ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIVE VALUE OF KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER PROCESSES TO THE SUCCESS OF INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS by Arthur Simon Pantelides B.S. in Aerospace Engineering, May 1989, Boston University M.S. in Mechanical Engineering, May 1991, Boston University M.E.M. Engineering Management, August 2002, The George Washington University A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of The School of Engineering and Applied Science of The George Washington University in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 17, 2009 Dissertation directed by Shahram Sarkani Professor of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering Thomas Andrew Mazzuchi Professor of Operations Research and Engineering Management
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIVE VALUE OF KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER PROCESSES TO THE SUCCESS OF
INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS
by
Arthur Simon Pantelides
B.S. in Aerospace Engineering, May 1989, Boston University
M.S. in Mechanical Engineering, May 1991, Boston University
M.E.M. Engineering Management, August 2002, The George Washington University
A Dissertation submitted to
the Faculty of The School of Engineering and Applied Science
of The George Washington University in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
May 17, 2009
Dissertation directed by
Shahram Sarkani Professor of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering
Thomas Andrew Mazzuchi
Professor of Operations Research and Engineering Management
The School of Engineering and Applied Science of the George Washington University
certifies that Arthur Simon Pantelides has passed the Final Examination for the degree
of Doctor of Science as of March 6th 2009. This is the final approved form of the
dissertation.
ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIVE VALUE OF KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER PROCESSES TO THE SUCCESS OF INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS
Arthur Simon Pantelides
Dissertation Research Committee :
Shahram Sarkani, Professor of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Dissertation Co-Director Thomas Andrew Mazzuchi, Professor of Operations Research and Engineering Management, Dissertation Co-Director E. Lile Murphree, Professor of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Committee Chair Frank Allario, Professor of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Committee Member Gerhard Antony, President, Neugart USA LP, Committee Member
Table 2-1 – Four Modes of Knowledge Conversion…………………………………. 17
Table 2-2 – Comparison of Management Models Regarding Knowledge Creation……………………………………………………… 19 Table 2-3 – Frictions and Potential Solutions to Knowledge Transfer…………….. 24
Table 2-4a – Mapping Communication Traditions and Theories…………………… 54
Table 2-4b – Mapping Communication Traditions and Theories : Ref. 1…………. 55 Table 2-4c – Mapping Communication Traditions and Theories : Ref. 2………… 56 Table 2-4d – Mapping Communication Traditions and Theories : Final Refinement………………………………………………………… 57 Table 2-5a – Mapping of Positive and Negative Group Role Behavior Characteristics of Teams……………………………………………….. 61
Table 2-5b – Mapping of Positive and Negative Group Role Behavior Characteristics of Teams : Relationship to 3 Constructs……………. 62
Table 2-5c – Mapping of Positive and Negative Group Role Behavior Characteristics of Teams : Characteristic Grouping…………………. 63
Table 3-1 – Overall Population Potential Target Pool……………………………….. 95
Table 3-2 – Final Distribution Population Companies / Organizations…………….. 97
Table 4-8 – Hold-Back of Information Either by Headquarters or Subsidiary Data 1…………………………………………………………. 133 Table 4-9 – Hold-Back of Information Either by Headquarters or Subsidiary Data 2………………………………………………………… 134 Table 4-10 – Technical Project Specs & Customer Knowledge Survey Data……. 135
Monitoring / Feedback, Communication, Trouble-Shooter. They are documented based
on Crawford’s research papers [25], [26], [27], and Pinto et al [91].
Further significant research done with project management and project success in the
1990s include that of Ashley [6], Geddes [45], Jiang [65], Zimmerer [128], Whittaker
[125], and Clark [23] . However one of the key difficulties in this area of research
remains - how to reasonably quantify the concept of project success with a formalized
universal set of criteria that can be agreed upon by general group of practitioners. In
effect, project success however has maintained a definition based on a case-by-case
situational basis. It remains subjective. This particular issue has been addressed
recently by various researchers such as Rad, Koelmans, Altman, Dvir, and others. The
most recent study has been by Lee-Kelley and Sankey. "Global Virtual Teams for Value
Creation and Project Success : A Case Study" [72] They identify key factors affecting
success; they include “…time zone and cultural differences in particular, affect
communication and team relations…” [72]. The researchers also describe effects from
diverging management agendas, leadership styles (again related to culture), and role
uncertainty, something we feel also relates to culture as per the research conducted by
Hofstede. Although they touch upon communication, the research does not delve into
actual knowledge transfer and the communications structure as tool for this transfer.
Yu, Flett, and Bowers’ “Developing a Value-Centered Proposal for Assessing Project
Success” [127] propose a value-centered approach to measuring project success. They
develop and define two key concepts in their study : Net Project Execution Cost
(NPEC) and Net Product Operation Value (NPOV). Along with these they conclude 12
possible project outcomes based on the values of NPEC and NPOV and compare final
73
outcome to initial estimates. In their studies they do not directly take into account
knowledge transfer in any of their variables.
Other researchers including Dr. David Bryde’s work “Methods for Managing Different
Perspectives of Project Success” [16] have developed Key Performance Indicators
(KPI) to measure project success in this area, once again knowledge transfer is hardly
mentioned. A significant paper in the area of project functions and their impact to project
success has been written by Jha and Iyer "Critical Determinants of Project Coordination"
[64] for the International Journal of Project Management in 2005. They have outlined 20
important coordination activities that relate to project coordination and overall success.
They subsequently found that only 6 of these 20 factors were “statistically significant”
and of these only 2 were “very significant” [64]. A key area to focus on would be on how
knowledge transfer relates to these two activities that the researchers identified as
important : (1) estimation of optimum resources required; (2) agreement on detailed
methods of construction [64]. We feel (2) is of primary interest because it relates more
directly to the overall knowledge transfer function in terms of the industry we are
considering (complex machinery, assembly, setup, and start-up.
Dov Dvir and Aaron Shenhar, two key researchers in project management, have
collaborated on several occasions with Asher Tishler, Stanislav Lipovetsky, and others
to publish various works on quantifying project success. In 1998 they presented their
work - “In Search of Project Classification: A Non-Universal Approach to Project
Success Factors” [35] which concluded that the shortcomings of past research prior to
that time has been the tendency to try to provide a universal approach to quantifying
project success. They argue that project success determination is not universalistic and
74
there should not be such an all-encompassing approach. They employ a linear
discriminant analysis methodology in order to first classify projects and then determine
factors for success. In their study, they identify several managerial and organizational
variables, some of which relate directly to communication style, project control, and
reporting; in additional to technical requirements definition, technical and operational
specs and capacity to meet specs. These are the areas which knowledge transfer as a
whole is important although they do not take the actual knowledge transfer into account,
rather they focus on a multitude of factors. One very surprising aspects of their 1998
research is the conclusion that “learning capability” is only a weak predictor of success.
This would be contrary to what would be expected and it is mentioned as such in their
conclusion. They propose future research into this area. We feel that our research will
relate to this more directly.
A 2002 work from virtually the same research team of Shenhar, Tishler, Dvir, Lipovetsky
and Lechler, attempts to refine the previous research into project management success
by using a multivariate, typological approach with a strict statistical methodology in
identifying the key variables. "Refining the Search for Project Success Factors : A
Multivariate, Typological Approach." [108] They concede that still no conclusive
evidence or common agreement on project success / failure measurements exists and
they attempt to further refine their previous research with additional data and variable
identification. Unfortunately (or fortunately for our research) again there is no direct
investigation of the knowledge transfer and project success relationship. This is the crux
of our research.
75
2.5 Literature Review Summary & Research Potential
The research team of Dvir and Shenhar recently published their latest paper "Project
Management Research: The Challenge and Opportunity" [107] in the June 2007 edition
of the Project Management Journal, in which they identify key areas of future research
potential. This paper directs future studies of project management in several key areas
which we feel we are addressing with our research. One of these areas is the need to
provide integrative research into project management; that is, the challenge to combine
research from other disciplines. This is exactly what we are aiming to do, provide a
holistic approach utilizing research from Knowledge Management, knowledge
transfer utilizing communication methods and processes and combining these
with a cultural aspect of companies (both corporate and national) in order to
identify key success factors in project management. According to Dvir and Shenhar,
“…..this multidisciplinary approach represents a unique challenge to researchers….”
[107]. Essentially the “hole we are trying to fill” with our proposed research is that of
past research not integrating knowledge transfer processes and relating these to project
management success. In certain isolated cases, it has been attempted for IT projects
and but nothing further. In other cases, industrial projects have been considered but not
from a multinational company perspective. We focus on integrating these into a single
research target of multinational industrial companies, structuring their knowledge
transfer processes to provide the optimum probability of project success, once we
identify what constitutes project success within our scope.
As is readily apparent past research associated with the components of our current
research has been quit extensive, the problem is however this holistic approach (of
these components) that Dvir and Shenhar mention has not taken place within the
76
important areas we are considering. Based on our extensive literature review, we did not
find any specific research that integrated the components we require for our research
and within the scope study we are considering. This concept can be shown in Figure 2-2
which can be considered an interim precursor to our overall research framework.
Our research is based overall on a management problem; more specifically a technical
and engineering management problem since we focus on knowledge transfer of
engineering and industrial manufacturing projects. From a higher level point of view this
is an issue of how international companies with subsidiaries in the United States
manage their operations. This will involve research in international business which as a
discipline began to develop in the 1970s in conjunction with the expansion of
international business itself. Cross-culture management research, however, was very
limited throughout the 1970s and 1980s [15]. Only in the 1990s with continued
internationalization did interest and deeper research began to emerge and take shape.
Furthermore, according to Briscoe and Schuler [15] “…much of the published research
77
is based on an American perspective done by American or America-trained
researchers…research published by non-western scholars or in non-English sources
has gone virtually unnoticed…” [15], by both the academic and business world in the
United States.
As outlined in this chapter there has been significant research in project management
and what constitutes project success under various conditions. However there is no
agreement on a universal set of criteria for success. It remains subjective even after the
fundamental work of Murphy, Baker, and Fischer. Furthermore there seems to be no
significant and recent research of knowledge transfer associated with project
management success except some research in IT and civil projects. There seems to be
nothing on industrial machinery projects managed by multinational manufacturing
companies. Once again our focus is in this area because this industry is critical and
involved in practically every other type of heavy industrial, infrastructure, even
commercial segment. Also according to Henrie, “while project management literature
discusses and proposes that culture is an influence on projects, a clear theory of what
this influence is, is lacking” [57]. The area where there is a clear lack of research seems
to be in the communication structure between headquarters and subsidiary and how this
is utilized as a tool within the knowledge transfer function and how culture plays a role.
