THE DELIVERY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES:
THE CASES OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE NETHERLANDS
CIMS WORKING PAPER SERIES 99-10
by
Judith R. Gordon
Associate Professor of Management
Boston College
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467
and
Steven R. Gordon
Associate Professor of Information Systems
Babson College
Babson Park, MA 02457
October, 1999
THE DELIVERY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES:
THE CASES OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE NETHERLANDS
Abstract
This paper describes the delivery of information technology (IT) services in a
sample of companies in the United States and The Netherlands. It compares the sample
companies in these countries along four dimensions of IT services – setting of priorities,
standard setting, development, and operations. It also examines how the delivery of IT
services has been changing in recent years and how these companies have dealt with such
change. Finally, it addresses the implications of these results for the delivery of IT
services in a global environment and offers directions for future research.
THE DELIVERY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES:
THE CASES OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE NETHERLANDS
The complex and dynamic environment most organizations face today has had
significant implications for their structure. Overall, organizations have shifted from
mechanistic, bureaucratic, structures with highly formalized reporting relationships and
centralized decision making to organic, flexible structures with less formalized reporting
relationships and decentralized decision making (Stebbins & Shani, 1998). As
organizations restructure to respond to their unique environments, the way that they
deliver information technology (IT) services also changes, and the organizational units
responsible for the delivery of IT services change as well.
The organization structure of the IT function also reflects its leadership. Each
executive brings an individual view on issues of control, locus of decision making,
project management, and standard setting. IT executives may differ in their experiences
of interacting with parts of the organization outside of the IT function. Some may have
successfully involved business units in all facets of decision making, whereas others may
have more effectively retained control of IT decisions.
Restructuring of the IT function, therefore, has become more common. For
example, Procter & Gamble Company’s plans to replace regional business with global
organizations devoted to individual product areas likely will mean increased
centralization of IT staff (Scheier, 1998). In such restructuring, IT executives must
consider questions such as the following:

What structures do organizations implement to facilitate their response to
today's dynamic market conditions?

Do the structures differ for companies depending on their location?

How have these structures changed over time?

What structures work best for organizations?
Several years ago we began a study to help practitioners answer these questions.
The first part of the research involved a pilot study of eight multinational companies. We
interviewed the chief information officer or another top-ranking IT executive in each
company to try to understand the interaction between IT and business units in the
delivery of IT services. The data reported in this paper have been collected as part of this
ongoing study of the delivery of information systems services.
Early research on the IT structure and delivery of IT services in multinational
companies mainly focused on whether to locate the IT function at corporate headquarters
or within geographical units (Alavi & Young, 1996; Burn & Cheung, 1996; Gibson,
1994; Karimi & Konsynski, 1991; Roche, 1992). The advantages of placing the
resources directly into the geographical units provided an early model for locating
resources into business units. Complementary research looked at the interaction of the IT
function with the business units. It has focused primarily on issues of centralization
versus decentralization of the IT function (Adhikari, 1996; Alter, 1990; Alter, 1996; Burn
& Cheung, 1996; Dearden, 1987; Kim, 1989; Meyer, 1991; Moad, 1989; von Simson,
1990). (Alter, 1996), for example, concluded that the need for standardization and data
sharing has prompted a return to more centralized IS organization, but one that involves
business units in standard setting and spending decisions. (Burn & Cheung, 1996)
similarly concluded that key to IS differences among firms in centralization and
decentralization are the degree of data sharing among subsidiaries, the degree of
corporate-wide data standardization, and the difference in maturity among subsidiaries.
Research about the nature of the IT architecture (Gibson, 1994; Gibson, 1996; Sabherwal
& Kirs, 1994; Sankar, Apte, & Palvia, 1993; Targowski, 1990) further elucidated issues
related to the delivery of IT services. For example, (Gibson, 1996) and (Gibson, 1994)
develop a statistically validated typology of global IT architectural structures by applying
cluster and discriminant analyses to 63 global firms.
