Offshore Outsourcing of Core and Non-Core Activities and Integrated Firm-Level Performance: M@n@gement vol. 16 no.

4, 2013, 454-478
An Empirical Analysis of Québec Manufacturing SMEs

Offshore Outsourcing of Core and Non-Core

Activities and Integrated Firm-Level Performance:
An Empirical Analysis of Québec Manufacturing
SMEs

MUHAMMAD MOHIUDDIN Faculty of Administrative Sciences

Laval University, Quebec, Canada. G1V0A7
[email protected]

ZHAN SU Faculty of Administrative Sciences

Laval University, Quebec, Canada
[email protected]

Abstract
The objective of this study is to demonstrate the relationship between
outsourcing of core and non-core activities and integrated firm-level
performance (IFLP) consisting of competitive, financial, strategic, and
stakeholders’ performance. Empirical data was collected from manufacturing
small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) in Quebec that outsource, using
a web-based questionnaire. A linear regression analysis was performed to
establish the relationship between outsourcing and IFLP. The findings show
that outsourcing of non-core activities and insourcing (internalization) of core
activities have a positive impact on a firm’s integrated performance. The findings
also demonstrate that offshore outsourcing enhances the economic, social,
and strategic performances of manufacturing SMEs, which enables them to
thrive in the current volatile business environment. However, managers need
to identify carefully functions that could be outsourced in order to determine
trade-offs between outsourcing and internalization. The broadness of the
IFLP concept and the intrinsic complexity of offshore outsourcing tasks call for
further study with larger samples.

Key words: Offshore outsourcing, Firm-level, Integrated performance,

Internalization, SMEs.

454
M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478 Muhammad Mohiuddin and Zhan Su

INTRODUCTION

Offshore outsourcing in this study refers to the delegation of any task or subtask
to a foreign-based external organization or the competitive procuration of
components, including embedded services, from a specialized middle market.
The terms offshore outsourcing and outsourcing are employed interchangeably
in this article. Outsourcing is a poorly understood business strategy that is
highly publicized and debated among researchers, practitioners, and the public.
Researchers have studied it from diverse points of view, using different theories
(Mohiuddin, 2011), and applying different research methodologies.
Canada is the second largest per-capita exporter among the top manufacturing
countries in the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development) (Mohiuddin & Su, 2013). Many Canadian small and medium
enterprises (SMEs) that adopt offshore outsourcing themselves supply
specialized products and services to large multinational companies (MNCs)
from the United States and elsewhere. The offshore outsourcing done by
Canadian manufacturing SMEs is very different from the outsourcing utilized
by other OECD countries. Canadian export-oriented manufacturing firms are
largely dependent on the US market for their complete or modular products
and services. Through outsourcing, export-oriented manufacturing SMEs in
Québec and the rest of Canada are able to delegate activities in which they
do not have a competitive advantage, and thus create for themselves a level
playing field in the US market.
The debate on the implications of offshore outsourcing is pronounced. There are
many intuitively appealing arguments for and against outsourcing as a means
of achieving sustainable competitive advantages (SCAs). The arguments for
the beneficial effects of outsourcing are many. Gorzig and Stephan (2002) find
that outsourcing materials are positively correlated with profits. Bertrand (2011)
finds a positive correlation between outsourcing and overall exports. In general,
outsourcing enables firms to become more flexible in adjusting production
to fluctuations in market demand and unforeseen changes (Contractor,
Kumar, Kundu, & Pedersen, 2011). Outsourcing improves an organization’s
responsiveness and “leads to the availability of higher quality goods and
services by creating competition among suppliers” (Rasheed & Gilley, 2005:
523). Thus, outsourcing can expand a firm’s capacities (Callahan, Smith, &
Spencer, 2013), even when the company in question does not possess all
necessary resources and competencies. Outsourcing allows a firm to improve
the quality of its products and services, thereby opening new opportunities
to development in the long term (Ellram, Tate, & Billington, 2008). However,
there are also negative outcomes associated with the practices of outsourcing;
namely, it can cause a firm to lose its organizational competencies, become
dependent on supplier firms, and suffer from opportunistic behavior.

455
Offshore Outsourcing of Core and Non-Core Activities and Integrated Firm-Level Performance: M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478
An Empirical Analysis of Québec Manufacturing SMEs

Until now, studies dealing with the effects of outsourcing have been wanting or
inconclusive. Jabbour (2010), Tomiura (2007), and Daveri and Lasinio (2007)
find conflicting results in their study of the impact of offshore outsourcing on
firms’ productivity. In addition, another shortcoming of the extant literature
is that its focus is imbalanced, devoting much attention to the study of large
firms and insufficient attention to small firms. For instance, previous studies
(Bertrand, 2011; Chen, 2009; Jiang & Qureshi, 2006; Kotabe, Mol, Murray, &
Parente, 2012) have largely focused on the outsourcing practices of large firms,
with the exception of a few studies (Di Gregorio, Musteen, & Thomas, 2009;
Mohiuddin & Z. Su, 2013; Rashid & Al-Azad, 2013; Scully & Fawcett, 1994)
focused on outsourcing practices of SMEs. This is an important issue because
the outsourcing of large firms and SMEs may differ, according to company
size and other characteristics. In summary, firms outsource for a variety of
reasons, including but not limited to: access to competitive production factors,
economies of scale, higher innovation capabilities, higher quality products, lower
operating costs, greater focus on critical processes, and increased flexibility for
coping with the current volatile business environment. The perceived benefits
of outsourcing encompass competitive, financial, strategic, and stakeholder
issues. Therefore, an in-depth study must incorporate all these performance
components in order to shed light on whether manufacturing SMEs can obtain
these benefits from outsourcing.
Most outsourcing performance studies (Gilley, Greer, & Rasheed, 2004; Gilley
& Rasheed, 2000; Giustiniano & Clarioni, 2013; Jiang, Belohlav, & Young,
2007) have considered mainly outcome-based financial indicators because
of the availability of financial performance data. However, financial indicators
are considered historical and backward looking. They excessively reward
short-term results that may cause management frustration and resistance
(Verbeeten & Boons, 2009). As a result, they are generally incongruent with
the strategic goals of an organization (Atkinson, Waterhouse, & Wells, 1997).
Although profitability is important, short-term financial performance does not
sufficiently indicate the sustainability of a venture. To be sustainable, a firm
needs to look beyond profitability and incorporate competitive, strategic, and
stakeholder concerns. The present study adopted the sustainability principles
of the WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) Report
(1987: 24), which defines sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present
generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
needs” and appears to consider sustainability beyond its classic ecological
definitions. Studies on the effects of offshore outsourcing on firms need to
incorporate competitive, financial, strategic, and stakeholder performance
issues because such integrated performance can better reflect the firms’
sustainability.
This study sheds light on the effects of outsourcing in terms of integrated firm-
level performance (IFLP) in the context of manufacturing SMEs in Québec. IFLP
is a broader concept than firm-level performance and incorporates competitive,
financial, strategic, and non-equity stakeholder performance. In this regard,
the outsourcing practices of non-core competencies and internalization of
core competencies and their relation to the IFLP of manufacturing SMEs need
to be studied rigorously. It is with this aim that this study examines whether
outsourcing can influence IFLP. The concepts of core competencies and
firm-level performance are distinctly defined and are evaluated differently by

456
M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478 Muhammad Mohiuddin and Zhan Su

researchers and practitioners. When focusing on their core competencies, firms

decide which goods to produce in-house (internalization) and those whose
production will be delegated to suppliers.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 discusses the
literature on the relationships between core and non-core activity outsourcing
and IFLP; Section 3 describes the research methodologies used; Section
4 presents the findings and their analysis; finally, Section 5 presents the
conclusions and limitations of this study.

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESIS:

OFFSHORE OUTSOURCING AND INTEGRATED FIRM-
LEVEL PERFORMANCE (IFLP)

Many scholars and practitioners view outsourcing as an efficient way to address

organizational competitiveness (Giustiniano & Clarioni, 2013; Mohiuddin &
Su, 2013; Mohiuddin, Z. Su, & A. Su, 2010; Mukherjee, Gaur, & Datta, 2013;
Wu, Li, Chu, & Sculli, 2005). Outsourcing involves the process of vertical
disintegration across the globe in favor of competitive production factors
and market opportunities, which correspond to the new international division
of labor (A. Su, Regnière, & Z. Su, 2013). An increasing number of studies
discuss the different operational, managerial, governance, and strategic issues
of outsourcing as well as its firm-level implications. However, despite the
increasing use of outsourcing as a business strategy, the effects it has on IFLP,
the increasing complexities of outsourcing governance, and how and what
activities to choose for outsourcing remain hotly debated. This would suggest
that there is still an incomplete understanding of outsourcing as a concept. The
following subsection discusses outsourcing of core and non-core activities to
highlight which of these can be outsourced or internalized to improve a firm’s
overall competitiveness.

