This document analyzes the network of collaboration among universities, industries, and governments in producing knowledge about IT outsourcing. It uses social network analysis and triple helix analysis to examine the key players and relationships. The results show that the US plays a central role in collaborations, and there is a strong tie between the US and UK. Developing countries lack collaboration with developed countries. The conclusions indicate more potential for cross-country collaboration to improve understanding of IT outsourcing.

1. Analysis of Triple Helix Network
Collaboration among University-
Industry-Government for IT Outsourcing
Dr. Bobby Swar
SolBridge International School of Business, South Korea
Dr. Gohar Feroz Khan
YeungNam University, South Korea
8th June 2012
European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference
EMCIS 2012 on Information Systems

2. Contents
 Rationale and Approach
 Research Method
 Social Network Analysis
 Triple Helix Analysis
 Results
 Discussion and Conclusion

3. Rational and Approach
 IT outsourcing - widely accepted management
practice
 Effective management of IT outsourcing is a
challenge
 Wide variety of research resulting in greater
knowledge production
 Useful in understanding the common facts

4. Rational and Approach
 Does not reveal the hidden structures and
properties
 Lacks Social Network Analysis and Triple Helix
Perspective
 Investigate IT outsourcing knowledge
infrastructure from a network point of view
 Scientometrics analysis – knowledge and
insights about the quantitative features of IT
outsourcing

5. Rational and Approach - Research
Questions
 What are the network structures of
collaboration among institutions, country and
region for IT outsourcing knowledge
production?
 What is the status of academia-industry-
government relationships in the network of IT
outsourcing knowledge production? and
 Who are the key players (i.e. institutions,
countries and regions) contributing to the
network of IT outsourcing knowledge

6. Social Network Analysis
 Helps in revealing hidden structures &
characteristics
 Key players & their collaboration of networks
are investigated
 SNA techniques are based on graph theory
 For analysis & visualization NetDraw 2.117,
UCINT and NetMiner 3.3.0 softwares are used

7. Triple Helix Analysis
 Investigates the bilateral and trilateral relationship
among University-Industry-Government (UIG)
 A triple helix regime typically begins as
university, industry and government enter into a
reciprocal relationship in which each attempts to
enhance the performance of others
(Etzkowitz 2007)
Fig: A Triple Helix Model

8. Triple Helix Analysis
 Authors' affiliated institutions are categories as
“university” (U), “industry” (I), and “government”
(G).
 The collaboration among UIG is measured by
mutual information (i.e. transmission T) derived
from the Shannon’s formulas (1948)
 The transmission (T) are measured in “mbits” of
information
 TH indicators were calculated using the mutual
information derived through T values using a
TH software available at

9. Data Collection and Analysis
 The bibliometric data of publications
 Data are collected from Web of Science using
the keywords for IT outsourcing
 Paper published since 1995 to 2011 were
collected

10. Results- Descriptive Statistics
Country N %
USA 127 44.09
UK 52 18.05
South Korea 21 7.29
Germany 18 6.25
Canada 15 5.2
China 12 4.16
Netherlands 9 3.12
Australia/ Norway/ Singapore 8 2.77
Taiwan 7 2.43
India/ Spain 5 1.73
France 4 1.38
Articles published by year Turkey 3 1.04
Italy/ Sweden 2 0.69
Articles published by country

11. Results- Bilateral and Trilateral UIG
Relationships
Number of solo and co-authored publications by UIG

12. Results- Bilateral and Trilateral UIG
Relationships
Longitudinal trends in the bilateral and trilateral UIG relationships in
the IT outsourcing research domain

