paperdownload.me€¦ · web viewaccepted manuscript. title: outsourcing customer support: the role...
TRANSCRIPT
Accepted Manuscript
Title: outsourcing customer support: the role OF PROVIDER CUSTOMER FOCUS
Author: Stefan Wuyts Aric Rindfleisch Alka Citrin
PII:DOI:Reference:
S0272-6963(14)00072-2 http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jom.2014.10.004 OPEMAN 881
To appear in: OPEMAN
Please cite this article as: outsourcing customer support: the role OF PROVIDER CUSTOMER FOCUS, Journal of Operations Management (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.10.004
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
OUTSOURCING CUSTOMER SUPPORT: THE ROLE OF PROVIDER CUSTOMER FOCUS
May 20, 2014
Stefan Wuytsa
aKoç University & Tilburg University Koç University, Rumelifeneri Yolu, 34450 Sariyer, Istanbul, Turkey Tel. +90 212 338 1376; Email: [email protected]
Aric Rindfleischb
bUniversity of IllinoisCollege of Business, 383 Wohlers Hall, 1206 South Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820
Email: [email protected]
Alka Citrinc
cGeorgia Institute of TechnologyErnest Scheller Jr. College of Business, 800 West Peachtree Street NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Email: [email protected]
0
Page 1 of 62
OUTSOURCING CUSTOMER SUPPORT: THE ROLE OF PROVIDER CUSTOMER FOCUS
ABSTRACT
An increasing number of firms are outsourcing customer support to external service providers. This creates a triadic setting in which an outsourcing provider serves end customers on behalf of its clients. While outsourcing presents an opportunity to serve customers, service providers differ in their motivation and ability to fulfill customer needs. Prior research suggests that firms with a strong customer focus have an intrinsic motivation to address customer needs. We suggest that in an outsourcing context, this intrinsic motivation does not suffice. Using a Motivation-Opportunity-Ability framework, we posit that the effect of a provider's customer focus will be moderated by a set of relational, firm, and customer characteristics that affect its ability to serve end customers. We test our conceptualization among 171 outsourcing clients from the Netherlands and then validate these results among 135 Indian outsourcing providers. The findings reveal that customer-focused providers achieve higher levels of customer need fulfillment but this effect is contingent on their ability to serve end customers. In particular, customer-focused providers more effectively fulfill customer needs when clients and providers share close relational ties, when clients also have a high level of customer focus, and when end customer needs exhibit a low degree of turbulence. In addition, we find that, in turbulent markets, equipment-related services offer greater opportunity for effective customer need fulfillment than other outsourced services.
Keywords: outsourcing, service triads, customer support, customer focus
1
Page 2 of 62
1. INTRODUCTION
In order to lower costs and enhance competitiveness, an increasing number of firms are
outsourcing a variety of customer support services traditionally conducted internally, including
equipment services such as installation, maintenance, and repair, distribution services such as
logistics and transportation, and other client services such as training and system integration. This
trend has attracted considerable attention from the popular press, which has identified outsourcing
as one of the most important economic developments of this century (Economist, 2013; Friedman,
2005; Gottfredson et al., 2005). Outsourcing is experiencing tremendous growth due to the rapid
advances in information technology and an increasing pool of educated workers across a number
of developing countries, including India, China, and Malaysia (Garten, 2004; Lohr, 2006). In
particular, the market for outsourced customer support services is growing steadily and is expected
to reach $81.3 billion by 2018 (IDC, 2014). Several well-known companies such as IBM,
Barclays, and T-Mobile have recently outsourced customer service functions to external providers
(Cellular News, 2008; ComputerWeekly, 2011; Raassens et al., 2014; Time, 2009).
The phenomenon of customer support outsourcing is intrinsically triadic in nature: an
outsourcing provider delivers support to end customers on behalf of a client firm. Unfortunately,
outsourcing firms appear to have difficulty managing the complexities of triadic exchange and
often focus on immediate cost savings while overlooking outsourcing’s hidden costs (Ren and
Zhou, 2008). On the academic side, supply chain, operations management, and marketing
scholars have identified triadic exchange as a topic of considerable academic interest (e.g., Choi
and Wu, 2009; Gunawardane, 2012; Wathne and Heide, 2004; Wuyts et al., 2004). Thus, the
triadic nature of outsourcing is an important topic for both scholars and practitioners. Prior
2
Page 3 of 62
studies have examined the triadic nature of customer service outsourcing and have developed
theoretical expositions of these service triads primarily inspired by agency theory (Gunawardane,
2012; Tate et al., 2010; van der Valk and van Iwaarden, 2011). According to this perspective,
outsourced customer support creates an agency situation: the provider (agent) acts on the client’s
(principal) behalf, which carries the risk of moral hazard.
We seek to enrich and extend this body of research, starting from the baseline expectation
that an outsourcing provider’s degree of customer focus reduces this motivational hazard, and
hence, enhances customer need fulfillment. We define customer need fulfillment as an outsourcing
provider’s performance in terms of addressing end customer needs through information provision,
service support, and problem solution. We then hypothesize that even a motivated provider is not
necessarily able to fulfill end customer needs. We also examine the degree to which certain
services provide a better opportunity for improved customer need fulfillment through outsourcing.
Our conceptual lens is informed by the Motivation-Ability-Opportunity (MOA) framework and
employs a contingency perspective (Boudreau et al., 2003; MacInnis et al., 1991). In brief, we
suggest that while an outsourcing arrangement provides an opportunity for effective customer need
fulfillment, the degree to which this opportunity is realized depends upon both a provider’s
motivation and ability to serve its client’s customers.
Specifically, we argue that customer-focused service providers are better motivated to
serve end customers than service providers that lack this focus (Deshpandé et al., 1993; Franke
and Park, 2006). Customer focus, the central element of a market orientation, refers to the
institutionalization of firm-based processes that strategically leverage information about
customers (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990, p. 3). These “customer-focused” processes include the
3
Page 4 of 62
collection, interpretation, analysis, and dissemination of customer information and reflect a
provider’s intrinsic motivation to address customer needs (Cadogan and Diamantopoulos, 1995).
We also suggest that the strength of the relationship between a provider’s customer focus
and customer need fulfillment is contingent on the provider’s ability to serve end customers. Our
key assertion is that customer-focused service providers are better able to serve end customers if
they have access to customer insight. We propose that this ability is a function of (1) the relational
tie between provider and client (which enhances the accessibility of customer insight),
(2) the degree to which a client itself is customer-focused (which reflects the availability of customer
insight), and (3) market turbulence (which increases the obsolescence of customer insight). In sum, we
expect that relational tie, a client’s customer focus, and market turbulence moderate the relationship between
provider customer focus and customer need fulfillment. In addition, as a follow-up analysis, we explore the
possibility that certain services provide greater opportunity for successful customer need fulfillment via
outsourcing. In particular, we distinguish between equipment-related services (i.e., installation, maintenance,
and repair) versus other types of support services.
We test our conceptual model via a survey study among 171 outsourcing clients from the
Netherlands, a country where many firms have outsourced customer service activities to external
providers (Computerworld, 2004; Mol, 2007). The results of this study confirm our expectation
that provider customer focus is associated with higher levels of customer need fulfillment and
provide strong support for our MOA framework and contingency perspective. The results are
robust across alternative methods and various model specifications. As a means of providing
added verification, we conduct a validation study among 135 outsourcing providers in India. The
results of this study lend additional support for our conceptualization.
4
Page 5 of 62
Theoretically, our research contributes to the literature on service triads by developing and
validating a conceptual framework, grounded in the Motivation-Ability-Opportunity framework,
which encompasses characteristics of outsourcing clients, providers, and end customers, and
distinguishes between different types of services. Among our insights, we find that customer-
focused providers deliver better service toward end customers if their upstream tie to a client firm
is strong. We also find that end customers benefit less from a provider’s customer focus under
conditions of higher market turbulence, however this moderating effect does not apply for clients
outsourcing the installation, maintenance or repair of equipment, as these physical assets appear
rather immune to market fluctuations. Our research also contributes to the market orientation
literature by examining the effect of customer focus on customer need fulfillment in a triadic
outsourcing setting where relevant customer insight resides with a client firm rather than the
service provider. Managerially, our research provides outsourcing firms with a set of actionable
recommendations regarding partner selection and relationship management. For example, our
results suggest that a customer-focused provider can more effectively address customer needs
when its client firm is also customer-focused.
2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Customer Support Outsourcing
We define outsourcing as the external delivery of a business activity that a firm used to (or
could have) perform(ed) internally. Firms have outsourced a variety of activities such as
advertising and production dating back to the dawn of the industrial era (Davis, 2004; Lonsdale
and Cox, 2000). In recent years, outsourcing has expanded considerably beyond these traditional
domains, as rapid and significant technological advances in communications (e.g., satellites, fiber
optics, email, instant messaging, and teleconferencing) have reduced the barriers of geographic
5
Page 6 of 62
distance (Liu et al., 2011; Metters and Verma, 2008). Our focus is on the outsourcing of customer
support services (e.g., installation, maintenance, transportation, user training, technical support,
etc.), which are increasingly being conducted by firms in developing economies such as China and
India due to both their large educated workforces and favorable labor costs (Hagel, 2004; Metters
and Verma, 2008).
The phenomenon of outsourcing customer support services differs fundamentally from
outsourcing other services such as IT or advertising, as it creates a triadic situation where a client
firm calls upon an external agent to deliver customer support to end customers. This setting entails
significant risk: if customers are dissatisfied with a provider’s service delivery, they may develop
an unfavorable perception about the client firm, engage in negative word-of-mouth, and possibly
terminate their relationship (Thelen and Shapiro, 2012). Hence, it is crucial that an outsourcing
service provider is both motivated and able to effectively fulfill end customer needs.
2.2 Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability as an Organizing Framework
The MOA perspective has served as a useful organizing framework for understanding
knowledge-sharing and information-processing behaviors across a variety of organizational
settings (e.g. Argote et al., 2003; Boudreau et al., 2003; MacInnis et al., 1991; Siemsen et al.,
2008). According to this theoretical perspective, motivation captures willingness to act,
opportunity refers to the contextual factors that surround an action, and ability represents skills or
knowledge bases related to an action (Boudreau et al., 2003; Siemsen et al., 2008). The MOA
framework has been used to explain not only individual behavior, but also organizational action
(e.g., Clark et al., 2005; Wu et al., 2004).
While our theory development and hypotheses focus on motivation and ability, we also
explore the impact of opportunity as part of our analysis. Specifically, we propose that a
6
Page 7 of 62
provider’s customer focus is an indicator of its motivation to serve end customers. However, the
effect of provider customer focus upon customer need fulfillment is contingent upon a provider’s
ability to serve end customers. This contingency approach is congruent with prior application of
the MOA framework in other information processing contexts. For example, MacInnis et al.
(1991) adopted the MOA framework to better explain differences among consumers in their level
of processing of brand information. They argue that the availability and accessibility of relevant
knowledge structures “provide the foundation for processing ability” (p. 34). In accord with this
perspective, we identify contingency variables that are specifically related to the provider’s
availability and accessibility of customer-related insights.
