Strategic Synergy Creation in Shared Services Centres: An Attention-Based View Framework for Shared Contact Centres in South Africa

This study develops and empirically validates a Synergy Framework for Shared Contact Centres (SCCs), examining their role in enhancing organisational performance and citizen-facing service delivery outcomes within the public sector. Adopting a mixed-methods design, the research integrates qualitative insights from semi-structured interviews and case studies with quantitative evidence from a structured survey of 116 respondents across diverse organisations in the Eastern Cape Province. The qualitative findings revealed that SCCs function as strategic mechanisms for synergy creation through attentional alignment, resource mobilisation, and relational integration. Themes of collaboration, cultural alignment, process standardisation, and technology enablement highlighted the dual importance of managerial attention and relational networks in sustaining organisational value. Quantitative analyses, including descriptive statistics, Net Promoter Score (NPS) correlations, and regression modelling, provided empirical support for these insights, demonstrating that governance effectiveness, resource utilisation, collaborative coordination, and strategic alignment significantly predict organisational performance and customer satisfaction. The proposed Synergy Framework synthesises Attention-Based Theory (ABT) and Relational-Based Theory (RBT), addressing key gaps in existing scholarship: fragmentation across levels of analysis, lack of contextual sensitivity in public sector environments, and insufficient operationalisation of synergy constructs. By situating synergy within SCCs, the framework advances theory by integrating micro, meso, and macro perspectives, while offering practical guidance for managers and policymakers seeking to design responsive, collaborative, and sustainable service delivery systems. Future research should extend the framework through cross-contextual validation, longitudinal studies, and exploration of digital transformation and stakeholder value co-creation mechanisms. Overall, the study positions synergy as a multidimensional strategic capability that enhances organisational effectiveness and public value in complex service ecosystems.

Shared Contact Centres (SCCs); Synergy Framework; Attention-Based Theory (ABT)

1. Agarwal, P. (2023). High-performance work systems and organisational performance: A review and future research agenda. Management Review Quarterly, 73(2), 413–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2026.113700 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. AGSA. (2024). Consolidated general report on local government audit outcomes, 2022–23 (online report site). https://mfma-2023.agsareports.co.za/. [mfma-2023....orts.co.za] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Aljuwaiber, A. (2026). An integrative systematic review of knowledge management, organizational performance, and business sustainability. Administrative Sciences, 16(4), 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci16040185 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Alon‑Barkat, S., & Busuioc, M. (2023). Human–AI interactions in public sector decision making: “Automation bias” and “selective adherence” to algorithmic advice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(1), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. [academic.oup.com] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2021). Collaborative governance in theory and practice: Critical reflections and future directions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(3), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa045.(doi.org in Bing) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Barakat, S. R., & Campos, L. A. (2022). Stakeholder theory and public sector governance: A contextualised perspective. Public Management Review, 24(12), 1856–1874. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Barakat, S. R., & Santos Jhunior, R. O. (2026). Applying stakeholder theory in underexplored contexts. RAUSP Management Journal, 61, 124–133. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-06-2026-0197 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bauer, F., & Friesl, M. (2022). Organizational integration and attention in post-acquisition integration: An attention-based view. Journal of Management Studies, 59(2), 377–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12655 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Bos-Nehles et al. (2023) and recent relational coordination research provide particularly strong support for recommendations concerning collaboration, trust, governance, human capital development, and organisational performance. [onlinelibr....wiley.com], [heller.brandeis.edu] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Bos-Nehles, A., Townsend, K., Cafferkey, K., & Trullen, J. (2023). Examining the Ability, Motivation and Opportunity (AMO) framework in HRM research: Conceptualization, measurement and interactions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 25(4), 637662. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12332 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Brielmaier, M., & Friesl, M. (2023). Attention structures and strategic action: A behavioural perspective on organisational decision-making. Journal of Management Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12945 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Cafferkey K, Townsend K, Riaz S, Bolt EET, Islam MS (2025), "Multidimensional frontline management styles: testing HRM strength, workgroup loyalty and helping behaviours". Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, Vol. 12 No. 3 pp. 610–629, https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-03-2024-0090 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Colombo, G., & Mella, P. (2022). Managerial attention and strategic decision-making: A cognitive governance perspective. Journal of Strategy and Management, 15(3), 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-09-2021-0102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2021). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Davis, G. F., & DeWitt, T. (2021). Organization theory and the resource based view of the firm: The great divide. Journal of Management, 47(7), 1684–1697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320982650 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. [journals.sagepub.com] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Deloitte Digital. (2024, May 7). 