THEORETICAL INSIGHTS ON GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE AND NON-

CORE ACTIVITIES IN OFFSHORE OUTSOURCING

Outsourcing issues are being investigated in several academic research fields

(Marchegiani, Pirolo, Peruffo, & Giustiniano, 2010). Owing to the variety of
perspectives represented in outsourcing research, studies often produce
contradictory results (Mol, van Tulder, & Beije, 2005). This implies that scholars
and practitioners need to address more unresolved questions related to
outsourcing, one of which is the effect of outsourcing on IFLP.
Core competencies are the highest level of organizational knowledge and skills
shared across business units, which contribute the most to added values and
result from the integration and harmonization of the strategic business unit
competencies. A core competency is defined as a collection of competencies
that are widespread in the firm (Javidan, 1998). Outsourcing enhances firm
performance because it helps the firm operate more efficiently by reducing
costs and augmenting managerial focus on core competencies (Gulbrandsen,
Sandvik, & Haughland, 2009; Javalgi, Dixit, & Scherer, 2009; McNally & Griffin,

457
Offshore Outsourcing of Core and Non-Core Activities and Integrated Firm-Level Performance: M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478
An Empirical Analysis of Québec Manufacturing SMEs

2004). Sharpe (1997) asserts that through outsourcing of non-core activities,

firms can concentrate on core competencies and improve their productivity,
competitiveness, and sustainability in the marketplace. Corporate survival in
the long term is dependent on a firm’s ability to exploit core competencies
(Torkkeli & Tuominen, 2002).
In the field of research pertaining to the motivations and outcomes of
outsourcing, the two most prominent theories on how to decide what to
outsource and what to internalize are transaction cost economics (TCE) and
the resource-based view (RBV) (Espino-Rodrı́guez & Padrón-Robaina, 2006;
Mayer & Salomon, 2006; Reitzig & Wagner, 2010).
Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) and Offshore Outsourcing
Drawing on the Coase theorem (1937), the transaction cost economics
(TCE) theory uses frequency, asset specificity, and uncertainty to explain the
boundaries of firms and to identify when a “task” is transacted in a hierarchy
instead of “in a market”. Assumptions about “transactions” in TCE are relaxed
to some extent from the neoclassical perspective of economics, in order
to reconcile economic theory with organizational reality where there are
hierarchies as well as markets. For example, in the neoclassical economic
paradigm, information is considered perfect, whereas in the TCE perspective
information is considered asymmetric and a source of uncertainty. The TCE
perspective recognizes that parties involved in a transaction may not disclose
all relevant information, which leads to opportunistic behavior.
In neoclassical economics, the identities of the buyer and seller do not matter,
whereas in TCE, they do, which leads to asset specificity (Nagpal, 2004).
In economic science, agents are considered as rational. However, in reality,
economic actors are intendedly rational, but only limitedly so in reality; this
is called bounded rationality (Williamson, 1985). TCE assesses the choices
between internal production (hierarchy) and outsourcing of the same activities
by comparing the internal costs and the costs of “using” the market (Jones
& Hill, 1988). The available outsourcing literature sheds some light on the
possible ambiguities related to the assessment of the actual dynamics
of transaction costs (Chen, 2009). For example, economic, political, and
institutional differences including cultural and linguistic factors, may have a
great impact on transaction costs. Understanding this might limit the repetition
of generalizations made in prior studies across national governance systems
(Marchegiani, Giustiniano, Peruffo, & Pirolo, 2012; Sultana, Rashid, Mohiuddin,
& Mazumder, 2013).
Moreover, from a TCE perspective, it seems that outsourcing becomes
crucial when markets are not able to allocate resources efficiently and reduce
uncertainty (Giustiniano & Clarioni, 2013). Therefore, outsourcing could
represent a means of reducing selection, negotiation, reorganization, and
control costs (Coase, 1937), particularly when the resource dependence of
firms is high (Hillman, Withers, & Collins, 2009). In general, TCE uses frequency,
uncertainty, and asset specificity to propose an optimal set of governance
structures; the cost of transactions varies systematically with the attributes of
transactions (Williamson, 1985). TCE addresses deciding between internal
production and outsourcing, as shown in Table 1.

458
M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478 Muhammad Mohiuddin and Zhan Su

Table 1. Governance structure under TCE

Uncertainty Frequency Asset specificity
Non-specific Mid-level specific Idiosyncratic
Low Low Outsource with neoclassical contract
Outsource
with classical
High High Relational contract Insource
contract
(Internalization)

(Developed by authors with adaptation from Nagpal, 2004).

Transaction Cost Economics (TCE), Outsourcing, and

Performance
Rise in frequency of transaction increases the cost of maintaining the transaction
relationship between two organizations. Transaction cost economics (TCE)
asserts that the higher the frequency of transaction, the greater the chances
of internalization of activities by the organization. However, utilizing information
and communication technology can reduce the transaction cost between the
collaborating organizations in the standardized low-to-medium technology
industries. In addition, there is a trade-off between the fixed setup cost of
production and the variable cost of transactions. Generally, the fixed cost
of production is higher than the variable cost of market transactions. This
means that companies can change their cost structure from a fixed setup to
variable cost through outsourcing. The fixed setup cost structure is more rigid
and investment-dependent and is less able to cope with the volatile market
environment. Thus, firm performance can be enhanced by outsourcing rather
than by incurring significant fixed setup costs. To avoid such inertia, a firm can
also outsource high-frequency tasks to improve its overall performance and to
ensure that high-frequency transactions minimize marginal cost. This type of
TCE is different from classical TCE, which asserts that high-frequency tasks
should be internalized.
Asset specificity is the most important attribute of TCE. Asset specificity
means the degree of customization associated with the transaction (McIvor,
2009). There are at least three types of asset specificities: (i) physical asset
specificity, (ii) human asset specificity, and (iii) locational asset specificity. Asset
specificity can be standardized, i.e., it can be non-specific. When this is the
case, outsourcing can enhance the performance of firms, especially in low-
to-mid-technology manufacturing industries. TCE suggests that firms should
internalize tasks related to idiosyncratic (specific) assets to protect themselves
from the opportunistic behaviors of partner firms in market transactions.
Internalization allows firms to effect more innovations and protect more
valuable assets, including intellectual property rights. Firms can then exploit
these advantages in order to survive over the long term and to create higher
value-added job opportunities for their communities. Hybrid assets, which fall
between standardized and idiosyncratic assets, can be outsourced under a joint
governance system, such as captive outsourcing, to enhance organizational
performance. Among the tasks of the three types of asset specificity, those for
human idiosyncratic assets can also be outsourced because of the ease of their
transferability and their ability to improve firm performance.
The third attribute of TCE is uncertainty, which can be either external
uncertainty determined by the marketplace or internal uncertainty in relation

459
Offshore Outsourcing of Core and Non-Core Activities and Integrated Firm-Level Performance: M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478
An Empirical Analysis of Québec Manufacturing SMEs

to the organization’s decisions of what to outsource and what to internalize.

The external uncertainties are market volatility, unpredictability, and any other
aspects that can disrupt the market and its predictability. In the event of high
external uncertainty, TCE posits an internalization of tasks so that strategies
can be adapted according to changes in market movements. In the case of
high asset-specific tasks, internal uncertainties stem from firms’ bounded
rationality and their lack of awareness of outsourced tasks. However, in the
case of low-to-medium asset-specific tasks, the level of external uncertainty
is generally acceptable and the level of internal uncertainty is low, making
the outsourcing of such tasks usually beneficial to the performance of the
firm. The outsourcing of tasks can also mitigate the impact of some external
uncertainties, such as natural disasters and disruption of supply chains,
because of its reliance on multiple channels and multiple locations. On the
whole, outsourcing can contribute to the downsizing of firms and make them
more flexible and competitive in a volatile marketplace. Divesting from less-
performing activities saves resources, which can be redirected to more value-
added activities. In turn, these higher value-added activities make these focal
firms more productive and more distinctive than their competitors, enabling
them to adopt strategic positions in the marketplace, create better-value jobs,
and bring more wealth into their communities.
Based on the conclusions of the preceding discussion, our first hypothesis is
as follows:

H1: Offshore outsourcing of non-core activities enables

Québec manufacturing SMEs to be more productive,
profitable, competitive, and strategic and to create
opportunities for non-equity stakeholders.

