LINEBURG


<< . .

 33
( 36)



. . >>

Holway™s provisional rankings of the top 40 suppliers of software and IT services in the UK
market. Nevertheless, it is estimated that by 2006, some 20,000“25,000 IT jobs would be lost
offshore. Another report, from Evalueserve forecasted that 250,000 UK jobs (including IT)
would move offshore by 2010. Evalueserve (2003). The Impact of Global Sourcing on the UK
Economy 2003“2010.
27. Roland Berger/UNCTAD data that appears in: Campoy, A. (2004). Think locally: Indian outsourc-
ing companies have ¬nally begun to crack the European market. Wall Street Journal, September 27.
28. GlobalSourcingNOW News (2004). SAP to Hire 1900 in India, August 4.
29. Economist (2004). More gain than pain: why America wins but Germany loses, July 17.
30. CIO (2004). Ab ins Billige Ausland, in German, February 2.
31. Tjia, P. (2004). Offshore Outsourcing. GPI Consultancy, Markt Rapport, in Dutch, February.
32. Number of US software product ¬rms is based on zapdata.com
33. Number of US IT services ¬rms is a rough estimate by Speci¬cs Analytics.
34. Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor (2004). Occupational Outlook Handbook,
2004“2005 Edition.
35. IDC statistics as appeared in: Hamm, S. (2004). Services. BusinessWeek Online, June 21.
36. Economic Times (of India) (2004). Indians are Faster, Admits US Firm, March 8.
37. Ovum Holway (2003). The Offshore Services Report.
38. McDougall, P. (2003). Opportunity on the line. InformationWeek, October 20.
39. Examples are found in: Prism Economics and Analysis (2004). Trends in the Offshoring of IT
Jobs, April; and Dossani, R. & Kenney, M. (2003). Went for Cost, Stayed for Quality? Moving
the Back Of¬ce to India. Working Paper, Stanford University Institute for International Studies.
259 End notes


40. Jensen, M. (2001). Afriboxes, Telecenters, Cybercafes: ICT in Africa. In: UN-TCDC: Cooperation
South Journal, 1, 97“109.
41. Forrester (2002). 3.3 Million US Service Jobs to Go Offshore, Research Brief, November 11.




Chapter 2

1. Harney, J. (2003). Cheaper, faster systems development using offshore outsourcing. Outsourcing
Journal, July.
2. Konrad, R. (2003). Offshoring dulls startups US presence. InformationWeek, December 15.
3. Tjia, P. (2004). Offshore Outsourcing. GPI Consultancy, Markt Rapport, in Dutch, February.
4. Slightly different rankings at the bottom of the wage scale are found in a 2004 study by Mercer
Human Resource Consulting: the lowest wage rates are in the Philippines, followed by Vietnam,
Bulgaria, Malaysia, Indonesia, and India.
5. Generally, many of these sources were compiled when the US dollar was relatively strong. All
numbers not marked by a letter are based on authors™ notes. (a) IT toolbox survey, 2003 in
Niederman, F. IT Employment prospects in 2004: a mixed bag. IEEE Computer, January 2004;
(b) Gengler, E. B. (2003). Ukraine and success criteria for the software exports industry, electronic.
The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 13, www.ejisdc.org;
(c) Computer jobs in Israel (2004) Survey of Computer Jobs in Israel, programmer with 3 years
of experience, www.cji.co.il; (d) Aberdeen 2001 data appearing in Field, T. Man in the middle,
CIO Magazine, April 1, 2002; (e) Silicon.com data in Carr, S. (2004). IT salaries vary greatly by
country. Silicon.com, June 7; (f) Overby, S. (2002). A buyers guide to offshore outsourcing, CIO
Magazine, November 15; (h) Meta Group data received by authors June 2004.
6. Ratios use data provided by Value Leadership Group, 2004.
7. 2004 Survey of Computer Jobs in Israel, www.cji.co.il
8. Bulkeley, W. M. (2004). IBM documents give rare look at sensitive plans on offshoring. The
Wall Street Journal, January 19.
9. Online marketplaces include: Rent A Coder, ELance, and ScriptLance.
10. Carmel, E. & Espinosa, A. (2004). Online Programming Marketplaces; Research Working
Paper, Kogod School of Business, American University.
11. Transactions Costs is an economic concept introduced by the economist Ronald Coase, in a
1937 essay titled “The Nature of the Firm.” Coase was later awarded the Nobel Prize in
economics, in part for his contribution on transaction costs in this essay.
12. Thurm, S. (2004). Lesson in India, not every job translates overseas. Wall Street Journal, March 3.
13. Overby, S. (2003). The hidden costs of offshore outsourcing, CIO Magazine, September 1.
14. Feiman, J. (2004). Economics of Application Development Outsourcing: Can Indiana Compete
with India? Gartner Symposium, March 28, presentation slides.
15. Computation for extended onsite work includes charge rate, plus living expenses, plus travel.
16. Davison, D. (2003). Offshore outsourcing subtleties. Meta Group Report, March 13.
17. Overby, S. (2003). The hidden costs of offshore outsourcing, CIO Magazine, September 1.
18. Search & Contract costs, in percent, tend to be higher for small organizations, and lower for very
large contracts.
19. Deloitte Research (2004). Making the Off-shore Call: The Road Map for Communications
Operators. Research Report.
20. Roberts, B. (2004). The perfect storm brews offshore. Electronic Business, March 1.
260 End notes