Our research will seek to realize these areas within a common framework of industrial
manufacturers and how they operate their business units / subsidiaries in the United
States and the effect this has on project success. Identifying the attributes of these
relationship for this success. Figure 2-3 provides a more refined graphical interpretation
of our research focus as developed over this chapter. This was established as an
original model for our research.
78
The significance of having the right people in Project Management roles is emphasized
by several researchers including Bresnen et al. [14] Their conclusion was to create a
key role, namely that of REM Regional Engineering Manager that would coordinate and
facilitate communication and knowledge transfer. In effect these “knowledge brokers”
would be the nodes in the communication structure of international project teams
hopefully improving the probability of project success. This is an interesting concept
because it identifies with one of our own models, namely the so-called one-to-one or
point-to-point structure (See Figure 2-4 below). Unfortunately the scope of Bresnen’s
79
research does not cover the particular parent subsidiary relationship which for us is a
central theme for which we have devised several higher tier communication structures
(in addition to Bresnen’s REM concept). Bresnen’s research most closely identifies with
our “point-to-point” model. Based on our research, we content that there are situations
where the other models must be considered as better optimized under certain conditions.
Figure 2-4 : Higher-Tier Knowledge Transfer Models for Parent-Subsidiary
Finally a core reference that was discovered within our research is Stock, Greis, and
Dibner’s 1996 research publication appearing in the IEEE Transactions of Engineering
Management, and titled “Parent-Subsidiary Communication in International
Biotechnology R&D” [114] This research has some close parallels to what we are
proposing, namely in the areas of parent-subsidiary communications between European
and Japanese multinational companies and their subsidiaries in the United States.
Stock, Greis, and Dibner’s research examines the flow of technical communication and
80
how this is transmitted to and from parent firms. The paper presents a close parallel also
to our own methodology and this is why it is mentioned here prior to the next chapter.
However, once again this previous research does not consider the important aspect of
knowledge transfer and more importantly the transfer of tacit knowledge into something
that can be usable at either location (parent or subsidiary) in improving the chances of
project success of international teams.
Based on our extensive literature review, we can confirm that the particular research
framework, under our defined scope, we have undertaken is in fact something which has
not been researched previously and can provide both scholarly and business benefits as
outlined in Chapter 1.
81
CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH DESIGN and METHODOLOGY
The research was conducted with a survey instrument used to gather data on which a
correlational analytical methodology was utilized. “The correlational approach is effective
in determining whether, and to what extent, a relationship exists between 2 or more
quantifiable variables” [44]. The overall methodology was modeled after Dr. Vincent
Michel Ribiere’s research approach in a similar investigation conducted in 2000-2001. In
addition to this particular approach we researched and analyzed an actual detailed case
which is used as a specific illustrative example of the principles developed. The case
example content is located in Appendix D. Although our case example is used to
confirm some of our findings we realize that it does not, by any means, incorporate a full
confirmation of the theoretical construct established. This approach however is typically
considered as “…an appropriate methodology in an initial research effort that is intended
to develop some theoretical understanding…” [57]. This multi-method, or what is
referred to as triangulation has also been successfully utilized in research conducted
by Stock [114] and Jansen [63]. For our research this methodology was appropriate
and applicable since the intent was to establish an understanding of the relationship
between knowledge transfer attributes and international team project success.
3.1 Research Objectives – Hypotheses Mapping
The primary assumption going forward is that there is in fact a correlation among the
way foreign company expats and local representatives working in a subsidiary in the U.S.
and within an engineering and manufacturing function in our study population are
managed and the way communication flows between them and headquarters
(knowledge transfer). There does exist a relationship that can be identified and used to
82
model and describe a knowledge transfer function or process; and this can be related to
project success.
The research objectives as initially outlined in Chapter 1 are :
Establish what is the most meaningful concept of project success to the target
study companies. How do they measure success and what are the similarities in
measuring project success among them. Establish these common factors for
success that can then be used to further the investigation.
Identify specific knowledge transfer attributes and descriptive variables of
multinational industrial manufacturing companies with foreign headquarters and U.S.
subsidiaries involved in international projects (our target companies). Make a
preliminary judgment on how these attributes and descriptive variables are
related, if at all, to the company’s project management successes; what is important,
what is not important, etc.
Identify key correlations in knowledge transfer processes between the 3 culturally
diverse groups of companies that make up the majority of our target industrial
manufacturers (German, Italian, Japanese); identify communication attributes that
related to the companies’ corporate and national culture and how these establish a
tool link with the knowledge transfer function.
Establish a final correlated relationship between knowledge transfer factors and
project success; conclude a final relationship among the attributes and variables of
knowledge transfer and project success, and establish a conceptual model for this.
Our underlying hypothesis is that there exists a correlation between how knowledge
transfer takes place within our population and the success of the population companies’
international projects. Identifying the attributes of successful knowledge transfer,
identifying the attributes of project success and establishing a correlation or relationship
between the two is essentially the higher-level goal.
This is illustrated simply in Figure 3-1.
83
Figure 3-1 : Higher Level Research Objective
Knowledge Transfer
Attributes International Team / Project
Success Attributes
What is the Relationship ?
Based on this overall objective, the formal directional hypothesis is defined as :
H1 : There is a relationship between successful knowledge transfer between parent – subsidiary and organizational project success.
The overall null hypothesis of course is the logical opposite and defined as :
H0 : There is no a relationship between successful knowledge transfer between parent – subsidiary and organizational project success.
From this we begin the process of establishing the important sub hypotheses which
frame the research hypothesis. These sub hypotheses are integral to our overall
directional hypothesis above because of the various research - associated factors and
variables as demonstrated in the extensive Literature Review Section (Chapter 2). Here
we will establish a map between the objectives of the research and the established sub
hypotheses thus creating the foundation for our formal directional hypothesis defined
above. It should be noted that these relate to our target research population.
Sub hypotheses are broken down into three main groups (in addition to the
demographics portion) : (1) Headquarters and Subsidiary Communications; (2)
Headquarters and Subsidiary Knowledge Transfer and Corporate Culture; and (3)
Project Success Characteristics and Interpretation. This is the general structure of our
survey tool as well. This will be discussed further below.
84
Based on our Literature Review and the different attributes under consideration, we
anticipate that trust plays a crucial role in how communication channels within the
organization are structured. It is anticipated that these semi-formal channels in fact arise
and take shape from the daily communication “work” and interaction that takes place
both within the subsidiary and between subsidiary and parent headquarters. A key point
is that this communication, whether the daily interaction at the subsidiary or the more
formal communication structure between subsidiary and parent, in which we contend
that knowledge transfer takes place, is established with little to no consideration of the
communication concepts outlined in Chapter 2. However since these concepts create
the building blocks of this communication; and in turn the communication establishes the
conduits of knowledge transfer of which trust is of the utmost importance, and
furthermore, trust is in our opinion a key factor in morale; we hypothesize the following
sub hypotheses Cluster B :
HB1 : There is a positive relationship between the way technical communications are handled on a daily basis and trust
HB2 : There is a positive relationship between how technical communication channels are modeled between subsidiary and headquarters and trust
HB3 : There is a positive relationship between how technical communication channels are modeled between subsidiary and headquarters and establishing a truly shared meaning in succesful knowledge transfer .
Furthermore, we hypothesize that based on various demographic factors of the
organization, in fact the “best” model for knowledge transfer is the many-to-many
concept at the higher tier. This leads to :
HB4 : Organizations that implement a many -to-many technical communication channel model are more likely to establish and maintain a truly learning and trusting relationship
85
Utilizing the link to employee morale but within an operational framework in which
organizational structure and the relationship between subsidiary and parent
headquarters is considered, we anticipate a link between morale (at the subsidiary) with
the level of perceived satisfaction at headquarters. Here we must be careful to
emphasize that this is in fact a perception of satisfaction at headquarters. By
constructing the research from survey question to sub hypotheses in such a way we
focus on the attitudes and dispositions of the personnel at the subsidiary operation
something which we are emphasizing with this research. We are now in the position to
consider how this relates to project success. We contend two points : (1) that there
exists a relationship between the perception of headquarters satisfaction with its
subsidiary and project success, (i.e., if there is a multitude of successful projects that the
subsidiary has accomplished, then it would seem almost a given that perception would
be that headquarters has a high satisfaction rating of its subsidiary); (2) that there is a
strong positive relationship between subsidiary employee morale and project success;
once again this would seem intuitive. This rationale is outlined in sub hypothesis
Cluster E :
HE1 : There is a positive relationship between subsidiary employee morale and project success.
HE2 : There is a positive relationship between parent headquarters satisfaction and project success
HE3 : There is a positive relationship between parent headquarters satisfaction and subsidiary employee morale
If we consider once again our Literature Review in Chapter 2, we saw from a
communications point of view and from the discussion regarding Hofstede’s research
[58] that certain circumstances, scenarios, and situations, give rise to an internal /
86
innate need to understand personal position within an organization. We have seen this in
several references and past research. There is a propensity for individuals (some
cultures more than others in fact) for face to be maintained during interaction,
uncertainty to be avoided to some practical degree; we anticipate that these cultural
considerations in fact relate to the degree in which an employee has direct input into
decisions that affect him or her. Furthermore, from groups, teams, and technical
communication, as well as thru our project success literature review, we hypothesize
that there is a positive relationship between certain fairly structured operational
standards in handling projects, but within the appropriate level of communication
pertinent to each situation (basically understanding and allowing for the various
communication factors), and project success. This rationale outlined above regarding
employees’ abilities to have direct input to decisions, and the need for a structure
environment which would allow for a greater probability of project success, form 2
additional sub hypotheses shown here :
HD1 : There is a positive relationship between proactively conducting and managing a system for post-project reviews and lessons -learned meetings and project success.
HD2 : There is a positive relationship between employees having a direct input into decisions that affect them and project success.
It should be noted that HD2 stems directly from both E and B Clusters previously
mentioned, namely the discussion on personnel morale (directly from HE1) and our
contention that the many-to-many knowledge transfer model (HB3) is the optimum
structure for establishing true knowledge transfer and learning. This should be fairly
intuitive when we consider that HD2 deals with employees making their own decisions –
the morale issue; and employees establishing direct links to headquarters as opposed to
having single individual acting as “gate-keepers” in communication and knowledge
87
transfer between subsidiary and parent headquarters. We further contend that HD1 and
HD2 affect directly project success factors and measures as outlined in our subsequent
sub hypothesis shown here.
HD3 : Organizations focus on delivery and performance , more so than cost , recurring business, and knowledge -gain, as the key measures for project success.
The progression of the sub hypotheses development above thru Clusters B, D, and E
has enabled us to address our first research objective, namely to identify the most
meaningful concept of project success for our target population. In effect we contend
that delivery and performance is of the utmost importance, outweighing price and other
factors such as corporate learning.