2024 Global Contact Center Survey: A new era of contact center transformation. https://www.deloittedigital.com/us/en/insights/research/contact-center-survey.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. [deloittedigital.com] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Deloitte. (2021, May 17). 2021 global shared services and outsourcing report. https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/services/consulting/analysis/gx-shared-services-survey.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. [deloitte.com] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. DPSA. (2024, May). Draft Digital Government Policy Framework. https://www.dpsa.gov.za/dpsa2g/documents/egov/2024/DRAFT%20DIGITAL%20GOVERNMENT%20POLICY%20FRAMEWORK. pdf [dpsa.gov.za] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. European Commission, DG REFORM. (2022). The organisation of Shared Service Centres (SSCs) in public administration (Nick Thijs). https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/61327d8e-17e2-11ed-8fa0-01aa75ed71a1/language-en [op.europa.eu] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Gittell, J. H. (2022). Revisiting relational coordination: A systematic review of relational coordination research and future directions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 58(4), 567–596. [heller.brandeis.edu] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Goth J, Catala-Perez D, Hedderich B (2025), "Shared service centers (SSCs) and administrative cost reduction: a systematic review and research agenda". Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 4 pp. 592–631, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-10-2024-0345 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Government of South Africa. (2025). South Africa’s Roadmap for the Digital Transformation of Government. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202505/south-africas-roadmap-digital-transformation-government.pdf [gov.za] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320987282 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035342853.00014 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Laureiro‑Martínez, D., Nigam, A., Ocasio, W., & Rerup, C. (2024). Research frontiers on the attention‑based view of the firm. Strategic Organization, 22(1), 6–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270231223397 [journals.sagepub.com] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Karali, E., Sidhu, J. S., Patriotta, G., & Volberda, H. W. (2025). Routine dynamics at a cardiac first‑aid unit: How context, emotions, and identities drive the adaptation of action patterns. Journal of Management Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13281 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. [onlinelibr.... wiley.com] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Kaur V (2023), "Multinational orchestration: a meta-theoretical approach toward competitive advantage". Critical Perspectives on International Business, Vol. 19 No. 2 pp. 206–233, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-11-2021-0090 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Kivimaa, P., & Entsalo, H. (2026). Synergies and tensions between decarbonisation, security and strategic autonomy in EU energy policy. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 59, 101109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2026.101109 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. KPMG. (2024). Towards the contact centre of the future. https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmgsites/uk/pdf/2024/05/towards-the-contact-centre-of-the-futurepdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Luo, Y., Frank, M. R., & Lera, S. C. (2026). Stakeholder satisfaction interdependencies in 10-K reports. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-026-06265-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. McGahan, A. M. (2021). Integrating insights from the resource-based view of the firm into the new stakeholder theory. Journal of Management, 47(7), 1734–1756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320987282(doi.org in Bing) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Miller, M., & Ghaffarzadegan, N. (2025). Dynamic capabilities in the public sector: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 38(6), 717–734. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-05-2024-0154[emerald.com] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. National Planning Commission. (2025, May 9). National state of service delivery in South Africa (Research paper). https://www.nationalplanningcommission.org.za/assets/Documents/Service%20Delivery%20Research%20Report%20_09%20May%202025.pdf [nationalpl...ion.org.za] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. National Treasury (South Africa). (2023). Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) Technical Guidelines.https://www.treasury.gov.za/publications/guidelines/Medium%20Term%20Expenditure%20Framework%20-%20Technical%20Guidelines%20%282023%20MTEF%29. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. pdf [treasury.gov.za] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. National Treasury, Republic of South Africa, & Budget Office. (2023). Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) Technical Guidelines 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Nicolini, D., & Mengis, J. (2023). Attention and organisational learning: A practice-based approach. Organization Studies, 44(1), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406221075967 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Ntlube, Z., & Pillay, P. (2024). A framework for evaluation of synergy among shared contact centres, organisational performance and customer services in Eastern Province, South Africa: A literature review. FutureX Journal. https://www.futurexjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Ntlube-and-Pillay.