2.3 Customer Focus and Contingency Variables
While most firms acknowledge the importance of their customers, firms with a strong
customer focus have strongly-held institutionalized processes and procedures directed toward
understanding customers and addressing their needs. We extend previous work on the importance
of customer focus in inter-organizational settings (e.g., Langerak, 2001; Rindfleisch and Moorman,
2003; Saparito et al., 2004; Siguaw et al., 1998) by adopting a triadic (outsourcing) perspective.
The involvement of a third party (i.e., a provider firm) creates a triadic context which generates the
question: How does a provider’s (rather than a client’s) focus on end-customers impact the quality
of its service delivery? We seek to answer this question by first formulating the baseline
hypothesis that a provider’s customer focus increases customer need fulfillment. The key argument
for this hypothesis is that a customer-focused provider is better motivated to serve end customers.
Then we proceed with a set of contingency hypotheses and introduce moderators that influence a
provider’s ability to access relevant customer insight.
7
Page 8 of 62
Due to the embedded nature of customer insights and the difficulty of transferring tacit
customer knowledge (Gebhardt et al., 2006; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Li and Calantone, 1998),
provider customer focus is highly dependent upon the nature of its relationship with a client firm.
The relational dimension of customer focus is a manifestation of Afuah’s (2000) notion of critical
knowledge resources residing with external network partners. In a similar vein, Min et al. (2007)
discuss the importance for market-oriented firms to access information that resides with supply
chain partners. According to both Afuah (2000) and Burt (2000), accessibility, availability, and
imperishability determine the value of external knowledge resources. These three key
characteristics serve as the basis for the selection of our three contingency variables: the
collaborative nature of the client-provider tie is indicative of the accessibility of customer insight;
client customer focus is indicative of the availability of customer insight; and market turbulence is
indicative of its perishability. Figure 1 visualizes our conceptual framework.
2.4 Hypotheses
2.4.1 The Main Effect of Provider Customer Focus
Since the early 1990s, a sizeable body of research suggests that firms with a strong
customer focus engender high levels of customer satisfaction (Kirca et al., 2005). The fact that
these firms have institutionalized processes for acquiring and disseminating information about end
customers indicates their intrinsic, strategic motivation to address customer needs (Deshpandé et
al., 1993; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Moorman, 1995). Thus, customer focus should be a highly
desirable trait when selecting service providers for outsourced customer support, as their intrinsic
motivation to serve customers likely translates into better customer need fulfillment. Hence, we
offer the following baseline hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. Provider customer focus is positively related to customer need fulfillment.
8
Page 9 of 62
2.4.2 Moderators of this Baseline Relationship
Relational Tie. Although a customer focus may motivate a service provider to deliver
effective customer service, it does not guarantee that a provider is able to effectively serve a
client’s customers. An external service provider needs to adapt its processes to the particular needs
and preferences of the end customers of each client that it serves. Therefore, the impact of a
provider’s customer focus upon customer need fulfillment is likely to depend upon its upstream tie
to its client firm. Handley and Benton (2009) identified the creation of a close relational tie
through collaboration and commitments as a crucial building block for effective outsourcing
relationship management. Likewise, the organizational knowledge literature has demonstrated that
relational ties facilitate the generation and sharing of knowledge, such as market insight (Argote et
al., 2003; Uzzi and Lancaster, 2003).
A growing number of studies in the inter - organizational relationship domain suggest that
relational norms and feelings of interconnectedness stimulate cooperation across a wide array of
contexts (e.g., Hansen, 1999; Johnson et al., 2004; Rindfleisch and Moorman, 2001). Relational
ties also enhance expectations of mutual disclosure, and thus, facilitate knowledge transfer
(Hansen, 1999; Szulanski, 1997; Wuyts et al., 2004). For example, Darr et al. (1995) find that
embedded know-how is more easily transferred between firms that share relational ties. The
disclosure and transfer of embedded knowledge provides a basis for an outsourcing provider to
learn about its client’s customers. In addition, a strong relational tie also facilitates new
knowledge creation (Argote et al., 2003). Strong relational ties between client and provider may
also help generate new market insight through the combination of the provider’s marketplace
experiences and the client’s knowledge on customer needs and preferences.
9
Page 10 of 62
In summary, relational ties increase the provider’s ability to fulfill customer needs because
they facilitate the creation and transfer of customer insight. In keeping with the multiplicative
nature of the MOA framework (Blumberg and Pringle, 1982), customer-focused providers (who
are intrinsically and strategically motivated to address customer needs) should be more effective at
customer need fulfillment for triadic service relations characterized by strong relational ties
between client and provider versus those with weaker relational ties. Thus, we suggest that:
Hypothesis 2. The relational nature of the client-provider tie strengthens the positive effect of provider customer focus on customer need fulfillment.
Client Customer Focus. Thus far, our conceptualization has assumed that a client firm is
motivated and equipped to interact and share customer insight with its outsourcing service
provider. In reality, client firms vary in terms of their motivation to serve customers and in their
level of embedded customer knowledge. Much like providers, client firms differ in terms of their
degree of customer focus. Customer-focused client firms continuously gather detailed information
about customers and adapt their internal processes to better suit customer needs (Franke and Park,
2006). Gradually, these processes becomes tacitly embedded into an organization’s culture, belief
systems, and decision-making processes (Deshpandé et al., 1993; Gebhart et al., 2006). We suggest
that because an outsourcing provider typically lacks this type of embedded knowledge about its
client’s customer base, it is strongly dependent upon its client to serve as its coach and mentor.
Client firms that lack a strong customer focus are likely to have low levels of embedded customer
knowledge and routines, and hence, are unlikely to effectively enact this role. In essence, providers
are better able to realize effective customer need fulfillment if their client firm is customer-focused
since customer-focused clients can be a source of
10
Page 11 of 62
embedded customer knowledge. Again in line with the multiplicative nature of the MOA
framework, we suggest that:
Hypothesis 3. A client’s customer focus strengthens the positive effect of provider customer focus on customer need fulfillment.
Market Turbulence. Market turbulence refers to the “rate of change in the composition of
customers and their preferences” (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993, p. 57). Rapidly changing end
customer preferences can quickly turn previously acquired customer insights obsolete (Danneels
and Sethi, 2011). Hence, while a customer-focused provider is intrinsically motivated and
institutionally equipped to accumulate and disseminate customer insight, a high level of market
turbulence can greatly reduce the value of previously acquired customer knowledge. Danneels and
Sethi (2011) find that market scanning and customer need prediction are considerably less
effective under volatile customer environments. Likewise, the organizational learning literature
suggests that managers view volatile environments as harder to analyze and tend to interpret
external information in a more ad hoc manner (Daft and Weick, 1984). Institutionalized processes
for gathering and disseminating customer insight mirror what Gnyawali and Stewart (2003) refer
to as the “informational mode of learning,” which, they argue, allows for fine-tuning preexisting
knowledge but reinforces existing schemas. Hence, learning activities, such as the processes
inherent to a customer focus, are likely to be less effective in volatile environments where
accumulated knowledge is less valuable. Environmental volatility thus reduces a provider’s ability
to effectively deploy its internal processes to address customer needs. Since effective customer
need fulfillment is contingent on the provider’s motivation as well as ability to address customer
needs, the baseline effect of the provider’s customer focus on customer need fulfillment should be
weaker under conditions of high market turbulence. Hence, we hypothesize:
11
Page 12 of 62
Hypothesis 4. Market turbulence weakens the positive effect of provider customer focus on customer need fulfillment.
3. EMPIRICAL STUDY AMONG DUTCH OUTSOURCING CLIENTS
We empirically tested our conceptual framework among outsourcing clients (across
several manufacturing industries) in the Netherlands. We selected the Netherlands as the context
for our inquiry because it is a prototypical example of a high-income country where firms
increasingly outsource business activities (Mol, 2007). Indeed, previous research has found that
the outsourcing trend in the Netherlands, and the factors driving it, is highly similar to other
countries (Kotabe and Mol, 2009; Mol, 2007). A focus on one country also minimizes potential
biases due to unobserved extraneous factors (such as culture, regulation, or macro-economic
conditions). In the remainder of this section, we detail our data collection, measurement, and
psychometric assessment. We then explain our analysis and discuss our results.
3.1 Method
3.1.1 Subjects and Procedures
The subjects for our study were carefully selected using a multistep approach. Our first task
was to construct a list of potential participants. Prior research suggests that many customer service-
outsourcing clients reside in the manufacturing sector (Lei, 2007). Thus, to reduce unobserved
heterogeneity and enhance comparability, we focus on manufacturing industries (SIC codes 29-
33). We restrict this study to the Netherlands to further control for extraneous influences and
increase comparability across the firms in our study. We began our sampling procedure by
examining the Reach database of Bureau van Dijk, which provides industry, contact, and other
information for over 400,000 Dutch firms (e.g., Wuyts, 2007).
From this database, we composed a list of all Dutch firms that are active in SIC codes 29-
33 and have at least 10 employees. We selected this cutoff because firms with fewer than 10
12
Page 13 of 62
employees are typically entrepreneurial start-ups that are less likely to be engaged in strategic
outsourcing. This cutoff level is in line with the classification by the European Union which
distinguishes these very small firms as a separate category (i.e., “micro-firms”1). We then
contacted the resulting 1186 firms to identify eligible respondents and seek their participation. To
be eligible for this study, a firm had to affirm that it outsources at least a portion of its customer
support services (and the respondent must be responsible for managing this outsourced service).
Through this process, we identified 713 eligible respondents. Each of these eligible respondents
received an introductory letter and an email that contained the link to an on-line survey. As an
incentive, we promised to donate €5 to a charity of the respondent’s choice.
Of the 713 eligible respondents, 181 participated, for a response rate of 25%. This
response rate compares favorably with prior surveys on related topics such as customer
orientation and organizational capabilities (e.g., Johnson et al., 2004; Rindfleisch and Moorman,
2003). Ten respondents were excluded because of excessive missing data, leaving a final sample
of 171 client firms. To verify the efficacy or our key informant approach (Campbell, 1955), we
measured the respondent’s knowledge on the outsourced customer service on a 7-point knowledge
scale: the average score was 5.5 and the scale exhibited little variance (Std Dev =
1.2). Our sample characteristics also suggest that our approach was successful, as over 80% of our
respondents occupied senior management positions such as managing director or chief executive
officer and over 80% of the responding firms outsourced installation, maintenance and repair,
system integration, and/or logistics services (see Table 1 for more details on the sample firms). In
addition, we compared participating firms with non-participating firms on several firm descriptors
reported in the Reach database (such as firm size and financial measures) but found
1 http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/other/n26001_en.htm
13
Page 14 of 62
no significant differences (p > .05). Thus, we believe that our respondents were well qualified
and that non-response bias is not a significant concern.
3.1.2 Measures
Our survey began by asking respondents to identify a specific customer support activity for
one of their major products or services currently outsourced to an external provider. Respondents
were then asked to evaluate the primary outsourcing provider of this activity across a broad
number of dimensions, including their degree of customer focus and customer need fulfillment.
