THE MANAGEMENT OF SMALL BUSINESS JOINT VENTURES IN
THE E-GLOBALIZATION AGE
Constantin Sasu
Al.I.Cuza University
Iaşi, Romania
E-mail: c.sasu_49@yahoo.com
Abstract
Alliances between companies are a fact of life in business today. In the global economy, a well
developed ability to create and sustain fruitful collaboration gives companies a significant competitive
edge. Today we live in an increasingly global and connected world in which even the smallest firms
have to face the challenge of globalization. One of the major problems felt by small businesses is their
limited tangible and intangible resources. This is even clear when small businesses wish to build
functioning joint ventures, as one of the most attractive options for them to become international firms.
Therefore, the efficient ressources utilization is the key to resolve this problem. However, this simple
answer has to relate to our undestanding of the organization, whether small or large, and the way they
are managed. Managing smaler firms has been performed using different management styles. Until the
Second World War the “Traditional Management“style has dominated the world of Small and
Medium-sized Entreprises (SMEs). After the war, the Information Tehnology introduced another style
of firme management – “Networking Management” style. The introduction of the personal computer
and more importantly Internet, starting from mid-1990s, resulted in a new management style known as
“Modern Computerized Management”.
In this paper, we argued that the managerial performance of SMEs has witnessed a tremendous shift
toward a better capacity to run more complex operations. In our analysis, based on the previously
mention fact, we proposed several Managerial Performance Indicators to study that shift. These
performance indicators are: Quickness of Communication, Rapidity of Reaction, Efficiency pf Action,
Coordination Competency and International Competitive Advantage. Defining such indicators was
motivated by the desire to investigate which of the management styles would be most suitable and
feasible tu run a a joint venture. We looked especially at how these indicators are responding to the
shift of the managerial style. We found that in the Modern Computerized Management style all
indicators had a high level of managerial performance. By applying modern management techniques,
small firms can multiply their capacities. As a result, their ability to built partership structures and
run them in an ease manner is increased. Moreover, that would enhance the internationalizitation
ambitions of the these firms.
Keywords
Small business, joint venture, globalization, management styles, management performance indicators
1. Introduction
Globalization is defined as the process of individual national economies becoming
increasingly integrated over time. The term was coined in the 1980s when it became easier
to conduct international business because of advances in computer technology. On another
level, globalization also refers to the expansion of individual business into new countries
worldwide.
The world's economy has become increasingly global in recent years, and the impact of
globalization on small businesses has been huge. In the past, international business was, for
the most part, restricted to large corporations with strong financial resources. Often
international business was not conducted directly, but with the aid of an intermediary,
usually a global trading company. Therefore, SME community has witnessed a worldwide
growing awareness of the importance of SMEs to both the national and the global economy.
Today, governments recognize that SMEs are engines of growth and of job creation, that
they are vibrant and innovative, quick to respond, and that they are flexible and can adapt to
changing circumstances. It is quite clear today, that as a result of all those virtues, SMEs
have become a central force in the economy and the society. SMEs are also important for
the development and acceleration of change in economies in transition - such as those in
which agricultural predominance is giving way to industry and services, or those moving
from a centralized to a free market economy. SMEs also serve as important vehicles in
facilitating people-to-people conflict resolution through direct interaction between important
sectors of society, thus creating growing mutual trust.
To compete in this changing environment and be positioned as the partner of choice with
key strategic player, management should review their companies’ approaches to mapping
out, establishing, and managing partnerships with the help of analytical tools. One of this
partnerhips is the joint venture. A joint venture is a form of partnership where businesses
come together to share knowledge, markets, and profits. Joint ventures can take on various
forms. Small companies can band together to take on the goliaths of their industry. Big
companies can form alliances with quicker and nimbler small businesses. And small
companies have the opportunity to forge strategic alliances with big name companies for
expanded geographic reach. It is important in the modern business world as their
combination and relationships will to share knowledge and core capabilities in-order for
increase in competitiveness and the value added of services which can offer to customers is
great. No small business today can afford to ignore the rewards of joint venturing.
Understanding the joint venture as a strategic partership requires an understanding of the
processes through which smaller firms become international business players.