A greater focus on the centrality of business units in organizations has occurred
during the past decade (Mazur, 1994; Sweeney, 1995; Westoby, 1996). The shifting of
responsibility, expertise, and control to business units has accompanied this increased
focus (Allen & Boynton, 1991; Cale, Kanter, & Saia, 1993; Cummings & Guynes, 1994).
The results of our pilot study of eight U.S.-based multinationals supported the centrality
of the business unit in IT service delivery (Gordon & Gordon, 1998a; Gordon & Gordon,
1998b). Business units created a vision and direction that served as a starting point for
providing IT support. IT success depended on the business units feeling responsibility
and accountability for IT processes.
Do business units have the same saliency for companies that are not
multinationals and for companies outside the United States? How might the interaction
of IT and business units be the same and how might these interactions differ in
companies based in different countries? The research presented here continues to explore
questions about the delivery of IT services addressed by out pilot study. We expanded
our pilot study by collecting more systematic and comprehensive data about a range of
companies in terms of size and industry in two countries. We chose the United States
and the Netherlands for several reasons: the countries were relatively comparable in the
development and use of technology; the industrial base of the two countries is relatively
similar; the level of education of IT staff and executives is comparable and relatively
high; and we had access to data in both countries. This sample lets us begin to evaluate
structures both within and across cultures.
In the rest of this paper we first describe the study methodology. Then we discuss
the results. Next we consider implications of the results for IT executives and
departments and for business unit managers and employees. We conclude with some
directions for future research.
The Study Methodology
We decided to use a survey to assess the nature of the interaction between IT and
business units in four areas for the larger sample of companies. A survey method
allowed companies to quickly describe each area along a variety of dimensions. For
example, we asked about the allocation of resources and project management at both the
corporate and local levels as a way of more fully understanding the setting of priorities in
the company. The survey (see Appendix A) was designed to take no more than 30
minutes to complete. Respondents provided some basic information about themselves
and their organization. Then they described various aspects of the allocation of
responsibility in their organization for establishing IT priorities, setting IT standards,
developing information systems, and conducting IT operations using both five-point
Likert-type scales and checklists of responses. We also asked questions about the
stability of their structure for delivering IT services, as well as its strengths and
weaknesses.
We administered the survey by mail to two groups of respondents. We first
mailed it to chief information officers of companies affiliated with the Center for
Information Management Systems at Babson College. We asked them to complete the
questionnaire themselves or to give it to another IT staff person who would better be able
to respond to the questions. This group provided us with a diverse set of companies, as
well as with a set of respondents who had expressed interest in research in information
technology. We mailed 50 questionnaires and received 23 responses after using followup letters to those who did not initially return the surveys. Shortly after we completed
this mailing we had the opportunity to mail the same questionnaire to a group of
companies in the Netherlands as a result of our affiliation with the University of
Amsterdam Prima Vera research group. We mailed questionnaires to 180 graduates of the
masters degree program in Information Systems at the University of Amsterdam, but did
not send follow-up reminders. We also asked them to pass it to another IT staff member
if they would be better able to complete the questionnaire. We received a disappointing
return – only 17 questionnaires. Because we relied on convenience samples, and the
Dutch sample in particular had a low response rate, we primarily report the data
descriptively in this paper and carefully draw preliminary comparisons between the two
samples.
Respondents in both the U.S. and Dutch groups worked in a variety of industries,
including high technology, manufacturing, healthcare, and government. They held an
array of positions, including chief information officer, director of advanced technology,
senior consultant, and IT manager. Table 1 presents the type of companies surveyed and
Table 1
Description of Respondents’ Companies
Percentage of
Percentage of
U.S. Companies (N=23)
Dutch Companies (n=17)
Domestic
35
35
Sell internationally, manufacture
domestically
9
0
Manufacture internationally, sell almost
solely domestically
0
0
Sell and manufacture internationally, but
primarily domestic company
9
12
International company
9
29
Global company
30
12
Other
9
12
Greater than $1 billion
39
41
$500 million to $1 billion
30
0
Less than $500 million
22
47
Data not available
9
12
Type
Revenues of Company
their revenues. About one-third of the U.S. companies were domestic and another onethird global, with the remainder having some international presence or activity. All but
one of the U.S. companies that reported the data had revenues that exceeded $100
million. The Dutch sample also included about one-third domestic companies but only 2
companies had a global presence. Most had a more limited international presence.