OFFSHORE OUTSOURCING OF CORE ACTIVITIES AND INTEGRATED

FIRM-LEVEL PERFORMANCE (IFLP)

Core competencies are an organization’s strengths and abilities developed

over a long period of time. They provide value to customers and are difficult
for competitors to replicate. Core competencies can be considered the raison
d’être of the firm. Rather than outsourcing core activities, a company should
outsource non-core functions to supplier firms. By doing so, skilled employees
are able to focus on core operations; that is, on activities that add higher values
to the product or service of the firm and improve overall productivity of the firm.
Resource-Based View (RBV) and Outsourcing
The RBV of the firm has been employed over the last decade to explain
outsourcing strategy. The RBV assists in analyzing organizational capabilities,
and therefore can help link outsourcing with an organization’s performance and
competitive priorities (McIvor, 2009). The RBV assumes that firms maximize
long-term profits by developing and exploiting resources for competitive
advantage (Javalgi et al., 2009). It also enables firms to expand beyond their
own limits in order to have greater access to organizational resources and
capabilities they do not possess. Grant (1996) and Mohiuddin and Z. Su
(2010) point out that an organization’s competency depends on its capability to

460
M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478 Muhammad Mohiuddin and Zhan Su

continuously combine, recombine, and reconfigure resources and processes

to meet desired objectives.
The RBV provides some insightful views and overcomes some of the limitations
found in the TCE tenants, such as the problems of bounded rationality. The
outsourcing decision depends on the capabilities of the firm in relation to that
of their suppliers. Espino-Rodrı́guez and Padrón-Robaina (2004) divide this
perspective into two subcategories: (1) the focus on the propensity to outsource
and (2) the relationship between the decision to outsource and organizational
performance. The RBV predicts that firms with a rich competency base that
can be deployed to undertake an activity may internalize it. On the other hand,
firms less prepared internally for that activity may outsource it. Thus, when a
company is highly capable of tackling an activity there is a reduced likelihood
that it will outsource that activity (Barney, 1999; Leiblein, Reuer, & Dalsace,
2002). Outsourcing tasks for which there are insufficient internal capabilities,
focusing on tasks for which there are core capabilities, and outsourcing non-
core tasks enhance organizational performance. Focusing on tasks for which
there are core capabilities enables firms to specialize and create more value-
added job opportunities for their community. However, selectively outsourcing to
enter a new emerging market, such as China, can also open new opportunities.
Firms that outsource gain access to complementary resources, interactions,
and exchanges with other firms, which can improve knowledge transfer and
organizational agility for all firms involved. Thus, the RBV posits that firms
that outsource tasks can improve their competitive, financial, strategic, and
stakeholder performances.
Within the resource-based literature, the concept of organizational
competencies has evolved from focusing on the skills and capabilities of a
firm towards emphasizing its distinctive competencies—areas in which
the organization excels and performs better than its competitors (Reed &
DeFillippi, 1990). However, the concept of core competencies is problematic
(Quinn & Hilmer, 1994), mainly because it is difficult to determine a company’s
short-term and long-term core competencies, and almost impossible to predict
what these will be in the future. Prahalad and Hamel (1990) identified three
characteristics: a core competency (i) must contribute significantly to customer
benefit from a product; (ii) should be competitively unique, and as such, should
be difficult for competitors to imitate; and (iii) should provide potential access to
a wide variety of markets. However, core competencies are dynamic and need
to evaluate continuously that become challenging for managers.
The construction of a core competency is difficult because developing skills
and capabilities is time-consuming and costly. Moreover, a company’s priorities
change over time due to dynamic environments and the capabilities other
firms develop (Lei, Hitt, & Bettis, 1996). This means that a company’s current
decisions will be critical for its uncertain future. On the other hand, Goddard
(1997) emphasizes the “uniqueness” of a core competency. According to him,
a firm can have only one core competency at a time, and this core competency
is scattered across the firm’s SBUs. According to the comparative advantage
theory, this core competency should be based on the firm’s specific capability
or competency and not simply on any of its resources (Javidan, 1998; Mooney,
2007).
According to Quinn (1999), keeping core competencies under internal control
and outsourcing non-core activities simultaneously enables companies to

461
Offshore Outsourcing of Core and Non-Core Activities and Integrated Firm-Level Performance: M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478
An Empirical Analysis of Québec Manufacturing SMEs

focus and flatten their organizations because they concentrate their limited
resources on a few knowledge-based core competencies to develop “best in
class” capabilities. This leverages their internal innovation capabilities through
effective personal, IT, and motivational links to outside knowledge sources.
The outsourcing of non-core activities also eliminates the rigid fixed overhead,
bureaucracy, and physical plant-related costs by conscientiously tapping into
the more nimble resources of their customer value chain downstream, and
technology and supply value chain upstream (Al-Azad, Mohiuddin, & Rashid,
2010). In addition, companies can expand their own knowledge and physical
investment capabilities by exploiting the facilities and program investments of
outside sources.
Resource-Based View (RBV), Outsourcing, and Performance
Researchers and policy makers have long argued about what should be
outsourced and what should remain in-house. Common wisdom indicates that
any function or sub-function that is strategic—and therefore, an essential part of
the core competency of an organization—should not be outsourced. Logically,
anything that is not a core competency can be outsourced; by doing so, firms
can redirect resources to the core competency and improve their sustainability.
By outsourcing non-core activities and concentrating on core activities, firms
may increase their performance by becoming more flexible and innovative.
By developing a web of specialized firms for each non-core activity in a virtual
production network, a firm creates a virtuous circle of best performers that make
it the most competitive in the marketplace. Divesting from non-core activities
and investing resources into core activities also improves the specialization of
the firm and offers opportunities for stockholders and stakeholders in the high
value-added segments of the firm. For example, firms can procure non-core
intermediate goods and services at lower costs from specialized firms in low-
cost advanced emerging countries like China and India.
Several authors have identified relationships between outsourcing of core-
competencies and firm performance. Among them, Elmuti (2003) analyzes the
relationship between outsourcing strategy and organizational performance. He
demonstrates that outsourcing benefits a firm’s performance by improving its
expertise and service quality, minimizing the number of employees it needs,
optimizing its processes, and reducing costs and administrative burden. Gilley
and Rasheed (2000) find evidence that a core competency enables a firm to
differentiate between peripheral outsourcing and core outsourcing. Dekkers
(2011) states that firms should consider their core competency when deciding
to outsource. He classifies firms’ activities according to the location of their
performance, that is, as outsourcing to a supplier firm, as internalization, or as
near-core activities under a strategic partnership. Commonly, these authors
highlight the importance of focusing on core competencies and internalizing
them for better performance.
The kind of activities a firm should outsource is still widely debated. Most
scholars concur that a firm should not outsource its core activities (Arnold, 2000;
Quinn & Hilmer, 1994), because doing so may reduce interfaces for innovation,
disclose critical technologies and processes to competitors, increase potential
opportunistic behaviors from partners, and create moral hazards, all of which
offset the potential benefits to be gained from outsourcing. Hence, managers
prefer to maintain their companies’ core activities and outsource “disposable

462
M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478 Muhammad Mohiuddin and Zhan Su

and core-distinct activities” (Arnold, 2000, p. 134) to external providers. Modular

production systems and ever-increasing technological developments allow firms
to break up their activities into tasks that are carried out in a variety of locations
around the globe. This is what Mudambi (2007) calls “fine slicing” (McDermott,
Mudambi, & Parente, 2013). Firms have fewer opportunities to collaborate,
interact, and exchange among their different modules of activities and miss out
on the opportunity to introduce and improve new inter-departmental processes
and innovation (Bettis, Bradley, & Hamel, 1992). Outsourcing in manufacturing
fragments and disintegrates the supply chain, which makes it easier for new
competitors to enter the industry and undermines pricing power and profitability.
The fragmentation and slicing of core activities in manufacturing can lessen
a firm’s inimitability, providing its supplier firms access to proprietary product
processes and creating potential imitators and competitors. The presence of the
latter can intensify the competition, shorten product cycles, and squeeze return
on investment (ROI). In sum, one of the negative outcomes of outsourcing
rather than internalizing core activities is that it diminishes a firm’s potential for
innovation, competitiveness, and consequently, long-term performance. Based
on the preceding discussion, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H2a: Outsourcing core tasks “hollows out” a firm,

reducing its innovative capability and profitability.
H2b: Internalizing core tasks enables a firm to specialize,
improving its innovative capability, competitiveness,
strategy, and profitability.
Combining TCE and the RBV, Mayer and Salomon (2006) find that contractual
hazards provide firms with an incentive to internalize, regardless of a firm’s
capabilities. However, firms with weak technological capabilities are more
likely to outsource. The TCE and RBV perspectives appear to complement
each other as ways to approach outsourcing analysis (Leiblein & Miller, 2003;
Mohiuddin & Z. Su, 2013), especially in their focus on the positive aspects of
in-house strategic activities (Espino-Rodríguez & Padrón-Robaina, 2006) and
resources (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). Resource-based models recognize the
idiosyncratic capabilities of every organization. They suggest that organizations
can gain SCAs by deploying firm-specific resources and capabilities efficiently
and strategically. These resources and capabilities should be rare, valuable,
and non-substitutable (Barney, 1991; Kotabe, & Murray, 2004).