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. O’Leary, J., Eggers, W. D., & Mancher, M. (2022, January 12). The future of government contact centers: Seven strategies for quantum leap improvement. Deloitte Insights. https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/government-public-sector-services/future-of-government-digital-contact-centers.html [deloitte.com] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Ocasio, W., & Love, E. G. (2026). Attention-based view. In A Guide to Key Theories for Strategic Management (pp. 147-168). Edward Elgar Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Ocasio, W., Laamanen, T., & Vaara, E. (2020). Communication and attention dynamics: An attention-based view of strategic change. Organization Science, 31(2), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.1315. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. OECD. (2024). Empowering public understanding: Citizen dialogue in budgeting. Public Governance Directorate. https://one.oecd.org/document/GOV/SBO(2024)17/en/pdf [one.oecd.org] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Optional Public‑Sector and Implementation‑Focused Mixed‑Methods Source [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Reinhardt, J. C. V., de Freitas Dewes, M., & Gonçalez, O. L. (2026). From customer satisfaction to strategic alignment: a new framework for strategic quality management systems. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 43(5), 1273-1306. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-02-2025-0055 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Sacilotto Donaires, O., Cezarino, L. O., & Liboni, L. B. (2026). A systems approach to the dynamic capabilities view: Putting the pieces together. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 39(7). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-026-09757-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Sarturi, G., Barakat, S. R., & Gomes, R. C. (2025). Stakeholder theory in the public sector domain: A bibliometric analysis and future research agenda. Review of Policy Research, 42(3), 736–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12560 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Satheesh, S. A., Busscher, T., Verweij, S., Baartmans, M. D., & Arts, J. (2026). Driving collaborative success across phases in public projects: The role of boundary spanning in fostering synergetic momentum. International Journal of Public Sector Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-04-2025-0146 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Schiehll, E., Kolahgar, S., & Morand, P. (2023). Governance artefacts and strategic attention: Evidence from board documents. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 104, 101414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2022.101414 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Schoonenboom, J., & Johnson, R. B. (2022). How to construct a mixed methods research design. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 25(6), 745–760 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. South African Government / National Treasury. (2025, July 23). Treasury on 2026 Medium Term Expenditure Framework Technical Guidelines (Media statement). https://www.gov.za/news/media-statements/treasury-2026-medium-term-expenditure-framework-technical-guidelines-23-jul. [gov.za] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Spanò R, Zampella A, Ginesti G, Ferri L (2026), "Enabling systemic innovation: hybrid risk management and knowledge translation in the NEMESI project". VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 56 No. 2 pp. 392–409, do: https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-05-2025-0192 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Taylor, C. R., Afshan, S., & Lawrence, K. L. (2025). Participatory budgeting for social equity: A comparative analysis. Public Administration. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.13055.[onlinelibr.... wiley.com] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. The Presidency (South Africa). (2025, May 12). Presidency on launch of Roadmap for the Digital Transformation of Government (media statement). https://www.gov.za/news/media-statements/presidency-launch-roadmap-digital-transformation-government-12-may-2025 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. [gov.za] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Sullivan, Y. (2023). Conducting mixed‑methods research: From classical social sciences to the age of big data and analytics. Virginia Tech Publishing. https://doi.org/10.21061/conducting-mixed-methods-research [publishing.vt.edu] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Vuori, T. O. (2024). Emotions and attentional engagement in the attention‑based view of the firm. Strategic Organization, 22(1), 189–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270231165356 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. [research.aalto.fi] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Vuori, T. O., & Tushman, M. L. (2024). Strategic decision making at platform transitions: The case of [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Williams, B. (2024). 10 organizational outcomes from strategic contact center development. Insight7. https://insight7.io/10-organizational-outcomes-from-strategic-contact-center-development/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Yin, R. K. (2021). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Yulianto, I. D., Hamidah, H., & Herlitah, H. (2025). Rethinking organizational performance in public sector auditing: The role of dynamic capabilities and strategic alignment. International Student Conference on Business, Education, Economics, Accounting, and Management [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. https://doi.org/10.1177/20597991231217937 [journals.sagepub.com] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Zindi, B. (2024). Evaluating the impact of digital governance in improving service delivery in Eastern Cape municipalities. International Journal of Development and Sustainability, 13(5), 346–366. https://hdl.handle.net/10210/506213 [ujcontent.uj.ac.za] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Empowering SME Performance Through Social Media: The Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation in Malaysian Manufacturing SMEs
• Effective School Bullying Prevention Strategies: A Thematic Review
• Impact of Workplace Conflict on the Operational Performance of Deposit Money Banks in Enugu State.
• Towards Digital Financial Solutions: A Conceptual Model of SME Strategies and Strategic Development
• Effect of Work-Life Balance and Affective Commitment on Employee Performance in the Hotel Industry in Plateau State