21. Rubin, H. A. & Jaramillo, P. (2004). Outsourcing: an analysis of the current state of offshore out-
sourcing in New York City based companies. www.newjobsforny.org/ OutsourcingReport.php
22. Cooter, M. (2004). Companies underestimate cost of offshore outsourcing. Computerweekly.com,
June 16.
23. In the 2003 Standish study: project success rates were 34%. Project failures were 15% of all
projects. Challenged projects account for the remaining 51%. Standish Group (2003). CHAOS
Chronicles, company research report, www.standishgroup.com
24. Country risk, termed “Political risk” is insurable by some major insurance companies as well as
by OPIC (for US investors).
25. The discussion of risks is based in part on Meta Group data in: Davidson, D. (2003). The top
10 risks of offshore outsourcing. Meta Group Report, November 14.
26. Other risks in outsourcing include lock-in, service debasement, and costly contracting amendments.
General outsourcing risks are discussed in two sources: Aubert, B. A., Patry, M. & Rivard, S.
(2002). Managing IT outsourcing risk: lessons learned. In: Hirschheim, R., Heinzl, A. & Dibbern, J.
(eds), Information Systems Outsourcing. Berlin: Springer. Jurison, J. (2002). Applying traditional
risk-return analysis to strategic IT outsourcing decisions. In: Hirschheim, R., Heinzl, A. &
Dibbern, J. (eds), Information Systems Outsourcing. Berlin: Springer.
27. Kane, M. (2003). Cisco sues Huawei over patents. CNET News, January 23. Business2-
cnet.com.com/2102-1033-981811.html
28. Fitzgerald, M. (2003). At risk offshore, CIO Magazine, November 15.
29. Weinstein, L. (2004). Outsourced and out of control. Communications of the ACM, February.
30. Tedesco, J. (2004). Bucking the offshore trend. Computerworld, June 17.
31. SandHill Group (2003). The Roadmap to Offshore Success. Corporate Report.




Chapter 3
1. A. T. Kearney, (2004). Selecting IT Activities for Offshore Locations, Corporate Research
Report.
2. Detailed methodologies for the acquisition of IT services can be useful. A European example of
a best practice library is Information Services Procurement Library (ISPL), which describes the
process to acquire external IT services in detail.
3. Forrester Research (2003). Unlocking the Savings in Offshore, February.
4. Consulting and research ¬rms that publish reports on offshoring include: Aberdeen Group,
Evalueserve, Forrester, Gartner, GPI Consultancy, IDC, Meta Group and Ovum Holway. These
organizations publish reports for free or for a fee.
5. Consultancies specializing in offshoring include: GPI Consultancy, Morgan Chambers, neoIT,
Orbys, PA Consulting and TPI.
6. An example is Offshore Development Group (ODG), which conducts consultant veri¬cations.
7. In most situations, organizations decide to outsource work to just one provider. Working with a
single provider avoids procurement time and costs. It also enhances knowledge transfer. Some,
typically larger clients choose a multi-provider strategy, and work with several “preferred
suppliers”, or have one leading provider and also a mid-sized provider. Working with several
providers keeps the competitive spark and results in greater ¬‚exibility in terms, skills, and man-
power scheduling. Multiple partners will also diversify the risks in case of non-performance. In
general, however, more than three or four partnerships are dif¬cult to manage “ even for the
largest customers.
261 End notes


