourcing Enterprise:893From Cost Management To Collaborative Innovation. London, U.K.:894Palgrave, 2011.895
[2] L. Willcocks and M. Lacity, The Practice of Outsourcing: From Informa-896tion Systems to BPO and Offshoring. London, U.K.: Palgrave, 2009.897
[3] P. A. Strassmann, “CIOs must manage what’s left,” Computerworld,Q4 898vol. 38, no. 27, p. 30, 2004.899
[4] L. P. Willcocks and M. Lacity, Global Sourcing of Business and IT Ser-900vices. London, U.K.: Palgrave, 2006.901
[5] M. Lacity and L. P. Willcocks, Global IT Outsourcing: Search For Business902Advantage. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley, 2001.903
[6] M. C. Lacity, S. A. Khan, and L. P. Willcocks, “A review of the IT904outsourcing literature: Insights for practice,” J. Strategic Inf. Syst., vol. 18,905pp. 130–146, 2009.906
[7] L. Cohen and A. Young, Multisourcing: Moving Beyond Outsourcing to907Achieve Growth and Agility. Boston, MA: Harvard Bus. School Press,9082005.909
[8] L. P. Willcocks, I. Oshri, and J. Hindle, To Bundle or Not to Bundle?910Effective Decision-Making for Business and IT Services. London, U.K.:911Accenture, 2009, pp. 1–28.912
[9] Bundled versus Unbundled Outsourcing Deals. London, U.K.:Q5 913Equaterra, Sep. 2005.914
[10] J. Egan, “Accelerating Change: A report by the Strategic Forum for Con-Q6 915struction,” Strategic Forum for Construction, London, U.K., Rep. HEFCE,9162005.917
[11] I. Oshri, J. Kotlarsky, and L. Willcocks, The Handbook of Global Out-918sourcing and Offshoring, 2nd ed. London, U.K.: Palgrave, 2011.919
[12] R. Aron, E. K. Clemons, and S. Reddi, “Just right outsourcing: Under-920standing and managing risk,” J. Manage. Inf. Sys., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 37–55,9212005.922
[13] E. Carmel, “Building your information systems from the other side of923the world: How Infosys manages time zone differences,” MIS Quart.924Executive, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 43–53, 2006.925
[14] V. Choudhury and R. Sabherwal, “Portfolios of control in outsourced926software development projects,” Inf. Syst. Res., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 291–927314, 2003.928
[15] J. Kotlarsky, P. van Fenema, and L. Willcocks, “Developing a knowledge-929based perspective on coordination: The case of global software projects,”930Inf. Manage., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 96–108, 2008.931
[16] I. Oshri, P. van Fenema, and J. Kotlarsky, “Knowledge transfer in globally932distributed teams: The role of transactive memory,” Inf. Syst. J., vol. 18,933no. 4, pp. 593–616, 2008.934
[17] A. Gopal, K. Sivaramakrishnan, M. S. Krishnan, and T. Mukhopadhyay,935“Contracts in offshore software development: An empirical analysis,”936Manage. Sci., vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 1671–1683, 2003.937
[18] I. Oshri, J. Kotlarsky, and L. Willcocks, “Managing dispersed expertise in938IT offshore outsourcing: Lessons from Tata consultancy services,” MIS939Quart. Execuive, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 53–66, 2007.