Because this survey was directed at respondents located in the Netherlands, it was administered in
Dutch. In order to ensure proper translation, we first drafted our survey in English, translated it
into Dutch, and then back-translated it into English using two native Dutch speakers who are
fluent in English (Brislin, 1970). This procedure revealed a few minor wording discrepancies,
which were easily rectified.
We assessed our dependent variable, customer need fulfillment, using a new four-item
scale. The first two items are adapted from Kumar et al.’s (1992, p. 252) measure of customer
satisfaction with service delivery (reflecting a provider’s provision of information and solutions to
end customers); we then created two additional items that reflect the provider’s success in terms of
addressing customer needs. Since customer focus is the central tenet of a market orientation (Kohli
and Jaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1990), we assessed provider (client) customer focus using a
subset of four items from Kohli et al.’s (1993) market orientation scale. In accordance with our
conceptualization, we selected items that relate to the generation and dissemination of customer
knowledge. We measure client-provider relational tie using an adapted four-item version of
Rindfleisch and Moorman’s (2003) relational embeddedness scale. Finally,
14
Page 15 of 62
we measured market turbulence using three items proposed by Jaworski and Kohli (1993) that
assess customer preference changes across time.
We also control for a number of variables. First, we control for a provider’s resources to
support service delivery by assessing its level of financial (availability of funds), human (employee
knowledge, technical support), physical (infrastructure), and technological (technology to support
service delivery) resources. Prior research suggests that these types of resources influence a firm’s
ability to develop and deploy its capabilities (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). Second, we control for
the propensity of client and provider firms to share information on operational issues (i.e.,
operational information sharing). Sharing operational information and solving operational
problems as they occur could contribute to the quality of customer service delivery and may be
correlated with our relational tie measure. Third, we control for clients’ strategic outsourcing
objectives by asking how important such factors as accessing new skills and enhancing the quality
of service delivery were in their decision to outsource. Fourth, we control for the size of the client
firm (measured by the log of the number of employees). Fifth, to control for potential unobserved
differences caused by the location of outsourcing providers, we include a set of provider country
dummy variables2. Sixth, we control for the nature of the outsourced customer support services
(identified by the respondents) by categorizing them into equipment-related services (i.e., services
for industrial machinery such as installation, maintenance, and repair) versus other types of client
support services (e.g., training and software support, system integration, logistics).
2 The provider firms are located in the following countries (because of missing observations, this list may not be exhaustive): Argentina, Belgium, China, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, South-Korea, Spain, Taiwan, United Kingdom, and United States. For reasons of parsimony, we only retained the significant country dummy variables in the reported models.
15
Page 16 of 62
3.1.3 Psychometric Assessment
We began the psychometric assessment of our key measures by first assessing their
dimensionality. We formed a CFA model that specified each item as loading on its intended latent
construct while allowing these constructs to co-vary. The fit indexes for this model met or
exceeded recommended levels (CFI = .90, NNFI = .90, RMSEA = .06), and all items displayed
strong loadings on their latent constructs (average loadings: provider customer focus = .74; client
customer focus =.72; customer need fulfillment = .78; relational tie = .77; market turbulence =
.71; provider resources = .68; operational information sharing = .71; strategic objective = .76). In
addition, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) calculations for all of these latent constructs were
at or above the recommended level of .50. We also calculated the Cronbach Alpha reliability
measures for each construct and found that all exceeded the recommended standard (range: .75
to .86). See Measurement Appendix A for the Cronbach Alpha values per construct and the
loadings for each individual item. See Table 2 for descriptive statistics and correlations for our key
measures.
We tested the discriminant validity of these measures by employing Fornell and Larcker’s
(1981) test of shared variance between pairs of latent constructs. The results of this test reveal that
the squared correlations between construct pairs do not exceed the average variance extracted for
any single latent construct. Thus, our key measures display adequate discriminant validity.
We assessed potential common method variance (CMV) using the marker variable technique
recommended by both Lindell and Whitney (2001) and Malhotra et al. (2006). Essentially, this
approach attempts to control for CMV bias by identifying a marker variable that is theoretically
unrelated to at least one variable in the study. In our survey, we included the item “price
competition is the hallmark of our industry,” which is theoretically unrelated to the
16
Page 17 of 62
provider’s degree of customer focus (a key construct in our conceptual framework). This item was
measured on a 7-point Likert scale identical to the scales used for our key constructs and was
embedded in the survey instrument, in-between items that measured market turbulence and client
customer focus. Its correlation with provider customer focus was .03. We discounted this level of
correlation from all of the dataset’s other correlations, adopting the formula and corresponding t-
statistic proposed by Malhotra et al. (2006, p.1868):
and
where is the adjusted correlation coefficient, is the correlation of the marker variable (price
competition) with the theoretically unrelated construct (provider customer focus), and is the
uncorrected (observed) correlation. A comparison of the adjusted correlations and the uncorrected
correlations did not indicate any changes in significance. For example, the full correlation between
provider customer focus and customer need fulfillment was .43 (p < .01), while the discounted
correlation was .42 (p < .01) . Hence, it appears that our results are not confounded by CMV bias3.
This finding is congruent with a growing body of evidence that suggests that the degree of CMV
bias is often quite low in organizational research (e.g., Doty and Glick, 1998; Malholtra et al.,
2006; Rindfleisch et al., 2008).
In order to further validate our perceptual measure of customer need fulfillment, we asked
respondents to report two objective indicants of effective customer need fulfillment (i.e., the
number of monthly customer complaints received about the service provider and the average time
the service provider takes to respond to a customer request). Both objective indicants were
3 We also considered an alternative marker variable, namely an item measuring the ease with which a competing firm’s products can be imitated by others in the client’s industry. This marker variable is conceptually unrelated to our control variable “provider resources” (i.e., the quality of the provider’s resources relative to other potential providers). The observed correlation is .02. Following the same procedures described above, we arrive at a similar conclusion: the pattern of significant adjusted correlations is identical to the pattern of significant observed correlations.
17
Page 18 of 62
negatively correlated with our measure of customer need fulfillment (monthly complaints: r =
-.20, p < .05; response time: r = -.32, p < .01). This pattern of results provides additional
(criterion-related) validity for this measure. These objective indicants are unrelated to the
provider’s customer focus, which underscores the conceptual and empirical difference between
provider customer focus (motivation to perform) and customer need fulfillment (performance).
3.2 Findings
We tested our hypotheses by employing a nested series of multiple regression analyses
(Narasimhan et al., 2013; Stouthuysen et al., 2012). For each of these models, our dependent
variable is our measure of customer need fulfillment. For this as well as our other multi-item
measures, we employed their factor scores in order to account for differences across individual
item loadings upon their underlying construct4. To verify the normality of the dependent variable,
we conducted a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, which did not reject the null-hypothesis of normality.
We compared the fit of each of these nested regression models using their corresponding F-
statistics (see Table 3). Model 1 only includes an intercept and the control variables. Model 2 adds
the main effect of provider customer focus, which does not significantly improve model fit (p
> .05). However, Model 3, which also includes the main effects of the four moderator variables
resulted in a significant improvement in model fit (p < .01). Adding the hypothesized interaction
effects between the three moderating variables and provider customer focus (Model
4), further improves model fit (p < .01). In summary, results across the various models are quite
consistent, and Model 4 (the proposed model) is superior to the more constrained Models 1, 2, and
3. Thus, our findings reported below are based on the results of Model 4. We tested for multi-
collinearity in Model 4 and observed a maximum variance inflation factor of 2.04, which is
4 Using item averages rather than factor scores did not alter signs and significance levels of the reported findings.
18
Page 19 of 62
well below the threshold value of 10 (Mason and Perreault, 1991). We also assessed an additional
model (Model 5), which we discuss in Section 3.3.3.
We now turn to the interpretation of the regression results reported in Model 4.
Interestingly, the main effect of provider customer focus on customer need fulfillment is not
significant (β = .02, p > .10), thereby rejecting Hypothesis 1. However, we find that the effect of
provider customer focus is contingent upon the relational nature of the client-provider tie, in
support of Hypothesis 2. As predicted, strong relational ties enhance the positive effect of provider
customer focus on customer need fulfillment (β = .09, p < .05). The first graph in Figure 2 portrays
this effect. Following Yan and Dooley (2013), we set the “low” and “high” levels of the moderator
(in this case, relational tie) at its extreme values observed in the sample (thereby assuring that the
reported simple slopes are within the boundaries of the sample). To determine the significance of
the simple slopes, we calculate their standard errors according to the procedures outlined by Aiken
and West (1991) . We observe that provider customer focus increases customer need fulfillment at
high levels of relational tie, but decreases customer need fulfillment at low levels of relational tie5.
We also find support for Hypothesis 3 since the effect of a provider’s customer focus on customer
need fulfillment is stronger when the client firm also has a strong customer focus (β = .20, p
< .01). As shown in the second graph in Figure 2, provider customer focus increases customer
need fulfillment at high levels of client customer focus but decreases customer need fulfillment at
low levels of client customer focus. Finally, the findings support Hypothesis 4, as the effect of
provider customer focus is weakened under conditions of higher market turbulence (β = -.12, p
< .05). As displayed in the third graph in
5 All six simple slopes calculated according to the extreme-value approach outlined above, and visualized in Figure 2, are significant at 5% level (using two-sided tests).
19
Page 20 of 62
Figure 2, at high/low levels of market turbulence, a high degree of provider customer focus is
harmful/beneficial.
In terms of the direct effects of the moderating variables, we only find a positive effect for
relational tie (β = .25, p < .01). Among the control variables, we find a marginally significant
effect for provider resources (β = .11, p < .10), and significant effects for operational information
sharing (β = .20, p < .01) and strategic objective (β = .15, p < .05). Finally, compared to service
providers from other countries, service providers from China, the Czech Republic, and Italy appear
significantly less successful at fulfilling end customer needs whereas providers from Ireland and
the UK are significantly more successful.
3.3 Additional Analyses
Below we report on the robustness of our findings across alternative model specifications
as well as an estimation using structural equations modeling. In addition, we extend Model 4,
which is based on motivation and ability arguments, by incorporating variation in terms of
opportunity across different types of outsourcing services.
3.3.1 Alternative Model Specifications with Additional Covariates
We examined the robustness of our findings by re-estimating our regression analysis after
including a number of additional covariates. First, given the transactional nature of outsourcing,
we included transaction-related covariates such as environmental uncertainty, behavioral
uncertainty, and transaction-specific investments and then re-estimated the model (Williamson,
1985). The results of this re-specified model closely matched the results reported above. Second,
we considered the possibility that operational information sharing (one of our controls) may
mediate our hypothesized moderation effects. Formal mediation analyses indicate that this variable
partially mediates the interaction between provider customer focus and relational tie but
20
Page 21 of 62
not the other two ability-based interactions. Moreover, the resulting direct effect of the interaction
of provider customer focus and relational tie remains significant (and the size of the interaction
effect is reduced by only 17%) after including operational information sharing in the regression.