463
Offshore Outsourcing of Core and Non-Core Activities and Integrated Firm-Level Performance: M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478
An Empirical Analysis of Québec Manufacturing SMEs

CONTROL VARIABLE

The production characteristics of SMEs are more traditional than those of large
firms. SMEs can produce more customized products, focus on niche regional
markets, and interact more easily with their clients. The proximity of SMEs to
the market makes it possible for them to offer a fast, direct, and close response
to customer demand (Pelham, 2000). Previous research on outsourcing has
focused primarily on large firms. Blackburn, Hart, and Wainwright (2013), for
instance, argue that the size and age of enterprises are the dominant factors
in their performance and are more important than strategy. As such, it follows
that the antecedents, processes, and outcomes of outsourcing for large firms
differ from those of outsourcing SMEs, particularly in the manufacturing sector.
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

Previous research on SME outcomes is also inconclusive. Scully and Fawcett

(1994) find that international sourcing provides few benefits to SMEs and does
not necessarily help them compete with low-cost manufacturers. On the other
hand, Sinha, Akoorie, Ding, and Wu (2011) find that manufacturing SMEs that
pursue offshore outsourcing gain flexibility, lower their production costs, and
customize delivery, and as a result improve their overall competitiveness.
Hayes, Hunton, and Reck (2000) find that outsourcing provides more positive
and more significant market value gains for smaller firms than for larger
firms, and for service firms than for non-service firms. Gilley and Rasheed
(2000), and Park, Vertinsky, and Lee (2012) suggest that the size of a firm
influences its performance. SMEs outsource differently from large firms. Size
can moderate the effects of outsourcing for Québec manufacturing firms. This
idea is the basis of this study’s conceptual framework relating outsourcing and
performance, shown in Figure 1.

464
M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478 Muhammad Mohiuddin and Zhan Su

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The objective of this study is to investigate the relationship between outsourcing

of core and non-core activities and IFLP. A web-based survey was conducted
using a quantitative approach based on the study of Gilley and Rasheed
(2000). The survey data culled from the responses of Québec manufacturing
firms were then analyzed with the help of the SPSS software package. Most
of the activities of the manufacturing firms were grouped under 14 categories
(Table 2).

Table 2. Activities of Québec manufacturing firms

Accounting Product repair
Advertising Purchasing
Assembly R&D
Customer service Publicity
Information systems Logistics
Machining/manufacturing Training
Payroll Warehousing

PERFORMANCE VARIABLES AND MEASURES

In this study, the level of outsourcing was defined by two criteria—intensity and
breadth—based on the method used by Gilley and Rasheed (2000). Outsourcing
intensity was measured as the percentage of any category of activities that
have been outsourced. Outsourcing breadth was measured as the number
of activities outsourced (e.g., accounting, human resources, manufacturing),
divided by the maximum number of activities that could be outsourced by the
firm. The indicators of outsourcing were calculated by multiplying the mean of
the intensity by the breadth of outsourcing for each firm. A task was considered
outsourced if it could be performed internally (under the firm’s current financial
and managerial capacity) and if 25% or more of the task is outsourced. Each
category of task or activity was rated on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (1 = completely
outside the capacity of the firm; 5 = completely within the capacity of the firm).
The Likert scale values 3, 4, and 5 indicate tasks that are within the financial
and managerial capacities of the firm.
Two indicators were used to measure each core competency. First, the
subjective opinions of executives on the importance of each activity were taken.
Then, each category of activities was classified on the Likert scale of 1 (not at
all important) to 5 (extremely important). Each task was classified according
to its importance in the industry for superior performance in terms of sales
growth and profitability (Gilley & Rasheed, 2000). The averages of these two
indicators were utilized in deciding the strategic importance of each category of
activities. Activities classified on the Likert scale as 3, 4 and 5 were considered
as core competencies and activities classified as 1 and 2 were considered as
peripheral or non-core activities.
Many authors have proposed a variety of performance measure alternatives,
from enhanced economic profit measures to balanced scorecards integrating
financial and non-financial measures (Kaplan & Norton, 2001; Maksoud, 2004).

465
Offshore Outsourcing of Core and Non-Core Activities and Integrated Firm-Level Performance: M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478
An Empirical Analysis of Québec Manufacturing SMEs

Leading authors such as Kotabe, Murray, and Javalgi (1998) and Carney (1997)
have focused on outsourcing performance measures. Kotabe et al. (1998)
identifies three types of performance measures as necessary components
in any outsourcing performance measurement system: strategic, financial,
and quality measures. Carney (1997) uses additional dimensions of market
performance such as cost savings, cycle time, customer satisfaction, and
productivity to measure the effectiveness of outsourcing strategy. However,
no study has addressed the effects of offshore outsourcing on IFLP, which
consists of competitive, financial, strategic, and stakeholder performances.
The objective of the present study is to shed light on this gap in available
research. IFLP deserves more attention in the post-financial crisis era when
firms are looking for alternative competitive strategies such as outsourcing to
survive in the marketplace. Outsourcing emphasizes the efficient use of scarce
resources, both by investing in strategic activities of the firm in order to gain
SCAs, and by divesting from less important arms of the firm so that the firm
can avail itself instead of competitive services offered by other firms in the
marketplace. Offshore outsourcing allows a firm to create a network of the best
performers in non-core activities in the marketplace.
To determine the IFLP of the firms, four types of performance—competitive,
financial, strategic (innovation), and non-equity stakeholder—were taken
into consideration. Our dependent variable is IFLP. In the web-based survey,
executives were asked whether they had improved their organization’s
performance based on these four types of performance measures. The
improvement of all four types of performance was collectively considered as
IFLP. Our independent variables are categorized into competitive, financial,
strategic, and non-equity stakeholder performances. The measures of each
independent variable category are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Measures of Independent Variables

Type of indicators Elements and measures of indicators
Competitive • Productivity (Görg, Hanley, & Strobl, 2008; Kitcher, McCarthy, Turner, &
Ridgway, 2013). (% Change of gross output).
• Market share (Kotler, 2006; Wang, Lo, & Yang, 2004). (% change).
Financial • Return on investment (ROI) (Chakravarthy, 1986; Greer et al., 1999). (%
change)
• Sales (revenue) performance (Chakravarthy, 1986; Gilley & Rasheed, 2000).
(% change).
Strategic • Investment in R&D (Gilley & Rasheed, 2000). (% change)
(innovation) • Volume of product and process innovations (Chakravarthy, 1986; Gilley &
Rasheed, 2000; Narasimhan & Das, 1999). (number of innovations).
Non-equity • Employment creation in core activities (Mohiuddin et al., 2010). (number of jobs
stakeholder created).
• Relationship with clients (Gilley & Rasheed, 2000; Gilley, Greer, & Rasheed,
2004). (perception on 5-point Likert scale).

These four types of indicators can be categorized into two groups, internal and
external performance, as shown in Table 4.

466
M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478 Muhammad Mohiuddin and Zhan Su

Table 4. Categorization of Performance Indicators

Type of indicators Internal performance External performance
Competitive Productivity Market share
Financial Return on investment (ROI) Sales (revenue)performance
Strategic (innovation) Investment in R&D Volume of product and
process innovations

