Attempts to resolve control issues in networks of internationally dispersed technology units using managerial techniques such as increased communication and/or the application of hierarchical control have had limited success because the control issues are rooted in the strategy of the firm. (Chiesa, 1996a, b;Coughlan & Brady, 1996;Dalton and Serapio, 1995;Florida, 1997;Gates, 1995; Granstrand, Hakanson and Sj olander, 1992;Kuemmerle, 1997;Medcof, 1997; Pearce & Singh, 1992a, b;Penner-Hahn, 1998;Rhyne and Teagarden, 1995;Zander, 1997). Those extra-national technology units perform a number of functions running the gamut from the support of offshore marketing and manufacturing activities to the appropriation of cutting edge and/or cost effective technological resources located at extra-national sites (Albertini and Butler, 1995;Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1990; Granstrand, et al, 1992;Hakanson, 1990;Kuemmerle, 1997;Malnight, 1995;Ohba, 1996) When the strategic question of whether to locate technical work offshore is considered, the issue of control is an important concern (Granstrand et al, 1992). Technology work at remote locations is more difficult to control than that located close to home, and the dangers of duplication of work by different sites, drift away from strategic focus, and the leakage of proprietary technology are all increased. Strategy makers must weigh these and other risks against whatever the positives may be. Unfortunately, the literature on power and control in networks of internationally dispersed technology units, although it clearly demonstrates the importance of such issues to managers, provides no consensus concerning best practice

No abstract

No abstract

Internationally dispersed technology units are classified using a system based upon three clearly defined dimensions: Type of technical work (research, development or support); functional areas with which the technology unit collaborates in its work (marketing, manufacturing, marketing and manufacturing, or none); and geographic area of collaboration (local, international). The resulting eight category taxonomy is shown to provide an improved platform for organizing and integrating the literature on the management of internationally dispersed technology units and for articulating theoretical issues in ongoing programs of empirical research.

Five types of project managers were identified and the level of success of each and its frequency of occurrence in the project manager sample were determined. When refined through further research, this typology holds the promise of more effective project manager selection and development tools, and the possibility of maintaining a population of project managers in an organization that is optimum for the needs of that organization.