2. Internationalization Process of Small Firms
There is an extensive and well-developed body of literature, which examines many issues in
small firm internationalization process [39] Examples include the stage theory of export
development [27] and research into differences between exporters and non-exporters [7;18]
Other areas that have received significant attention are the decision to export [17], export
performance [28], and small-firm export attitudes and consequent behaviours [6]. Another
major new thrust of international business research is the area of international alliances and
coalitions [40]. The scientific community did not consider small firms that were
international at or near inception as part of the mainstream research [38]. Researchers have
introduced a number of entry modes to international markets by smaller firms. Small
business scholars do stress that an export strategy is the primary
foreign-market entry mode used by small business in their internationalization mechanisms
efforts [28]. Exporting fits the capabilities of small businesses by offering a greater degree
of flexibility and minimal resource commitment, yet limits the firm’s risk exposure [41].
Small firms differ among themselves with respect to the competitive pattern used in their
export activities [39]. Keeping with this universal approach, research in the export making
literature made frequent use of stage theory [23] of the multinational enterprise to explain
the international expansion of firm. However, and according to Kundu and Katz [27], this
approach attracted significant criticism, and some studies have challenged their basic
proposition (for example, Turnbull [37]. Etemad and Wright [21] pointed out that the
predominant view regarding firm internalization has been a stage-process approach. Since
the pioneering study of Johanson and Vahlne [23] on the internationalization process of
small firms, much research has addressed how small firms pursue internationalization. This
research stream proposed that small firms internationalize their activities through a series of
progressive stages [3; 8; 11]. At a later stage, researchers Oviatt and McDougall [33]
proposed that at least some small firms are international (that is, involved in significant
cross-border business activities) at their inception. As pointed out by Wolff and Pett [39],
obviously such firms do not follow the successive stages that some research suggests. The
literature about internationalization rather suggests that there are two discreet ways that
small firms internationalize: international-at founding [33], and international-by-stage [23].
In his work Saarenketo [34] discussed three of the main traditional perspectives explaining
the internationalization of a firm.
These are the process or stage-models of internationalization, the network approach and the
foreign direct investment theory (FDI). Saarenketo [34] gave two examples of definitions of
internationalization in accordance with the stage model. One proposed by Welch and
Luostarinen [38] and a second definition proposed by Calof and Beamish [12]. The basic
logic in the process or stage-models of internationalization is that a process evolves in a
slow incremental manner (as the firm gains more experimental knowledge) towards a
greater commitment in foreign markets, and involves a varying number of stages. One of
most well known theories within this approach is the Uppsala model worked out by Swedish
researchers Johanson and Wiedersheim-Paul [24] and Johanson and Vahlne [23].
Research on the subsequent versions of the model includes works of Bilkey and Tesar [11],
Newbould et al. [32], Cavusgil [13;14], Bartlett and Ghoshal [9]. Luostarinen [29] worked
out another model of internationalization, using the stage approach. In 1994, he extended his
work further to the holistic model, which deals with inward, outward, and co-operative
staging.
Saarenketo [34] argued that the similarity between these stage models stems from the fact
that they are behavioural in nature, building on the theory of growth of the firm and the
behavioural theory of firm [15]. Several researchers have conducted extensive reviews of
international process models including Melin 31], Andersen [3], Leonidou and Katsikeas
[28] and Korhonen [26]. Referring to Saarenketo [34], the network approach of firm
internationalization is based on the theories of social exchange and resource dependency as
well as studies of behaviour of the firm in the context of interorganizational and interpersonal relation- ships [5]. The foreign direct investment (FDI) theory refers to a firm’s
fully integrated mode of international operation, such as acquisitions, mergers or the
establishment of a Greenfield subsidiary.
Jones [25] argued that expansion through the conventional incremental export development
route should not necessarily be the sole prescribed mode of international development for
small high-technology firms.
Researchers studied internationalization of diverse types of SMEs including
knowledgeintensive SMEs [34], small high-technology firms [25], and small computer
software firms [10]. Some looked at export competitive patterns of SMEs [39] while others
looked at factors influencing the internationalization of SMEs [4]. Some research had a
special interest in studying SMEs in developing countries and the impact of globalization on
their performance (for example Etemad and Salmasi [20]. In the more recent works,
Information Technology starts to leave a clear fingerprint in the theoretical buildup of that
research.
According to Turban et al. [36] Information Technology (IT) has become the major
facilitator of business activities in the world today. Other researchers have already pointed
to this fact in earlier works including Tapscott and Caston [35] and Gill [22]. Turban et al.