Revenue data were less available for the Dutch companies. Those companies that
provided it more often had revenues between one and ten million dollars, suggesting that
the Dutch sample included a larger percentage of small companies than the U.S. sample.
Looking at the internal structure of the U.S. and Dutch companies also suggests
some similarities and differences. Table 2 reports the number of business units and the
Table 2
Structure of the Companies
Percentage of
Percentage of
U.S. Companies (N=23)
Dutch Companies (n=17)
1
13
12
2
5
6
3 or 4
26
18
5 or more
57
65
Functional divisions
35
29
Product line
13
12
Geographical
4
6
Matrix
17
12
Virtual
0
6
Hybrid
13
18
Other
17
18
Number of Business Units
Structure
structural configuration for the participating companies. Note that the largest percentage
of both U.S. and Dutch companies has at least five business units, suggesting again their
large size and complexity. The largest group of companies in both countries has
structured their companies into functional divisions. Product line, matrix, or a hybrid of
two types listed in Table 2 were equally common in the U.S. and Dutch samples. The
overall picture that emerges is a sample of U.S. and Dutch companies dominated by
global/international companies with revenues greater than $500 million, with multiple
business units, and most often organized into functional divisions, product, matrix, or
hybrid structures.
In looking at the data, we were interested in patterns that emerged to answer the
following questions:

Who was responsible – IT or business units – for setting priorities in
allocating resources and scheduling projects?

Who was responsible – IT or business units – for setting and enforcing
standards?

Who was responsible – IT or business units – for developing information
systems?

Who was responsible – IT or business units – for IT operations?

How dynamic is the structure for delivering IT services?
The Results
Our pilot study suggested that the business unit was the focal point of the delivery
of IT services in the eight multinationals we studied. Its vision served as the starting
point for designing and providing IT support. Does this centrality of the business unit
exist in a broader sample of companies? Table 3 suggests that business units have
extensive autonomy in about one-third of the companies in both the United States and the
Netherlands, not 100% as in the pilot study sample. In the broader array of companies
Table 3
Decision Making in the Company as a Whole
Percentage of
Percentage of
U.S. Companies (N=23)
Dutch Companies (n=17)
Business units have a great deal of
autonomy.
39
35
Corporate headquarters exerts control
over most major decisions.
18
29
Decision making tends to occur
collaboratively among corporate
headquarters and business units.
43
29
Other
0
6
surveyed, corporate headquarters exerts control over most major decisions in almost onefifth of the U.S. companies and close to one-third of the Dutch companies. Decision
making tends to occur collaboratively among corporate headquarters and business units
in almost one-half of the U.S. companies and slightly less than one-third of the Dutch
companies. Since the involvement of IT and business units in setting priorities, setting
standards, developing systems, and overseeing operations occurs within the context of
decision making in the company as a whole, we might expect more variation in the locus
of these activities than in our pilot sample companies.
Setting IT Priorities
Our original study of eight U.S. companies indicated that business units uniformly
set IT priorities. This was somewhat unexpected because historically IT’s specialized
knowledge about available technology and its applications made it logical for them to set
IT priorities. Within the context of the increased focus on the business unit observed in
our pilot study, a change in responsibility for setting priorities seemed logical. Given the
variation in the locus of decision making in the companies we surveyed for this study,
unlike in the pilot, we expect that the responsibility for setting priorities may extend
beyond business units. We attempted to determine who set IT priorities by having
respondents assess their companies along four dimensions, as shown in Table 4: (1)
resource allocation at the company-wide level, (2) resource allocation at the local level,
(3) project scheduling at the company-wide level, and (4) project scheduling at the local
level. We asked respondents to indicate the involvement of corporate IT and business
units on a five-point scale, with 1 representing greatest involvement by the IT department
and 5 greatest involvement by business units. We then grouped the responses into three
categories: we classified a response of 1 or 2 as IT, 3 as mixed, and 4 or 5 as business
unit.
