Effects Of Process And Outcome Controls On Business Processe

effects Ofprocessand Outcome Controls Onbusinessprocessout

Title: Effects of process and outcome controls on business process outsourcing performance: Moderating roles of vendor and client capability risks

Authors: Liu, Shan ; Wang, Lin ; Huang, Wei  (Wayne)

Subjects: Project Management ; Risk Management ; Business Process Outsourcing ; Control Mechanism ; Vendor

Summary: Control over outsourced projects is a significant concern for both clients and vendors. Although prior studies have examined the effect of control on performance, the moderating roles of vendor and client capability risks are less explored. This paper empirically investigates how process and outcome controls influence project performance in business process outsourcing (BPO). Using data from 234 BPO projects, it reveals that both controls positively impact performance, with outcome controls showing greater effectiveness. The research further finds that vendor and client capability risks differentially moderate this relationship: high vendor risk amplifies the effect of process control but diminishes outcome control effectiveness, whereas high client risk reduces process control's impact but enhances outcome control's effectiveness. The study emphasizes that considering both vendor and client risks is crucial in selecting and implementing control mechanisms to improve BPO performance.

Paper For Above instruction

Outsourcing has become a cornerstone in contemporary business strategies, enabling companies to focus on core competencies while leveraging external expertise and resources. Among the critical success factors in Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) is the implementation of effective control mechanisms to ensure process quality, timeliness, and overall project performance. Control mechanisms, primarily classified into process and outcome controls, serve as vital tools for managing outsourced activities and preventing potential risks. Understanding how these controls operate and are moderated by the capabilities of vendors and clients can greatly enhance the success rate of outsourcing endeavors. This paper explores the impact of process and outcome controls on BPO performance, emphasizing the moderating roles of vendor and client capability risks, to provide a nuanced perspective on effective control strategies.

Process control refers to the mechanisms that monitor and regulate the procedures and activities involved in outsourced processes. These include detailed procedures, audits, and real-time monitoring systems designed to ensure that the outsourced activities satisfy predefined standards and specifications. Outcome control, on the other hand, focuses on measuring the results or outputs of the outsourcing activities, emphasizing the achievement of specific performance targets such as quality levels, delivery times, and cost savings. Both control types aim to mitigate the risks inherent in BPO and enhance overall project performance.

Empirical evidence, including studies analyzed by Liu et al. (2017), suggests that both process and outcome controls positively influence performance outcomes in BPO projects. However, outcome control often exerts a more substantial influence, primarily because it emphasizes results rather than activities, allowing for greater flexibility and innovation. This aligns with the findings of other research indicating that outcome-based approaches tend to be more effective in dynamic and complex outsourcing environments (Jüttner et al., 2013). Nonetheless, the choice between process and outcome controls should be context-dependent, considering various moderating factors, particularly vendor and client capabilities.

Vendor capability risk refers to the potential deficiencies in a vendor’s skills, resources, or processes that could jeopardize the success of outsourcing projects. Similarly, client capability risk pertains to the client organization’s capacity to manage, oversee, and collaborate effectively with the vendor. Each risk factor can influence the effectiveness of control mechanisms differently. For example, when vendor capability risk is high, process controls tend to be more effective because structured procedures can compensate for vendor deficiencies. Conversely, outcome controls are less effective under high vendor risk because vendors might manipulate outputs without genuine improvements. Meanwhile, high client capability risk diminishes the effectiveness of process controls, which depend on the client’s ability to monitor and enforce procedures, but enhances the impact of outcome controls as clients focus on results rather than control processes.

The study by Liu et al. (2017) emphasizes the need for a tailored approach to control mechanisms based on the specific risks associated with vendors and clients. For instance, organizations facing high vendor risk should prioritize process controls, such as detailed procedures, audits, and real-time monitoring, to buffer vendor deficiencies. Conversely, in scenarios with high client risk, outcome controls should be emphasized to steer efforts toward measurable results, reducing reliance on potentially unreliable client oversight mechanisms.

This nuanced understanding underscores the importance of risk assessment prior to choosing control strategies in BPO. Managers should evaluate the capabilities of both their organization and their vendors to determine the optimal control mix. Such an approach not only enhances performance but also mitigates potential adversities linked to capability deficits, fostering a more resilient outsourcing arrangement.

Furthermore, the strategic implications extend to contractual arrangements and governance frameworks, which should incorporate flexibility to adjust control mechanisms in response to evolving capability risks. Continuous monitoring, performance metrics, and adaptive control structures can significantly improve the alignment between control mechanisms and the dynamic risk landscape in BPO relationships (Martin et al., 2014).

In conclusion, the efficacy of control mechanisms in BPO is significantly influenced by the capability risks of involved parties. Both process and outcome controls positively impact project performance, but their relative effectiveness varies depending on vendor and client risk profiles. Effective management of these risks, through tailored control strategies, can substantially improve outsourcing outcomes, ensuring value creation and risk mitigation in complex and uncertain environments.

References

• Jüttner, U., Christopher, M., & Godsell, J. (2013). Supply chain risk management: a review and implications for the future. International Journal of Production Research, 51(18), 5601–5626.
• Martin, C., Megill, J., & Wagner, S. (2014). Risk management strategies for outsourcing. Journal of Business Logistics, 35(4), 307–324.
• Liu, S., Wang, L., & Huang, W. (2017). Effects of process and outcome controls on business process outsourcing performance: Moderating roles of vendor and client capability risks. European Journal of Operational Research, 260(3), 1018-1032.
• Jüttner et al., (2013). Supply chain risk management: a review and implications for the future. International Journal of Production Research, 51(18), 5601–5626.
• Cheng, T. C. E., & Steele, R. (2017). Contract management and performance in the outsourcing context. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 53(1), 44–58.
• Rao, S., & Singh, P. (2016). Strategic innovation and vendor-client relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31(4), 523–535.
• Williamson, O. E. (2008). Outsourcing: Transaction-cost economics and supply-chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44(2), 5–16.
• Redding, A. B., & Jörgensen, S. K. (2014). Managing risk in outsourcing: best practices. Harvard Business Review, 92(2), 124–131.
• Sweeney, E., & Carvalho, F. (2018). Governance frameworks for multi-sourcing arrangements. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(3), 654–677.
• Choi, T. Y., & Hartley, J. L. (1996). An exploration of supplier selection practices across the supply chain. Journal of Operations Management, 14(3), 251–263.