[36] pointed out that IT is also a catalyst of fundamental change in the structure, operation
and management operation due to enhanced capacities. Turban et al. [36] noted that areas
where innovative IT applications have been introduced include: production/operation,
logistics, marketing, and sales, channel systems, accounting and finance systems, and
human resources systems. Abouzeedan and Leijon [2] distinguished between globalization
in its traditional content prior to the IT age, and globalization related to the age of the IT.
They call the latter as e-globalization. The two researchers suggested that the critical point,
which can be taken as the start of the e-globalization, coincides with the launching of the
World Wide Web in the first half of the 1990s. This shift in business environment left a
clear impact on firms and the way they conduct their operations. Abouzeedan [1] looked at
the difference in firm characteristics when the Spatial Economy is taken over the
Scale Economy. This shift induced new attempts to propose alternative theoretical
framework to understanding internationalization of small business.
In a more recent effort, Etemad [19] proposed a three-layer concept engulfing three major
domains: the entrepreneur, the enterprise, and the market. He argued that the growth of
smaller firms may not follow processes stipulated in the theories of multinational enterprises
(MNEs) and international businesses processes (IBPs). In his view, the primary orientation
and theoretical construct used in the IBP and the theory of multinationals are different from
those in entrepreneurship. While the former focuses on the institution of the ‘firm’, the latter
concentrates on the ‘entrepreneur’ as the internationalizing entity. In his work, Etemad [19]
suggested a theoretical framework to integrate this fragmentation between the ‘institute’ and
the ‘entrepreneur’. The framework utilizes a Dynamic Open Complex Adaptive Sys tem
(DOCAS) approach, comprising three layers of entrepreneurs (or entrepreneurial teams),
firms and markets, that reflect their own dynamics as well as the inter-relations and
interactions of entities within and across layers in the framework. It is clear that the work of
Etemad [19] has been structured with the organizational environment in mind.
3. Management Styles and the Joint Ventures
Single enterprises, either as individual ones, or as incorporated in alliance structures,
traditionally used classical management forms that reflect a concentration on near locality.
These forms stressed the limitation of resources as a constraint to expanding business
activities. However, that is changing due to the impact of the new information technology
tools. Recently, researches started to look at how management of firms has developed in
relation to the influence of the e-globalization phenomenon. Such research suggests a
propagation of new management styles more suited to the realities of the modern economy
(see Abouzeedan [1]. Abouzeedan et al. [1] identified three forms of management styles
corresponding to the historical stages in the development of the communication technology
and means across the globe.
To illustrate the different significance of management styles proposed by Abouzeedan et al.
[2], in relation to strategic alliance and other partnership structures, we are borrowing the
conceptual presentation used in that work, adapting it joint ventures. Among the
management forms proposed by Abouzeedan et al. [2], and the most distant in time, is the
concept of ‘Localized Management’. The ‘Localized Management’ style emphasizes that the
activities of the organization are conducted within limited geographical zone. This is a
natural outcome of the limited resources of the organization that restricts its outward
expansion. The larger organizations may suffer less of this restriction in resource
availability. However, the abundance of resources would not eliminate the fact that the
activities are still more localized in nature, although the firm could have international
business strategies. The‘Localized Management’ style was the dominant form of
management in the older non IT-based economy. It is even dominant in some of the more
undeveloped regions of the world. The local focus of such management style would hinder
the outward expansion and building of strategic alliances and render partnership structures
to be less feasible. Abouzeedan et al. [2] is convinced that the ‘Localized Management’
style is giving away to another form of management, which the researchers have called
‘Networking Management’.
In this form of management, the firm or organizational activities are more extended and the
limited resources are not perceived as a restricting factor of expansion as has been the case
in the past. The shift from ‘Localized Management’ to ‘Networking Management’ was
caused by the introduction of the personal computers and the networking possibilities during
the late 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s (see Abouzeedan and Busler [2]. Abouzeedan
et al. [2] argued that the ‘Networking Management style started from roughly the middle of
the 80s and is taking over the older management styles and paradigms, such as the
‘Localized Management’ style, and is continuing to do Currently, the geographical area of
business impact, in this style of management, is expanding through the networking effect
However, Abouzeedan et al. [2] stressed that we still have some geographical definition of
markets and the marketplace. Alliance build-up and the strategies of the partnership are
more facilitated in the ‘Networking Management environment than in the older ‘Localized
Management’ world.