Table 4
Priority Setting in the United States and the Netherlands
Percentage of U.S. Companies
(N = 23)
Percentage of Dutch Companies
(N = 18)
IT
Mixed
Business
Units
IT
Mixed
Business
Units
Company-wide resource
allocation
44
35
22
59
6
35
Company-wide project
scheduling
48
39
13
47
24
29
Local resource allocation
22
30
48
29
12
59
Local project scheduling
26
22
43
12
29
59
The data from the larger and more diverse set of companies shown in Table 4
indicated a more varied approach to determining IT priorities. Looking first at the U.S.
companies, for example, we see that company-wide resource allocation and project
scheduling more often resided with IT than with the business units. The reverse was true
for local resource allocation and project scheduling. The Dutch companies demonstrated
a similar pattern, but were somewhat less likely to give responsibility to IT for companywide project scheduling. U.S. companies more often involved IT and business units in all
but local project scheduling than did their Dutch counterparts. Conversely, the Dutch
companies more often allocated responsibility for setting priorities to either IT (at the
corporate level) or to business units (at the local level). Still, some movement toward
giving business units responsibility for company-wide priority setting had occurred,
particularly in allocating resources. Business units solely or jointly with IT determined
company-wide resource allocation in 57% of U.S. companies and in 41% of Dutch
companies, and significantly influenced company-wide project scheduling in 52% of U.S.
companies and 53% of Dutch companies.
Setting IT Standards
IT has traditionally assumed the major responsibility for setting standards,
primarily because of the technical expertise required to make informed decisions about
software, hardware, and telecommunications. Has this changed as business units have
become more central? We saw in the pilot study that in some companies, as the needs of
business units begin to dominate IT decision making, the responsibility for setting
standards shifted and the involvement of business units in standard setting increased.
Nevertheless, some companies still gave sole responsibility to IT, while others began to
delegate it to business units. In still other organizations, partnerships between IT and
business units set standards.
In our larger sample of U.S. and Dutch companies, we looked at two components
of the standard setting process – the original setting of standards and their enforcement.
We grouped the responses along a five-point scale once more into three categories:
setting or enforcement by the IT department, mixed IT and business units, and business
units alone. Table 5 shows that in almost all (91%) of the U.S. companies, corporate IT
was responsible for setting standards but shared responsibility for enforcement in 43% of
the companies. In the Dutch companies, corporate IT more often held responsibility for
both setting standards (82%) and enforcing them (76%).
Table 5
Responsibility for Standard Setting and Enforcement
Percentage of U.S. Companies
Percentage of Dutch Companies
(N = 23 )
(N =17)
Corporate
IT
Mixed
Business
Units
Corporate
IT
Mixed
Business
Units
Responsibility for setting
91
9
0
82
18
0
Responsibility for enforcement
52
43
4
76
12
12
Even when responsibility rests with IT departments, the voice of the business
units is often heard in the decision-making process, as shown in Table 6. When
respondents checked the approach that best describes their company, they described
decision making about standards as negotiated or collaborative among corporate IT and
business units in almost three-fourths of the U.S. companies and almost one-half of the
Dutch companies.
Table 6
Approach to Making Decisions about Standards
Percentage of
Percentage of
U.S. Companies
Dutch Companies
(N = 23 )
(N =17)
It is directive (from corporate IT)
26
35
It is negotiated among corporate IT and the
business units
30
24
It is collaborative
43
24
It is directive (from the business units)
0
0
Other
0
18
Hearing the voice of the business units fits with the fact that the respondents felt
that business needs alone or combined with technological expertise often drove standard
setting, as shown in Table 7. Yet, the importance of technological expertise may explain
Table 7
The Drivers of Standard Setting in the United States and the Netherlands
Percentage of U.S. Companies
Percentage of Dutch Companies
(N = 23)
(N = 17)
Technological Expertise
43
41
Mixed
30
12
Business Needs
26
47
why IT retains responsibility for standard setting and enforcement in so many companies.