Non-equity stakeholder Job creation in core activities Client satisfaction

DATA COLLECTION

A web-based questionnaire was used to collect the data for this research.
The questionnaire was sent to executives of Québec manufacturing firms
that use outsourcing. The executives were asked to first classify their firm’s
internal capacity for performing any task and then to classify the percentage
of outsourcing adopted for any given task or activity. When the activity was
performed entirely internally, outsourcing was 0%, and when the activity was
entirely outsourced, outsourcing was 100%. The questionnaire had four parts:
(1) general information on the firm, (2) evaluation of outsourcing, (3) performance
evaluation, and (4) executives’ comments. The web-based survey method was
chosen because it is cost-effective and time-efficient. One of its drawbacks,
however, is that it has varying response rates according to the target population
of the study. Berry’s (2005) survey obtained a response rate of 21% from a
sample of university students, and Cobanoglu, Warde, and Moreo’s (2001)
survey obtained a response rate of 44% from a sample of university professors.
In contrast, the response rates from samples of manufacturing firms have
ranged from 10 to 17%. Griffis, Goldsby, and Cooper (2003) obtained a 14.3%
response rate, and Gilley and Rasheed (2000) obtained a 16.8% response
rate. In the present study, the web-based questionnaire was sent to 598 firm
executives, of which 102 responded, representing a 17.1% response rate.
To conduct this study, a database was created with a list of SMEs in the
manufacturing sector of the Québec province in Canada. According to the
data bank of Québec manufacturers and wholesale distributors managed by
the Banque d’information industrielle of the Centre de recherche industrielle
du Québec (CRIQ, 2009) in 2009 there were 883 manufacturing firms in this
province. Of these, 724 (82%) were considered SMEs (between 5 and 250
employees). Firms with five or fewer employees were excluded, as their use
of outsourcing was negligible. In addition, 176 firms did not have an e-mail
address and 62 were subsidiaries of other firms, and were thus excluded
from participation in the survey. A total of 598 (68%) firms were taken into
consideration for this study.
The firms in this study belong to the 21 broad sectors of the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS). Specifically, they belong to five major
manufacturing industries: (1) production of metal products; (2) manufacturing
of wood products; (3) manufacturing of furniture and related products; (4) food
processing; and (5) machinery manufacturing. A breakdown of the annual
revenues of the Québec SMEs in this study is shown in Table 5.

467
Offshore Outsourcing of Core and Non-Core Activities and Integrated Firm-Level Performance: M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478
An Empirical Analysis of Québec Manufacturing SMEs

Table 5. Breakdown of Annual Revenue of Firms under Study

Annual revenue (CAD) Percent of total firms
$0.1 million to $0.5 million 12%
$0.5 million to $1 million 13%
$1 million to $3 million 25%
$3 million to $5 million 10%
$5 million to $10 million 13%
$10 million to $25 million 13%
Note: The revenue for 14% of the firms is unknown.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Some 71% of the firms had 5 to 49 employees, and the remaining firms (29%)
had 50 to 250 employees. The average number of employees was 52 (σ =
94.5), and the median number of employees was 22. Further, 29% of the
firms were in the metal industry, 16% in the wood product industry, 16% in the
machinery industry, 12% in the chemical and plastic industry and 27% in other
industries. Concerning the position of the respondents, 26% were president,
23% were director general, and 23% were CEO. In summary, 71% of the
respondents were senior managers of the sample firms.

SURVEY RESULTS

The analysis of the data from the web-based questionnaire survey revealed
that machinery and electronic manufacturing firms had the best performance
(3.70 and 3.60, respectively) after beginning to outsource part of their activities.
Chemical and wood industry firms had the lowest overall performance
(3.00 and 3.01, respectively). The external performance of firms was similar
across all sectors. The score of ‘three’ indicates the average performance of
Québec firms. Table 6 provides an overview of the performance of Québec
manufacturing firms.

Table 6. External Performance of Firms by Industry

Industry Average Std. Dev. N
Machinery 3.70 0.72 16
Electronics 3.60 1.25 3
Metal products 3.39 0.62 30
Food processing 3.20 0.95 4
Paper and pulp 3.20 0.87 3
Others 3.17 0.63 6
Furniture 3.16 0.84 9
Clothing 3.10 0.71 2
Wood products 3.02 0.88 17
Chemical and 3.00 0.99 12
plastics products

468
M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478 Muhammad Mohiuddin and Zhan Su

Table 7 shows the firms’ performance as perceived by the executives. Note that
the average performance of the Québec manufacturing firms is three.

Table 7. External Performance of Firms according to Executives’ Position

Position in firm Average Deviation N
Director 3.60 0.41 7
Vice-president and 3.60 N/A 1
director general
Director general 3.57 0.75 23
Secretary 3.55 0.77 4
CEO 3.42 1.03 23
President 3.22 0.64 27
Administrator 3.20 0.42 2
Vice president 3.16 0.91 5
Others 2.88 0.73 5
Owner 2.68 0.70 5

Finally, it is interesting to note that the external performance of outsourcing

firms is correlated positively and significantly with the annual revenue (R
= 0.2568). This suggests that the higher the annual revenue, the better the
estimated performance of the firm. The estimated performance (> 3.00) of the
firm is higher than the average of the respective Québec industry sector.

TESTING OF HYPOTHESES

Table 8 presents descriptive statistics of the executives’ responses.

Table 8. Descriptive Statistics of Executives’ Responses

Type of Frequency % Respondents Rate of
outsourcing outsourcing
General (all types) 64 62.75% 45%
Non-core activity 23 32.55% 70%
outsourcing
Core activity 57 55.88% 26.7%
outsourcing

Table 8 shows that 64 of the 102 respondents utilized outsourcing for one of
the 14 categories of activities. Furthermore, 55.88% of the firms (57) firms
utilized outsourcing for core activities. The data collected from the web-based
questionnaire survey was analyzed by a simple linear regression to determine
the impact of outsourcing on IFLP. The results of the statistical analysis showed
that outsourcing (all kinds of outsourcing for the 14 categories of activities),
regardless of outsourcing classification, has effects on IFLP but not significant.
As we mentioned previously, an outsourcing rate of at least 25% of an activity
can have a measurable impact on the IFLP; a lower rate of outsourcing does
not. However, the explanatory power of the model is very weak (R2 = 0.0150)
compared to that for a level of 1% (R2 = 0.0048).
Covariance analysis was performed to test the impact of non-core and core
activity outsourcing on firm performance for the different categories of activities.

469
Offshore Outsourcing of Core and Non-Core Activities and Integrated Firm-Level Performance: M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478
An Empirical Analysis of Québec Manufacturing SMEs

There were fewer responses for non-core activity outsourcing than for core
activity outsourcing; the impact of non-core and core activity outsourcing on firm
performance was calculated for only six activities: payment services, logistics,
client services, accounting, sales, and publicity. The results of the analysis
indicate that non-core activity outsourcing had a positive and significant impact
on firm performance for the logistics and publicity activities. However, the
results regarding the impact for the other four activities are inconclusive.
The internal performance of a few selected categories of activities following the
outsourcing of non-core and core activities is shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Internal Performance of Activities by Category

Category of Internal performance level P-value
activities
Non-core activity Core activity
outsourcing outsourcing
Publicity/promotion 5.75 3.28 0.028
Logistics 4.33 3.14 0.007
Payment services 3.94 3.33 0.214
Client services 3.78 3.33 0.405
Sales 2.83 3.56 0.067
Accounting 2.75 3.54 0.310

Since the analysis was incomplete, the correlation between firms’ external
performance and firms’ utilization of different kinds of outsourcing was tested.
Specifically, the correlations between firms’ performance and intensity of non-
core activity outsourcing, core activity outsourcing, internalization of core
activities, and internalization of non-core activities were tested. Only one
significant correlation was found: the correlation between the internalization of
core activities and firms’ performance (R = 0.2191).

Table 10. Correlation between Internalization and Firm Performance

Internalization Outsourcing
Core Non-core Core Non-core
activities activities activities activities
Correlation 0.2191 0.1026 0.1244 -0.1003
P-value 0.0277 0.3074 0.2152 0.3185

Table 10 shows that the greater a firm’s internalization of core activities, the
better its external performance. However, this result explains only a small
portion of the observed variable values (R2 = 0.0480).
Based on this analysis, Hypothesis 1 is accepted. Three out of the 14 categories
of activities that were outsourced positively affected performance. Similarly,
internalization of core activities positively affected firms’ external performance.
Thus, Hypothesis 2b is accepted. In contrast, Hypothesis 2a cannot be
accepted, in part because of the low number of survey responses from the
firms that outsource core activities across the 14 categories of activities.
Thus, outsourcing of non-core tasks and internalization of core tasks does
improve the performance of focal firms. The regression results do not show
a moderating effect of the number of employees on the relationship between
outsourcing and firm performance among the sample of SMEs. We also tested

470
M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478 Muhammad Mohiuddin and Zhan Su

for the moderating effect of firm size on the relationship between outsourcing of
a category of activities and performance of that category of activities. This test
was performed only for three categories of activities, namely payment services,
logistics, and client services, and showed no moderating effects. These results
suggest that the size of a firm does not have a moderating effect on the
relationship between a firm’s outsourcing of a function and its performance.
Likewise, in the results of our study the number of employees does not have
any effect on the relationship between internalization of core activities and
external performance.
To clarify further, the first hypothesis on the effects of non-core activity
outsourcing on firm performance is supported, and the second hypothesis on
the effects of internalization of core activities is only partially supported. The
results show that outsourcing non-core activities that have no or low uncertainty
has positive effects on firm-level performance in spite of the high frequency of
transactions as shown in Table 9. Thus, the results of the present study validate
two (asset specificity and uncertainty) of the three attributes of TCE. On the
other hand, internalization of core activities—activities which are valuable, rare,
inimitable, hard to substitute, and create competitive advantages—has positive
effects on firm-level performance. This result satisfies the tenants of the RBV of
the firm. Thus, our results validate the TCE and RBV theories.
However, the results do not indicate the moderating effects of firm size.
This would indicate that outsourcing non-core activities and simultaneously
internalizing core activities does improve firm-level performance. However, firm
size does not seem to affect this relationship. That is, the relationship between
outsourcing and firm-level performance does not seem to differ between
smaller and bigger SMEs. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that the
performance implications of outsourcing decisions have been widely debated.

