Offshored Software and IT-enabled Services have grown spectacularly over the last decade, particularly from India (McKinsey & Nasscom, 2005; Nasscom, 2007). In western economies, while domestic outsourcing won acceptance from 1980s, off-shored outsourcing has assumed increasing importance since the late nineties (Hirschheim, Heinzl, & Dibbern, 2006). Global outsourcing could be regarded as a component of the ongoing phenomenon of globalization (Friedman, 2005). Global outsourcing or offshoring involves transfer of work from its original locale within organizational boundaries or at a domestic firm, to a location at a considerable distance. In a general sense, such transfers are a core component of Globalization. The well known sociologist Anthony Giddens, for example, considers time-space distantiation and disembedding mechanisms as the major features modernity and globalization (Giddens, 1990). Such process transfers however, need to confront significant complexities since they involve work transfers across differences or gaps in five dimensions — geographical distance, time zone differences, governance differences, cultural differences and infrastructural differences (van Fenema, 2002). Because of these complexities, disembedding processes from locales where they have earlier been performed to new locations is not in itself an uncomplicated and routine process. There could be considerable risk of failures. We argue in this paper however, that a creative and effective use of resources of the new environment provides scope for major improvements and gains. High levels of quality and productivity reported from India (McKinsey & Nasscom; Nasscom, 2005) point to the fact such gains have been obtained in many cases. We consider Improvisation, which may be defined as creative problem solving that is grounded in the realities at hand, as essential for successful work relocation. In this paper we present two cases of global companies setting up centers in India. While creativity as a value is prized by both organizations, in confronting a new context, organizational approach to improvisation differs leading to different outcomes.
We review the literature on Improvisation in Sect. 2. Research approach is outlined in Sect. 3. We present two cases — one of a British and the second of an American multinational commencing work in their Indian software subsidiary in Sect. 4. Of these, while one succeeds in the venture and its subsidiary goes on to achieve outstanding performance amongst global centers of the firm, the Indian subsidiary of the other firm fails to meet expectations of the parent and had to fold up. In the final section we contrast the two approaches and consider key organizational factors that facilitated appropriate improvisation and contributed to the outcomes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bansler, J. P., & Havn, E. C. (2003). Improvisation in action: Making sense of IS development in organizations. Unpublished Manuscript, 51–63.
Barrett, F. J. (1998). Coda: Creativity and improvisation in Jazz and organizations: Implications for organizational learning. Organization Science, 9(5), 605–622.
Bastien, D. T., & Hostager, T. J. (1988). Jazz as a process of organizational innovation. Communication Research, 15(5), 582.
Ciborra, C. U. (1999). Notes on improvisation and time in organizations. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 9(2), 77–94.
Cunha, M. P., & Cunha, J. V. (2001). Managing improvisation in cross cultural virtual teams. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1(2), 187–208.
Cunha, M. P., Cunha, J. V., & Kamoche, K. (1999). Organizational improvisation: What, when, how and why. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(3), 299–341.
Dyba, T. (2000). Improvisation in small software organizations. Software, IEEE, 17(5), 82–87.
Eisenberg, E. M. (1990). Jamming: Transcendence through organizing. Communication Research, 17(2), 139–164.
Eisenhardt, K., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 84–110.
Flores, F., Graves, M., Hartfield, B., & Winograd, T. (1988). Computer systems and the design of organizational interaction. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6(2), 153–172.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat a brief history of the 21st century. London: Penguin.
Giddens, A. (1986). The constitution of society: Outline of theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A., & Dallmayr, F. R. (1982). Profiles and critiques in social theory. London: Macmillan.
Hatch, M. J. (1999). Exploring the empty spaces of organizing: How improvisational Jazz helps redescribe organizational structure. Organization Studies, 20(1), 75–100.
Heeks, R., Krishna, S., Nicholsen, B., & Sahay, S. (2001). Synching or sinking: Global software outsourcing relationships. IEEE Software, 18(2), 54–60.
Hirschheim, R., Heinzl, A., & Dibbern, J. (2006). Information systems outsourcing: Enduring themes, new perspectives and global challenges. New York: Springer.
Hyder, E. B., Heston, K. M., & Paulk, M. C. (2004). The eSourcing capability model for service providers (eSCM-SP) v2, Part 1: Model Overview, CMU-ISRI-04-113. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
Kamoche, K., & Cunha, M. P. (2001). Minimal structures: From Jazz improvisation to product innovation. Organization Studies, 22(5), 733–64.
Kamoche, K., Cunha, M. P., & Cunha, J. V. (2003). Towards a theory of organizational improvisation: Looking beyond the Jazz metaphor. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 2023–2051.
Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11(5), 473–492.
McKinsey and Nasscom. (2005). Nasscom-McKinsey Report 2005. www.nasscom.org.
McKnight, B., & Bontis, N. (2002). E-improvisation: collaborative groupware technology expands the reach and effectiveness of organizational improvisation. Knowledge and Process Management, 9(4), 219–227.
Meyer, A., Frost, P. J., Weick, K. E. (1998). The organization science Jazz festival: Improvisation as a metaphor for organizing: Overture. Organization Science, 9(5), 540–542.
Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 257–272.
Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1998a). Organizational improvisation and organizational memory. The Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 698–723.
Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1998b). The convergence of planning and execution: Improvisation in new product development. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 1–20.
Nasscom. (2005). Quality milestones. NASSCOM News Line, 43, 1–4.
Nasscom. (2007). Strategic Review 2007. www.nasscom.org.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63–92.
Peplowski, K. (1998). The process of improvisation. Organization Science, 9(5), 560–561.
Rice, R. E., & Rogers, E. M. (1980). Reinvention in the innovation process. Science Communication, 1(4), 499–514.
Sahay, S., Nicholson, B., & Krishna, S. (2003). Global IT outsourcing: Software development across borders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sharma, R. (2004). Control and coordination of global software projects: An empirical study. Bangalore: Indian Institute of Management Bangalore.
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: Is the creative process Darwinian?” Psychological Inquiry, 10(4), 309–328.
Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-achine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Talukdar, S. (2005). Makeshift miracles: The Indian genius for Jugaad. India: The Times of India.
Thayer, L. (1988). Leadership/communication: A critical review and a modest proposal. Handbook of Organizational Communication, 231–263.
Truex, D., Baskerville, R., & Travis, J. (2000). Amethodical systems development: The deferred meaning of systems development methods. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 10(1), 53–79.
Truex, D. P., & Klein, H. K. (1991). A rejection of structure as a basis for information systems development. Collaborative Work, Social Communications and Information Systems, 213–236.
van Fenema, P. C. (2002). Coordination and control of globally distributed software projects. Erasmus Research Institute of Management, 572.
Vera, A. H., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Situated action: A symbolic interpretation. Cognitive Science, 17(1), 7–48.
Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 74–81.
Walsham, G. (2001). Making a world of difference: It in a global context. New York: Wiley.
Weick, K. E. (1998). Introductory essay: Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis. Organization Science, 9(5), 543–555.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Krishna, S., Holla, J. (2009). Relocating Routines: The Role of Improvisation in Offshore Implementation of Software Processes. In: Hirschheim, R., Heinzl, A., Dibbern, J. (eds) Information Systems Outsourcing. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88851-2_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88851-2_19
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-88850-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-88851-2
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)