As outlined previously, the key to knowledge transfer is establishing a shared meaning
primarily with trying to convey and transfer tacit knowledge. This was discussed in detail
by Nonaka and Takeuchi [87], as well as Davenport’s and Prusak [31]. Extending the
framework from our sub hypotheses Cluster B (HB3 and HB4) which hypothesizes the
relationship among communication channels, shared meaning , and our many-to-many
concept, we can derive a conceptual relationship and formulate a 4th Cluster C which
relates shared meaning and employees’ direct decision-making abilities, which relate to
an organization’s structure HC1 ; technology tools as a means of easing cooperation and
collaboration HC2, ; leading to the formulation of sub- hypothesis HC3 which we stipulate
a relationship between trust and successful knowledge transfer. This Cluster is mapped
to our second research objective discussing knowledge transfer attributes for which we
contend that trust is a primary attribute that unfortunately may be lacking as researched
in previous studies. We need to identify the relationship for our target population.
88
HC1 : There is a positive relationship between employees having a direct input into decisions that affect them and establishing a truly shared meaning in succesful knowledge transfer.
HC2 : There is a positive relationship between the availability of technology tools and a true spirit of cooperation / collaboration between subsidiary and headquarters .
HC3 : There is a positive relationship between trust and knowledge transfer that occurs in both directions between headquarters and subsidiary .
Finally, we must consider the demographic data which we obtained and outline how
specific characteristics of an organization, its structure, that is, how rigidly hierarchical it
is, or not, its size, maturity (age), as well as how many expats are working in the
organization and what is their level of project management experience; all these factors
should be taken into account and related to our third research objective which considers
attributes and variables regarding corporate culture and structure. It should be noted
also that from a national culture point of view we will be considering these sub
hypotheses individually as well; that is individually within the framework of America,
German, Italian, and Japanese companies. Any similarities will be noted and any
differences will be examined in detail. This, along with our entire data set will be
presented and analyzed in the next chapter. Below is Cluster A relating to demographics.
The input into Cluster A is a logical extension of Cluster B primarily dealing with
communications. Figure 3-2 shows the Cluster Inter-Relationships leading to the
research objectives and Figure 3-3 shows the actual sub hypotheses.
HA1 : There is a positive relationship between the size of the subsidiary and headquarters and how technical communication channels are modeled
HA2 : There is a positive relationship between the age of the subsidiary and headquarters and how technical communication channels are modeled
89
HA3 : There is a positive relationship between organizational culture and structure and establishing a truly shared meaning in succesful knowledge transfer
HA4 : There is a positive relationship between the number of expats in the subsidiary and establishing a truly shared meaning in succesful knowledge transfer
90
91
3.2 Method
In following a correlational approach, we model our analysis in a similar way as Vincent
Michel Ribiere’s 2000-2001 research [96]. This methodology, as previously utilized by
Gay, “attempts to determine whether, and to what degree, a relationship exists between
two or more quantifiable variables…prediction of some outcome or hypothesis
confirmation is based on a strong relationship between the variables…” [44]. Based on
our conceptual framework shown in Chapter 1 Figure 1-2, we establish the following
relationships :
Per our Literature Review and our Research Structure we define the following moving
forward :
Corporate Culture Independent Variables / Attributes. Parent – Dependent vs. Independent, Parent – Integrated vs. Non-Integrated, Hierarchically Rigid vs. Loose, Democratic vs. Autocratic, Trusting vs. Holdback, Degree of Social and Cultural Empathy to Parent
National Culture Independent Variables / Attributes.
Hofstede [58] Set : Power Distance, Individualism vs. Collectivism, Masculinity / Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance, Long / Short-Term Orientation, Trust, Degree of Ethnocentrism
92
Basic Communication Theory Independent Variables / Attributes. Modified Hall [51] Set : Transmission = f (Speed, Context, Space, Time, Flow, Sequence) ; Absorption, Trust
International Communication Independent Variables / Attributes.
Language, Degree of Technology Usage, Time Lag & Time Difference, Degree of Feedback, Degree of Integration into both Parent and Subsidiary Strategic Initiative
Groups & Teams Communication Independent Variables / Attributes.
Individualism vs. Collectivism, Degree of Self-Construal & Face-Concern (in relation to Role Behavior Characteristics of Teams, See Table 2-5c), Trust
These specific job classifications were established based on our experience in the
industry of corporate structure in terms of what personnel is involved in large scale
projects such as those within our scope. It is these individuals holding these positions
that also maintain communications channels to and from parent and subsidiary. In the
possible case that the company is fairly small and such communications are handled at
a higher executive level, as is the case sometimes, we left an open-ended question in
terms of job-title position. We did not restrict our study to any particular organizational
size, history, or whether public or private. We did focus on those particular companies
dealing with large-scale projects within our scope and with national orientations we are
researching, in particular : American / Canadian, German, Swiss, Italian, Japanese; and
secondary : Other European and Other Asian.
94
Table 3-1 : Overall Population Potential Target Pool Job Function / Position of Potential Respondents
Sector
Location Potential
DestinationsPotential
Respondents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
USA and Canada
110 ~ 400
Europe, East & West
36 ~ 160
Asia Including Australia & India
43 ~ 170
Industry
and Corporate
Other 14 ~ 20 203 750
USA and Canada
29 ~ 70
Europe, East & West
2 ~ 5
Asia Including Australia & India
3 ~ 5
Consulting
Other 2 ~ 2
36 82
USA and Canada
10 ~ 12
Europe, East & West
6 ~ 19
Asia Including Australia & India
6 ~ 8
Academic
Other 2 ~ 2
24 41
Job Function Codes 1 = Project Manager or Engineer 2 = Application Manger or Engineer 3 = Product Manager or Engineer 4 = Sales Manager or Engineer 5 = Purchasing Manager or Engineer 6 = Design Manager or Designer 7 = R&D Manager or Engineer 8 = Other (to be specified in the survey)
95
As mentioned previously we refined our target population to 168 individuals from the
870+ available pool / potential. This refinement was based on a 2nd phase confirmation
of updated information from the AGMA web site (see figure 3-4) and a more in-depth
investigation of specific target companies dealing directly and primarily within our scope
as one of their core businesses and /or job functions. We feel that by doing this we have
significantly improved both survey response levels and data quality. The specific target
population is shown in abbreviated format in Table 3-2 and listed by ID#, company and
operations locations only. Names of individuals which the survey was sent to, are
omitted in order to maintain anonymity. This final list makes up our single-stage
sampling population.
Figure 3-4 American Gear Manufacturers Association Web Site www.agma.org ( used with permission from AGMA )
Approximately 62% worked at their company’s subsidiary in the United States,
while the remaining 38% worked either at a U.S. headquarters of the American
company or abroad at the foreign company’s overseas headquarters usually
located in Germany, Japan, or Italy. 86% of the respondents indicated that their
company had one or more corporate expats working on major project business at
the subsidiary while 40% of the respondents indicated there were subsidiary
personnel working as expats at the foreign headquarters. 62% of the responses
indicated they worked at a publicly-traded company while 29% indicated a private
company, while 8% were not sure. 58% of the companies had more than 1000
employees; of these particularly large companies more than 70% had significantly
large subsidiaries of 100+ employees.
Figure 4-7 is a representation of 3 variables that will be useful for us. It is
informationally interesting because it compares company size (personnel), age, and
expat situation both at the subsidiary level as well as at the parent headquarters
level. This represents the typical profile of our target companies both here and in
their home countries.
We can see that the “oldest” companies in our research are in fact Japanese and
German with an average age of about 65 years. American companies come in 2nd
at an average age of about 55 to 60 years old (headquarters). Italian companies are
younger at an average age of about 45 years old. Furthermore we can easily see
that the Japanese companies seem to be the largest. This is confirmed when we
consider such large heavy industrial companies such as Sumitomo, Mitsubishi,
Kawasaki, and others. When we consider these companies’ subsidiaries in the USA,
we see that overall subsidiary size is comparable – typically it ranges at somewhere
of about 100 to 300 employees. Once again, mirroring the trend of their
125
headquarters, the subsidiaries also vary in age, with the Japanese subsidiaries
having been in the U.S. the longest (oldest) at about 30 to 35 years; the Germans
are a close 2nd with an average age of their presence in the U.S. of about 25 years,
and again the Italian companies seem to be the relative newcomers with their
presence in the U.S. at less than 10 years on average. However, interesting as
these figures may be the additional 3rd variable represented by this “bubble” graph
is the expat situation both at headquarters and at the subsidiary; specifically, how
many cross-over expats are at each others location, Americans at abroad and
foreign expats here.
We can clearly see that American companies have the most expats on average
(14) than the others. The Japanese have the lowest number averaging only one
U.S. expat at their headquarters in Japan. This is interesting and will be discussed
later. The German and Italian company headquarters in their respective countries
do not do much better and on average maintain two U.S. expat employees at their
European headquarters. All 3 however – Japanese, German, and Italian companies
do maintain on average three employees from headquarters in their U.S.
subsidiaries. This is also interesting and will be discussed later.
Figure 4-7 : Company Size / Age / Expat Situation Profile
142
2
1
14
3
33
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
2,200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8Company Age
Com
pany
Siz
e (P
erso
nnel
)
0
ITALIANSubsidiary
GERMANSubsidiary
AMERICANSubsidiary
ITALIANPARENT
JAPANESESubsidiary
JAPANESEPARENTAMERICAN
PARENT
GERMANPARENT
126
The remainder of the data results is presented here utilizing cross-tabulated
contingency tables. This is done because this methodology is powerful in
presenting and establishing a starting point for simultaneous analysis of more than
one variable which we will consider in the following section : 4.2 Data Analysis /
Hypotheses Testing. Furthermore, since we are “…interested in the relationship
and influence of one variable over another, the use of contingency tables is
appropriate” [95]. According to Rea and Parker these tables add an explanatory
dimension to simple frequency distributions. Finally, all survey basic raw data is
readily available in Appendix C.
4.1.2 Headquarters & Subsidiary Communication
f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f %Completely Agree +4 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 8.3% 1 11.1% 0 0.0% 2 2.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 22.2% 0 0.0% 2 3.0%
Survey Question 12 13Survey Question Japan Germany Italy USA Other Total Japan Germany Italy USA Other Total
Question 12 : At my company the technical communication channel between our subsidiary and our headquarters is one-to-one. This means there is a single person at the subsidiary talking with a single person at headquarters. They both then distribute the information to others at their respective locations. Question 13 : A one-to-one communication channel set-up is optimum for coordinating tech info and knowledge transfer.