Third, we re-estimated our model by including industry fixed effects but none of these effects were
significant. Fourth, we re-estimated our model by including the length (log-transformed) of the
client-provider relationship (in terms of months). Because of missing values, we could only
estimate this model for 140 observations. The results closely match the results for our full sample
analysis (i.e., Model 4). We also specified a model that added two-way interaction effects between
relationship length and both provider and client customer focus as well as the three-way interaction
effect between relationship length and provider and client customer focus. None of these
interaction effects were significant.
In summary, none of these alternative specifications (1) flow directly from our developed
theory, (2) alter our key findings, or (3) provide additional insights. Thus, our baseline results (i.e.,
Model 4) appear to demonstrate a considerable degree of empirical robustness.
3.3.2 Structural Equations Model
As an additional validation assessment, we also tested our conceptual framework using a
Structural Equations Modeling (SEM) approach following the procedures developed by Mathieu et
al. (1992) and detailed by Cortina et al. (2001). Specifically, this approach tests moderated
relationships in SEM by adjusting the observed predictor variables (i.e., provider customer focus,
relational tie, client customer focus, and market turbulence) and their interactions by the square
root of their reliabilities. These adjusted variables were entered into a model in which customer
need fulfillment was the dependent variable, along with the control variables employed in our
regression analysis. In addition, this model accounted for item error by estimating the loadings of
21
Page 22 of 62
the items for customer need fulfillment, provider resources, operational information sharing, and
strategic objective. As in our regression analysis, we employed a nested approach by first
estimating a model that included only the direct effects and controls (i.e., Model I) and then
estimating a second model that added the moderation effects (Model II). The chi-square for Model
II (χ2(df =360) = 1074) is significantly lower than the chi-square for Model I (χ2(df =363)
= 1096). This result is congruent with the results of our nested regression analysis and provides additional
support for our moderated model in general. The detailed results for Model II are displayed in Appendix C
and replicate all results found in our regression model. In sum, the SEM analysis provides added validation
for the pattern of findings reported in regression Model 4.
3.3.3 Variation in Opportunity: Distinguishing between Customer Support Services
Our conceptual framework focused on variations in motivation (i.e., provider customer
focus) and ability (i.e., relational tie, client customer focus, and market turbulence). As noted
earlier, outsourcing customer support to an external provider can be viewed as an opportunity to
enhance customer need fulfillment. Thus, as a means of exploring the role of opportunity, we
analyzed potential differences in customer need fulfillment across variations in customer support
services6. Specifically, we divided our sample into two types of outsourced services: (1)
equipment-related services and (2) all other customer support services. In contrast to other types of
outsourced services, equipment-related services such as installation, maintenance, and repair are
strongly tied to physical assets (Goffin and New, 2001). Thus, these services are less likely to be
susceptible to changing customer preferences. Hence, outsourcing equipment-related services may
offer client firms a stronger opportunity, relative to other customer support services, especially
under conditions of high market turbulence.
6 We are grateful to the review team for suggesting this analysis.
22
Page 23 of 62
In accord with the multiplicative nature of the MOA framework (Blumberg and Pringle,
1982), we estimated a three-way interaction between provider customer focus (motivation), market
turbulence (ability), and equipment-related services (opportunity). The results of this analysis are
reported as Model 5 in Table 3: the three-way interaction effect is significant and positive. In
addition, the improvement in model fit compared to baseline Model 4 is significant. Hence, we
conclude that the constraining effect of market turbulence is less pronounced when the outsourced
customer support service entails installation, maintenance, and repair of equipment. This finding
provides additional support for our MOA perspective by indicating that opportunity-related factors
also influence the effectiveness of a provider’s customer need fulfillment.
4. VALIDATION STUDY AMONG INDIAN OUTSOURCING PROVIDERS
Our Netherlands study sought to minimize extraneous influences by examining outsourcing
firms within a single country. However, this focused approach limits the external validity and
generalizability of our findings. Therefore, we conducted a validation study in a context which
differs from our Netherlands study in three key aspects. First, all respondents are located in India, a
country with a large number of firms that provide customer services for western clients (Friedman,
2005; Thottam, 2004). Second, the respondents are managers at provider rather than client firms.
Third, the scope of inquiry of this study focused on our first two hypotheses.
4.1 Method
4.1.1 Subjects and Procedures.
To create our sampling frame, we compiled various publicly available business directories.
Given our focus on customer support services, we examined directories that listed the functions
performed by member firms. We identified five specific databases (NASCCOM, JUST
23
Page 24 of 62
Dial, BPOIndia, Invest India, and Accent). We then hired a well-known Indian research firm,
TNS, to pre-contact these firms to confirm that they provide customer support services. This
resulted in a list of 259 Indian outsourcing providers for our sampling frame. Prior research
suggests that firms in developing nations such as India seldom respond to mail surveys
(Hoskisson et al., 2000). Thus, we employed a structured interview technique. This technique,
which orally elicits respondents’ reactions to survey items by employing trained interviewers (in
our case, TNS), has been employed in prior studies of firms located in developing nations (e.g.,
Grewal and Tansuhaj, 2001; Li and Atuahene-Gima, 2001). Of the 259 firms contacted, 135
provided complete responses, for an effective response rate of 52%.
Following the key informant approach (Campbell, 1955), we targeted individuals who
were knowledgeable about their firm’s outsourcing services. Our sample characteristics suggest
that this approach was successful, as over 90% of our respondents were either the owner or
managing director of their firm. As an additional check, we asked respondents to report their
degree of familiarity (on a 7-point scale where 1= extremely low and 7 = extremely high) with
their firm’s outsourcing activities. The mean response to this item was 6.37, which suggests that
we were successful in locating knowledgeable informants. The service providers in our sample
provide various customer support services, with an emphasis on customer service via telephone
and email. We did not observe any meaningful differences between the 135 responding firms vs.
the 124 other firms in our sampling frame. We pretested the questionnaire among four Indian
outsourcing providers to ensure that the questions were well understood and reflected the
constructs we intended to measure. This pretesting provides initial evidence of the conceptual
equivalence of our constructs. We provide further evidence of equivalence below.
24
Page 25 of 62
4.1.2 Measures
This study was conducted in English because the English language is widely employed in
Indian commerce and Indian outsourcing providers serve a large number of American and British
clients. As in the Netherlands study, we used existing measures whenever possible. Our key
measures are reported in Measurement Appendix B. We did not include measures of the client’s
customer focus and market turbulence in this survey; hence, this second study focuses on
validating H1 and H2. We assessed provider customer focus using a similar scale as in our
Netherlands study (Kohli et al., 1993). While we would have preferred to obtain a performance
measure from the client firms or their end customers, respondents were unwilling to reveal the
identities of their clients due to confidentiality agreements (previous research has reported similar
constraints, cf. Carson, 2007). Hence, we constructed a new scale to assess our respondents’
perceptions of their own performance in terms of serving end customers. This measure, which we
refer to as “provider performance,” captures the provider’s performance in terms of responsiveness
and service delivery. We used a similar scale as in the Netherlands study to measure relational ties.
As in the Netherlands study, we control for operational information sharing and for provider
resources to support customer service delivery. Finally, we include a dummy variable separating
large firms (value 1 = more than 1000 employees) from small and medium size firms (value 0 =
less than 1000 employees).7
4.1.3 Psychometric Assessment
We tested our measurement model following similar steps as in the Netherlands study.
We established a CFA model that specified each item as loading on its intended latent construct
while allowing these constructs to covary (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). On the basis of factor
loadings, we had to make a few adjustments in the items of provider customer focus, relational
7 In the Netherlands study, 5% of client firms had > 1000 employees; In the India study, this percentage equals 51%.
25
Page 26 of 62
tie, and the control variable provider resources. Appendix B reports the constructs and
corresponding items after these refinements. The fit indices for the resulting measurement model
met or exceeded recommended levels (CFI = .94, IFI = .94, RMSEA = .06), and all retained items
displayed acceptable loadings (average loading = .70) on their respective constructs. Appendix B
also reports the Cronbach Alpha reliabilities (all exceed recommended levels, i.e. α
> .70) and individual item loadings. In addition, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) calculations for all of
these latent constructs were at or above the recommended level of .50, with the exception of the control
variable operational information sharing (.46). Table 4 provides descriptive statistics and correlations for our
key measures. We tested the discriminant validity of our multi-item measures by employing Fornell and
Larcker’s (1981) test of shared variance between pairs of latent constructs. The results of this test reveal that
the squared correlations between these pairs do not exceed the AVE for any single latent construct. Thus, our
key measures display adequate discriminant validity. Finally, we assessed potential common method variance
(CMV) bias by employing a modified marker variable analysis (Lindell and Whitney, 2001; Malhotra et al.,
2006). Essentially, this approach controls for CMV bias by estimating a dataset’s second lowest bivariate
item-to-item correlation (.04 in our dataset) and then discounting this level of correlation from all of the
dataset’s other item-to-item correlations. Following this discounting, the overall correlations are then re-
estimated and compared with the original correlations. We found that the observed and discounted
correlations are closely matched in terms of sign and significances. For example, the observed correlation
between provider customer focus and provider performance was .32 (p < .01), while the discounted
correlation was
.29 (p < .01). Thus CMV bias does not appear to be a concern.
26
Page 27 of 62
As an additional psychometric assessment, we also estimated the degree of measurement
equivalence (i.e., invariance) for the constructs that overlap between this validation study (India)
and our main study (Netherlands). According to measurement scholars, there are multiple forms of
measurement equivalence (e.g., configural, metric, scalar) and the type of equivalence assessed
should match the goals of the research (Rungtusanatham et al., 2008; Steenkamp and Baumgartner,
1998). Specifically, for a study that simply seeks to validate findings in a different context,
configural invariance (i.e., the degree to which measures across different groups have the same
factor structure) is the most critical (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998). Following Steenkamp
and Baumgartner (1998), we assessed configural invariance by specifying a multi-group (i.e.,
Netherlands = 1, India = 2) CFA model for the four constructs (i.e., provider customer focus,
relational tie, provider resources, operational information sharing) employed in both studies. As
noted earlier, our psychometric assessment of the India dataset resulted in a pruning of a few items
across these various constructs. Thus, our equivalence assessment focused on the items common to
both studies. In this model, the factor loadings across these two countries were allowed to freely
vary. The results of this model suggest that these four measures display a high degree of configural
invariance; the overall fit statistics are strong (i.e., CFI = .92, IFI = .93, RMSEA = .06) and
average item loadings for all four factors exceeded .70. Hence, it appears that the shared items
across these four constructs are equivalent in terms of their factor structure8.
8 As an additional test of the equivalence of our measures across both countries, we also conducted a test of metric invariance (i.e., the degree to which items have the same factor loadings across different groups). This form of equivalence is most commonly used when pooling data across groups or making cross-group comparisons (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998). Since the goal of the India study is mainly validation, we neither pool data nor make direct comparisons to the Netherlands study. Nonetheless, assessing metric invariance provides an additional test of the robustness of our measures. We constrained the factor loadings for all items across both countries to equality and then compared the difference in the chi-square statistic between this constrained model (χ2(df = 131) = 272) vs. the unconstrained model (χ2(df = 118) = 228). This difference is significant (p < .01), which indicates that the items across these two studies do not display full metric invariance (Rungtusanatham et al., 2008). However, as noted by Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998), full metric invariance is fairly uncommon in cross-cultural studies. Thus, they recommend that researchers assess partial metric invariance by allowing one or more item loadings per
27
Page 28 of 62
4.2 Findings
We tested H1 and H2 by employing a series of four nested multiple regression analyses in
which provider performance served as the dependent variable, and provider customer focus and
the interaction between provider customer focus and relational tie as the key predictor variables.