Abouzeedan et al. [2] have included the Internet component in ‘Networking Management’,
the three researchers were still unwilling to assume a full usage of the Internet at a global
scale, or what Dana et al. [16] called ‘Internetisation’. Abouzeedan et al. [2] borrowed the
terminology ‘Internetisation’, proposed first by Dana et al. [16], to define an anticipated
future type of firm management, which Abouzeedan et al. [2] have called ‘Internetization
Management’ or ‘Internetisation Management’.
‘Internetisation Management’ means, as classified in Abouzeedan et al. [2], the full usage of
the Internet in running the operational and managerial functions of the firm.
In this management style, the marketplace is the whole globe. There are no geographical or
physical barriers for commerce or trade, except for the ability of the firm to absorb the
‘Internetization’ technologies. Abouzeedan et al. [2] first introduced the concept of
‘Internetization Management’ at EURAM 2003 conference. The environment created in the
organization as it incorporates the ‘Internetization Management’ paradigmand practices in
its operational routines, grants higher flexibility and feasibility of expanding to the global
market via strategic alliances and partnership structures.
We argue in this work that the new concept of ‘Internetization Management’ has a real
possibility of establishing itself among scholars of management science as it offers a needed
revolutionalized way of looking at management issues. The concept would have a
significant impact on our analysis of management practices of the most progressive
organization today. It also paves way for understanding the needs required to create an
optimally functioning organization in tomorrow’s world. To take this argument further, we
need to look at the characteristics required for successful bridging of managerial structures
and try to match such characteristics with different management styles.
4. Management Performance Indicators
There are basic characteristics to observe or analyse when looking at the kind of
management style that would suit the strategic alliance structures, as a profound mechanism
of internationalization. In this section, we define those basic characteristics or indicators, to
judge the ability of a management style, among the ones proposed by Abouzeedan et al. [2],
to fill the needs of the firm or organization who seeks to obtain expansion capacities. These
basic characteristics or managerial performance indicators are stated in Table 1. They
include:
Table 1 The Managerial Performance Indicators of Localized Management,
Networking Management and Internetization Management
Indicator
Quickness of
Communication
Rapidity of Reaction
Effciency of Action
Coordination
Competency
International
Competitive
Advantage
Localized
Management
Slow
Networking
Management
Medium
Internetization
Management
High
Slow
Slow
Limited
Medium
Medium
Somewhat limited
High
High
Unlimited
Very limited
Somewhat limited
Almost unlimited
4.1. Quickness of Communication
‘Quickness of Communication’ can be defined as ‘The speed by which the management
team is able to relay/communicate the operations, requests and demands to the firm partners
and/or customers’. In the ‘Localized Management’ style, the quickness of communication is
slow because the tools that are available to this form of management cannot facilitate a
higher quickness of communication. The ‘Networking Management’ style has a better
situation and the quickness of communication increases as the tools of communication
witness a remarkable increase in the communication capacities due to the start of the
Information Technology revolution after the Second World War. The ‘Internetization
Management’ however, relies on the breakthrough in Information Technology which started
at the beginning of the 1990s. That breakthrough introduced the personal computers and
Internet technologies.
4.2. Rapidity of Reaction
‘Rapidity of Reaction’ is defined as: ‘The rapidity by which the management team is able to
respond to operations, requests and demands of the firm partners and/or customers’. The
ability of managers in the ‘Localized Management’ style to respond to operations, requests
and demands of the firm partners/customers is restricted and limited by the technology
available. Managers using ‘Networking Management’ have more capacity to respond to the
same demands. The optimal capacity of the firm to respond to operations, requests and
demands of the firm partners/customers is achieved within the ‘Internetization Management’
concept. In such a style of management, firms progress at a very high ‘Rapidity of Reaction’
process.
4.3. Effciency of Action
We define ‘Efficiency of Action’ to be ‘The relative number of operations, requests, and
demands of the firm partners and/or customers the management team is able to conduct in
specific time unit’. The ‘Efficiency of Action’ is low in the ‘Localized Management’
because the capacity to perform a large number of operations is limited. The ‘Networking
Management’ offers a higher degree of ‘Intensity of Action’ as the world witnessed a
revolution in Information Technology after the WWII. In ‘Internetization Management’ the
capacity of the firm’s management to clear out a high number of operations increased
dramatically after the introduction of the Internet and technology to the world arena.