More than 65% of Japanese companies do not agree with a 1-to-1 communication
structure at their operation and almost 90% personally feel that it is not the best
approach in setting communications and a knowledge transfer structure. This is an
interesting result because there have been cases where this is exactly how such
structures are in fact constructed in many Japanese companies. German and Italian
127
respondents seem split on both questions if this is in fact the structure at their
organizations and if this is the optimum set-up.
f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f %Completely Agree +4 1 3.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 11.1% 0 0.0% 2 3.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 11.1% 0 0.0% 1 1.5%
Survey Question 14 15Survey Question Other TotalJapan GermanyItaly USA Italy USAOther TotalJapan Germany
Question 14 : At my company the technical communication channel between our subsidiary and our headquarters is one-to-many. This means there is a single person at the subsidiary talking with multiple / many people at headquarters. That single person then distributes the information at the subsidiary accordingly to who needs it. Question 15 : A one-to-many communication channel set-up is optimum for coordinating tech. info and knowledge transfer.
Results indicate essentially a split in Japanese company response on this particular
communication structure and its usage within their organizations. German
companies also are somewhat split on this structure as well, while interestingly
results indicate that Italian companies, by a majority 90%, do in fact practice this
type of structure. It is hypothesized that perhaps this is the case for Italian
manufacturers due to the relative younger age of their subsidiaries in the USA as
well as the fact that these companies also tend to be smaller in size tan their
German and Japanese counterparts. Results on question 15 indicate that a majority
of Japanese respondents (more than 85%) indicate that a 1-to-many scenario is not
considered optimum, even though its actual utilization is confirmed by Question 14.
128
f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f %Completely Agree +4 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 18.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 3.0% 0 0.0% 1 12.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.5%
Japan GermanyJapan Germany Italy USA Other Total Other Total
Question 16 : At my company the technical communication channel between our subsidiary and our headquarters is many-to-one. This means there many at the subsidiary talking with a single person at headquarters. The single person coordinates information with others at headquarters as needed. Question 17 : A many-to-one communication channel set-up is optimum for coordinating tech info and knowledge transfer.
Results indicate that Japanese, German, and Italian companies are basically split
almost evenly on this question regarding agreement or disagreement. This would
indicate that this type of structure does indeed exist in their corporations. Most likely
this would involve some kind of international planning department with a specified
manager handling inquiries from the subsidiaries. This is in fact practiced but tends
to slow down communications and affects the transmission factors of speed,
context (depending on language capabilities of this Department), and it could also
affect trust in such a way as to have headquarters dependent on their International
Planning or Support Department to deal with the subsidiaries instead of cross-
communication across all departments. Also, once again whereas German and
Italian respondents were split on how favorable they saw this structure personally;
Japanese respondents overwhelmingly felt that this was not optimum.
129
f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f %Completely Agree +4 3 10.3% 1 12.5% 0 0.0% 1 11.1% 2 20.0% 7 10.4% 7 24.1% 1 12.5% 3 27.3% 1 11.1% 1 10.0% 13 19.4%
Survey Question 18 19Survey Question Italy USA Other TotalJapan Germany Italy USA Other Total Japan Germany
Question 18 : At my company the technical communication channel between our subsidiary and our headquarters is many-to-many. This means that multiple / many people at our subsidiary talk with multiple / many people at headquarters as required. There is no real formal channels of communication. Question 19 : A many-to-many communication channel set-up is optimum for coordinating tech info and knowledge transfer.
Almost 70% of Japanese respondents indicated that they consider the many-to-
many model the optimum structure for communications and knowledge transfer
even though there is disagreement on this structure as the actual mechanism in
their corporations. This agreement that this many-to-many structure, by far,
surpassed both German and Italian responses that ranged only between 37~40%
agreement.
f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f %Completely Agree +4 5 17.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 33.3% 0 0.0% 8 11.8% 9 31.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 55.6% 1 9.1% 15 22.1%
Survey Question 20 21Survey Question Japan Germany Italy USA Other Total Japan Germany Italy USA Other Total
Question 20 : At my company we handle technical communications between subsidiary and headquarters in a formal documented way using e-mail, fax, or other structured means. We do things in writing. Question 21 : The best way for handling technical communication between subsidiary and headquarters is in writing, by e-mail, fax, and / or other structured documented means.
130
Virtually all (at 96%) Japanese respondents indicate that handling communications
in writing is the best way and this is how it’s done at their companies. This is
interesting in 2 ways, first it indicates that written communication is preferred
because it may be easier for headquarters personnel to review and respond. It is
fairly well-known that many individuals prefer written communication as opposed to
on-the-spot verbal communication because of fear and other factors associated
with their level of knowledge of that foreign language, and for the Japanese its no
different; in fact it is even more desired due to the emphasis on written over verbal
foreign language instruction within the Japanese education system.
Secondly, we must also consider the time-difference and the difficulty in
coordinating verbal communications whether by phone or video conference when
the time difference between subsidiary and headquarters is 12 to 13 hours.
Germans as well prefer written communications and it’s hypothesized that this may
be due to the precise and low context nature of the culture. Perhaps not surprisingly,
more than half of the respondents from Italian manufacturers indicate that this is not
the way it’s done at their company. Once again it is felt that the relatively young age
of subsidiaries within the U.S. may play a role in the fact that such formalized
systems perhaps have not been fully implemented.
f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f %Completely Agree +4 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 11.1% 1 9.1% 2 2.9% 4 13.8% 2 25.0% 2 18.2% 1 11.1% 0 0.0% 9 13.2%
Survey Question 22 23Survey Question Other TotalJapan GermanyItaly USA Italy USAOther TotalJapan Germany
131
Question 22 : At my company we handle technical communications between subsidiary and headquarters, by phone, video conference, or face-to-face meetings whenever possible. We try to speak to each other instead of writing. Question 23 : The best way for handling technical communication between subsidiary and headquarters is by phone or video conference. It is preferable to look and directly speak to and hear the other person while discussing technical issues.
Not surprisingly and in conjunction with the results from Questions 20 and 21,
Japanese respondents do not agree with face-to-face and/or verbal
communications. They indicate by a majority of about 68% that this is normally not
how it’s done at their corporations. German respondents however indicate that in
fact this does take place in German parent-subsidiary communications, this is
indicated by a majority 87% of respondents. Italian respondents are essentially split
almost evenly. Interestingly enough however both German and Japanese
respondents indicated that they would prefer to communicate (more) in a verbal,
face-to-face manner, by video conference, and the like. 100% of German
respondents either Agree or Completely Agree with this idea, while about 75% of
Japanese also fall in this category.
4.1.3 Headquarters & Subsidiary KT and Corporate Culture
f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f %Completely Agree +4 0 0.0% 1 11.1% 0 0.0% 2 22.2% 0 0.0% 3 4.3% 8 27.6% 1 12.5% 1 9.1% 3 33.3% 0 0.0% 13 19.1%
Japan GermanyJapan Germany Italy USA Other Total Other Total
Question 24 : At my company there is an open and sharing of technical information and knowledge. Nothing is held back from each other by either subsidiaries nor headquarters. There is trust. We are a learning organization, an environment of continuous improvement. This is encouraged by management.
132
Question 25 : The best approach in terms of knowledge sharing between headquarters and subsidiary is openness, full-sharing, and trust. You should not keep information from others as an advantage for yourself.
Almost 80% of Japanese respondents indicate disagreement with the statement
that there is open, sharing of information and trust. This is a significant result
because it indicates a presence of distrust within their organizations. Italian
companies also overwhelmingly at 99% seem to share the same kind of sense of
mistrust, no sharing, no openness. In contrast, both German and U.S. companies
indicate agreement that this sense of trust and openness and sharing does in fact
exist. However we need to consider this information with some care. Across the
board all respondents agreed that this however is required and the best approach.
f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f %Completely Agree +4 3 10.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 4.4% 3 10.3% 0 0.0% 1 9.1% 3 33.3% 1 9.1% 8 11.6%
Table 4-8 : Hold-Back of Information Either by Headquarters or Subsidiary - 1
Survey Question 26 27Survey QuestionUSA Other TotalGermany Italy USA ItalyOther TotalJapan Japan Germany
Question 26 : At my company for whatever reason the subsidiary does hold back from headquarters some technical information, knowledge and know-how acquired from local market experience and customers. Question 27 : At my company for whatever reason headquarters does hold back from the subsidiary some centrally-based core technical information, knowledge and know-how.
Results indicate that the majority of Japanese, German, and American respondents
feel that at their company there is no holding back of information by the subsidiary
for any reason. Italian respondents are split. Surprisingly enough, however, almost
80% of Japanese respondents indicate that headquarters in fact does hold back
133
information from the subsidiary. More surprisingly even though there was a split in
responses from Italian companies on whether the subsidiary holds back, the
majority (more than 90%) indicate that their headquarters does in fact hold back
information. This is an interesting result in that it relates to trust issues between
headquarters and the subsidiaries. There seems to be an aspect of “us vs. them”
which can lead to morale issues and be unproductive in the operation of the
subsidiary. Furthermore this can then it can spiral back to headquarters and create
a negative situation there as well eventually leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy of
inefficiency and poor morale which can impact project success.
f % f % f % f % f % f %Completely Agree +4 1 3.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.5%
Table 4-9 : Hold-Back of Information Either by Headquarters or Subsidiary - 2
Survey Question 28Japan Germany Italy USA Other Total
Question 28 : It is acceptable for either headquarters or the subsidiary to hold back information from time to time in order to gain some real or perceived advantage. Critical information is a source of power that can be used.
Results indicate a split between agreement and disagreement within Japanese
companies on whether its OK to hold back. The rest of the respondents disagree
with holding back information. Again, the results are interesting from a trust point of
view. We will see later in the report that these attitudes of withholding information
whether by subsidiary or parent company and whether true or simply perceived do
reflect an aspect of culture whether Indo-European, Asian, and the like.
134
f % f % f % f % f % f %Completely Agree +4 1 3.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 11.1% 0 0.0% 2 2.9%
Survey Question 29Other TotalJapan Germany Italy USA
Question 29 : At my company we usually do not have any problems with customers transferring their Technical Project Specifications to us. Our customers are knowledgeable, they know what they want, and what is available in the market.
Japanese respondents to this Question 29 are split almost evenly in indicating
problems with customer transfer of technical project specifications. Since the
majority of German, Italian and most U.S. companies seem to feel that this is not a
problem for them; we think that perhaps this relates to language issues with
Japanese companies.
f % f % f % f % f % f %Completely Agree +4 0 0.0% 1 12.5% 0 0.0% 2 22.2% 0 0.0% 3 4.4%
Survey Question 30Japan Germany Italy USA Other Total
Table 4-11 : Technology Tools
Question 30 : At my company we use fairly new technology tools to facilitate knowledge transfer and sharing between headquarters and the subsidiaries. We keep up with technology.