In addition, these regressions included the main effect of relational tie, as well as operational
information sharing, provider resources, and client size as control variables. As before, we used
factor scores for all multi-item measures.9 Across all four nested models, the maximum variance
inflation factor was 1.85, which is well below the threshold value of 10. This suggests that the
results are not influenced by multi-collinearity (Mason and Perreault, 1991). The results for all
four models are displayed in Table 5.
As shown in this table, the proposed model (Model 4) is superior to nested Models 1, 2, and
3. Hence, we focus on Model 4 as the test of our hypotheses. The results of this model indicate that provider
customer focus is positively related to provider performance (Model 4: β = .15, p <
.05), which provides support for H1. We also find support for the hypothesized contingency effect.
In accord with Hypothesis 2, provider customer focus exerts a stronger positive effect on provider
performance when client and provider share a stronger relational tie (β = .15, p < .01). In terms of
the control variables, a relational tie (β = .37, p < .01) significantly increases provider
performance. Also, provider performance is significantly better when serving large client firms (β
= .29, p < .05). In sum, the results of this validation study provide additional support for our
factor to freely vary. We followed this recommendation by unconstraining one item per factor and then re-estimating the model. The chi-square statistic (χ2(df = 127) = 239) for this partially constrained model does not differ significantly from the chi-square for the unconstrained model (p < .61). Thus, the shared items across the Netherlands and India studies display partial metric invariance. In summary, the measures appear to have a high degree of equivalence.9 Using item averages rather than factor scores did not alter signs and significance levels of the reported findings.
28
Page 29 of 62
general thesis regarding the contingency effect of a close client-provider tie, as a facilitator of the
effect of a provider’s customer focus upon customer service provision.10
5. DISCUSSION
In recent years, supply chain, operations management, and marketing scholars have
discussed the triadic nature of customer support outsourcing (Gunawardane, 2012; Tate et al.,
2010; van der Valk and van Iwaarden, 2011). Our study extends and enriches research on this
important service triad both conceptually and empirically by adopting an interdisciplinary
perspective (Rindfleisch and Moorman, 2003; Saparito et al., 2004). Marketing scholarship
suggests that a customer focus is a primary driver of effective customer need fulfillment. However,
our results indicate that the role of customer focus is rendered more complex due to the triadic
nature of customer service outsourcing. Even though a customer-focused service provider may be
intrinsically motivated to serve end customers, due to the triadic nature of outsourcing it may lack
the ability to do so successfully. We propose that characteristics of the client, the client-provider
tie, and end customers significantly affect a provider’s access to customer insight and, hence,
moderate the effect of provider customer focus on customer need fulfillment. We examined our
conceptual framework via a survey study conducted among 171 client firms located in the
Netherlands and then validate these results among 135 outsourcing providers in India.
Collectively, the results of these two studies provide broad support for our core thesis. In this
section, we discuss theoretical and managerial implications of these findings.
10 We re-estimated this model by including relationship age (for which we had several missing variables) and the results were robust. We also tested if operational information sharing mediates the hypothesized effects but mediation analysis failed to show any mediating role for this variable. Thus our model appears quite robust.
29
Page 30 of 62
5.1 Theoretical Implications
We believe that our findings contribute to the outsourcing literature, the inter-
organizational relationship literature, and the market orientation literature.
Our research extends and enriches recent efforts in the outsourcing literature to understand
the triadic nature of outsourcing and its performance consequences. More than a century ago,
Simmel (1950 [1908]) took a fundamental theoretical leap by moving the scope of inquiry from the
dyad to the triad. Recently, Choi and Wu (2009) took a similar leap in the context of supply chain
networks by suggesting that triads are the fundamental building blocks of a network and proposing
different triadic archetypes that represent unique dynamic interactions between buyers and
suppliers. This triadic perspective has recently entered the outsourcing literature, as an increasing
number of scholars have become interested in understanding the client-provider-customer triads
that underlie the growing number of outsourcing relations across the globe.
As outlined in our introduction, most of this extant research is inspired by agency theory
(Gunawardane, 2012; Tate et al., 2010; van der Valk and van Iwaarden, 2011). The key
assumption of this perspective is that client firms face a moral hazard problem, which is
intrinsically motivational in nature. We take this idea one step further. While we acknowledge the
possibility of motivational problems in a triadic outsourcing setting, we offer a broader theoretical
framework that also accounts for ability problems. In accord with the triadic nature of this
phenomenon, we identify contingency factors that relate to the client firm, the client-provider tie,
and end customers. Thus, our research expands the conceptual scope of outsourcing research
beyond the proclivities of the outsourcing provider to the characteristics (i.e., abilities) of the
broader triadic setting in which it is embedded. We also explored whether some services offer a
30
Page 31 of 62
greater opportunity for outsourcing under particular conditions. The combined findings of a
positive main effect of provider customer focus on customer need fulfillment (enhanced
motivation), the negative interaction effect of market turbulence (reduced ability), and the
positive three-way interaction effect with equipment-related services (enhanced opportunity)
illustrate the explanatory power of the MOA framework.
Our findings also provide theoretical implications for research in the inter-organizational
relations domain, of which outsourcing can be viewed as a particular manifestation (Raassens et
al., 2012; van der Valk and van Iwaarden, 2011). This literature has devoted considerable attention
to enhancing interfirm relations among existing partners but comparatively little attention to the
characteristics that firms should consider in qualifying new partners. As noted by Wathne and
Heide (2004), systematic upfront selection can proactively reduce potential relational problems
before they arise. According to Stump and Heide (1996), firms should employ selection criteria
that reflect the partner’s motivation, such as the partner’s “general customer practices and business
philosophy” (p. 432). Our findings support these assertions within triadic service settings: a
provider’s customer focus (as reflected in institutionalized processes for the generation,
dissemination, and analysis of customer insight) enhances customer need fulfillment, and may
hence serve as an effective selection criterion. However, since the actual deployment of a customer
focus is highly contingent in nature (Gebhardt et al., 2006; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Li and
Calantone, 1998), client firms need to do more than simply select customer-focused service
providers; they need to back up this selection by fostering collaboration. Thus, our research
suggests that inter-organizational scholars should devote more attention to the role of partner
selection and how this selection process can be bolstered via close ties.
31
Page 32 of 62
In addition to providing new insights for outsourcing and inter-organizational research,
we believe that our findings also have implications for market orientation scholarship. As noted
earlier, a considerable portion of the market orientation literature focuses on a firm’s processes
for acquiring, utilizing, and disseminating customer insights (Deshpandé et al., 1993; Kohli and
Jaworski, 1990; Moorman, 1995). Marketing scholars have traditionally viewed customer focus
as a strategic orientation (Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997; Voss and Voss, 2000), a set of
organizational processes (e.g., Jaworski and Kohli, 1993), or as an element of an organization’s
culture (e.g., Narver and Slater, 1990). Our focus on a triadic setting where customer support is
outsourced to a third party provides an alternative perspective.
Specifically, our research suggests that a strong customer focus does not guarantee
effective customer need fulfillment when a customer is serviced by a third party. In other words,
when institutionalized processes for understanding customers and addressing their needs reside
with an external party, the mere presence of this orientation does not guarantee its successful
deployment. Interestingly, the main effect of provider customer focus is insignificant in the
Netherlands study (and only reaches significance once all moderators are removed). This provides
strong support for the contingency framework: provider customer focus enhances customer need
fulfillment, but only under particular contingency conditions that increase the provider’s “ability”
to serve end customers. If these contingency conditions are not met, provider customer focus may
be counter-productive. Although we do find a positive main effect for provider customer focus in
the India study, this study only includes one of the three moderators and hence we cannot rule out
the possibility that the positive main effect may be due to unspecified moderation effects.
32
Page 33 of 62
Thus, to understand the impact of customer focus on performance within triadic settings, a
contingency perspective appears to be in order. Close collaboration between a provider and client
transforms the outsourcing relationship from an arm’s-length transaction to a relationship with
quasi-firm properties (Eccles, 1981). This transformation appears to enable a client firm with
close relational ties to benefit from its provider’s customer focus in the form of enhanced
customer need fulfillment. However, the selection of a customer-focused service provider does
not exempt a client firm from being customer-focused. These findings are consistent with the
argument that client firms should coach their providers and share the embedded customer insight
necessary for effective deployment of a customer focus. Thus, the triadic nature of the outsourcing
phenomenon presents a new relational perspective on the concept of customer focus and, by
extension, on the theory of market orientation.
In addition to shedding light on market orientation’s relational nature, our research
suggests that this orientation may also have a dark side. As shown by our simple slope analyses
(see Figure 2), provider customer focus may actually reduce customer need fulfillment under
particular conditions. Specifically, our findings suggest that when a client-provider tie is very
weak, when a client firm lacks a customer focus, or when customer preferences change
frequently, a customer-focused provider’s ability to fulfill customer needs is significantly
impaired. Building on prior research (Danneels and Sethi, 2011), we conjecture that under such
conditions customer-focused providers adhere to processes that are bound to be ineffective
because customer insight is not available, cannot be accessed, or obsolesces quickly. Thus, a more
improvisational and ad hoc approach may be a more effective means to deal with customer needs
and preferences under these types of conditions (Daft and Weick, 1984).
33
Page 34 of 62
5.2 Managerial Implications
Our research also presents a number of managerial implications for firms that outsource
their customer service activities or engage in other forms of triadic service relationships. First,
outsourcing firms may benefit from partner selection practices that include a provider’s customer
focus. From the service provider’s perspective, signaling a strong customer focus and emphasizing
the benefits of institutionalized processes to serve end customers may differentiate it from
competing service providers. Client firms should be aware, however, that the mere selection of a
customer-focused service provider is not a guarantee of success. They must back up this selection
by making efforts to establish close ties with their provider.
Second, although clients may outsource customer support, they should remain customer-
focused. Our results demonstrate that a client firm benefits more from outsourcing customer
support to a customer-focused service provider if the client itself is customer-focused. This finding
may indicate synergistic effects between the client’s accumulated idiosyncratic market experiences
and the provider’s customer-focused internal processes, in pursuing the shared goal of addressing
customer needs. Hence, a client should nurture the creation and sharing of customer insight with its
service provider.
Third, the nature of end customers also determines a customer-focused provider’s success
at addressing customer needs. When customer needs and preferences are subject to change (across
time and across customers), service providers face more difficulties deploying their customer
focus on the client’s behalf. Thus, client firms that outsource service functions in rapidly changing
markets should not be surprised if their outsourcing providers face considerable difficulty fulfilling
customer needs. The impact of customer dynamics appears to have received relatively little
attention from both outsourcing scholars and practitioners and may be one reason
34
Page 35 of 62
why firms such as Dell have decided to repatriate some of their outsourcing activities (Li and Choi,
2009). However, our results also suggest that the impact of market turbulence varies according to
the nature of the service being outsourced, as the ability of providers to support equipment-related
services is less susceptible to changing markets as compared to other types of services. Thus, firms
that outsource physical-asset activities such as the installation, maintenance, or repair of equipment
should have greater confidence in the ability of their outsourcing providers to serve customer
needs in turbulent markets.
6. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Although our findings are based on two distinct studies with strong psychometric
properties, we acknowledge that these studies are limited in terms of both their sample and
measures. These limitations point toward promising directions for future research.
We recognize that our findings are constrained by the fact that we were unable to obtain a
matched sample of clients and providers due our respondents’ reluctance to identify their
outsourcing partner firms (cf. Carson, 2007; Engardio et al., 2005). Matched dyads would have
allowed us to examine the congruence (and deviations) of partners’ perceptions (Anderson and
Weitz, 1992). These types of matched studies, however, are rare as they are extremely difficult to
conduct11. As an alternative, our two studies provide an expansive examination of the role of
customer focus across outsourcing settings and nations, covering a diverse array of customer
service functions, including installation, maintenance and repair, system integration, logistics
services, and customer problem-solving and support services via telephone or email. Moreover, in
spite of the differences in organizational level (i.e., client vs. provider) and cultural setting (Europe
vs. India), the results of our two studies display a high degree of congruence, enhancing
11 For exceptions, see Homburg and Furst, 2005; Johnson et al., 1996.
35
Page 36 of 62
the generalizability of our findings. Both studies reveal that the positive baseline effect of
provider customer focus on customer need fulfillment is moderated by close ties. Although our
findings likely generalize across a range of complex industrial services, they may be less
applicable for more routine-like services, such as customer complaint handling or financial
service transactions.
In addition to the constraints of our sample, we also recognize the limitations of our
measures. Perhaps most importantly, we would have preferred to obtain our measure of customer
need fulfillment from end customers rather than from client firms (or from provider firms in the
India study). Unfortunately, due to confidentiality concerns, we were unable to obtain this type of
data. While we acknowledge this limitation, prior research suggests that managers often track
customer perceptions and thus, have a fairly accurate understanding of their customers’ concerns
(Im and Workman, 2004). As a validation step, we found that clients’ assessments of customer
service delivery were negatively correlated with objective indicators that reflect poor service
delivery (number of complaints and response time), strengthening confidence in our perceptual
measure. Nevertheless, future research would be helpful in terms of validating our findings by
collecting satisfaction measures (and other relevant metrics) at the level of the individual customer.
The inclusion of country variables highlights another interesting avenue for future research.
For a decade, there has been considerable political debate about the negative implications of
outsourcing operations to providers located in remote countries where labor is plentiful and cheap
(Davis, 2004; Economist, 2013; Kinetz, 2003). Operations management scholars have recently
formulated alternative arguments against offshoring practice. For example, Handley and Benton
(2013) showed that the geographic distance between client and provider
36
Page 37 of 62
locations is associated with higher levels of control and coordination costs. Likewise, Stringfellow
et al. (2007) argued that customer support services should not be offshored to distant locales due to
the inherent need for localized knowledge and communication skills. To paraphrase Friedman
(2005), the world has not yet flattened and there still appears to be some important distinction
between Bangalore versus Bethesda. Our finding that outsourcing to China exerts a negative effect
on customer need fulfillment is in line with these ideas. We also find, however, that outsourcing to
Italy and Czech Republic negatively affects customer need fulfillment whereas outsourcing to
Ireland or the UK enhances customer need fulfillment. Large-scale international research projects
may help unveil the reasons for these differences.
Finally, our findings open up other opportunities to expand our theoretical framework. For
example, the homophily principle (the tendency to associate with similar others) in the study of
triads and networks is a very robust empirical regularity (Kossinets and Watts, 2009). Even though
we explicitly control for the client’s strategic objective to outsource (e.g. to enhance the quality of
service delivery rather than simply cut costs), the interaction effect between provider and client
customer focus may also be partially explained by the trust and cost reductions engendered by
homophily. Siguaw et al.’s (1998) finding of a positive association between a supplier’s market
orientation and a distributor’s market orientation as well as Langerak’s (2001) evidence of market
orientation spillovers from manufacturers to individual salespeople are indicative of such a
homophily mechanism at work. A thorough analysis of the role of homophily requires a
longitudinal design since the selection of a similar other may result from individual preferences
(i.e. active partner selection), from structural proximity (higher likelihood of encountering similar
others), or, more likely, from the interplay between both mechanisms over time (Kossinets and
Watts, 2009). It would be very interesting to build on these recent
37
Page 38 of 62
breakthroughs in sociology and introduce and examine such dynamic processes in the study of
partner selection and collaboration in triads and larger business networks.
38
Page 39 of 62
39
Page 40 of 62
FIGURE 1
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
40
Page 41 of 62
41
Page 42 of 62
FIGURE 2VISUALIZATION OF CONTINGENCY EFFECTS12
12 All simple slopes visualized in Figure 2 are significant at 0.05 significance level.
42
Page 43 of 62
TABLE 1
SAMPLE DESCRIPTORS(NETHERLANDS STUDY)
Firm Size (employees)Less than 1000 95%1000-5000 5%Over 5000 0%
IndustryManufacturing products 84%Manufacturing services 16%
Outsourced ServicesEquipment-related services 55%Other services 45%
Outsourcing ExperienceLess than 2 years 30%2-5 years 31%5+ years 39%
43
Page 44 of 62
TABLE 2DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND CORRELATIONS
(NETHERLANDS STUDY)
Min Max Mean Stdev CNF PCF REL CCF TUR PRES INFO OBJ CFSCustomer Need 1 7 4.17 1.34 .61
Fulfillment (CNF)Provider Customer 1 7 3.25 1.31 .43** .56
Focus (PCF)Relational Tie 1 7 4.86 1.19 .46** .52** .61
(REL)Client Customer 1 7 4.64 1.25 .23** .23** .19* .54
Focus (CCF)Market Turbulence 1 7 3.65 1.38 .10 .11 .02 .13 .50
(TUR)Provider Resources 2.2 7 4.40 .98 .38** .37** .40** .14 .20** .50
(PRES)Operational 1 7 4.30 1.37 .40** .47** .46** .25** .14 .23** .51Information
Sharing (INFO)Strategic Objective 1 7 4.01 1.53 .37** .52** .31** .06 .22** .34** .28** .57
(OBJ)Client Firm Size 15 5400 287.78 610.78 -.08 .05 -.06 .20* .05 .03 .01 -.02 NA
(CFS)Note: the descriptives Min, Max, Mean, and Stdev are calculated on the basis of the original values rather than factor scores; the descriptives for Client Firm Size are calculated on the basis of the number of employees, before log-transformation; The AVEs (average variance extracted) for each construct are shown on the diagonal. * indicates significance at the .05 level; ** indicates significance at the .01 level.
44
Page 45 of 62
TABLE 3DRIVERS OF CUSTOMER NEED FULFILLMENT (NETHERLANDS STUDY)
MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3 MODEL 4 MODEL 5Variable Hyp. Parameter Parameter Parameter Parameter Parameter
(st. error) (st. error) (st. error) (st. error) (st. error)Constant Term .44 (.33) .45 (.32) .40 (.32) .26 (.32) .31 (.32)Provider Customer Focus (PCF) H1 (+) .13 (.08) † .04 (.08) .02 (.08) -.05 (.10)PCF * Relational Tie H2 (+) .09 (.05) * .10 (.05) *PCF * Client Customer Focus H3 (+) .20 (.06) ** .18 (.06) **PCF * Market Turbulence H4 ( -) -.12 (.05) * -.30 (.08) **Relational Tie .22 (.08) ** .25 (.08) ** .24 (.08) **Client Customer Focus .07(.07) .09 (.06) .08 (.06)Market Turbulence -.04 (.06) -.04 (.06) .13 (.10)Provider Resources .23 (.07) ** .21 (.07) ** .16 (.07) * .11 (.07) † .15 (.07) *Operational Information Sharing .37 (.07) ** .33 (.07) ** .26 (.07) ** .20 (.07) ** .21 (.07) **Strategic Objective .15 (.07) * .11 (.07) .13 (.08) † .15 (.07) * .14 (.07) **Client Size -.08 (.06) -.08 (.06) -.07 (.06) -.06 (.06) -.07 (.06)Equipment-related Services (ERS) -.06 (.13) -.05 (.13) -.01 (.13) .00 (.12) -.04 (.12)China -2.09 (.81) * -2.08 (.81) * -1.98 (.80) * -1.82 (.76) * -2.02 (.75) **Czech Republic -1.01 (.42) * -.94 (.42) * -1.10 (.42) ** -.96 (.40) * -.96 (.39) **Italy -2.73 (.80) ** -2.58 (.81) ** -2.46 (.80) ** .-2.30 (.76) ** -2.31 (.75) **Ireland 2.08 (.80) ** 2.01 (.80) * 1.95 (.78) * 1.98 (.74) ** 2.00 (.73) **UK .95 (.58) 1.02 (.57) † 1.04 (.57) † .98 (.54) † 1.06 (.53) *
PCF * Market Turbulence * ERS .28 (.11) **PCF * ERS .08 (.12)Market Turbulence * ERS -.23 (.12) †
R Square Adjusted 0.37 0.38 0.41 0.47 0.49Model Improvement: F-statistic 2.59 3.86 ** 7.21 ** 2.60 *
† indicates significance at the .10 level; * indicates significance at the .05; level ** indicates significance at the .01 level; significances of hypothesized effects are based on one-sided tests, all other significances are based on two-sided tests.
45
Page 46 of 62
TABLE 4DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND CORRELATIONS (INDIA STUDY)
Min Max Mean Stdev PERF PCF REL PRES INFOProvider Performance 4 7 6.17 .68 .55
(PERF)Provider Customer 2.33 7 5.92 .86 .32** .54
Focus (PCF)Relational Tie 1 7 6.02 .88 .41** .47** .50
(REL)Provider Resources 1 7 6.00 .80 .22** .50** .45** .52
(PRES)Operational 2.33 7 5.79 .89 .37** .45** .58** .52** .46
Information Sharing(INFO)
Note: the descriptives Min, Max, Mean, and Stdev are calculated on the basis of the original variables rather than factor scores; The AVEs (average variance extracted) for each construct are shown on the diagonal.** indicates significance at the .01 level
46
Page 47 of 62
TABLE 5DRIVERS OF PROVIDER PERFORMANCE (INDIA STUDY)
MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3 MODEL 4Variable Hypothesis Parameter Parameter Parameter Parameter
(standard error) (standard error) (standard error) (standard error)Constant Term .13 (.11) .13 (.11) 0.13 (.11) .079 (.10)Provider Customer Focus (PCF) H1 (+) .21 (.09) * .15 (.09) † .15 (.09) *PCF * Relational Tie H2 (+) .15 (.04) **Relational Tie .24 (.10) * .37 (.10) **Provider Resources .04 (.09) -.04 (.10) -.07 (.10) .06 (.10)Operational Information Sharing .34 (.09) ** .29 (.10) ** .19 (.10) † .15 (.10)Client Size .26 (.16) † .26 (.16) † .25 (.16) .29 (.14) *
R Square Adjusted 0.13 0.16 0.19 0.27Model Improvement: F-statistic 15.48 ** 5.99 ** 4.91 *
† indicates significance at the .10 level; * indicates significance at the .05; level ** indicates significance at the .01 level; significances of hypothesized effects are based on one-sided tests, all other significances are based on two-sided tests.