IT still has the specialized knowledge to process the requirements of the business units
and understand what technologies best meet these needs.
In a large U.S. publishing firm, for example, business needs drive the setting of
standards, but IT ultimately sets and enforces them after collaboration with business units
about appropriate decisions. In a large U.S. financial services firm, in contrast,
technological expertise drives standards, but setting and enforcing them are shared by IT
and business units, and decision making about standards is also collaborative. In a large
Dutch firm, technological expertise drives standards, but IT sets and enforces them and
makes decisions about appropriate ones. In conclusion, then, we see a number of patterns
of standard setting, with some variation across countries. This variation may be due to
differences in the size and industry of the companies in each sample or to national
preferences; future research is necessary to determine the actual causes.
Developing Information Systems
In the pilot we found that IS development demonstrated the greatest variation of
responsibility: it ranged from IT-centric to business unit-centric with hybrid versions that
included user-led corporate development, IT led with users involved, and truer user-IT
partnerships. These results were not surprising because IS development is the logical
place for business units to express their needs and make sure that they are met. We
expected to see a similar variation in the U.S. and Dutch companies that we surveyed.
Table 8 shows a similar pattern for the Dutch companies: 12% characterized IS
development as led and performed by corporate IT; 18% characterized it as led and
Table 8
Approach to Information Systems Development
Percentage of
Percentage of
U.S. Companies
Dutch Companies
(N = 23 )
(N =17)
Led and performed by corporate IT
0
12
Led by corporate IT, but involving users
heavily
22
12
A partnership between corporate IT and users
26
18
A partnership between corporate IT and
business unit leadership
39
35
Led and performed by the business unit
leadership
4
18
Other
9
6
performed by the business unit leadership; and the rest saw it as a type of partnership
between IT and business leaders or users or as involving users heavily under IT’s
direction. In the U.S. companies, in contrast, users or business unit leadership were
always involved in IS development. Whether the pilot sample or the larger sample better
represents U.S. companies, and hence whether a significant difference exists in IS
development between U.S. and Dutch companies, remains a subject of future research.
Conducting Operations
Traditionally, responsibility for conducting IT operations was consolidated in the
IT function. IT staff was viewed as having the expertise to monitor operations, and
economies of scale resulted from centralizing IT operations. Table 9 suggests that this
Table 9
Responsibility for Operations
Percentage of
Percentage of
U.S. Companies (N = 23 )
Dutch Companies (N =16)
Corporate
IT
Mixed
Business
Units
Corporate
IT
Mixed
Business
Units
87
4
9
63
19
19
pattern continues for the U.S. companies that we surveyed. In 87 % of the U.S.
companies, IT had responsibility for operations, with only 13% of the companies
allocating some responsibility to the business units. In the Dutch companies, however, a
slightly different pattern existed. While almost two-thirds of the companies gave
corporate IT responsibility for IT operations, more than one-third gave business units
some responsibility. While differences in corporate size, industry, or type might explain
the greater allocation of responsibility to business units, it may also result from a lesser
concern with economies of scale, a different traditional placement of IT operations, or the
increasing strength of business units in The Netherlands.