8. The online marketplaces are like an eBay for buyers and sellers of software services. Examples
include: Elance, ProjectPool, Rent A Coder, Scriptlance, and Smarterwork.
9. Coward, C. T. (2003). Looking beyond India: factors that shape the global outsourcing decisions
of small- and medium-sized companies in America. Electronic Journal on Information Systems
in Developing Countries, 13(11), 1“2.
10. Diamondcluster (2004). Global IT Outsourcing Study, Report.
11. Chawla, S. (1998). Viability of offshore software development: a case study of international divi-
sion of labor between Indian and US organizations. The United Nations University Workshop
˜Challenges and Opportunities for Globally Distributed Work™ Maastricht, November 24.
12. Deloitte Consulting (2003). Offshore Outsourcing. Is It The TCO Slasher It Promised To Be? Biswas.




Chapter 4
1. This phenomenon, of the globalization of software development, has been of interest since the
1990s. Jones, C. (1994). Globalization of software supply and demand. IEEE Software, 11(6),
November, 17“24. Heeks, R. B. (1999). Software strategies in developing countries. Communi-
cations of the ACM, 42(6), 15“20.
2. G7 countries are: USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan.
3. Other advanced economies™ industries have also had moderate success: Australia, Spain,
Belgium, and the other Nordic countries.
4. This section and the tiered taxonomy is adapted from: Carmel, E. (2003). Taxonomy of new
software exporting nations. The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing
Countries, 13(2), May.
5. Software export revenues should be treated with great caution. While India™s software associa-
tion, NASSCOM, is considered reliable in its estimates for India™s software sector, in many
nations these data are either dif¬cult to ¬nd or unavailable. Worse, these data are prone to exag-
geration; it is in the interest of all national parties “ governments, industry associations, foreign
consultants “ to in¬‚ate the export revenues.
6. This discussion of offshore location factors has its origins in the domain of international
R&D. It is partially based on: Brockhoff, K. (1998). Internationalization of Research and
Development. Springer.
7. Kogut, B. & Singh, H. (1988). The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode.
Journal of International Business Studies, 23(Spring), 29“53.
8. A further re¬nement on the location decision distinguishes between these two types of offshore
sites: the ¬rst is augmentation, where the site is located next to scienti¬c excellence and the direc-
tion of tech transfer is back to home. The second is Exploitation, where the site is next to existing
manufacturing/marketing, and the direction of tech trans is from home to foreign. Kuemmerle, W.
(1997). Building R&D capabilities aboard. Harvard Business Review, March“April.
9. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2002). World Investment Report
2002: Transnational Corporations and Export Competitiveness. New York: United Nations
Publications. Retrieved from http://www.unctad.org/Templates/web¬‚yer.asp? docid 2574&
intItemID 2770&lang 1
10. Kearney, A. T. (2004). Making Offshore Decisions. Research Report.
11. Some country risks are lower offshore: the country rated the fourth highest risk of terrorism is
not an obscure offshore destination, but the United States, according to Global Insight (with the
UK as the highest in Europe).
262 End notes