47
Page 48 of 62
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by grants from the Institute for the Study of Business Markets at Pennsylvania State University and the Center for International Business Education and Research at Georgia Institute of Technology. The authors thank Kersi Antia, Inge Geyskens, Christine Moorman, and Peter Verhoef for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. They also thank seminar participants at BI Norwegian Business School, Rotterdam School of Management, and Tilburg University. The first author acknowledges the support of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research.
48
Page 49 of 62
REFERENCES
Afuah, A., 2000. How much do your co -opetitors’ capabilities matter in the face of technological change? Strategic Management Journal 21 (March), 387-404.
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G., 1991. Multiple regression testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Anderson, E., Weitz, B., 1992. The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channels. Journal of Marketing Research 29 (February), 18-34.
Argote, L., McEvily, B., Reagans, R., 2003. Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science 49 (4), 571-582.
Blumberg, M., Pringle, C.D., 1982. The missing opportunity in organizational research: some implications for a theory of work performance. Academy of Management Review 7 (4), 560-569.
Boudreau, J., Hopp, W., McClain, J.O., Thomas, L.J., 2003. On the interface of operations and human resources management. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management 5 (3), 179-202.
Brislin, R.W., 1970. Back-translation for cross- cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1 (3), 185-216.
Burt, R.S., 2000. The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior 22, 345-423.
Cadogan, J.W., Diamantopoulos, A., 1995. Narver and Slater, Kohli and Jaworski and the market orientation construct: Integration and internationalization. Journal of Strategic Marketing 3, 41-60.
Campbell, D.T., 1955. The informant in quantitative research. American Journal of Sociology 60 (January), 339-342.
Carson, S.J., 2007. When to give up control of outsourced new product development. Journal of Marketing 71 (January), 49-66.
Cellular News, 2008. T-Mobile shifting prepay customer care to Philippines. Cellular-news.com/story/33430.php, September 03, 2008. Last accessed May 20, 2014.
Choi, T.Y., Wu, Z., 2009. Taking the leap from dyads to triads: Buyer-supplier relationships in supply networks. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 15, 263-266.
Clark, B.H., Abela, A.V., Ambler, T., 2005. Organizational motivation, opportunity, and ability to measure market performance. Journal of Strategic Marketing 13 (4), 426-445.
49
Page 50 of 62
ComputerWeekly, 2011. Barclays offshores back-office and call centre jobs to India. http://www.computerweekly.com/news/1280095062/Barclays-offshores-back-office-and-call-centre-jobs-to-India, Friday 04, 2011. Last accessed May 20, 2014.
Computerworld, 2004. Risico’s van offshore outsourcing. http://computerworld.nl/algemeen/66602-risico-s-van-offshore-outsourcing (in Dutch), April 05, 2004. Last accessed May 20, 2014.
Cortina, J.M., Chen, G., Dunlap, W.P., 2001. Testing interaction effects in LISREL: Examination and illustration of available procedures. Organizational Research Methods 4 (4), 324-360.
Daft, R.L., Weick, K.E., 1984. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems.Academy of Management Review 9 (2), 284-293.
Danneels, E., Sethi, R., 2011. New product exploration under environmental turbulence.Organization Science 22 (4), 1026-1039.
Darr, E.D., Argote, L., Epple D., 1995. The acquisition, transfer, and depreciation of knowledge in service organizations. Management Science 41 (11), 1750-1762.
Davis, B., 2004. Finding lessons of outsourcing in 4 historical tales. Wall Street Journal-Eastern Edition 243 (61), A1-A8.
Deshpandé, R., Farley, J.U., Webster, Jr., F.E., 1993. Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis. Journal of Marketing 57 (January), 23-37.
Doty, D.H., Glick, W.H., 1998. Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods 1 (October), 374-406.
Eccles, R., 1981. The quasifirm in the construction industry. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 2 (4), 335-357.
Economist, 2013. The next big thing. January 19.
Eisenhardt, K.H., Martin, J.A., 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal 21 (October/November), 1105-1121.
Engardio, P., Einhorn, B., Kripalani, M., Reinhardt, A., Nussbaum, B., Burrows, P., 2005.Outsourcing innovation. BusinessWeek (March 21), 84-94.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (February), 39-50.
Franke, G.R., Park, J.E., 2006. Salesperson adaptive selling behavior and customer orientation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 63 (November), 693-702.
50
Page 51 of 62
Friedman, T.L., 2005. The world is flat: A brief history of the 21st century. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Garten, J.E., 2004. Offshoring: You ain’t seen nothin’ yet. BusinessWeek (June 21), 28.
Gatignon, H., Xuereb, J.M., 1997. Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance.Journal of Marketing Research 34 (1), 77-90.
Gebhardt, G.F., Carpenter, G.S., Sherry, Jr., J.F., 2006. Creating a market orientation: A longitudinal, multifirm, grounded analysis of cultural transformation. Journal of Marketing 70 (October), 37-55.
Gerbing, D.W., Anderson, J.C., 1988. An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research 25 (May), 186-192.
Gnyawali, D.R., Stewart, A.C., 2003. A contingency perspective on organizational learning: Integrating environmental context, organizational learning processes, and types of learning. Management Learning 34 (1), 63-89.
Goffin, K., New, C., 2001. Customer support and new product development – An exploratory study. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 21 (3), 275-301.
Gottfredson, M., Puryear, R., Phillips, S., 2005. Strategic outsourcing from periphery to the core.Harvard Business Review 83 (February), 132-139.
Grewal, R., Tansuhaj, P., 2001. Building organizational capabilities for managing economic crisis: The role of market orientation and strategic flexibility. Journal of Marketing 65 (April), 67-80.
Gunawardane, G., 2012. Managing supplier to customer direct service triads in service supply chains – A case study. Journal of Supply Chain and Operations Management 10 (2), 50-64.
Hagel, J., III, 2004. Offshoring goes on the offensive. McKinsey Quarterly (2), 82.
Handley, S.M., Benton, Jr., W.C., 2009. Unlocking the business outsourcing process model.Journal of Operations Management 27, 344-361.
Handley, S.M., Benton, W.C., 2013. The influence of task- and location-specific complexity on the control and coordination costs in global outsourcing relationships. Journal of Operations Management 31, 109.
Hansen, M.T., 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly 44 (1), 82-111.
Homburg, C., Furst, A., 2005. How organizational complaint handling drives customer loyalty:An analysis of the mechanistic and the organic approach. Journal of Marketing 69 (July), 95-114.
51
Page 52 of 62
Hoskisson, R.E., Eden, L., Lau, C.M., Wright, M., 2000. Strategy in emerging economies.Academy of Management Journal 43 (3), 249-67.
IDC (2014). Worldwide and U.S. outsourced customer care services 2014-2018 forecast. By Melissa O’Brien, May 2014. Available at http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=248257. Last accessed May 20, 2014.
Im, S., Workman, Jr., J.P., 2004. Market orientation, creativity, and new product performance in high-technology firms. Journal of Marketing 68 (April), 114-132.
Jaworski, B.J., Kohli, A.K., 1993. Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing 57 (July), 53-70.
Johnson, J.L., Cullen, J., Sakano, T., Takenouchi, H., 1996. Setting the stage for trust and strategic integration in Japanese-US cooperative alliances. Journal of International Business Studies 27 (5), 981-1004.
Johnson, J.L., Sohi, R.S., Grewal, R., 2004. The role of relational knowledge stores in interfirm partnering. Journal of Marketing 68 (July), 21-36.
Kinetz, E., 2003. Who wins and who loses as jobs move overseas? New York Times, Late Edition-Final, 153 (December 7), 5.
Kirca, A.H., Jayachandran, S., Bearden, W.O., 2005. Market orientation: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing 69 (April), 24-41.
Kohli, A., Jaworski, B.J., 1990. Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing 54 (April), 1-18.
Kohli, A., Jaworski, B.J., Kumar, N., 1993. MARKOR: A measure of market orientation. Journal of Marketing Research 30, 467-477.
Kossinets, G, Watts, D.J., 2009. Origins of homophily in an evolving social network. American Journal of Sociology 115 (2), 405-450.
Kotabe, M., Mol, M.J., 2009. Outsourcing and financial performance: A negative curvilinear effect. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 15 (4), 205-213.
Kumar, N., Stern, L.W., Achrol, R., 1992. Assessing reseller performance from the perspective of the supplier. Journal of Marketing Research 12 (May), 238-253.
Langerak, F., 2001. Effects of market orientation on the behaviors of salespersons and purchasers, channel relationships, and performance of manufacturers. International Journal of Research in Marketing 18 (3), 221-234.
52
Page 53 of 62
Lei, D., 2007. Outsourcing and China’s rising economic power. Orbis, 51 (January), 21-39.
Li, H., Atuahene-Gima, K., 2001. Product innovation strategy and the performance of new technology ventures in China. Academy of Management Journal 44 (6), 1123-1134.
Li, M., Choi, T.Y., 2009. Triads in services outsourcing: Bridge, bridge decay and bridge transfer. Journal of Supply Chain Management 45 (3), 27-39.
Li, T., Calantone, R.J., 1998. The impact of market knowledge competence on new product advantage: conceptualization and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing 62 (4), 13-29.
Lindell, M.K., Whitney, D.J., 2001. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (February), 114-121.
Liu, R., Feils, D.J., Scholnick, B., 2011. Why are different services outsourced to different countries? Journal of International Business Studies 42 (4), 558-571.
Lohr, S., 2006. Outsourcing is climbing the skills ladder. New York Times.com, February 16.
Lonsdale, C., Cox, A., 2000. The historical development of outsourcing: The latest fad? Industrial Management and Data Systems 100 (9), 444-450.
MacInnis, D.J., Moorman, C., Jaworski, B.J., 1991. Enhancing and measuring consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. Journal of Marketing 55 (4), 32-53.
Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S., Patil, A., 2006. Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science 52 (December), 1865-1883.
Mason, C.H., Perreault, Jr., W.D., 1991. Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 28 (August), 268-280.
Mathieu, J.E., Tannenbaum, S.I., Salas, E., 1992. Influences of individual and situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal 35 (4), 828-847.
Metters, R., Verma, R., 2008. History of offshoring knowledge services. Journal of Operations Management 26 (2), 141-147.
Min, S., Mentzer, J.T, Ladd, R.T., 2007. A market orientation in supply chain management.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 35, 507-522.
Mol, M.J., 2007. Outsourcing: Design, process, and performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
53
Page 54 of 62
Moorman, C., 1995. Organizational market information processes: Cultural antecedents and new product outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research 32 (August), 318-335.
Mullen, M.R., 1995. Diagnosing measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Journal of International Business Studies 26 (3), 573-596.
