| Abstract: | Increasing globalization and the rapid growth of information technologies, including the Internet, have resulted in drastic changes in international activities of companies. Once limited to manufactured goods, currently, global outsourcing encompasses a wide variety of knowledge‐based services, such as accounting, financial services, taxation, customer service, information technology, engineering drawings, human resources, research and development (R&D), data processing, and sales. The domain of outsourcing knowledge‐based services is the focus of this paper. Moving beyond the inevitability of global outsourcing, this research takes the perspective of the outsourcer and focuses on managing its transition to providers in the context of innovation. In addition to delivering projected cost benefits to outsourcers, effective transition management can facilitate the generation of innovations. This research attempts to extend the current academic research on global outsourcing in three ways: (1) It offers a framework for understanding the transition process in outsourcing and its relationship to innovation; (2) it takes a broader perspective of outsourcing, including globalization, knowledge‐based services, and core activities of the firm; and (3) using a parsimonious set of theoretical concepts based on control theory, it develops several research propositions to clarify the linkages between variables. Based on our theorizing, outsourcing top management should ask two questions when planning outsourcing of knowledge‐based services to generate innovations in a globalized world. These two questions are: (1) How close is the task to our core competence? And (2) how much tacit knowledge is involved in doing the outsourced task? Next, managers must identify global providers and then spend considerable thought in operational execution of the transition of the task for that is the only time that both complete teams will work together. For tasks that are close to core competence, rigid‐explicit behavioral controls should be put in place; however, for tasks that have high tacit knowledge content, high norms‐based relational control would be more effective. These different types of controls would lead to different innovation outcomes. Rigid‐explicit behavioral controls would produce incremental innovation while relational norms‐based controls would encourage radical innovation. |