German respondents indicate significant usage of technology tools. 100% response
from German companies indicates agreement with the survey Question / Statement
30; whereas a strong portion of Japanese respondents (about 59%) indicate no
135
such usage or minimal usage of technology regarding knowledge transfer
facilitation.
f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f %Completely Agree +4 1 3.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 11.1% 0 0.0% 2 2.9% 8 27.6% 4 50.0% 1 9.1% 4 44.4% 2 18.2% 19 27.9%
Survey Question 31 32Survey Question Japan Germany Italy USA Other Total Japan Germany Italy USA Other Total
Question 31 : At my company cooperation and collaboration is critical to our success and strong within our culture; everyone understands and practices this for mutual benefit both within the subsidiary and between headquarters and subsidiary. Question 32 : A spirit of true cooperation and collaboration is the most important aspect of knowledge transfer.
Japanese respondents seem to disagree with this particular statement on
cooperation and collaboration existing between parent and subsidiary entities at
their corporations. About 60% indicate that there may be problems with true
cooperation and collaboration. German and Italian responses indicate a split.
However all respondents across the board overwhelmingly indicate that a spirit of
cooperation and collaboration is in fact critical and the most important aspect of
knowledge transfer. It just seems from the responses that even though individual
may feel this way, it is lacking in practice.
f % f % f % f % f % f %Completely Agree +4 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 11.1% 0 0.0% 1 1.4%
Table 4-13 : Structure of Decision-Making and Processes
Survey Question 33Japan Germany Italy USA Other Total
136
Question 33 : At my company there is a high level of agreement about how things are done; we have a fairly strong structure where each and every one follows strict guidelines on doing things.
Japanese and German responses indicate a split between agreement and
disagreement with this Question / Statement; Italian respondents however indicate
that such structure really does not exists; thus they overwhelmingly disagree at
about 90% rate. This could once again indicate the relatively young age of Italian
subsidiaries compared to both German and Japanese companies. The fact could
be that Italian subsidiaries in the U.S. could still be maturing and creating these
needed structures within their operations while both Japanese and German
companies have evolved these systems already.
f % f % f % f % f % f %Completely Agree +4 1 3.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 11.1% 0 0.0% 2 2.9%
Table 4-15 : Shared-Meaning Between Headquarters and Subsidiary
Survey Question 35Japan Germany Italy USA Other Total
Question 35 : There is true shared-meaning between our company’s headquarters and subsidiaries. We really do understand each other.
Corresponding to previous results, once again Japanese and Italian company
respondents seem to feel that there is no shared-meaning between headquarters
and subsidiary; that there is no true understanding.
4.1.4 What is Project Success
f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f %Completely Agree +4 7 24.1% 1 11.1% 4 28.6% 4 44.4% 1 9.1% 17 23.6% 8 27.6% 1 12.5% 1 9.1% 3 33.3% 3 27.3% 16 23.5%
Table 4-16 : Project Success : Time, Budget, Performance
Survey Question 36 37Survey QuestionJapan Germany Italy USA Other Total Japan Germany Italy USA Other Total
Question 36 : At my company we measure Project Success as completing a project on-time, on-budget, and meeting all technical performance specifications in terms of function and quality. Question 37 : The best measure of project success is by means of delivery, budget, and performance.
Essentially the majority of respondents regardless of company nationality indicated
that delivery, price, and technical performance are in fact key measures of project
138
success. Across the board Japanese ( 75% ), German ( 100% ), Italian ( 64% ), and
American ( 66% ) companies in this industry still measure project success based on
these original factors.
f % f % f % f % f % f %Completely Agree +4 1 3.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 11.1% 1 9.1% 3 4.3%
Survey Question 38Japan Germany Italy USA Other Total
Question 38 : At my company we conduct fairly structured post-project reviews and lessons-learned sessions. These are important to identify and understand ways to improve our project capabilities. Virtually no majority, whether Japanese, German, Italian, nor American, conducts
structured post-project reviews and lessons-learned sessions.
f % f % f % f % f % f %Completely Agree +4 3 10.3% 1 12.5% 5 45.5% 1 11.1% 1 9.1% 11 16.2%
Table 4-18 : Employee Morale, Satisfaction, and Project Success
Survey Question 39Japan Germany Italy USA Other Total
Question 39 : Employee morale and satisfaction at the subsidiary is an important measure of project success even though there may be no direct impact at all on cost, delivery and performance.
Results indicate consistently that almost all respondents regardless of company
nationality feel that employee morale, satisfaction is an important measure of
project success. How important compared to price, delivery and performance,
unfortunately was not indicated in any particular individual survey question but will
be analyzed within this research. It is interesting that respondents overwhelmingly
139
consider the typical project success factors but also consider employee morale and
satisfaction. This was a result that was not really expected within this fairly mature
and some would consider “old-fashioned” industry.
f % f % f % f % f % f %Completely Agree +4 9 31.0% 1 12.5% 3 27.3% 1 11.1% 3 27.3% 17 25.0%
Table 4-19 : Customer Satisfaction and Repeat Business, and Project Success
Survey Question 40Japan Germany Italy USA Other Total
Question 40 : Fully satisfied customers leading to repeat business is the most important measure of project success. This means also eliminating after-market repairs and problems. Results indicate a strong agreement to the statement on satisfied customers and
repeat business being an indicator of project success. Virtually all responses
indicated a 90%n or greater agreement rate.
f % f % f % f % f % f %Completely Agree +4 3 10.3% 0 0.0% 1 9.1% 2 22.2% 1 9.1% 7 10.1%
Survey Question 42Japan Germany Italy USA Other Total
Question 42 : A very important aspect of project success is how effectively you deal with the inevitable problems that arise during the project; in other words, Risk Management.
A good majority, as indicated by the results, feels that risk management is also a
measure of project success although Japanese respondents do not have a very
strong preference for this particular measure.
f % f % f % f % f % f %Completely Agree +4 5 17.2% 0 0.0% 1 9.1% 3 33.3% 2 18.2% 11 16.2%
Table 4-23 : Project Success and Successful Knowledge Transfer
Survey Question 44Japan Germany Italy USA Other Total
Question 44 : Successful Knowledge transfer among all parties involved in a project : headquarters, subsidiary, customer, final end-user, is an important measure of project success even though there may be no direct impact at all on cost, delivery, and performance.
Results indicate that Japanese, German, and Italian respondents agree that
knowledge transfer is in fact an important measure of project success. American
response indicates a wider spread and not such a strong agreement as the others.
4.1.5 Project Success at Your Company
The results specific to project success evaluation at the respondents’ companies
are shown in Figures 4-8 thru 4-13 in frequency distribution graphs in order to
better-distinguish some differences between company nationalities.
142
02468
10
121416
f
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4-8a : Question 45 Percentage of projects delayed due to poor delivery performance. All
0123456789
f
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4-8b : Question 45 Percentage of projects delayed due to poor
delivery performance.
USA
EuropeAsia
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
f
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4-9a : Question 46 Percentage of projects experiencing cost overruns leading to decreased margins. All
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
f
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4-9b : Question 46 Percentage of projects experiencing cost
overruns leading to decreased margins.
USAEurope
Asia
0
5
10
15
20
f
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4-10a : Question 47 Percentage of recurring project business due to good customer satisfaction. All
0123456789
10
f
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4-10b : Question 47 Percentage of recurring project business
due to good customer satisfaction.USAEurope
Asia
0246
1012141618
8f
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4-11a : Question 48 Percentage of overall successful projects is…..
All
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
f
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4-11b : Qestion 48 Percentage of overall successful projects
is…..USA
Europe
Asia
143
0
5
Overall, frequency distribution tabulation and subsequent statistical analyses
indicate that in terms of structuring communication channels, smaller companies
and subsidiaries tend to prefer one-to-one relationships and communication
channels between subsidiary and parent. This typically results in a 56% success
rate on major projects for all companies surveyed. When companies start evolving
into bigger entities, there is increasing disagreement with this one-to-one
relationship and the tendency is for the parent to encourage multilateral
communication channels which tend to slightly increase the success rate of projects
to approximately 68% for all companies surveyed. The potential for increased
resources as the entity grew bigger was considered only in terms of communication
and personnel instead of other material resources, with the exception of
technological communication tools such as video conferencing.
10
15
20
f
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4-12a : Question 49 Percentage of subsidiary employees with a generally positive outlook and work morale. All
012345678
f
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4-12b : Question 49 Percentage of subsidiary employees with a
generally positive outlook and work morale.
USA
Europe
Asia
0
5
10
15
20
f
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4-13a : Question 50 Percentage of dissatisfaction from our parent headquarters is about….. All
012345678
f
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4-13b : Question 50 Percentage of dissatisfaction from our
parent headquarters is about…..
USA
Europe
Asia
144
The vast majority of companies in this industry maintain the classical definition of
project success of : on-time delivery, on-budget, and meeting all performance
specifications but a significant proportion, over 67% indicated that delivery from
their parent company was the key success factor for these major projects.
4.2 Data Analysis / Hypotheses Testing
Measures of central tendency and dispersion, which we initially consider in our analysis,
“…constitute the fundamental elements of descriptive statistics” [95]. They describe and
summarize a large amount of data typically obtained thru survey methodologies such as
with our own specific research. These analyses are fairly simple and elegant because
they provide description thru single statistical values.
Initial analysis was conducted on all fundamental survey questions in order to obtain a
baseline of our data. This is important because the next step is establishing an analysis
on the relationship among the data, specifically the relationship between variable
established from the various questions. Therefore an understanding of the initial data
disposition prior to initiating such a relational analysis is important. If there already exists
some initial relationship prior to our correlational methodology, it needs to be identified
and accounted for within the subsequent analysis we are most interested in below.
The simple arithmetic mean was calculated to identify data located above and below the
central point in addition to providing a relative distance of the data to that point. This is
important in order to establish the baseline for each survey question from which
145
subsequent analyses such as ANOVA will be handled. The median also was calculated
to provide an additional measure comparable to the arithmetic mean. According to Rea
and Parker [95] when working with cross-tabulated contingency tables, “…it is normal
not to expect the median and the mean to coincide or even be close in magnitude to
each other based on a scaled frequency distribution used such as a Likert Scale…” [95].
Based on Rea and Parker’s “Designing and Conducting Survey Research” [95] the
arithmetic mean seems to be the most appropriate measure to consider. We calculated
and documented both this and the median.
The additional measure of central tendency is the mode which is useful in identifying the
particular category (in ordinal scaled surveys) which is “most popular” with respondents,
or most “typical” of the population surveyed. This calculation will help identify some
beliefs and trends and add to our discussion and conclusions from an overall
perspective.