[19] J. Dibbern, J. Winkler, and A. Heinzl, “Explaining variations in client 940extra costs between software projects offshored to India,” MIS Quart., 941vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 333–366, 2008. 942
[20] J. Rottman and M. Lacity, “Twenty practices for offshore sourcing,” MIS 943Quart. Executive, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 117–130, 2004. 944
[21] V. Mahnke, J. Wareham, and N. Bjorn-Andersen, “Offshore middlemen: 945Transnational intermediation in technology sourcing,” J. Inf. Technol., 946vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 18–30, 2008. 947
[22] C. Ranganathan and S. Balaji, “Critical capabilities for offshore outsourc- 948ing of IS,” MIS Quart. Executive, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 147–164, 2007. 949
[23] S. Jarvenpaa and J. L. Mao, “Operational capabilities development in 950mediated offshore software services models,” J. Inf. Technol., vol. 23, 951pp. 3–17, 2008. 952
[24] A. Gopal, T. Mukhopadhyay, and M. Krishnan, “The role of software pro- 953cesses and communication in offshore software development,” Commun. 954ACM, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 193–200, 2002. 955
[25] F. P. Brooks, Jr., “No silver bullet: Essence and accidents of software Q7956engineering,” Comput. Mag., pp. 39–48, Nov. 1987. 957
[26] J. Kotlarsky, P. C. van Fenema, and L. P. Willcocks, “Developing a 958knowledge-based perspective on coordination: The case of globally dis- 959tributed software development projects,” Inf. Manage., vol. 45, no. 2, 960pp. 96–108, 2008. 961
[27] R. Sabherwal, “The evolution of coordination in outsourced software de- 962velopment projects: A comparison of client and vendor perspectives,” Inf. 963Org., vol. 13, pp. 153–202, 2003. 964
[28] J. Kotlarsky and I. Oshri, “Social ties, knowledge sharing and successful 965collaboration in globally distributed system development projects,” Eur. 966J. Inf. Syst., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 37–48, 2005. 967
[29] J. Kotlarsky, I. Oshri, J. van Hillegersberg, and K. Kumar, “Globally 968distributed component-based software development: An exploratory study 969of knowledge management and work division,” J. Inf. Technol., vol. 22, 970no. 2, pp. 161–173, 2007. 971
[30] S. Sarker and S. Sahay, “Implications of space and time for distributed 972work: An interpretive study of US-Norwegian system development 973teams,” Eur. J. Inf. Syst., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 3–20, 2004. 974
[31] I. Oshri, J. Kotlarsky, and L. Willcocks, “Missing links: Social ties for 975global collaborative teamwork,” Commun. ACM, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 76– 97681, 2008. 977
[32] I. Oshri, J. Kotlarsky, and L. P. Willcocks, “Managing dispersed expertise 978in IT offshore outsourcing: Lessons from Tata consultancy services,” MIS 979Quart. Executive, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 53–65, 2007. 980
[33] I. Oshri, J. Kotlarsky, and L. P. Willcocks, “Global software development: 981Exploring socialization in distributed strategic projects,” J. Strategic Inf. 982Syst., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 25–49, 2007. 983
[34] I. Oshri, J. Kotlarsky, and L. P. Willcocks, “Global software development: 984Exploring socialization in distributed strategic projects,” J. Strategic Inf. 985Syst., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 25–49, 2007. 986
[35] D. M. Wegner, “A computer network model of human transactive mem- 987ory,” Soc. Cognit., vol. 13, pp. 319–339, 1995. 988
[36] K. Lewis, “Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale 989development and validation,” J. Appl. Psychol., vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 587– 990604, 2003. 991
[37] D. W. Liang, R. Moreland, and L. Argote, “Group versus individ- 992ual training and group performance: The mediating role of transac- 993tive memory,” Personality Social Psychol. Bull., vol. 21, pp. 384–393, 9941995. 995
[38] A. P. J. Ellis, “System breakdown: The role of mental models and trans- 996active memory in the relationship between acute stress and team perfor- 997mance,” Acad. Manage. J., vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 576–589, 2006. 998
[39] V. Peltokorpi, “Transactive memory systems,” Rev. General Psychol., 999vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 378–394, 2008. 1000
[40] P. Jackson and J. Klobas, “Transactive memory systems in organizations: 1001Implications for knowledge directories,” Decis. Support Syst., vol. 44, 1002no. 2, pp. 409–424, 2008. 1003
[41] D. Nevo and Y. Wand, “Organizational memory information systems: 1004A transactive memory approach,” Decis. Support Syst., vol. 39, no. 4, 1005pp. 549–562, 2005. 1006
[42] V. Anand, C. C. Manz, and W. H. Glick, “An organizational memory 1007approach to information management,” Acad. Manage. Rev., vol. 23, 1008no. 4, pp. 796–809, 1998. 1009
[43] I. Oshri, P. C. van Fenema, and J. Kotlarsky, “Knowledge transfer in 1010globally distributed teams: The role of transactive memory,” Inf. Syst. J., 1011vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 593–616, 2008. 1012