Narasimhan, R., Narayanan, S., Srinivasan, R., 2013. An investigation of justice in supply chain relationships and their performance impact. Journal of Operations Management 31 (July), 236-247.
Narver, J.C., Slater, S.F., 1990. The effect of a market orientation on business profitability.Journal of Marketing 54 (October), 20-35.
Raassens, N., Wuyts, S., Geyskens, I., 2012. The market valuation of outsourcing New Product Development. Journal of Marketing Research 49 (5), 682-695.
Raassens, N., Wuyts, S., Geyskens, I., 2014. The performance implications of outsourcing customer support to service providers in emerging versus established economies. International Journal of Research in Marketing, forthcoming.
Ren, Z.J., Zhou, Y.P., 2008. Call center outsourcing: Coordinating staffing level and service quality. Management Science 54 (2), 369-383.
Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A.J., Ganesan, S., Moorman, C., 2008. Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey research: Concepts, findings, and guidelines. Journal of Marketing Research 45 (3), 261-279.
Rindfleisch, A., Moorman, C., 2001. The acquisition and utilization of information in new product alliances: A strength-of-ties perspective. Journal of Marketing 65 (April), 1-18.
Rindfleisch, A., Moorman, C., 2003. Interfirm cooperation and customer orientation. Journal of Marketing Research 40 (November), 421-436.
Rungtusanatham, M., Ng, C.H., Zhao, X., Lee, T.S., 2008. Pooling data across transparently different groups of key informants: Measurement equivalence and survey research. Decision Sciences 39 (1), 115-145.
Saparito, P.A., Chen, C.C., Sapienza, H.J., 2004. The role of relational trust in bank-small firm relationships. Academy of Management Journal 47 (3), 400-410.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A.V., Balasubramanian, S., 2008. How motivation, opportunity, and ability drive knowledge sharing: The constraining-factor model. Journal of Operations Management 26, 426-445.
54
Page 55 of 62
Siguaw, J.A., Simpson, P.M., Baker, T.L., 1998. Effects of supplier market orientation on distributor market orientation and the channel relationship: The distributor perspective. Journal of Marketing 62 (3), 99-111.
Simmel, G., 1950 [1908]. Quantitative aspects of the group. In: The Sociology of Georg Simmel,Wolff, K.H., ed., NY: Free Press, 87-177.
Steenkamp, J.B.E.M., Baumgartner, H., 1998. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 25 (June), 78-93.
Stouthuysen, K., Slabbinck, H., Roodhooft, F., 2012. Controls, service type and perceived supplier performance in interfirm service exchange. Journal of Operations Management 30 (July), 423-435.
Stringfellow, A., Teagarden, M.B., Nie, W., 2007. Invisible costs in offshoring services work.Journal of Operations Management 26, 164-179.
Stump, R.L., Heide, J.B., 1996. Controlling supplier opportunism in industrial relationships.Journal of Marketing Research 33 (4), 431-441.
Szulanski, G., 1997. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17 (Winter Special Issue), 27-43.
Tate, W.L., Ellram, L.M., Bals, L., Hartmann, E., van der Valk, W., 2010. An agency theory perspective on the purchase of marketing services. Industrial Marketing Management 39, 806-819.
Thelen, S.T., Shapiro, T., 2012. Predicting negative consumer reactions to services offshoring.Journal of Services Marketing 26 (3), 181-193.
Thottam, J., 2004. Is your job going abroad? Time Magazine 163 (March), 26-36.
Time, 2009. IBM and the rebirth of outsourcing. http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1887779,00.html, March 26, 2009. Last accessed May 20, 2014.
Uzzi, B., Lancaster, R., 2003. Relational embeddedness and learning: The case of bank loan managers and their clients. Management Science 49 (4), 383-399.
Van der Valk, W., van Iwaarden, J., 2011. Monitoring in service triads consisting of buyers, subcontractors, and end customers. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 17, 198-206.
Voss, G.B., Voss, Z.G., 2000. Strategic orientation and firm performance in an artistic environment. Journal of Marketing 64 (1), 67-83.
55
Page 56 of 62
Wathne, K.H., Heide, J.B., 2004. Relationship governance in a supply chain network. Journal of Marketing 68 (January), 73-89.
Williamson, O.E., 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relationalcontracting. New York: The Free Press.
Wu, Y., Balasubramanian, S., Mahajan, V., 2004. When is a preannounced new product likely to be delayed? Journal of Marketing 68 (2), 101-113.
Wuyts, S., 2007. Extra-role behavior in buyer-supplier relationships. International Journal of Research in Marketing 24 (4), 301-311.
Wuyts, S., Stremersch, S., Van den Bulte, C., Franses, P.H., 2004. Vertical marketing systems for complex products: A triadic perspective. Journal of Marketing Research 41 (November), 479-487.
Yan, T., Dooley, K.J., 2013. Communication intensity, goal congruence, and uncertaintly in buyer-supplier new product development. Journal of Operations Management 31 (November), 523-542.
56
Page 57 of 62
57
Page 58 of 62
APPENDIX AKEY MEASURES: NETHERLANDS STUDY
Measure Reliability Items FactorLoadings
Provider (Client) Based on your experiences with this service provider, please rate to what extent you agree with theCustomer α = .84 following statements regarding the service provider’s (your firm’s) internal processes and routines.Focus (α = .83) (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree)
Source:1. This (Our) firm has procedures in place to help us understand and address different types of .82 (.63)
customer support issuesAdapted from 2. This (Our) firm has processes to systematically analyze customer information .72 (.59)Kohli et al., 1993 3. This (Our) firm has interdepartmental meetings at least once a quarter to discuss market .61 (.95)
trends and developments4. Data on customer satisfaction are disseminated at all levels in this (our) firm on a regular .81 (.72)
basis
Customer Need The following questions focus on the degree to which the service provider attends to customer needs.Fulfillment α = .86 Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement. (1 = strongly disagree; 7 =
Source:strongly agree)
.731. This firm helps solve customers’ problems.Adapted from 2. This firm provides useful information to our customers. .85Kumar et al., 3. This firm has shown itself proactive in addressing customer needs. .761992 4. Customers seem generally pleased with the services provided by this firm. .77
Relational Tie Please rate the degree to which the following statements describe the current status of your firm’s
Source: Adaptedα = .83 relationship with this service provider. (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree)
.761. Our interactions with this organization can be defined asfrom Rindfleisch “mutually gratifying”
.90and Moorman, 2. We expect to be interacting with this organization far into the future2003 3. We would be willing to make adjustments to help out our service provider when faced with .57
special problems/circumstances.864. Our service provider would be willing to make adjustments to help out when we are faced
with special problems/circumstancesMarket The following questions relate to your firm’s environment. Please indicate how strongly you agreeTurbulence α = .75 or disagree with each statement. (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree)
.71Source:
1. In our industry, customer preferences change quite strongly over time2. Our customers are continuously on the lookout for new products .75
Jaworski and 3. New customers have typically product related needs that deviate from those of our existing .67Kohli, 1993 customers
58
Page 59 of 62
Provider Evaluate the skills of this service provider as compared to other potential service providers in theResources α = .83 following areas, based on your experiences with this service provider and your own assessment of
Source:the provider’s company. (1 = much worse; 7 = much better)
.651. Technology to support service deliveryAdapted from 2. Employee knowledge of customer needs .50Eisenhardt and 3. Quality of technical support personnel .80Martin, 1999 4. Availability of funds to pursue new developments in customer support delivery .69
5. Physical infrastructure and facilities .77
Operational Please rate the degree to which the following statements describe the current status of your firm’sInformation α = .82 relationship with this service provider/client firm. (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree)
.66Sharing 1. Our organizations regularly exchange information related to changes in the technology of
Source: 2.this product or service
.65Our organizations exchange information about unexpected problems as soon as possibleNew Scale 3. It is common to establish joint teams with our outsourcing partner to solve operational .82
problems in this relationship
Strategic How important were each of the following factors in your decision to outsource this service?Objective α = .84 1. Enhancing customer focus in the long run .78
Source:2. Accessing new skills and technology .653. Improving quality of service delivery to customers .79
Self-constructed 4. Exploring options to offer better service to customers .80
59
Page 60 of 62
APPENDIX BKEY MEASURES INDIA STUDY
Measure Reliability Items Factorloadings
Provider Please rate the degree to which the following statements describe your firm’s organizational practicesCustomer α = .75 (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree)
.51Focus 1. We have procedures in place to help us understand and address different types of customer
Source:support issues
.772. We systematically analyze customer support problemsAdapted from 3. We have interdepartmental meetings at least once a quarter to discuss market trends and .88Kohli et al., developments1993Provider The next set of questions focus on your firm’s customer-related capabilities since you began providingPerformance α = .75 the customer support activities for this particular client firm. (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly
Source:agree)
1. In general, our customer-serving abilities are excellent .76New scale 2. In general, our market-response abilities are excellent .69
3. We are able to offer services that help attract new customers .70Relational Tie Please rate the degree to which the following statements describe the current status of your firm’s
Source:α = .74 relationship with this client. (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree)
.621. We expect to be interacting with this client far into the futureAdapted from 2. We would be willing to make adjustments to help out our client when faced with special .80Rindfleisch problems/circumstances
.67and Moorman, 3. Our client would be willing to make adjustments to help out when we are faced with special2003 problems/circumstancesProvider Compared to your competitors, please rate your firm’s abilities in the following areas. (1 = muchResources α = .79 worse; 7 = much better)Source: 1. Technology to support service delivery .70Adapted from 2. Employee knowledge of customer needs .65Eisenhardt and 3. Quality of technical support personnel .72Martin, 1999 4. Availability of funds to pursue new developments in customer support delivery .73Operational Please rate the degree to which the following statements describe your interactions with this clientInformation α = .71 firm. (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree)Sharing 1. Our organizations regularly exchange information related to changes in the technology of this .57
Source: 2.product or service
.81Our organizations exchange information about unexpected problems as soon as possibleNew Scale 3. It is common to establish joint teams with our client firm to solve operational problems in this .64
relationship
60
Page 61 of 62
APPENDIX CESTIMATION RESULTS STRUCTURAL EQUATIONS MODEL – NETHERLANDS
STUDY
Variable Hypothesis Parameter(st. error)
Constant TermProvider Customer Focus (PCF) H1 (+) .05 (.12)PCF * Relational Tie H2 (+) .16 (.11) †PCF * Client Customer Focus H3 (+) .30 (.11) **PCF * Market Turbulence H4 (-) -.19 (.10) *Relational Tie .34 (.15) *Client Customer Focus .10 (.10)Market Turbulence -.06 (.10)Provider Resources .18 (.08) *Operational Information Sharing .17 (.05) **Strategic Objective .13 (.05) *Equipment-related Services .00 (.13)China -2.25 (.88) **Czech Republic -1.15 (.44) **Italy -2.68 (.88) **Ireland 2.39 (.88) **UK 1.07 (.61) †
† indicates significance at the .10 level; * indicates significance at the .05; level ** indicates significance at the .01 level; significances of hypothesized effects are based on one-sided tests, all other significances are based on two-sided tests.
61
Page 62 of 62