Changes in IT Delivery
The data we have presented so far are a snapshot of the delivery of IT services. In
fact, the delivery of IT services is not a static process. The organizational structure of the
IT group in almost one-half of both U.S. and Dutch companies has changed within the
last year or two, as shown in Table 10. Most of the remaining Dutch companies and
Table 10
Changes in the Organizational Structure of the IT Group(s)
Percentage of
Percentage of
U.S. Companies
Dutch Companies
(N = 23 )
(N =17)
More than 2 years ago
26
12
Within the last year or two
48
47
Currently changing or soon to change
26
41
about one-fourth of the U.S. companies are currently changing or soon will change the
organizational structure of the IT group. For example, as shown in Table 11, almost onehalf of both the U.S. and Dutch companies have changed the process of responsibility for
Table 11
Changes in the Process or Responsibility for Setting Standards
Percentage of
Percentage of
U.S. Companies
Dutch Companies
(N = 23 )
(N =17)
More than 2 years ago
48
29
Within the last year or two
43
47
Currently changing or soon to change
9
24
setting standards within the last year or two. Almost one-fourth of the Dutch companies
are currently or soon to change. Other examples of change include the complete redesign
and implementation of a global infrastructure and enterprise applications, a switch to
client/server from the mainframe, and the complete reorganization of the IT function
establishing CIO & CIO Office. Changes such as these occurred, for example, because
of a misalignment between functions, a high cost due to decentralized decision making by
the information management departments, the need to have a single message and better
ways of communicating changes, and a lack of trust in the local units to police
themselves. These and many other reasons for change continue to exist in the dynamic
environment faced by most organizations.
Discussion
We described the structure of the delivery of IT services in a sample of U.S. and
Dutch companies. We found that the centrality of the business unit is increasing and has
significant implications for the delivery of IT services. This observation is well
supported in the trade literature. One report estimates that business units will control
about 85% of IT spending by 2001, up from about 70% in 1999 (Cole-Gomolski, 1999).
Another cites widespread support among CIOs for the claim that "IT will no longer be a
separate business unit" (Saia, 1999).
Still, variation existed in both the U.S. and Dutch companies regarding the
involvement of the business units and corporate headquarters in decision making. This
variation extends to the structuring of the delivery of IT services in the four areas we
studied: setting IT priorities, setting standards, developing information systems, and
conducting IT operations.
The United States and Dutch companies demonstrated both similarities and
differences in their delivery of IT services. In both U.S. and Dutch companies, for
example, IT more often allocated resources and scheduled projects at the company-wide
level, whereas business units had these responsibilities at the local level. Some
differences in standard setting existed, with the Dutch companies relying on IT for both
setting and enforcing standards, whereas the U.S. companies more often involved
business units in enforcing standards. U.S. companies more often create some type of
partnership between corporate IT and business unit leadership or users in developing
information systems than the Dutch companies. A larger percentage of Dutch companies
relied solely on corporate IT or solely on business units to lead and perform information
system development. Finally, U.S. companies more often assigned responsibility for IT
operations solely to corporate IT, whereas Dutch companies more often involved
business units solely or jointly with corporate IT.
Clearly, companies in both countries use diverse structures for delivering IT
services. These structures frequently undergo change. Corporate, business unit, and IT
leadership seem to experiment with different structures, in response to dynamic and
complex environmental conditions. They recognize that a successful structure may last
only a short time, as changing conditions mandate new types of interactions between
corporate IT and business units.
What are some of the issues that IT professionals and business leaders should
consider in selecting the appropriate structure? They need to consider the nature of the
existing organizational structure, particularly the role of the business units, and structure
the delivery of IT services in a congruent fashion. They also need to determine the
location of various types of expertise and what type of structure that allows the most
effective communication of this expertise to business units and users. They also need to
consider the best way to allocate resources for IS development and operations to create
economies of scale while ensuring that user needs are met.
Future research needs to more closely link the type of structures with desired
outcomes, such as efficiency, high-quality performance, and employee satisfaction. It
also needs to further examine the types of relationships between IT and business units
and determine the conditions under which each type works best. In addition, more
careful examination of cultural differences and their significance for the delivery of IT
services should occur.
References
Adhikari, R. (1996). Taking care of business. Software Magazine(June), 57-62.
Alavi, M., & Young, G. (1996). Information technology in an international enterprise: An
organizing framework. In P. C. Palvia, S. C. Palvia, & E. M. Roche (Eds.), Global
Information Technology and Systems Management: Key Issues and Trends (pp.
