PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16334588

Getting offshoring right.

Abstract

The prospect of offshoring and outsourcing business processes has captured the imagination of CEOs everywhere. In the past five years, a rising number of companies in North America and Europe have experimented with this strategy, hoping to reduce costs and gain strategic advantage. But many businesses have had mixed results. According to several studies, half the organizations that have shifted processes offshore have failed to generate the expected financial benefits. What's more, many of them have faced employee resistance and consumer dissatisfaction. Clearly, companies have to rethink how they formulate their offshoring strategies. A three-part methodology can help. First, companies need to prioritize their processes, ranking each based on two criteria: the value it creates for customers and the degree to which the company can capture some of that value. Companies will want to keep their core (highest-priority) processes in-house and consider outsourcing their commodity (low-priority) processes; critical (moderate-priority) processes are up for debate and must be considered carefully. Second, businesses should analyze all the risks that accompany offshoring and look systematically at their critical and commodity processes in terms of operational risk (the risk that processes won't operate smoothly after being offshored) and structural risk (the risk that relationships with service providers may not work as expected). Finally, companies should determine possible locations for their offshore efforts, as well as the organizational forms--such as captive centers and joint ventures--that those efforts might take. They can do so by examining each process's operational and structural risks side by side. This article outlines the tools that will help companies choose the right processes to offshore. It also describes a new organizational structure called the extended organization, in which companies specify the quality of services they want and work alongside providers to get that quality.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ravi Aron, Jitendra V Singh. 2005. Getting offshoring right.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16334588/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Transnational tobacco company influence on tax policy during privatization of a state monopoly: British American Tobacco and Uzbekistan.

OBJECTIVES: The International Monetary Fund encourages privatization of state-owned tobacco industries. Privatization tends to lower cigarette prices, which encourages consumption. This could be countered with effective tax policies. We explored how investment by British American Tobacco (BAT) influenced tax policy in Uzbekistan during privatization there. METHODS: We obtained internal documents from BAT and analyzed them using a hermeneutic process to create a chronology of events. RESULTS: BAT thoroughly redesigned the tobacco taxation system in Uzbekistan. It secured (1) a reduction of approximately 50% in the excise tax on cigarettes, (2) an excise system to benefit its brands and disadvantage those of its competitors (particularly Philip Morris), and (3) a tax stamp system from which it hoped to be exempted, because this would likely facilitate its established practice of cigarette smuggling and further its competitive advantage.. CONCLUSIONS: Privatization can endanger effective tobacco excise policies. The International Monetary Fund should review its approach to privatization and differentiate the privatization of an industry whose product kills from privatization of other industries.

Commerce↗

Pricing and reimbursement of in-patent drugs in seven European countries: a comparative analysis.

The main objective of this comparative analysis was to assess regulations applied by EU governments to reward potentially innovative drugs. We focused on the pharmaceutical policy for in-patent drugs in seven EU countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK. A common scheme was applied to all seven countries: first, pricing and reimbursement procedures for new and innovative drugs were investigated; secondly, we focused on the use in the regulatory process of economic evaluations. The analysis involved reviewing the literature and interviewing a selected panel of local experts in each country. According to our comparative analysis, a first sensible step might be to classify active ingredients as those addressing neglected pathologies and those for diseases that are already successfully treated, thus offering more limited therapeutic gains by definition. A reasonable solution to reward real innovation could be to admit a premium price for very innovative drugs according to their estimated cost-effectiveness. New drugs with modest improvement could be grouped in therapeutic clusters and submitted to a common reference price, despite patent expiration. Such a "dual approach" could be a sensible compromise to restrict pharmaceutical expenditure while at the same time rewarding companies that invest in high-risk basic research.

Commerce↗