|
The first part of the interviews focused on
general information in regard to the 22 interview partners and consisted of company-related
information (information on the interview partner’s company), project-related information
(information on the interview partner’s experience with OSD projects), and person-related
information (information on the current position fulfilled by the interview
partner).
Figure: Company perspective
Out of the 22 participants interviewed,
three worked for an offshore provider, six within a consulting firm, and seven
for an OSD client (compare figure above). Furthermore, two of the interviewees worked for an
internal consulting firm situated within an OSD client company (client & consultancy), while four
participants confirmed that their companies fulfill the role of both provider
and client of OSD services (client
& provider).
In
regard to the interview partners’ project experience,
we particularly focused on their experience with different organizational forms
of OSD projects, different company sizes on the part of the client, as well as
different offshore regions of destination.
In
the context of IT offshoring, Schaaf (2004) differentiates between offshore
outsourcing, where the relevant services are rendered by an external provider
abroad, and captive offshore outsourcing, where company subsidiaries or joint
ventures in a foreign country deliver the respective services. In addition to Schaaf’s
(2004) classification, a differentiation can be made between exclusive offshore
providers and providers which possess an IT subsidiary or branch office in the
client’s country.
The
evaluation of the interview data showed that the majority of the participants
(17 mentions) already gained experience with exclusive offshore providers (compare
figure below). The second most popular organizational form was the
cooperation with an offshore provider, which possesses an office in the
client’s home country (eleven mentions). Furthermore, experiences with
self-owned IT subsidiaries abroad were mentioned by eight participants, while
experiences with OSD projects carried out with a foreign joint venture were
only confirmed by one of the interview partners.
Figure: Experience of interview
partners with different organizational forms
When
examining the predominant company size on the part of the client (compare figure below), the results are relatively balanced. A slight
majority (54.54 percent) of the interview partners represented either
large-scale clients (LE clients) or providers/consultancies which delivered
services to LE clients. The remaining 45.46 percent were employed by small or
medium-sized clients (SME clients) or by providers/consultancies, which
cooperated primarily with SME clients in the context of OSD projects
Regarding
the exact requirements for the separation of small and medium-sized enterprises
(SME) from large-scale enterprises (LE), we refer to the definition for SME
proposed by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (2004) [FMER].
According to this definition, a SME is a company which has less than 250
employees as well as maximum annual sales of 40 million euros or maximum total
yearly assets of 27 million euros. Furthermore, 25 percent or more of the
enterprise may not be held by one or more enterprises, which do not fulfill the
definition of a SME.
Figure: Experience of interview
partners with SME and LE clients
Regarding
the various suitable regions of destinations for OSD projects, nearly half of
the participants (45.46 percent) confirmed having already carried out projects
in either Asia or Eastern Europe. One of the interview partners even exhibited
experience with three different continents: Africa, Asia, and Europe (compare figure below).
Figure: Experience of interview
partners with different regions of destination
With
regard to the precise countries of destination for OSD projects, India was mentioned a total of
14 times by the respondents, thereby dominating the list (compare figure below). However, further destination countries in Asia such as China (mentioned five times) or
the Philippines (mentioned three times)
prove to be of lesser importance. Focusing on Eastern Europe, the Czech
Republic tends to be the most frequently referred to country of destination for
OSD (mentioned seven times), followed by Slovakia and Belarus (both mentioned
five times).
Figure: Experience of interview
partners with different countries of destination (Top 10)
At
large, when evaluating the country-related data, it was surprising that our
respondents tended to grant Eastern Europe a small edge over Asia. Nevertheless, the dominant
country of destination for OSD projects remains to be India: 14 of the 22 participants
have already conducted or accompanied OSD projects there.
Figure: Position of interview partners
All of the interview partners are, at least
temporarily, taking on leading roles in their companies (compare figure above). Around one third of the participants (eight of the
22 interview partners) are members of the board or head of their company (strategic
level), while six of the participants take on manager positions (tactical level).
The eight participants remaining fulfill the roles of project managers in their
companies (tactical level), at least for the duration of the project, thereby
taking on a leading position.
|