The well-known standard deviation measure was individually calculated in order to
provide a good measure of dispersion that does not eliminate any outliers or extreme
values yet is not overly influenced by them. Finally we included a simple chi-square
calculation (χ2 ) for all the distribution function data obtained for each survey question
so that we could confirm that no initial relationship exists prior to initiating our
correlational analysis relating to our hypotheses.
Our initial analysis is summarized in tabular form in Table 4-23.
146
mean median mode std.dev chi-sqr. mean median mode std.dev chi-sqr. mean median mode std.dev chi-sqr. mean median mode std.dev chi-sqr. mean median mode std.dev chi-sqr. mean median mode std.dev chi-sqr.
x m M s χ2 x m M s χ2 x m M s χ2 x m M s χ2 x m M s χ2 x m M s χ2
HB4 Many-to-many subsidiary communication channel and learning / trusting relationship International Communication; Corp. and National Culture; trust (as a major subset attribute)
HD3 OTD, Cost, Performance as project success factors vs. recurring business, knowledge gainedProject Success, Basic Communication as it relates directly to KT
* criteria based on Rea, Parker Reference [95], page 186 - Critical Values of the Chi-Square Distribution** criteria based on Rea, Parker Reference [95], page 189 - Interpretation of Calculated Cramer's V
12 / 35
18 / 24
16 / 24
14 / 24
18 / 24
18 / 35
16 / 35
14 / 35
24 / 27
24 / 26
30 / 31
34 / 35
48 / 49
36 / 44
34 / 38
38 / 48
HE2
HE3 49 / 50
48 / 50
HD1
HD2
HD3
HE1
HC1
HC2
HC3
HC3
HB3
HB3
HB3
HB4
HB2
HB2
HB2
HB3
HB1 20 / 24
HB1
HB2 12 / 24
22 / 24
x
xxxxx
x
x
x
x
x
xxx
x
x
x
x
xxx
x
xxx
x
xxx
xxxx
x
xxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
xxx
x
181
4.2.2.2 ANOVA Confirmation by Survey Question
Results obtained from our analysis using MiniTab® are documented in Appendix C
under the heading ANOVA Raw Data. Our final analysis results, as well as
Hypotheses disposition and discussion, are shown in the following section and in
tabulated form.
4.2.3 Analysis Summary
Based on our results and subsequent analysis including the Correlational, and
ANOVA analysis performed in MiniTab® we can establish a relational model once
we establish and conclude a final disposition on our Hypotheses; please refer to
summary Tables 4-24, 4-2, and 4-26, as well as Appendix C for ANOVA results.
We had previously established the following construct for which we now establish
IT 0.572 11.10 Relatively strong associationUS -0.474 10.00
JP 0.525 13.82
GR 0.658 4.82
IT 0.495 11.09 Relatively strong association
US -0.134 8.13
JP 0.096 26.14 Relatively strong association Inconclusive
GR -0.367 17.00 Strong Association
IT 0.983 0.41
US 0.400 6.40
JP 0.532 9.21
GR 0.152 9.26 Relatively strong association Inconclusive
IT 0.329 8.29
US 0.589 2.87
JP 0.860 11.99
GR 0.622 3.62
IT 0.120 12.86 Relatively strong association InconclusiveUS -0.463 15.00 Strong AssociationJP -0.139 32.30 Relatively strong association InconclusiveGR 0.258 5.67
IT -0.234 22.00 Strong AssociationUS -0.077 9.20
JP 0.426 13.88
GR 0.681 5.82
IT 0.749 6.56
US -0.344 6.74
JP 0.874 9.34
GR -0.441 24.60 Strong Association
IT 0.774 6.58
US -0.462 11.10
JP 0.688 7.42
GR 0.832 1.95
IT 0.594 5.56
US 0.134 8.00
JP 0.591 8.58
GR 0.648 7.12
IT 0.648 7.12
US 0.174 5.25
JP 0.266 29.45 Relatively strong association InconclusiveGR 0.260 12.95
IT 0.260 12.95
US -0.087 6.74
JP 0.575 23.44 Relatively strong associationGR 0.344 17.35 Moderate Association InconclusiveIT 0.344 17.35 Moderate Association InconclusiveUS 0.600 9.77
* criteria based on Rea, Parker Reference [95], page 186 - Critical Values of the Chi-Square Distribution** criteria based on Rea, Parker Reference [95], page 189 - Interpretation of Calculated Cramer's V
Organizations focus on delivery and performance, more so than cost, recurring business, and knowledge-gain, as the key measures for project success.
Organizations DO NOT focus on delivery and performance, more so than cost, recurring business, and knowledge-gain, as the key measures for project success.
There is NO positive relationship between subsidiary employee morale and project success.
There is a positive relationship between subsidiary employee morale and project success.
There is a positive relationship between proactively conducting and managing a system for post-project reviews and lessons-learned meetings and project success.
There is NO positive relationship between proactively conducting and managing a system for post-project reviews and lessons-learned meetings and project success.
There is NO positive relationship between employees having a direct input into decisions that affect them and project success.
There is a positive relationship between employees having a direct input into decisions that affect them and project success.
There is a positive relationship between trust and knowledge transfer that occurs in both directions between headquarters and subsidiary.
There is NO positive relationship between the way technical communications are handled on a daily basis and trust.
There is NO positive relationship between how technical communication channels are modeled between subsidiary and headquarters and trust.
There is NO positive relationship between how technical communication channels are modeled between subsidiary and headquarters and establishing a truly shared meaning in succesful knowledge transfer.
There is NO positive relationship between trust and knowledge transfer that occurs in both directions between headquarters and subsidiary.
There is a positive relationship between employees having a direct input into decisions that affect them and establishing a truly shared meaning in succesful knowledge transfer.
There is NO positive relationship between employees having a direct input into decisions that affect them and establishing a truly shared meaning in succesful knowledge transfer.
There is a positive relationship between the availability of technology tools and a true spirit of cooperation / collaboration between subsidiary and headquarters.
There is NO positive relationship between the availability of technology tools and a true spirit of cooperation / collaboration between subsidiary and headquarters.
Organizations that implement a many-to-many technical communication channel model are more likely to establish and maintain a truly learning and trusting relationship.
Organizations that implement a many-to-many technical communication channel model are NOT more likely to establish and maintain a truly learning and trusting relationship.
There is a positive relationship between how technical communication channels are modeled between subsidiary and headquarters and establishing a truly shared meaning in succesful knowledge transfer.
Trust, Modified Hall Set, Language, Deg.of Feedback, Hofstede Set, Parent Dependency and Level of Integration.
Parent Dependency and Level of Integration; Degree of Hierarchical Organization; Trust; level of holdback; Degree of Social and Cultural Empathy to Parent
Parent Dependency and Level of Integration; Degree of Hierarchical Organization; Trust; level of holdback; Degree of Social and Cultural Empathy to Parent; Language; Degree of Strategic Integration
Trust; Degree of Feedback; Language; Hofstede Set;
Degree of Hierarchical Organization; Democratic vs. Autocratic
Degree of Technology Usage; Time Lag and Difference; Trust; Hofstede Set
Trust; Degree of Holdback by Subsidiary
Trust; Degree of Holdback by Parent
There is a positive relationship between how technical communication channels are modeled between subsidiary and headquarters and trust.
Delivery, Budget, Tech. Performance; Degree of Knowledge-gained & Lessons-LearnedDeg. of Hierarchical Organization; Democratic vs. Autocratic; Delivery, Budget, Tech. Perform Delivery, Budget, Tech. Performance; Deg. of Knowledge-gained & Lessons-Learned; Market Share expansion
Trust; Delivery, Budget, Tech. Performance
Degree of Social and Cultural Empathy to Parent; Delivery, Budget, Tech. Performance
Trust; Degree of Parent-Integration; Project Success Set (indirect)
Inconclusive
Associated Question
RelationshipHypotheses
There is a positive relationship between the way technical communications are handled on a daily basis and trust.
Inconclusive
Inconclusive
Inconclusive
Inconclusive
Inconclusive
Inconclusive
Inconclusive
Inconclusive
Inconclusive
Inconclusive
12 / 35
18 / 24
16 / 24
14 / 24
18 / 24
18 / 35
16 / 35
14 / 35
24 / 27
24 / 26
30 / 31
34 / 35
48 / 49
36 / 44
34 / 38
38 / 48
HE2
HE3 49 / 50
48 / 50There is a positive relationship between parent headquarters satisfaction and project success.
There is NO positive relationship between parent headquarters satisfaction and project success.
There is NO positive relationship between parent headquarters satisfaction and subsidiary employee morale.
There is a positive relationship between parent headquarters satisfaction and subsidiary employee morale.
HD1
HD2
HD3
HE1
HC1
HC2
HC3
HC3
HB3
HB3
HB3
HB4
HB2
HB2
HB2
HB3
HB1 20 / 24
HB1
HB2 12 / 24
22 / 24
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject NullFail to Reject Null
Fail to Reject Null Hypothesis
183
Once again, with the resulting analysis and results of our hypotheses testing, we
establish the appropriate influences to our model which is calculated thru
Our model should be further verified thru a validation program because of the fact
that there were areas were no conclusion could be made thus leaving some
variable / attribute sets with not as much weight as others and therefore not as
much influence as they potentially could have exerted. We feel the areas which we
could not definitively establish a conclusion regarding our Hypotheses have the
slight potential to “water-down” or diminish the strength of this model to some
extent. We are confident that this effect however is minimal.
Another potential limitation is that the data collected to establish the model thru our
analysis represented the perception of various individuals, as opposed to an
198
objective measure. We compensated for this by constructing our survey in such a
way as to request : (1) information from the respondent’s company and how it
operates but also request (2) input from the respondent on how they feel
themselves regarding the same issue in most cases. Although we did not apply a
full analysis in the differences in responses, this could be a next area to investigate.
In fact the way we constructed our survey will enable us to continue to utilize the
data to further expand and conduct additional research and refinement of our
hypotheses without the need for further data collection (if conducted within a
reasonable period of time). We are planning to expand this initial research and
continue to publish refinements in the coming 8 to 12 months on a post-doctoral
level.
Overall we feel confident that this is an excellent initial theoretical construct which
we had initially set out to create within the objectives of our research. Based on the
sub hypotheses analysis we reject the Null Hypotheses and confirm that there is in
fact a relationship between successful knowledge transfer between parent
and subsidiary organizational project success.
The influence of the trust attribute does merit further research. Here it was treated
in an ancillary way and based on our results we feel that there could be more to
gain from additional investigation on how trust plays a role not only in Project
Management and Knowledge Transfer, but from an overall operational
management point of view.
We are also considering a tighter integration to the Hofstede analysis utilizing his
indices in a much more integrative way so as to be able to predict the cultural
199
component and be able to assist potential users of this work in aligning
international project teams. This can be done, we feel, fairly easily by : (1)
utilizing the eigenvalues and eigenvectors within our data analysis; and (2) either
graphically “vectorizing” the Hofstede data in an appropriate way and adding the
two, or using the indices as mentioned above and mathematically establishing an
improved project team model.