[44] F. Blackler, “Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview 1013and interpretation,” Org. Stud., vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1021–1046, 1995. 1014
IEEE
Proo
f
WILLCOCKS et al.: OUTSOURCING AND OFFSHORING ENGINEERING PROJECTS 11
[45] M. T. Hansen, N. Nohria, and T. Tierney, “What’s your strategy for man-1015aging knowledge?” Harvard Bus. Rev., vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 106–116, 1999.1016
[46] A. Majchrzak and A. Malhotra, “Virtual workspace technology use andQ8 1017knowledge-sharing effectiveness in distributed teams: The influence of a1018team’s transactive memory,” Knowl. Manage. Knowl. Base, 2004.1019
[47] D. M. Wegner, R. Erber, and P. Raymond, “Transactive memory in close1020relationships,” J. Personality Social Psychol., vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 923–929,10211991.1022
[48] D. M. Wegner, T. Guiliano, and P. T. Hertel, “Cognitive interdependence1023in close relationships,” in Compatible and Incompatible Relationships,1024W. J. Ickes, Ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1985, pp. 253–276.1025
[49] A. B. Hollingshead, “Communication, learning, and retrieval in transactive1026memory systems,” J. Exp. Social Psychol., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 423–442,10271998.1028
[50] A. B. Hollingshead, “Perceptions of expertise and transactive memory1029in work relationships,” Group Process Intergroup Relat., vol. 3, no. 3,1030pp. 257–267, 2000.1031
[51] The Matrix Reloaded—Transcript. [Online]. Available: http://www.pitt.1032edu/∼bobhaus/reloaded2.txtQ9 1033
[52] Y. Yoo and P. Kanawattanachai, “Developments of transactive memory1034systems and collective mind in virtual teams,” Int. J. Org. Anal., vol. 9,1035no. 2, pp. 187–208, 2001.1036
[53] S. Faraj and Y. Xiao, “Coordination in fast-response organizations,” Man-1037age. Sci., vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 1155–1169, 2006.1038
[54] A. Majchrzak, S. L. Jarvenpaa, and A. B. Hollingshead, “Coordinating1039expertise among emergent groups responding to disasters,” Org. Sci.,1040vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 147–161, 2007.1041
[55] R. Aron and J. V. Singh, “Getting offshoring right,” Harvard Bus. Rev.,1042vol. 83, pp. 135–143, Dec. 2005.1043
[56] J. Dibbern, T. Goles, R. Hirschheim, and B. Jayatilaka, “Information1044systems outsourcing: A survey and analysis of the literature,” Database1045Adv. Inf. Syst. Front., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 6–102, 2004.1046
[57] T. Van Willigenburg, “Understanding value as knowing how to value, and1047for what reasons,” J. Value Inquiry, vol. 38, pp. 91–104, 2004.1048
[58] I. Oshri and J. Kotlarsky, “Realising the real benefits of outsourcing,” in1049Warwick Business School Report. Coventry, U.K., 2009, pp. 1–23.1050
[59] T. Kern, L. P. Willcocks, and E. van Heck, “The winner’s curse in IT1051outsourcing: Strategies for avoiding relational trauma,” Calif. Manage.1052Rev., vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 47–69, 2002.1053
[60] I. Oshri, J. Kotlarsky, and C.-M. Liew. (2008, May 12). “Four strate-1054gies for offshore ‘captive’ centers,” The Wall Street Journal. [Online].1055Available: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121018777870174513.html?1056mod=2_1573_leftbox1057
[61] I. Oshri, Offshoring Strategies: Evolving Captive Center Models.1058Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011.1059
[62] J. B. Quinn, “Outsourcing innovation: The new engine of growth,” Sloan1060Manage. Rev., vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 13–28, 2000.
1061
Leslie Willcocks received the Ph.D. degree in infor-1062mation systems from the University of Cambridge,1063Cambridge, U.K.Q101064
He is currently a Professor of technology work1065and globalization in the Department of Management,1066London School of Economics and Political Science,1067London, U.K. He has an international reputation for1068his work on e-business, information management,1069IT evaluation, and information systems outsourcing.1070For the past 22 years, he has been the Editor-in-1071Chief of the Journal of Information Technology. He1072
is the coauthor of 33 books including most recently The Outsourcing Enter-1073prise (London, U.K.: Palgrave, 2010), Outsourcing Global Services (London,1074U.K.: Palgrave, 2008), Major Currents in Information Systems (Thousand Oaks,1075California: Sage, 2008, six volumes), and Information Systems and Outsourc-1076ing: Studies in Theory and Practice (London, U.K.: Palgrave, 2009). He has1077published more than 180 refereed papers in journals such as Harvard Business1078Review, Sloan Management Review, California Management Review, MIS Quar-1079terly, MISQ Executive, Journal of Management Studies, Public Administration,1080Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery , and Journal of1081Strategic Information Systems.1082
Dr. Willcocks is a regular Keynote Speaker at international practitioner and1083academic conferences, and has extensive consulting experience. He has also1084been an Adviser and Expert Witness for major corporations and several govern-1085ment institutions.1086