CONCLUSIONS

Presently, outsourcing is more than merely a financial strategy for firms. It has
evolved from an efficiency oriented strategy to a growth-oriented, value-creating
strategy. This study’s objective was to identify the relationship between core
and non-core activity outsourcing of manufacturing SMEs and IFLP. The results
showed a positive relationship between outsourcing of non-core activities and
IFLP as well as between internalization of core activities and IFLP. However,
the correlation R2 is weak. There are several reasons for this result. The first
reason is the broadness of the IFLP measure, which consists of competitive,
financial, strategic, and non-equity stakeholder performance. Some firms may
not demonstrate all four kinds of performance, which may explain the weak
IFLP reported by firms in this study. The second reason is that the responses
on the impact of core outsourcing for each of the 14 categories of activities or
tasks were relatively low at the category or sub-category levels. This might be
explained by the fact that there are near-core activities that are not suitable
for arm’s length outsourcing but can be done under a hybrid governance
system (validating one of the attributes of TCE). Managers, owing to their
bounded rationality, very often are undecided on whether to outsource near-
core activities and miss opportunities to gain advantages from working with

471
Offshore Outsourcing of Core and Non-Core Activities and Integrated Firm-Level Performance: M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478
An Empirical Analysis of Québec Manufacturing SMEs

advanced supplier firms. Thirdly, outsourcing itself is even more complex an

operation than it appears to be. For example, coordination and re-integration of
dispersed outsourced activities into one concerted organization are necessary
but complicated. Transferring knowledge from the client firm to the supplier
firms is also difficult to implement.
Future research should attempt to collect longitudinal data. Critical knowledge
transfer to supplier firms is one of the setbacks of outsourcing and can be
studied only with longitudinal data, which existing studies have not addressed
adequately. Moreover, the effects of outsourcing on focal firms can be understood
better when comparing their performance between two time periods, instead of
their perceived performance from survey data. Simon (1962: 468) states that
complexity should be understood as a system consisting of “a large number
of parts that interact in a non-simple way”. Since the system governing firms’
performance and their outsourcing is complex, one remedy for the challenges
mentioned above could be enlarging the sample size and changing the web-
based survey to a more rigorous survey with regular follow-up calls in order
to increase the response rate and perform a more robust statistical analysis.
Despite its shortcomings, this study still makes some valuable contributions to
the field of available research. Firstly, this is the first study, in our knowledge, to
consider the four IFLP constructs of competitive, financial, strategic, and non-
equity stakeholder performances in relation to the results of the outsourcing
of non-core activities and insourcing (internalization) of core activities. The
findings indicate that outsourcing contributes to the economic and social
performances of focal firms and enables them to thrive in the volatile business
environment of the 21st century. Outsourcing can be one of the best ways
to gain SCAs. Secondly, the study extends the TCE perspective that high-
frequency activities can also be outsourced. Lastly, the study combines the
principles of TCE and the RBV to show that offshore outsourcing contributes
to both the efficiency and growth of manufacturing SMEs. In brief, this study
improves our understanding of core activity insourcing and non-core activity
outsourcing of manufacturing SMEs and their effects on IFLP. The results of
this study can help practitioners in determining functions to outsource and to
insource (internalize). The results suggest that managers cannot only improve
their firm’s financial benefits but also create competitive, strategic, and non-
equity stakeholder advantages through well-managed offshore outsourcing.
However, managers need to categorize core and non-core tasks carefully.
Challenges could arise in deciding whether to outsource or internalize near-
core tasks. Moreover, managers need to be aware of the modular and integral
nature of products. The latter products are those made of components whose
functionalities are closely related. The interfaces of these integrative systems
are physically distributed across all or most other systems and, as such, they
pose formidable challenges to managers who need to reintegrate dispersed
integral components.
This paper discusses the strategic aspects of offshore outsourcing. The results
indicate that managers also need to be aware of the impact of their firms’
relationships with suppliers and sub-suppliers on quality and timely delivery of
outsourced goods. A high degree of due diligence and commitment is required
from offshoring both focal firms and supplier firms. Policy makers may find
this study interesting, as it shows that outsourcing contributes to improving
the overall performance of the focal firms. The results show that offshore

472
M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478 Muhammad Mohiuddin and Zhan Su

outsourcing is a win-win rather than zero-sum game strategy. A pro-outsourcing

policy allows low-to-mid-tech manufacturing firms to thrive in an era when firms
can choose the global value chain over high-cost countries like Canada and
other OECD countries.
The relationship between outsourcing and vertical disintegration needs to be
studied further. In particular, researchers should examine the extent to which
outsourcing can reduce a firm’s involvement in successive stages of production.
Managers still face difficulties in determining core and non-core activities and in
deciding whether to outsource or insource these activities. The survey responses
in this study indicate that some managers had difficulties distinguishing between
core and near-core activities, which might have caused the low number of
responses regarding the outsourcing of non-core activities or the insourcing of
core activities. This limitation presents an opportunity for rigorous study using
larger samples of firms and larger corresponding data sets. Likewise, additional
data need to be collected for each of the categories of activities and for all types
of outsourcing to facilitate a more rigorous analysis for all outsourced tasks and
subtasks. It is highly likely that outsourcing influences the relevant individual
functional areas such as publicity and logistics. For example, by outsourcing
in these areas, manufacturing operations may reduce costs and/or improve
customer service by shifting publicity and other promotional activities to an
outside specialist organization. Therefore, outsourcing may improve or impair
individual functional areas. Although it is certain that outsourcing will always
present empirical and normative challenges, firms’ experiences are contributing
to a theory that can provide some guidance on how to perform better in terms of
this important issue (Golembiewski, 1999). Ultimately, further study is needed
to establish the relationship between each outsourced task or subtask and
its contribution to performance, instead of focusing only on the relationship
between the task or subtask and aggregate firm-level performance.
The manufacturing firms in this study belong to different sectors, and the
number of responses differed according to the type of outsourcing of tasks with
different degrees of (low, mid or high) specificities. Taking into account these
response variations and the weak R2, we conclude that the results cannot
be generalized for the entire population of outsourcing manufacturing SMEs.
Firms must also be classified into beginning, mature, and declining stages of
their development and their outsourcing practices because such classification
may reveal new outsourcing effects on IFLP. There is also a need to better
understand the particularities of Québec manufacturing firms. Many of these
firms are themselves supplier firms for larger outsourcing Canadian and US
MNCs. For these Québec firms, outsourcing is of secondary importance, which
may have caused confusion among the firms’ survey respondents.
Another potential limitation of this study is the common method bias. This
is a general criticism of survey-based research, because independent and
dependent constructs are often measured entirely using self-reported data.
The evaluation of performance of some variables on a 5-point Likert scale is
another limitation. In this study, we found that respondents most often choose
the average response of 3, which made it difficult for us to determine whether
the effects of outsourcing are positive or negative. Future studies might find
it helpful to use a paired Likert scale to encourage respondents to indicate
either positive or negative effects on IFLP. There were also some ambiguities
in the determination of a firm’s core competency. Some respondents confused

473
Offshore Outsourcing of Core and Non-Core Activities and Integrated Firm-Level Performance: M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478
An Empirical Analysis of Québec Manufacturing SMEs

core competency with associated concepts such as capability, comparative

and competitive advantages, and other important tasks. Future research needs
to define core competency more clearly in survey questions to ensure that it
obtains responses that are more articulate and therefore conducive to a more
transparent analysis. A Delphi method questionnaire can be administered to
responding executives before the administration of the main survey to enhance
their understanding of core and non-core activities and IFLP variables, and
consequently, to obtain more accurate responses.

Muhammad Mohiuddin is a PhD candidate in International Management at

Laval University, Canada. His research interests are focused on sustainable
offshore outsourcing and emerging markets. He won ‘best paper awards’ at the
ASAC, 2012, AGBA 2013 conferences and Honorable mention at the AIB-NE,
2013 conference. His academic and research excellences enabled him
to get awards from the CIRRELT, FQRSC, SSHRC, ISESCO and Dean’s
Award.