Ultimately we would like to code our research methodology into a program that
could provide a computer-based approach for predicting project success within
the industry; perhaps even commercializing this if practical.
200
References
[1] Ady, Jeffrey C. "Minimizing Threats to the Validity of Cross-Cultural Organizational Research." International and Intercultural Communications Annual 18 (1994).
[2] Albert, Rosita Daskal. "Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Training in Multinational
Organizations." International and Intercultural Communications Annual 18 (1994). [3] Altmann, Erika. Project Success: A Longitudinal View. Melbourne, Australia: Victoria
University School of Management, 2005. [4] Andrews, Deborah C. Technical Communication in the Global Community. Upper Saddle
River, NJ Prentice Hall, 1998. [5] Antia, Murad, J. Barry Lin, and Christos Pantzalis. Cultural Distance and Valuation of
Multinational Corporations. Tampa, Florida: University of South Florida, 2005. [6] Ashley, David, Clive Lurie, and Edward Jaselskis. "Determinants of Construction Project
Success." Project Management Journal XVIII.2 (1987): 69-79. [7] Ayas, Karen. "Professional Project Management : A Shift Towards Learning and a
Knowledge Creating Structure." International Journal of Project Management 14.3 (1996): 131-36.
[8] Baumgarte, Roger, and Phillippe Blanchard. "Cultural Issues in Corporate Hierarchies:
Keeping Your Distance Isn't That Simple." Global Contexts: Case Studies in International Technical Communication. Ed. Deborah S. Bosley. The Allyn & Bacon Series in Technical Communication. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001.
[9] Beranek, Thomas. "Global Project Management : Graduate Course." Masters. University of
Maryland, 2006. [10] Bishop, K.A., and R.B. Gembey. "Managing Information Flow on a Megaproject."
International Journal of Project Management 3.1 (1985). [11] Black, J. Stewart, and Hal B. Gregersen. "The Right Way to Manage Expats." Harvard
Business Review 1999: 52-62. [12] Blankevoort, P.J. "Effects of Communication and Organization." International Journal of
Project Management. Jersey, UK: Butterworth & Co. Ltd., 1979. [13] Bosley, Deborah S. Global Contexts: Case Studies in International Technical
Communication. The Allyn & Bacon Series in Technical Communication. Needhan Heights, MA: Pearson Education, 2001.
[14] Bresnen, Mike, et al. "Social Practices and Management of Knowledge in Project
Environments." International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003): 157-66. [15] Briscoe, Dennis R., and Randall S. Schuler. International Human Resource Management.
2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2004. [16] Bryde, David J. "Methods for Managing Different Perspectives of Project Success." British
Journal of Management 16 (2005): 119-31.
201
[17] Carayannis, Elias. "Knowledge Transfer through Technological Hyperlearning in 5
Industries." Technovation 19 (1999): 141-61. [18] Carlile, Paul R. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objectives in
New Product Development." Organization Science 13.4 (2002): 442-55. [19] ---. "Transferring, Translating, and Transforming : An Integrative Relational Approach to
Sharing and Assessing Knowledge across Boundaries." 3rd Annual MIT / UCI Knowledge and Organizations Conference. Laguna Beach, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, 2004.
[20] Carlile, Paul R., and Eric S. Rebentisch. "Into the Black Box: The Knowledge
Transformation Cycle." Management Science 49.9 (2003): 1180-95. [21] Chen, Min. Asian Management Systems: Chinese, Japanese and Korean Styles of
Business. London, UK: International Thompson Business Press, 1995. [22] Cieri, Helen de, Julie Wolfram Cox, and Merilyn Fenwick. "A Review of International Human
Resource Management: Integration, Interrogation, Imitation." International Journal of Management Reviews 9.3 (2007).
[23] Clark, Angela. "A Practical Use of Key Success Factors to Improve the Effectiveness of
Project Management." International Journal of Project Management 17.3 (1999): 139-45. [24] Corrello, Myra Lynette. "Communication and the Engineering Profession: Perspectives from
the Field." University of Kentucky, 2000. [25] Crawford, Lynn. "Global Body of Project Management Knowledge and Standards." The
Wiley Guide to Managing Projects (Draft). Ed. Morris. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2004. 1150-96.
[26] ---. "Profiling the Competent Project Manager." Trans. Project Management Institute. Project
Management Research at the Turn of the Millennium: Proceedings of PMI Research Conference. Paris, France, 2000. 3-15.
[27] ---. "Senior Management Perceptions of Project Management Competence." International
Journal of Project Management 23.2005 (2004): 7-16. [28] Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2003. [29] Cushman, Donald P., and Sarah Sanderson King. "Communication in Multinational
Organizations in the United States and Western Europe." International and Intercultural Communications Annual 18 (1994).
[30] Daoudi, Jaouad. Impact of Diversity on Teamwork Satisfaction in Distributed Teams:
Preliminary Results from an Online Survey. Montreal, Canada: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, 2007.
[31] Davenport, Thomas H., and Laurence Prusak. Working Knowledge : How Organizations
Manage What They Know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 20000.
202
[32] Davis, Boyd H., Jeutonne Brewer, and Ye-Ling Chang. "Usage as an Interactive Strategy for International Team-Building." Global Contexts: Case Studies in International Technical Communication. Ed. Deborah S. Bosley. The Allyn & Bacon Series in Technical Communication. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001.
[33] Diallo, Amadou, and Denis Thuillier. "The Success of International Development Projects,
Trust and Communication : An African Perspective." International Journal of Project Management 23 (2004): 237-52.
[34] Dillman, Don A. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 2nd ed. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2007. [35] Dvir, D., et al. "In Search of Project Classification: A Non-Universal Approach to Project
Success Factors." Israel: Elsevier Science B.V., 1998. 915-35. [36] Earley, P. Christopher, and Soon Ang. Cultural Intelligence : Individual Interactions across
Cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003. [37] Eisenberg, Eric M., H.L. Goodall, and Angela Threthewey. Organizational Communication:
Balancing Creativity and Constraint. 5th ed. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin's, 2007. [38] Faems, Dries, Maddy Janssens, and Bart Van Looy. Transferring and Creating
Technological Knowledge in Interfirm R&D Relationships: The Initiation and Evolution of Interfirm Learning. Leuven, Netherlands: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2007.
[39] Fish, Alan. "Selecting Managers for Cross-Border Assignments : Building Value into the
Process." International Journal of Management Reviews 1.4 (1999): 461-83. [40] Forsberg, Kevin, Hal Mooz, and Howard Cotterman. Visualizing Project Management :
Models and Frameworks for Mastering Complex Systems. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005.
[41] Forssberg, Sanna, and Siiri Malm. "Internal Communication in an Mnc: An Underestimated
Key to Success." Masters. Goteborg University, 2001. [42] Friedman, Thomas L. The World Is Flat : A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. 3 ed.
New York: Picador - Farrar, Strauss, Giroux, 2007. [43] Garside, Colleen. "A Qualitative Analysis of Verbal Interaction in Mechanical Engineering
Design Teams: Genres of Practice." The University of Utah, 2005. [44] Gay, Lorraine, and P.L. Diehl. Research Methods for Business and Management. New
York: MacMillan, 1992. [45] Geddes, M. "Project Leadership and the Involvement of Users in It Projects." International
Journal of Project Management 8.4 (1990): 214-16. [46] Geissler, Markus. "Aligning Technology with Culture: Connecting Information and
Communication Technology Adoption to Cultural Dimensions." Ph.D. Capella University, 2006.
[47] Goh, Swee C. "Managing Effective Knowledge Transfer : An Integrative Framework and
Some Practice Implications." Journal of Knowledge Management 6.1 (2002): 23-30. [48] Goldman, Alan. "Communication in Japanese Multinational Organizations." International
and Intercultural Communications Annual 18 (1994).
203
[49] Gomez-Mejia, Luis R., and Leslie E. Palich. "Cultural Diversity and the Performance of
Multinational Firms." Journal of International Business Studies 28.2 (1997): 309-35. [50] Grisham, Thomas. "Cross-Cultural Leadership." Royal Melbourne Institute Technology
University, 2006. [51] Hall, Edward T. The Dance of Life. New York, NY: Anchor Books, 1983. [52] Harkness, Janet A. Cross-Cultural Survey Methods. Wiley Series in Survey Methodology.
Ed. Walter A. Shewhart. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Interscience, 2003. [53] Harris, Philip R., and Robert T. Moran. Managing Cultural Differences. Ed. Judith E.
Soccorsy. 5th ed. Houston: Butterworth-Heinemann / Gulf Publishing 1999. [54] Harris, Thomas E., and John C. Sherblom. Small Group and Team Communication. Ed.
Jeanne Zalesky. 4th ed. Boston: Pearson Education / Allyn and Bacon, 2008. [55] Hauke, Aleksandra. Impact of Cultural Differences on Knowledge Transfer in British,
Hungarian, and Polish Enterprises. Poznan, Poland: Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei / University of Economics, Poznan, Poland, 2006.
[56] Henderson, Linda S. "Encoding and Decoding Communication Competencies in Project
Management - an Exploratory Study." International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004): 469-76.
[57] Henrie, Morgan E. "Multi-National Project Team Communications and Cultural Influences."
Old Dominion University, 2005. [58] Hofstede, Geert, and Gert Jan Hofstede. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005. [59] Hoft, Nancy L. International Technical Communication. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1995. [60] Hope, C.A., and A.P. Muhlemann. "The Impact of Culture on Best-Practice Production /
Operations Management." International Journal of Management Reviews 3.3 (2001): 199-217.
[61] Hundal, Mahendra S. "Time-Driven Product Development." Integrated Product and Process
Development. Eds. John M. Usher, Utpal Roy and Hamid R. Parsaei. Wiley Series in Engineering Design and Automation. New York: Wiley Interscience, 1998.
[62] Iarossi, Giuseppe. The Power of Survey Design. Washington DC: The World Bank, 2006. [63] Jansen, Detlev E. "Intercultural Communication in Engineering: A Research Programme to
Investigate the Cultural Influences in the Negotiation of Engineering Projects." World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education 1.1 (2002): 7-12.
[64] Jha, K. N., and K.C. Iyer. "Critical Determinants of Project Coordination." International
Journal of Project Management 24 (2005): 314-22. [65] Jiang, James, Gary Klein, and Joseph Balloun. "Ranking of System Implementation
[66] Joshi, K.D., Saonee Sarker, and Suprateek Sarker. "Knowledge Transfer within Information Systems Development Teams : Examining the Role of Knowledge Source Attributes." Decision Support Systems 43 (2007): 322-35.
