IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/oruesi/2005_002.html

After outsourcing – the outsourced unit: Dependence, capabilities and strategy

Author

Listed:
  • Sanner, Leif

    (Department of Business, Economics, Statistics and Informatics)

Abstract

Outsourcing is in this study defined as the transfer of responsibility and activities, including relevant assets and resources, from a user to a legally separate party, that becomes a vendor to the user. An outsourcer transfers activities to an outsourced unit. The situation of the outsourced unit becomes problematic in its provision of goods or services to both the outsourcer and other buyers. Specifically, the outsourced unit after outsourcing has ample and tight bonds to the outsourcer and there is a need to strike a balance between dependence and independence towards the outsourcer. The investigated problem reported in this article is: How can the outsourced unit strategically handle its situation after the outsourcing? Issues at stake for the outsourced unit are: How to hand le dependence on the outsourcer. How to use and develop competitive advantages, capabilities and resources. How to develop and implement business strategy. Dependence can reside in asset specificity: Relationships with the outsourcer and business partners, need for the exchange partner’s competence, joint governance systems, the relative volume of goods/services provided and/or specialization of goods/services towards the exchange partner. The structure of the market may make it more or less possible to substitute one exchange partner for another. For sustainable competitive advantage, the possession of or access to strategic capabilities and resources is needed, which the outsourced unit accumulates and deploys. The firm must meet the demand with a supply based on its capabilities and resources. The outsourced unit obviously starts with resources collected and capabilities developed by the out sourcer. It is its management’s task to identify and muster the resources and strategic capabilities of the firm. Inherited capabilities and resources may thus need to be developed into capabilities that are important for the outsourcer’s new role and position. In two in-depth cases outsourced units are studied with focus on dependence on the outsourcer, the units’ guiding competitive advantages, their capabilities and resources. Two distinct strategies are identified. A strategy of conjunction with the outsourcer is to make use of competitive advantages, align capabilities and resources towards the outsourcer’s needs and to build on dependence by holding specific assets of interest for the outsourcer. A strategy of disjunction implies reducing dependence on the outsourcer by seeking new alliances and markets outside the outsourcer-outsourced relation. Disharmony with either of the strategies is discussed as a reason for strategic change.

Suggested Citation

  • Sanner, Leif, 2005. "After outsourcing – the outsourced unit: Dependence, capabilities and strategy," Working Papers 2005:2, Örebro University, School of Business.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:oruesi:2005_002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.oru.se/globalassets/oru-sv/institutioner/hh/workingpapers/workingpapers2005/wp-2-2005.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baden-Fuller, Charles & Targett, David & Hunt, Brian, 2000. "Outsourcing to outmanoeuvre:: Outsourcing re-defines competitive strategy and structure," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 285-295, June.
    2. Johanson, Jan & Mattsson, Lars-Gunnar, 1987. "Interorganizational relations in industrial systems : a network approach compared with the transaction cost approach," Working Papers 1987:7, Uppsala University, Department of Business Studies.
    3. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    4. Shelby D. Hunt, 1997. "Resource-Advantage Theory: An Evolutionary Theory of Competitive Firm Behavior?," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1), pages 59-78, March.
    5. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Jeffrey A. Martin, 2000. "Dynamic capabilities: what are they?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1105-1121, October.
    6. Buvik, Arnt & Grønhaug, Kjell, 2000. "Inter-firm dependence, environmental uncertainty and vertical co-ordination in industrial buyer-seller relationships," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 445-454, August.
    7. Henry Mintzberg & James A. Waters, 1985. "Of strategies, deliberate and emergent," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(3), pages 257-272, July.
    8. Gianni Lorenzoni & Andrea Lipparini, 1999. "The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: a longitudinal study," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 317-338, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jan-Erik Vahlne & Jan Johanson, 2017. "From internationalization to evolution: The Uppsala model at 40 years," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 48(9), pages 1087-1102, December.
    2. Spralls, Samuel A. & Hunt, Shelby D. & Wilcox, James B., 2011. "Extranet Use and Building Relationship Capital in Interfirm Distribution Networks: The Role of Extranet Capability," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 59-74.
    3. Kazadi, Kande & Lievens, Annouk & Mahr, Dominik, 2016. "Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 525-540.
    4. Heimeriks, K. & Duysters, G.M., 2004. "A study into the alliance capability development process," Working Papers 04.21, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.
    5. Petra Andries & Dirk Czarnitzki, 2014. "Small firm innovation performance and employee involvement," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 21-38, June.
    6. Iman Seoudi & Matthias Huehn & Bo Carlsson, 2008. "Penrose Revisited: A Re-Appraisal of the Resource Perspective," Working Papers 14, The German University in Cairo, Faculty of Management Technology.
    7. Filipe J. Sousa & Luís M. de Castro, 2005. "Relationship significance: is it sufficiently explained?," FEP Working Papers 183, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
    8. Preeti Nayal & Neeraj Pandey & Justin Paul, 2022. "Covid‐19 pandemic and consumer‐employee‐organization wellbeing: A dynamic capability theory approach," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 359-390, March.
    9. Jensen, Peter D. Ørberg, 2012. "A passage to India: A dual case study of activities, processes and resources in offshore outsourcing of advanced services," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 311-326.
    10. Hong, Rebekah SungEun & Venkataramani, Vijaya & Yang, Mengxi, 2025. "The double-edged sword of endorsing external ideas: Juggling competitive advantage and organizational compatibility concerns," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    11. Laura Gavinelli & Cinzia Colapinto & Mariangela Zenga & Paola Chiodini, 2016. "Strategic choices in recessionary period: an exploration on italian smes," MERCATI & COMPETITIVIT?, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(3), pages 135-158.
    12. Gerwin, Donald, 2006. "Buyer-vendor relations for components: The extreme example of custom integrated circuits," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 673-690, June.
    13. Manish Popli & Ashutosh Sinha, 2014. "Determinants of early movers in cross-border merger and acquisition wave in an emerging market: A study of Indian firms," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 1075-1099, December.
    14. Frédéric, DALSACE & Nicola C., DRAGONETTI & Karel, COOL, 2003. "A comparative Test of the Efficiency, focus and Learning Perspectives of Outsourcing," HEC Research Papers Series 776, HEC Paris.
    15. Henri, Jean-Francois, 2006. "Management control systems and strategy: A resource-based perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 529-558, August.
    16. Molden, Lars Hovdan & Clausen, Tommy Hoyvarde, 2021. "Playing 3D chess, or how firms can thrive under complexity: The mediating role of innovation capabilities in the use of innovation input," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 1-13.
    17. Stoelhorst, J. W. & van Raaij, Erik M., 2004. "On explaining performance differentials: Marketing and the managerial theory of the firm," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(5), pages 462-477, May.
    18. Hung, Richard Yu Yuan & Yang, Baiyin & Lien, Bella Ya-Hui & McLean, Gary N. & Kuo, Yu-Ming, 2010. "Dynamic capability: Impact of process alignment and organizational learning culture on performance," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 285-294, July.
    19. Lin, Hai-Fen & Su, Jing-Qin & Higgins, Angela, 2016. "How dynamic capabilities affect adoption of management innovations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 862-876.
    20. Wang, Guangping & Dou, Wenyu & Zhu, Weichun & Zhou, Nan, 2015. "The effects of firm capabilities on external collaboration and performance: The moderating role of market turbulence," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(9), pages 1928-1936.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • M10 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:oruesi:2005_002. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ieoruse.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.