13. Results- Network Analysis
Country level collaboration for co-authorship

14. Results- Network Analysis
Betweenness
Country Degree Eigenvector
Centrality
USA 16 256.667 0.132 Average
No. of No. of Density Clustering Average
UK 12 194.667 0.112 Geodesic
link nodes coefficient degree
Germany 6 3.333 0.082 Distance
China 5 44.000 0.045
Spain 4 0.000 0.065
84 34 0.07 0.30 3.1 2.2
Italy 4 0.000 0.065
Netherlands 4 8.667 0.059
Canada 4 17.000 0.055 Network level properties of co-authorship at
Singapore 3 5.667 0.047 the country level
Taiwan 3 2.000 0.038
Greece 3 0.000 0.054
South Korea 3 0.000 0.039
Sweden 2 42.000 0.003
India 2 0.000 0.041
France 2 0.000 0.029
Australia 2 80.000 0.019
Thailand 1 0.000 0.022
Portugal 1 0.000 0.019
UAE 1 0.000 0.008
Japan 1 0.000 0.022
Israel 1 0.000 0.022
Ireland 1 0.000 0.001
Norway 1 0.000 0.000
Countries in terms of network
Finland 1 0.000 0.000

15. Results- Network Analysis
Institution level collaboration network

16. Results- Network Analysis
Institute Betweenness Degree Eigenvector
Georgia State University 892.000 5 0.003
University of Pittsburgh 862.000 10 0.134 Average
Nanyang Technological No. of No. of Density Clustering Average Geodesic
848.000 3 0.009
University
link nodes coefficient degree Distance
University of Minnesota 828.000 4 0.044
Florida Atlantic University 476.000 4 0.033 364 115 0.028 0.784 3.1 3.6
University of Nevada 420.000 5 0.047
MIT 360.000 7 0.005
Network level properties at the institution
Concordia University 298.000 6 0.001
level
New York State University,
228.000 7 0.015
Suny Buffalo
Salisbury University 228.000 6 0.016
McGill University 156.000 4 0.001
University of Missouri 88.333 8 0.000
Korea University 84.000 7 0.000
Sogang University 72.000 5 0.014
University of Arizona 72.000 4 0.015
Erasmus University 67.667 7 0.000
Kookmin University 56.000 3 0.000
University of Nebraska 48.000 3 0.000 Institutes in terms of network

17. Results- Network Analysis
Regional level collaboration network

18. Burst Detection
Word Weight Length Start End Word Weight Length Start End
role 1.5 3 2009 application 1.6 5 2004 2008
vendor 1.8 3 2009 contract 2.0 2 2004 2005
risk 1.6 1 2009 2009 perspective 2.1 2 2002 2003
empirical 2.9 3 2009 success 2.0 4 2001 2004
firm 1.9 2 2008 2009 provider 2.1 4 2001 2004
learn 2.1 4 2008 healthcare 1.5 4 2001 2004
level 2.0 2 2008 2009
explore 2.4 4 2000 2003
agreement 1.6 4 2008
decision 1.9 2 1999 2000
trust 2.8 1 2008 2008
relationship 1.6 5 1999 2003
commitment 1.7 1 2008 2008
analyze 2.6 2 1999 2000
control 2.1 1 2008 2008
risk 2.4 2 1998 1999
develop 1.7 2 2007 2008
mitigate 1.8 2 1998 1999
offshore 3.8 2 2007 2008
supplier 2.3 6 1998 2003
process 1.6 2 2007 2008
impact 1.5 3 2007 2009 source 3.0 7 1997 2003
business 1.5 6 2006 case 2.3 3 1997 1999
market 2.0 2 2006 2007 system 3.8 3 1995 1997
culture 2.1 3 2006 2008 practice 1.9 6 1995 2000
versus 2.2 2 2005 2006 framework 1.8 6 1995 2000
understand 1.7 4 2005 2008 strategies 2.5 8 1995 2002

19. Discussion and Conclusion
 Increasing trend of IT outsourcing publications
indicating the importance in academia
 USA is playing a central role in terms of
collaboration of IT outsourcing research
 There is a strongest tie between USA and UK
followed by USA and South Korea
 Lack of co-authorship collaboration between
the developing and developed countries

20. Discussion and Conclusion
 Lots of potentials for the co-authorship at the
country level
 In terms of institution level collaboration
several region and country based clusters are
identified
 At the regional level South America is isolated
 Countries/region with lack of studies/research
often refer the finding from the other
alternatives that may lead to the failure of IT
outsourcing