12. Dutta, S., Lanvin, B. & Paua, F. (2003). The Global Information Technology Report: Readiness
for the Networked World. Published by Oxford University Press.
13. Dutta, et al. Ibid.
14. The bene¬ts were culled from a various sources including embassies, as well as: Yee, C. M.
(2000). Lets make a deal. Wall Street Journal, September 25.
15. Uni¬ed Modeling Language, a design language and modeling technique used worldwide.
16. Study by Administrative Staff College of India as appeared in Yamamoto and Said 2004. Ibid.
17. A number of major Japanese ¬rms do software work in China including: NTT Data Corporation,
NEC Soft, and Hitachi Software Engineering.
18. Presentation by Denis Simon of Rensselaer Polytechnic University, AAAS, April 2004.
19. Dolven, B. (2004). China grooms global players. Wall Street Journal, February 25.
20. Adapted from: Saxenian, A. (2003). Government and Guanxi: China™s Software Industry in
Transition, University of California Working Paper.
21. Market access is the demand by the host country to invest in human and ¬xed infrastructure in
exchange for foreign direct investment.
22. Hawk, S. & McHenry, W. (2005). The maturation of the Russian offshore software industry.
Journal of IT for Development.
23. Hawk, S. & McHenry, W. Ibid.
24. Bardhan, A. & Kroll, C. (2004). Research presented at Russian Outsourcing Software Summit,
St. Petersburg.
25. Auriga presentation at the 2004 Russian Outsourcing Software Summit, St. Petersburg.
26. All employment ¬gures for Israel are for 2004.
27. Information on Latvia relied in part on information provided by Janis Iesalnieks of DATI
ˆ
Deutschland.
28. Romanian ¬rms are also among the most active bidders in online programming marketplaces.
29. Country Risk Reports, compiled by World Markets Research Centre, February 2003.
30. Information on Vietnam was based on: Duong, N. T. (2004). Software industry development in
Vietnam™, presented at the IIPI Conference Strategies for Building Software Industries in Develop-
ing Countries, May; and Chidamber, S. R. (2003). An analysis of Vietnam™s ICT and software serv-
ices sector. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 13(9), 1“11.
31. Gallaugher, J. & Stoller, S. (2004). Software outsourcing in Vietnam: a case study of a locally oper-
ating pioneer. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 17(1), 1“18.
32. Vietnam Economic News (2004). IT Revenue Exceeds Goal, July 28.
33. Data are from: Tjia, P. (2003). The software industry in Bangladesh and its links to The
Netherlands. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 13(5), 1“8.
34. The Bangladeshi industry association is BASIS (the Bangladesh Association of Software and
Information Services). Several of its members are certi¬ed to the ISO 9001 quality assurance
standard and a handful obtained a CMM-Level 3 certi¬cation.
35. Data on Costa Rica are based in part on Mora, A. (2004). Costa Rica/Grupo TecApro, presented at
the IIPI Conference on Strategies for Building Software Industries in Developing Countries, May.




Chapter 5
1. Inspired by the outsourcing de¬nition in Lee, J. N., Miranda, S. & Kim, Y. (2004). IT outsourcing
strategies: universalistic, contingency, and con¬gurational explanations of success. Information
Systems Research.
263 End notes


2. Wipro, one of India™s largest ¬rms, derives roughly one-third of its revenues from contract R&D
work.
3. Talent is also tapped through foreign acquisitions. This is practiced by global technology ¬rms
that buy technology companies in Israel. Dozens of Israeli ¬rms, from start-ups to established
companies, were acquired by foreign technology companies in the period from the mid 1990s
through the early 2000s.
4. Economic Times (of India) (2003). It™s patent mania for US companies in local units, December 17.
5. Granstrand, O., Patel, P. & Pavitt, K. (1997). Multi-technology corporations: why they have dis-
tributed rather than distinctive competencies. California Management Review, Summer, 39(4).
6. Strassman, P. A. (2004). Most outsourcing is still for losers. Computerworld, February 2.
7. Hiskisson R. E., Hitt, M. A. & Ireland, R. D. (2004). Competing for Advantage. Ohio: Thomson/
Southwestern.
8. Laudon, K. C. & Laudon, J. (2003). Management Information Systems. Pearson.
9. Sand Hill Group (2003). The Roadmap to Offshore Success. Corporate Report, August.
10. Tidd, J. & Trewhella, M. (1997). Organizational and technological antecedents for knowledge
creation and learning. R&D Management, 27, 359“375.
11. There are two other strategic approaches that need to be mentioned, though they are not unique
to offshoring. The shared services model is targeted at large companies that wish to bundle
internal processes that are common horizontally across divisions. The combined unit may even
have P&L responsibility. The clients may choose to create the shared services center offshore,
frequently in India. The co-sourcing model is a form of joint venture in which the client and
provider co-manage a service center.
12. The estimate was made in the mid 1990s and appears in: Narula, R. (2001). Choosing between
internal and non-internal R&D activities: some technological and economic factors. Technology
Analysis and Strategic Management, 13(3).
13. These providers are sometimes referred to as “preferred vendors” and are awarded ¬rst oppor-
tunities to bid on new projects.
14. Hindu Business Line (2002). India™s Treasure Is Its Intellectual Capital, 7 October.
15. The GE case study is based on a number of internal sources as well public sources including:
Bayman, S. (2002). Remarks at the US“India Business Council Annual Meeting, June 17.
Kripalani, M. & Engardio, P. (2003). The rise of India, BusinessWeek, December 8. Waters, R.
(2003). It has 3.3 billion USD to buy IT and GE still wants more for less. Financial Times, April 30.
16. Business Standard (2002). A backup base: GE taps critical mass with its new research lab in
Bangalore. June 8.
17. Shared services is a bundling of internal horizontal processes into one entity which may even have
P&L responsibility. Some corporations, like GE, choose to create the shared services center offshore.
18. Mishra, P. (2002). GE changes outsourcing paradigm for India. Express Computer, April 15.
19. McDougall, P. (2004). GE expects to send more work offshore, May 17.
20. Sengupta, S., Gupta, I. & Singh, S. (2004). GECIS: the house that Jack built ¦ and Jeffrey is
about to sell. Businessworld, October 11.