1087
Ilan Oshri received the Ph.D. degree in strate- 1088gic management and technological innovations from 1089Warwick Business School, Coventry, U.K. 1090
He is currently an Associate Professor of strategy 1091and technology management at Rotterdam School of 1092Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The 1093Netherlands. He is the author of Offshoring Strate- 1094gies: Evolving Captive Center Models (Cambridge, 1095MA: MIT Press, 2011) and the coauthor of The Hand- 1096book of Global Outsourcing and Offshoring (London, 1097U.K.: Palgrave, 2009), Managing Component-Based 1098
Development in Global Teams (London, U.K.: Palgrave, 2009), Knowledge Pro- 1099cesses in Globally Distributed Contexts (London, U.K.: Palgrave, 2008), and 1100Standards—Battles in Open Source Software (London, U.K.: Palgrave, 2008). 1101He has authored or coauthored in leading journals and numerous books. He is 1102the European Editor of the Journal of Information Technology. 1103
Dr. Oshri is the Co-Founder of the Global Sourcing Workshop. 11041105
Julia Kotlarsky is currently an Associate Professor at 1106Warwick Business School, Coventry, U.K. She is also 1107an Associate Fellow of the London School of Eco- 1108nomics Outsourcing Unit, London, U.K. She is also 1109a Visiting Faculty at Vrije University Amsterdam, 1110Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Her research inter- 1111ests include outsourcing and offshoring of services, 1112globally distributed teams, and managing knowledge. 1113She has authored or coauthored in numerous aca- 1114demic and professional journal including The Wall 1115Street Journal, Communications of the Association 1116
for Computing Machinery, European Journal of Information Systems, Journal 1117of Information Technology, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Informa- 1118tion and Management, Journal of Information Systems, MISQ Executive, Cutter 1119Consortium, and others. she is the coauthor of Knowledge Processes in Globally 1120Distributed Contexts (London, U.K.: Palgrave, 2008), The Handbook of Global 1121Outsourcing and Offshoring (London, U.K.: Palgrave, 2009) and other books. Q111122
Dr. Kotlarsky is a Regular Presenter in international conferences and con- 1123ventions. She is the Cofounder of the Annual Global Sourcing Workshop 1124(www.globalsourcing.org.uk). 1125
1126
Joseph Rottman received the D.Sc. degree in infor- 1127mation management from Washington University, St. 1128Louis, MO. Q121129
He is currently an Associate Professor of infor- 1130mation systems and a Research Fellow in the Center 1131for International Studies, University of Missouri—St. 1132Louis, MO. He is also the Director of the International 1133Business Institute, Grantham, PA, He has conducted 1134case studies in more than 40 firms and has been en- 1135gaged by Fortune 500 firms to analyze their offshore 1136strategies. He is the coauthor of Offshore Outsourc- 1137
ing of IT Work (Palgrave, London, U.K., 2008). The book details models and 1138practices IT professionals can utilize to effectively engage offshore suppliers 1139and explores emerging outsourcing markets such as rural sourcing and the Chi- 1140nese market. He has authored or coauthored in Sloan Management Review, MIS 1141Quarterly Executive, Information Systems Frontiers, Strategic Outsourcing: An 1142International Journal, IEEE Computer, the Journal of Information Technology, 1143the American Review of Public Administration and Information and Manage- 1144ment and leading practitioner outlets such as CIO Insight and the Cutter Con- 1145sortium. His research interests include global sourcing, innovation diffusion, 1146and public sector IT. 1147
Dr. Rottman received the 2006 Anheuser-Busch Excellence in Teaching 1148award. He is also the member of editorial board of MIS Quarterly Executive. In 11492009, he was a Research Fellow with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. 1150
1151
IEEE
Proo
f
QUERIES1152
Q1: Author: Please provide Department Editor name.1153
Q2. Author: Please check whether the edits made in the sentence “Researchers have identified practices and capabilities specific1154
to. . .” retain your intended sense.1155
Q3. Author: Please verify the citation of Reference [39] here.1156
Q4. Author: Please provide the complete page range in Reference [3].1157
Q5. Author: Please provide the names of all the authors in Reference [9].1158
Q6. Author: Please check whether Ref. [10] is OK as edited.1159
Q7. Author: Please provide the volume number in Reference [25], if possible and also check whether it is okay as edited.1160
Q8. Author: Please provide the volume number and page range in Ref. [46].1161
Q9. Author: Please provide the year information in Reference [51].1162
Q10. Author: Please verify whether the title of the degree of the author “Leslie Willcocks” is okay as edited.1163
Q11. Author: Please provide educational details of the author “Julia Kotlarsky.”1164
Q12. Author: Please verify whether the title of the degree of the author “Joseph Rottman” is okay as edited.1165