Zhan Su is a Professor of Business Strategy and International Management

at Laval University, Canada. His research interests are among others on
Strategic management of international joint ventures, and the internationalization
process of firms. Professor Su has published in numerous journals and books.
He received several prestigious awards for his research and teaching. He is
currently Chair professor of Stephen A. Jarislowsky Chair on International
Business.

474
Offshore Outsourcing of Core and Non-Core Activities and Integrated Firm-Level Performance: M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478
An Empirical Analysis of Québec Manufacturing SMEs

REFERENCES

. Al-Azad, M. S., Mohiuddin, M., & . Callahan, C. M., Smith, R. E., & . Daveri, F., & Lasinio, C. J. (2007).
Rashid, M. M. (2010). Spencer, A. W. (2013). Offshoring and productivity growth in
Knowledge transfer in offshore The long-term performance the Italian manufacturing industries,
outsourcing and international joint consequences of strategic (Working Paper No. 08/2007). Parma:
ventures (IJVs): A critical literature partnerships in high tech industries. Universita degli Studi di Parma.
review from cross-cultural context. Journal of Applied Business Research, Retrieved from: http://swrwebeco.
Global Journal of Strategies and 29(1), 217-134. econ.unipr.it/RePEc/pdf/I_2007-08.
Governance, 1(1), 41-67. pdf
. Carney, W. (1997).
. Arnold, D. (2000). Outsourcing HR and benefits: . Dekkers, R. (2011).
Seven rules of international Navigating the right course. Impact of strategic decision making
distribution. Harvard Business Review, Compensation International, 26(7), for outsourcing on managing
78(6), 131-137. 15-23. manufacturing. International
Journal of Operations & Production
. Atkinson, A. A., Waterhouse, J. H., . Centre de recherché industrielle du Management, 31(9), 935-965.
& Wells, R. B. (1997).
A stakeholder approach to strategic
Québec. (2009).
Répertoire d’entreprises du Québec . Di Gregorio, D., Musteen, M., &
performance measurement. Sloan [Directory of Québec firms]. Thomas, D. E. (2009).
management review, 38(3), 25-37. Offshore outsourcing as a source of
. Chen, S. S. (2009). international competitiveness. Journal
. Barney, J. B. (1991). A transaction cost rationale for private
of International Business Studies,
40(6), 969-988.
Firm resources and sustained branding and its implications for
competitive advantage. Journal of the choice of domestic vs. offshore
Management, 17(1), 99-120. outsourcing. Journal of International . Elmuti, D. (2003).
Business Studies, 40(1), 156-175. The perceived impact of outsourcing
. Barney, J. B. (1999). on organizational performance.
How a firm’s capabilities affect . Chakravarthy, B. S. (1986). American Journal of Business, 18(2),
33-41.
boundary decisions. Sloan Measuring strategic performance.
Management Review, 40(3), 137-145. Strategic Management Journal, 7(5),
437-459. . Ellram, L. M., Tate, W. L., &
. Berry, R. M. (2005). Billington, C. (2008).
Web-based survey research: Lessons . Cobanoglu, C., Warde, B., & Understanding professional services
outsourcing and offshoring. Journal
from the University of Akron study. Moreo, P. J. (2001).
Journal of Public Administration, 28(1), A comparison of mail, fax and web- of Operations Management, 26(2),
57-72. based survey methods. International 148-163.
Journal of Market Research, 43(4),
. Bertrand, O. (2011). 441-452. . Espino-Rodríguez, T. F., &
What goes around comes around: Padrón-Robaina, V. (2004).
Effects of offshore outsourcing on the . Contractor, F. J., Kumar, V., Outsourcing and its impact
on operational objectives and
export performance of firms. Journal of Kundu, S., & Pedersen, T. (2011).
International Business Studies, 42(2), Global outsourcing and offshoring: In performance: A study of hotels in the
334-344. search of the optimal configuration Canary Islands. International Journal
for a company. In F. J. Contractor, of Hospitality Management, 23(3),
. Bettis, R. A., Bradley, S. P., & V. Kumar, S. Kundu, & T. Pedersen 287-306.
(Eds.), Global outsourcing and
. Espino-Rodríguez, T. F., &
Hamel, G. (1992). Outsourcing and
industrial decline. The Executive, 6(1), offshoring: An integrated approach
7-22. to theory and corporate strategy (pp. Padrón-Robaina, V. (2006).
3-47). London: Cambridge University A review of outsourcing from the
. Blackburn, R. A., Hart, M., & Press. resource-based view of the firm.
International Journal of Management
Wainwright, T. (2013).
Small business performance: . Coase, R. (1937). Reviews, 8(1), 49-70.
Business, strategy and owner- The nature of the firm. Economica,
manager characteristics. Journal 4(16), 386-405.
of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 20(1), 8-27.

475
M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478 Muhammad Mohiuddin and Zhan Su

. Greer, C. R., Youngblood, S. A., & . Grant, R. M. (1996). . Jiang, B., Belohlav, J. A., &
Gray, D. A. (1999). Prospering in dynamically competitive Young, S. T. (2007).
Human resource management environments: Organizational Outsourcing impact on manufacturing
outsourcing: The make or buy capability as knowledge integration. firms’ value: Evidence from Japan.
decision. The Academy of Organization Science, 7(4), 375-387. Journal of Operations Management,
Management Executive, 13(3), 85-96. 25(1), 885-900.
. Griffis, S. E., Goldsby, T. J., &
. Gilley, K. M., Greer, C. R., & Cooper, M. (2003). . Jiang, B., & Qureshi, A. (2006).
Rasheed, A. A. (2004). Web-based and mail survey: A Research on outsourcing results:
Human resource outsourcing and comparison of response, data, and Current literature and future
organizational performance in cost. Journal of Business Logistics, opportunities. Management Decision,
manufacturing firms. Journal of 24(2), 237-258. 44(1), 44-55.
Business Research, 57(3), 232-240.
. Gulbrandsen, B., Sandvik, K., & . Jones, G. R., & Hill, C. W. (1988).
. Gilley, K. M., & Haugland, S. A. (2009). Transaction cost analysis of
Rasheed, A. A. (2000). Antecedents of vertical integration: strategy-structure choice. Strategic
Making more by doing less: An Transaction cost economics and Management Journal, 9(2), 159-172.
analysis of outsourcing and its effects resource-based explanations.
on firm performance. Journal of Journal of Purchasing and Supply . Kaplan, R. S., &
Management, 26(4), 763-790. Management, 15(2), 89-102. Norton, D. S. (2001).
The strategy-focused organization.
. Giustiniano, L., & . Hayes, D., Hunton, J., & Boston: Harvard Business School
Clarioni, G. (2013). Reck, J. L. (2000). Press.
The impact of outsourcing on business Information systems outsourcing
performance: An empirical analysis. announcements: Investigating
the impact on the market value of
. Kitcher, B., McCarthy, I. P.,
Journal of Modern Accounting and Turner, S., & Ridgway, K. (2013).
Auditing, 9(2), 153-168. contract-granting firms. Journal of Understanding the effects of
Information Systems, 14(2), 183-193. outsourcing: Unpacking the
. Goddard, J. (1997). total factor productivity variable.
The architecture of core competence. . Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Production Planning & Control, 24(4-
Business Strategy Review, 8(1), 43-52. Collins, B. J. (2009). 5), 308-317.
Resource dependence theory: A
. Golembiewski, R. T. (1999). review. Journal of Management, 35(6), . Kotabe, M., Murray, J., &
Lessons from downsizing: Some 1404-1427. Javalgi, R. (1998).
things to avoid, and others to Global sourcing of service and
emphasize. M@n@gement, 2(3), . Jabbour, L. (2010). market performance: An empirical
45-53. Offshoring and firm performance: investigation. Journal of International
evidence from French manufacturing Marketing, 6(4), 10-13.
. Görg, H., Hanley, A., & industry. The World Economy, 33(3),
Strobl, E. (2008). 507-524. . Kotabe, M., & Murray, J. Y. (2004).
Productivity effects of international Global sourcing strategy and
outsourcing: Evidence from plant- . Javidan, M. (1998). sustainable competitive advantage.
level data. Revue Canadienne Core competence: What does it mean Industrial Marketing Management,
d’Économique, 41(2), 670-688. in practice? Long Range Planning, 33(1), 7-14.
31(1), 60-71.
. Görzig, B., & Stephan, A. (2002). . Kotabe, M., Mol, M. J.,
Outsourcing and firm-level . Javalgi, R. G., Dixit, A., & Murray, J., & Parente, R. (2012).
performance. DIW-Discussion Scherer, R. F. (2009). Outsourcing and its implications
paper No. 309. Berlin. Retrieved Outsourcing to emerging markets: for market success: Negative
from: http://www.econstor.eu/ Theoretical perspectives and policy curvilinearity, firm resources, and
bitstream/10419/18045/1/dp309.pdf implications. Journal of International competition. Journal of the Academy
Management, 15(2), 156-168. of Marketing Science, 40(2), 329-346.