[67] Karlsen, Jan Terje, and Petter Gottschalk. "An Empirical Evaluation of Knowledge Transfer
Mechanisms for It Projects." The Journal of Computer Information Systems 44.1 (2003): 112-19.
[68] ---. "Factors Affecting Knowledge Transfer in It Projects." Engineering Management Journal
16.1 (2004): 3-10. [69] Kim, Young Yun, and Sheryl Paulk. "Intercultural Challenges and Personal Adjustments: A
Qualitative Analysis of the Experiences of American and Japanese Co-Workers." International and Intercultural Communications Annual 18 (1994).
[70] Koelmans, R.G. "Project Success and Performance Evaluation." Trans. The South African
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. International Platinum Conference 'Platinum Adding Value'. South Africa: The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 2004. 229-36.
[71] Lattin, James, J. Douglas Carroll, and Paul E. Green. Analyzing Multivariate Data. Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks / Cole Division of Thomson Learning, 2003. [72] Lee-Kelley, Liz, and Tim Sankey. "Global Virtual Teams for Value Creation and Project
Success : A Case Study." International Journal of Project Management (2007). [73] Lieberman, Devorah A., and Ellene Gurtov. "Co-Cultural Communication within the
Organization." International and Intercultural Communications Annual 18 (1994). [74] Lin, Lihui, Xianjun Geng, and Andrew B. Whinston. "A Sender-Receiver Framework for
Knowledge Transfer." MIS Quarterly 29.2 (2005). [75] Littlejohn, Stephen W., and Karen A. Foss. Theories of Human Communication. 9th ed.
Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2008. [76] Loosemore, M., and H.S. Al Muslmani. "Construction Project Management in the Persian
Gulf : Inter-Cultural Communication." International Journal of Project Management 17.2 (1999): 95-100.
[77] Martin, Judith N., and Thomas K. Nakayama. Intercultural Communication in Contexts. 4th
ed. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2007. [78] McDevitt, Annette Sandlin. "Cultural Variations as Predictors of Negotiation Outcomes:
Implications for International Business Communication." The University of Memphis, 2006. [79] Mehri, Darius. Notes from Toyota-Land: An American Engineer in Japan. Ithaca, New York:
Cornell University Press, 2005. [80] Mersino, Anthony. Emotional Intelligence for Project Managers. New York: American
Management Association, 2007. [81] Mikheev, Vladimir, and David Pells. "The Third Wave - a New Management Paradigm for
Project and Program Management." PMForum.org, 2005. [82] Mitchell, Charles. International Business Culture. The Short Course in International Trade
Series. Novato, CA: World Trade Press, 2000.
205
[83] Moenaert, Rudy K., et al. "Communication Flows in International Product Innovation Teams." The Journal of Product Innovation Management 17 (2000): 360-77.
[84] Mooz, Hal, Kevin Forsberg, and Howard Cotterman. Communicating Project Management.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2003. [85] Morrison, Terri, and Wayne A. Conaway. Kiss, Bow, or Shake Hands. 2 ed. Avon,
Massachusetts Adams Media, 2006. [86] Murphy, David, Bruce Baker, and Dalmar Fisher. "Determinants of Project Success."
Boston College, 1974. [87] Nonaka, Ikujiro, and Hirotaka Takeuchi. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. [88] Nooteboom, Bart. Problems and Solutions in Knowledge Transfer. Rotterdam, Netherlands:
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, 2001. [89] Osterloh, Margit, and Bruno S. Frey. Motivation, Knowledge Transfer, and Organizational
Forms. Zurich, Switzerland: University of Zurich, 1999. [90] Pantelides, Arthur. The Japanese Approach to Knowledge Creation, Transfer, and
Innovation: The George Washington University School of Engineering and Applied Science, 2001.
[91] Pinto, Jeffrey, and Denis Slevin. "Critical Factors in Successful Project Implementation."
IEEE Transactions of Engineering Management EM-34.1 (1987): 22-27. [92] ---. "Project Success: Definitions and Measurement Techniques." Project Management
Marseille - Ecole de Management, 2007. [94] Rad, Parviz F. "Project Success Attributes." Cost Engineering 45.4 (2003): 23-29. [95] Rea, Louis M., and Richard A. Parker. Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A
Comprehensive Guide. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass / Wiley, 2005. [96] Ribiere, Vincent Michel. "Assessing Knowledge Management Initiative Successes as a
Function of Organizational Culture." Doctoral. The George Washington University, 2001. [97] Riemer, Marc J., and Detlev E. Jansen. "Non-Verbal Intercultural Communication
Awareness for the Modern Engineer." World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education 2.3 (2003): 373-78.
[98] Robbins, Stephen P. Organizational Behavior. 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall, 2001. [99] Roman-Valazquez, Juan A. "An Empirical Study of Knowledge Management in the
Government and Nonprofit Sectors: Organizational Culture Composition and Its Relationship with Knowledge Management Success and the Approach for Knowledge Flow." The George Washington University, 2004.
[100] Roy, Rajkumar. Industrial Knowledge Management: A Micro-Level Approach. London:
Springer-Verlag, 2001.
206
[101] Ruch, William V. Corporate Communications: A Comparison of Japanese and American
Practices. Westport, Connecticut: Grenwood Press, 1984. [102] Saee, John. "Best Practice in Project Management in Contemporary Global Economy."
Journal of Management Systems 13.4 (2001): 81-95. [103] Salas, Eduardo, C. Shawn Burke, and Janis A. Cannon-Bowers. "Teamwork : Emerging
Principles." International Journal of Management Reviews 2.4 (2000): 339-56. [104] Santoro, Michael D., and Shanthi Gopalakrishnan. "The Institutionalization of Knowledge
Transfer Activities within Industry-University Collaborative Ventures." Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 17 (2000): 299-319.
[105] Sapsed, Jonathan, et al. "Teamworking and Knowledge Management : A Review of
Converging Themes." International Journal of Management Reviews 4.1 (2002): 71-85. [106] Schuler, Randall S., Pawan S. Budwar, and Gary W. Florkowski. "International Human
Resource Management : Review and Critique." International Journal of Management Reviews 4.1 (2002): 41-70.
[107] Shenhar, Aaron J., and Dov Dvir. "Project Management Research: The Challenge and
Opportunity." Project Management Journal 38.2 (2007): 93-99. [108] Shenhar, Aaron J., et al. "Refining the Search for Project Success Factors : A Multivariate,
Typological Approach." R&D Management 32.2 (2002): 111-26. [109] Shuter, Robert, and Richard L. Wiseman. "Communication in Multinational Organizations:
Conceptual, Theoretical, and Practical Issues." International and Intercultural Communications Annual 18 (1994).
[110] Slack, Nigel, and Michael Lewis. Operations Strategy. Ed. Tom Tucker. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall / Pearson education, 2003. [111] Soderquist, Klas Eric. "Organizing Knowledge Management and Dissemination in New
Product Development." Long Range Planning 39 (2006): 497-523. [112] Sosa, Manuel E., et al. "Factors That Influence Technical Communication in Distributed
Product Development: An Empirical Study in the Telecommunications Industry." IEEE Transactions of Engineering Management 49.1 (2002): 45-58.
[113] Staples, Katherin. "Technical Communication from 1950-998: Where Are We Now ?"
Technical Communication Quarterly 8.2 (1999): 153-64. [114] Stock, Gregory N., Noel P. Greis, and Mark D. Dibner. "Parent-Subsidiary Communication
in International Biotechnology R&D." IEEE Transactions of Engineering Management 43.1 (1996): 56-68.
[115] Teboul, JC. Bruno, Ling Chen, and Lynn M. Fritz. "Intercultural Organizational
Communication Research in Multinational Organizations." International and Intercultural Communications Annual 18 (1994).
[116] Thrush, Emily A. "High-Context and Low Context Cultures: How Much Communication Is
Too Much ?" Global Contexts: Case Studies in International Technical Communication. Ed. Deborah S. Bosley. The Allyn & Bacon Series in Technical Communication. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001.
207
[117] Tolich, Martin, Martin Kenney, and Nicole Biggart. "Managing the Managers: Japanese
Management Strategies in the USA." Journal of Management Studies 36.5 (1999): 587-607.
[118] Trenholm, Sarah. Thinking through Communication: An Introduction to the Study of
Human Communication. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson Education / Allyn and Bacon, 2008. [119] Udo, Nathalie, and Sonja Koppensteiner. "What Are the Core Competencies of a
[120] Urick, Heath. "The ABC’s of International Expatriate Assignments." Wisconsin SHRM
State Conference 2006. Madison, Wisconsin: Aon Consulting, 2006. [121] Varnes, Elizabeth B. "A Sociotechnical Approach to the Study of Semiautonomous Work
Group Communication in Technical Organizations." old Dominion University, 1993. [122] Verganti, Roberto. "Anticipating Manufacturing Constraints and Opportunities in the
Concept Generation and Product Planning Phases." Integrated Product and Process Development. Eds. John M. Usher, Utpal Roy and Hamid R. Parsaei. Wiley Series in Engineering Design and Automation. New York: Wiley Interscience, 1998.
[123] Walter, John, and Abby Dress. "Determining the Knowledge Base Uncovers a Company's
Core Competencies." Gear Technology 2007: 11-15. [124] West, Richard, and Lynn H. Turner. Introducing Communication Theory Analysis and
Application. 3rd ed. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2007. [125] Whittaker, Brenda. "What Went Wrong ? Unsuccessful Information Technology Projects."
Information Management and Computer Security 7.1 (1999): 23-29. [126] Wiemann, John M., et al. "A Relational Model of Communication Competence." Theories
of Human Communication. Ed. Branislav Kovacic. Suny Series, Human Communication Processes. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1997. 25-44.
[127] Yu, Angus G., Peter D. Flett, and John A. Bowers. "Developing a Value-Centered
Proposal for Assessing Project Success." International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005): 428-36.
[128] Zimmerer, Thomas, and Mahmoud Yasin. "A Leadership Profile of American Project
Managers." Project Management Journal 29.1 (1998): 31-38. [129] Zwikael, Ofer, Kazuo Shimizu, and Shlomo Globerson. "Cultural Differences in Project
Management Capabilities : A Field Study." International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005): 454-62.
208
Appendices
APPENDIX A : Hofstede Summary & Relational Mapping……………………. 210
APPENDIX B : Survey Instrument………………………………………………. 212
APPENDIX C : Survey Raw & Supplemental Data……………………………. 229
APPENDIX D : Illustrative Example Case……………………………………… 250
APPENDIX E : Sample Multilingual Documentation from the Industry……… 251
APPENDIX F : Photographs from the Industry………..............……………… 252
APPENDIX G : Comprehensive List of Gross Population…………………… 253