Chapter 6
1. The author would like to acknowledge and thank the following colleagues with Mayer, Brown,
Rowe & Maw LLP who provided assistance and/or contributed to portions of this chapter. They
include Brad Peterson, Paul Roy, Dan Masur, Sonia Baldia, Julian Roskill and Andrew Scott.
264 End notes




Chapter 7
1. Adapted from interview with Prof. W. Chung that appeared in Knowledge@Wharton
“Companies that expand abroad: knowledge seekers versus conquerors.” March 24, 2004.
2. In essence, knowledge transfer is about going up the “experience curve,” which is common for
any type of international business activity in which there is transfer of knowledge from one unit
to another abroad.
3. A case study of knowledge transfer appears in Nicholson, B. & Sahay, S. (Forthcoming).
Embedded knowledge and offshore software development. Information and Organization.
4. The discussion of explicit and tacit knowledge is based in part on the following sources:
Desouza, K. C. (2003). Facilitating tacit knowledge exchange. Communications of the
Association for Computing Machinery, 46(6), 85“88. Bassellier, G., Reich, B. H. & Benbasat, I.
(2001). Information technology competence of business managers: a de¬nition and research
model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4), 159“182. Roberts, J. (2000). From
know-how to show-how? Questioning the role of ICT in Knowledge Transfer. Technology
Analysis and Strategic Management, 12(4).
5. Aberdeen Group (2003). Knowledge transfer and on-site/offshore coordination are key to the
success of Transco™s application maintenance and support program, http://www. aberdeen.com/
2001/research/090318539.asp
6. IBM™s training fund for its employees threatened by offshoring was announced in March 2004.
7. The discussion of governance is based in part on the following sources: Cullen, S. & Willcocks,
L. P. (2003). Intelligent IT Outsourcing: Eight Building Blocks for Success. Amsterdam:
Elsevier. Brown, C. & Magill, S. (1994). Alignment of the IS function with the enterprise:
towards a model of antecedents. MIS Quarterly, 18(4), 371“403. Sambamurthy, V. & Zmud, R.
(1999). Arrangements for information technology governance: a theory of multiple contingen-
cies. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 261“290.
8. Some of the Indian providers, who do not have global coverage, position their Global Of¬ce
in India rather than near the client™s location. Of course, this distance may introduce some dif¬cul-
ties in the relationship between the client and provider. The implication is that the local customer
interfaces of these providers take over parts of the communication with the client™s global of¬ces.




Chapter 8
1. The experienced reader will note that many programmers like to work alone, without distrac-
tions, and usually prefer quiet of¬ces to noisy common work areas. Some programmers will go
home to get their work done. This also raises the issue of introversion versus extraversion. But,
even most introverted programmers need some social proximity to their colleagues.
2. In fact, when dealing with proximity, other senses come into play: we human beings also crave
touch, babies need touch, massage therapy makes us feel more secure, handshakes make us
“connect” to those we meet.
3. Kiesler, S. & Cummings, J. N. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance in work
groups? A legacy of research. In: Hinds, P. & Kiesler, S. (eds), Distributed Work. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
4. Allen, T. (1977). Managing the Flow of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
265 End notes