476
Offshore Outsourcing of Core and Non-Core Activities and Integrated Firm-Level Performance: M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478
An Empirical Analysis of Québec Manufacturing SMEs

. Kotler, P. (2006). . Marchegiani, L., Giustiniano, L., . Mooney, A. (2007).

Marketing management. New York: Peruffo, E., & Pirolo, L. (2012). Core competence, distinctive
Prentice Hall. Revitalising the outsourcing discourse competence, and competitive
within the boundaries of firm’s debate. advantage: What is the difference?
. Leiblein, M. J., & Business System Review, 1(1), 157-
177.
Journal of Education for Business,
83(2), 110-115.
Miller, D. J. (2003).
. Mudambi, R. (2007).
An empirical examination of
transaction- and firm-level influences . Marchegiani, L., Pirolo, L.,
on the vertical boundaries of the firm. Peruffo, E., & Giustiniano, L. (2010). Offshoring: Economic geography
Strategic Management Journal, 24(9), National corporate systems and and the multinational firm. Journal of
839-859. outsourcing decisions: A cross- International Business Studies, 38(1),
country analysis. Proceedings of 206-221.
. Leiblein, M. J., Reuer, J. J., & Strategic Management Society
Dalsace, F. (2002). Conference, Rome, Italy. . Mukherjee, D., Gaur, A. S., &
Do make or buy decisions matter? Datta, A. (2013).
The influence of organizational . McDermott, G., Mudambi, R., Creating value through offshore
governance on technological & Parente, R. (2013). outsourcing: An integrative framework.
performance. Strategic Management Strategic modularity and the Journal of International Management,
Journal, 23(9), 817–833. architecture of multinational firm. 19(4), 377-389.
Global Strategy Journal, 3(1), 1-7.
. Lei, D., Hitt, M. A., & . Nagpal, P. (2004).
Bettis, R. A. (1996). . Mohiuddin, M. (2011). Use of Transaction Cost Economics
Framework to Study IT Sourcing:
Dynamic core competencies through Research on offshore outsourcing: A
meta-learning and strategic context. systematic literature review. Journal Over-Application or Under-Theorizing?
Journal of Management, 22(4), 549- of International Business Research, Sprouts: Working Papers on
10(1), 59-76. Information Environments, Systems
569.
and Organizations, 4(2), 98-110.

. Maksoud, A. B. (2004). . Mohiuddin, M., & Su, Z. (2010). Retrieved from:

http://sprouts.case.edu/2004/040206.
Manufacturing in the UK: Firm level performance of offshore
outsourcing strategy of manufacturing pdf
Contemporary characteristics and
enterprises: A research agenda.
. Narasimhan, R., & Das, A. (1999).
performance indicators. Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Competition Forum, 8(1), 13-27.
Management, 15(2), 155-171. An empirical investigation of the
. Mohiuddin, M., & Su, Z. (2013). contribution of strategic sourcing
. Mayer, K. J., & Manufacturing small and medium size
to manufacturing flexibilities and
performance. Decision Sciences,
Salomon, R. M. (2006). enterprise’s offshore outsourcing and
competitive advantage: An exploratory 30(3), 683-718.
Capabilities, contractual hazards,
study on Canadian offshoring
and governance: Integrating
resource-based and transaction manufacturing SMEs. Journal of . Park, C., Vertinsky, I., &
cost perspectives. Academy of Applied Business Research, 29(4), Lee, C. (2012).
Management Journal, 49(5), 942-959. 1111-1130. Korean international joint ventures:
how the exchange climate affects
. McIvor, R. (2009). . Mohiuddin, M., Su, Z., & tacit knowledge transfer from foreign
parents. International Marketing
How the transaction cost and Su, A. (2010).
Towards sustainable offshore Review, 29(2), 151-174.
resource-based theories of the firm
outsourcing: A case study of Quebec
. Pelham, A. (2000).
inform outsourcing evaluation. Journal
of Operations Management, 27(1), manufacturing firms Outsourcing to
45-63. China. The Journal of CENTRUM Market orientation and other potential
Cathedra, 3(1), 84-95. influences on performance in small
. McNally, R. C., & Griffin, A. (2004). and medium-sized manufacturing
Firm and individual choice drivers in . Mol, M. J., van Tulder, R. J. M., &
firms. Journal of Small Business
Management, 38(1), 48-67.
make-or-buy decisions: A diminishing Beige, P. R. (2005).
. Prahalad, C. K., &
role for transaction cost economics. Antecedents and performance
Journal of Supply Chain Management, consequences of international
40(1), 4-17. outsourcing. International Business Hamel, G. (1990).
Review, 14(5), 599-617. The core competence of the
corporation. Harvard Business
Review, 68(3), 79-91.

477
M@n@gement vol. 16 no. 4, 2013, 454-478 Muhammad Mohiuddin and Zhan Su

. Quinn, J. B. (1999). . Sinha, P., Akoorie, M. E., Ding, Q., . Wang, Y., Lo, H.- P., &
Strategic outsourcing: leveraging & Wu, Q. (2011). Yang, Y. (2004).
knowledge capabilities. Sloan What motivates manufacturing The constituents of core
management review, 40(4), 9-21. SMEs to outsource offshore in competencies and firm performance:
China?: Comparing the perspectives Evidence from high-technology firms
. Quinn, J. B., & of SME manufacturers and their
suppliers. Strategic Outsourcing: An
in China. Journal of Engineering &
Hilmer, F. G. (1994). Technology Management, 21(4), 249-
Strategic outsourcing. Sloan International Journal, 4(1), 67-88. 280.
Management Review, 35(4), 43-55.
. Sultana, M. A., Rashid, M. M., . Williamson, O. (1985).
. Rasheed, A. A., & Mohiuddin, M., & The economic institutions of
capitalism: Firms, markets, relational
Gilley, K. M. (2005). Mazumder, M. N. H. (2013).
Outsourcing: National and firm- Cross-cultural management and contracting. New York: Free Press.
level implications. Thunderbird organizational effectiveness: A
International Business Review, 47(5), content analysis perspective.
International Journal of Business and
. Wu, F., Li, H. Z., Chu, L. K., &
513-528. Sculli, D. (2005).
Management, 8(8), 113-146. An outsourcing decision model for
. Rashid, M. M., & . Su, A., Regnière, M.-H., &
sustaining long-term performance.
International Journal of Production
Al-Azad, M. S. (2013). Research, 43(12), 2513-2535.
Relocating low-to-medium tech Su, Z. (2013).
“Made with the World” vs. “Made org/10.1080/00207540500045717
manufacturing activities to
developing countries: Empirical for the World”: What would be the
analysis of Taiwanese and South future of “Made in China” products?
Korean manufacturing outsourcing Transnational Corporations Review,
to Bangladesh. Transnational 5(2), 1-15.
Corporations Review, 5(2), 16-29.
. The World Commission on
. Reed, R., & Environment and Development
DeFillippi, R. (1990). (WCED). (1987).
Casual ambiguity, barriers to Our common future: Report of the
imitation, and sustainable competitive World Commission on Environment
advantage. Academy of Management and Development. Oslo: UN.
Review, 15(1), 80-102.
. Tomiura, E. (2007).
. Reitzig, M., & Wagner, S. (2010). Foreign outsourcing, exporting, and
FDI: A productivity comparison at
The hidden costs of outsourcing:
Evidence from patent data. Strategic the firm level. Journal of International
Management Journal, 31(11), 1183- Economics, 72(1), 113-127.
1201.
. Torkkeli, M., &
. Scully, J. I., & Tuominen, M. (2002).
Fawcett, S. E. (1994). The contribution of technology
International procurement strategies: selection to core competencies.
Challenges and opportunities for the International Journal of Production
small firm. Production & Inventory Economics, 77(3), 271-284.
Management Journal, 35(2), 39-46.
. Verbeeten, F. H. M., &
. Sharpe, M. (1997). Boons, A. N. A. M. (2009).
Outsourcing, organizational Strategic priorities, performance
competitiveness, and work. Journal of measures and performance: An
Labor Research, 18(4), 535-549. empirical analysis in Dutch firms.
European Management Journal, 27(1),
. Simon, H. A. (1962). 113-128.
The architecture of complexity.
Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society, 106(6), 467-
482.

478