495-516). Marietta, GA: Ivy League Publishing.
Allen, B. R., & Boynton, A. C. (1991). Information architecture: In search of efficient
flexibility. MIS Quarterly(Dec), 435-445.
Alter, A. E. (1990). Intelligent networking. CIO, 3(5), 51-60.
Alter, A. E. (1996). Change in the weather. Computerworld(26-Feb), 78-79.
Burn, J. M., & Cheung, H. K. (1996). Information Systems Resource Structure and
Management in Multinational Organizations. In P. C. Palvia, S. C. Palvia, & E.
M. Roche (Eds.), Global Information Technology and Systems Management: Key
Issues and Trends (pp. 293-322). Marietta, GA: Ivy League Publishing.
Cale, E. C., Kanter, J., & Saia, P. J. (1993). The Changing Locus of I/T Resource
Decision-Making . Babson Park, MA: Babson College.
Cole-Gomolski, B. (1999). IT departments losing budget control, staff.
Computerworld(4/12/99).
Cummings, M. L., & Guynes, J. L. (1994). Information System Activites in Transnational
Corporations: A Comparison of U.S. and Non-U.S. Subsidiaries. Journal of
Global Information Management, 2(1).
Dearden, J. (1987). The withering away of the IS organization. Sloan Management
Review(Summer), 87-91.
Gibson, R. (1994). Global Information Technology Architectures. Journal of Global
Information Management, 2(1), 28-38.
Gibson, R. (1996). Information Technology Planning and Architectures for Networked
Global Organizations. In P. C. Palvia, S. C. Palvia, & E. M. Roche (Eds.), Global
Information Technology and Systems Management: Key Issues and Trends (pp.
276-292). Marietta, GA: Ivy League Publishing.
Gordon, J. R., & Gordon, S. R. (1998a). Setting IS standards in multinational companies:
The interaction between IS and business units. Paper presented at the Northeast
Decision Sciences Institute, Boston, MA.
Gordon, J. R., & Gordon, S. R. (1998b). Structuring the interaction between information
technology and business units in multinational companies. Paper presented at the
Decision Sciences Institute, Las Vegas, NV.
Karimi, J., & Konsynski, B. R. (1991). Globalization and Information Management
Strategies. Journal of Mangement Information Systems, 7(4), 7-26.
Kim, K. K. (1989). Task characteristics, decentralization, and the success of hospital
information systems. Information and Management, 19(2), 83-93.
Mazur, L. (1994). The new invasion of Europe: How companies make the local/central
choice. Marketing, August 11, 18-20.
Meyer, N. D. (1991, ). Dispersing IS isn't an answer. Computerworld, 68.
Moad, J. (1989). Navigating cross-functional IS waters. Datamation, 35(5), 73-75.
Roche, E. (1992). Managing Information Technology in Multinational Corporations.
New York: Macmillan.
Sabherwal, R., & Kirs, P. (1994). The alignment between organization critical success
factors and information technology capability in academic institutions. Decision
Sciences, 25(2), 301-330.
Saia, R. (1999). Tomorrows IT: The organization. Computerworld(4/12/99).
Sankar, C., Apte, U., & Palvia, P. (1993). Global information architectures: Alternatives
and tradeoffs. International Journal of Information Management, 13(2), 84-93.
Scheier, R. L. (1998). Procter & Gamble growth push may centralize IT. Computerworld,
32(36), 4.
Stebbins, M. W., & Shani, A. B. (1998). Organization Design and the Knowledge
Worker. Journal of Systemic Knowledge Management(February).
Sweeney, J. (1995). IBM prepares to offer global services under common name.
Computer Reseller News(October 2), 6.
Targowski, A. (1990). The Architecture and Planning of Enterprice-Wide Information
Management Systems. Harrisburg, PA: Idea Group.
von Simson, E. M. (1990). The "centrally decentralized" organization. Harvard Business
Review(July-August), 158-162.
Westoby, R. (1996). Combining forces. Financial Executive, 12(3), 28-30.