5. Adapted from: Carmel, E. (1999). Global Software Teams. Prentice Hall.
6. Kock, N. (2004). The psycho-biological model: toward a new theory of computer-mediated
communication based on Darwinian evolution, Organization Science.
7. This is what media richness theory, introduced later in the chapter, predicts. Some tasks are
not well de¬ned. These are equivocal tasks. Dennis, A. R. & Kinney, S. T. (1998). Testing media
richness theory in the new media: the effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality.
Information Systems Research, 9(3), 256“274.
8. Various theorists have called this coordination “by mutual adjustment” cf. Mintzberg, H. (1993).
Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9. Espinosa, J. A., Kraut, R. E., Lerch, F. J., Slaughter, S. A., Herbsleb, J. D. & Mockus, A. (2001).
Shared mental models and coordination in large-scale, distributed software development.
International Conference in Information Systems, New Orleans, LA.
10. The experienced reader will note that we do not always learn to like, love, and trust
those whom we work with, as the expression “familiarity breeds contempt” captures so viciously.
11. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw Hill.
12. Herbsleb, J. (2003). Keynote presentation. The International Workshop in Global Software
Development, International Conference on Software Engineering, 2003.
13. One of the most important formalisms, or structured approaches, is not covered in this chapter.
It is the use of formal development methodologies and processes such as CMM (which was
introduced in Chapter 1). These formal processes explain, in part, the tremendous success of the
offshore industry in India. Formal approaches need to be internally balanced: too much formal
software work turns work into a tedious bureaucracy that saps morale. For more on structured
approaches, cf, Mark, G. (2002). Conventions for coordinating electronic distributed work: a
longitudinal study of groupware use, in Hinds and Kiesler (2002). Ibid.
14. Maznevski, M. L. & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging space over time: global virtual team
dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11(15), 473“492.
15. A Work Breakdown Structure is a selective outline of the project detailing a hierarchy of tasks
and subtasks.
16. One example of a study measuring distractions: Jackson, T. W., Dawson, R. & Wilson, S. (2003).
Understanding e-mail interaction increases organizational productivity. Communications of the
ACM, August.
17. Radicati Group conducted a study that found that work-related instant messaging has grown to
roughly 50 billion per year, soon to exceed e-mail in volume. Described in: Kirkpatrick, K. E.
(2004). Taking advantage of IM, Forbes.com, April 9.
18. Some suggest banning e-mail for content distribution, Majchrzak, A. & Malhotra, A. (2003).
Deploying Far Flung Teams: A Guidebook for Managers. Society for Information Management,
May. Intel has compiled an entire training program to help its employees better manage their
e-mail. Your Time: E-mail Effectiveness Program. Available on ITshareNet.org
19. A soft goal is that only 10% of the information is pushed over e-mail, while 90% of information
is pulled from various repositories.
20. Persistent IM has drawbacks: when people know that their conversations can be tracked they are
less candid.
21. Awareness is related to the notions of shared mental models and common ground. Both of these
have been of interest to researchers as they struggle to understand how groups work more effec-
tively, whether they be co-located or distributed.
22. On awareness types also see: Stein¬eld, C., Jang, C. & Pfaff, B. (1999). Supporting virtual team
collaboration. Proceedings of Group 99. Available from the ACM. As well as Endsley, M. R.
(1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, (37)1.
266 End notes


23. Cramton, C. (2003). Finding common ground in dispersed collaboration. Organizational
Dynamics, 30(4), 356“367.
24. Herbsleb, J. (2003). Ibid.
25. Jarvenpaa, S. & Leidner, D. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams.
Organization Science, Winter, 791“815.
26. Travel between distant sites has been labeled “Synchronization By Flying Around.”
27. Herbsleb, J. (2003). Ibid.
28. Knoll, K. & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1995). Learning to work in distributed global teams. Proceedings
of the 28th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, pp. 92“101.
29. Morris, M. W. (1999). E-Mail and the Schmooze Factor, Research Summary. http://www.gsb.
stanford.edu/research/reports/1999/morris.html
30. Scacchi, W. (2002). Understanding the requirements for developing open source software sys-
tems. IEE-Software Proceedings, February. Scacchi™s research was speci¬c to OSS require-
ments but applies in part to other life cycle phases.
31. Ambler, S. W. (2002). Bridging the distance. Software Development, September,
www.sdmagazine.com
32. Quote is from a study described in: van Fenema, P. C. & Qureshi, S. (2004). A phenomenolog-
ical exploration of adaptation in a polycontextual work environment. Proceedings of Hawaiian

<< . .

 33
( 36)



. . >>

Copyright Design by: Sunlight webdesign