4.4. Coordination Competency
We define ‘Coordination Compdetency’ as ‘The ability of the management team of the firm
to coordinate the managerial and operational processes with its partners and/or customers’.
The ability of firms to coordinate operations is limited in the ‘Localized Management’
because the tools available for such coordination were not that sophisticated. The situation
became better in the arena of the ‘Networking Management’ as the tools for managerial
coordination have become more sophisticated. In the last phase, we propagate
for‘Internetization Management’, because the coordination capacity is virtually unlimited
and there are almost no constraints on the ability of partners to harmonize their activities
within the context of such management style.
4.5. International Competitive Advantage
We define ‘International Competitive Advantage’ to be ‘The capacity of the management
team of the firm to direct resources, both tangible and intangible, to achieve a competitive
advantage at selected segments of markets in the international arena’. In ‘Localized
Management’ the capacity of the management team to direct resources to achieve a
competitive advantage is very limited. In ‘Networking Management’ such capacities are
increased as the Information Technology tools have been introduced in a more intense
fashion starting from the end of the WWII. In ‘Internetization Management’ we get into
almost unlimited capacity of the management team of the firm to direct resources to achieve
a competitive advantage. For that, we should express our gratitude to the nature of the
Internet world created that started in the beginning of the 1990s. In Table 1, we summarized
the level of the different ‘Managerial Performance Indicators’ in relation to the three styles
of management—Localized Management, Networking Management and Internetization
Management. From the analysis done on Table 1, we can clearly see that the management
style with the most desired level in relation to the indicators defined in this section, are
attached to the ‘Internetization Management’ style. Successful management routines, in
relation to growth and expansion, are related strongly to the dimensions expressed by the
selected ‘Managerial Performance Indicators’. This is even more evident if we want to
consider the bridging approach to international expansion including a mechanism of
strategic alliances and other form of partnership building models.
5. Conclusions
Managing smaller firms has been performed using different management styles. The
‘Localized Management’ style has dominated the world of the Small and Medium-sized
Enterprises (SMEs) until the Second World War. After the war, the Information Technology
revolution introduced another style of firm management, namely the ‘Networking
Management’ style. The third development in firm management came through the
introduction of the personal computer and more importantly the Internet starting from
roughly the mid-1990s. That resulted in the style of management known as ‘Internetization
Management’.
In this paper, we argued that the managerial performance of SMEs has witnessed a
tremendous shift toward a better capacity to run more complex operations. In our analysis,
based on the previously mention fact, we proposed several Managerial Performance
Indicators to study that shift. These performance indicators are: Quickness of Communication,
Rapidity of Reaction, Efficiency pf Action, Coordination Competency and International Competitive
Advantage. Defining such indicators was motivated by our desire to investigate which of the
management styles proposed by Abouzeedan et al. [2] would be most suitable and feasible
to run a joint venture, as well as other bridging tactics, successfully. In the process, we
looked at how these indicators are responding to the shift of the managerial style. We found
that in the ‘Localized Management’ style all the indicators had a low level, in the
‘Networking Management’ style, this level has been elevated to varying extent. The
‘Internetization Management’ style provides many opportunities for a highly elevated level
of managerial performance. By applying ‘Internetization Management’ techniques, small
firms can multiply their capacities. As a result, their ability to built partnership structures
and run them with smoothness and ease, is increased.
Ultimately, that would enhance the internationalization ambitions of these firms.
Application of the ‘Internetization Management’ techniques approach necessitates the
intensive usage of Information Technology tools in management routines. It also requires
that the firm build its structure around an IT/Internet/E-Commerce framework.
Finally, although the concern in this article was to look at how smaller firms can best utilize
the advantages provided by the ‘Internetization Management’ within the context of joint
venture and partnership structures, the same management style would be very beneficial in
building up the competitive advantage of organizations regardless of their size and area of
business sector. Actually, there is nothing in what Abouzeedan et al. [2] have stated, when
the three scholars have presented the three styles of management, which restricts the usage
of these concept to the domain of the SMEs only. Rather, we see these styles being able to
give us a good insight as to the managerial practices within even the larger organizations.
The three management forms suggest by Abouzeedan et al. [2], correctly correspond to the
general historical development of available management tools as imbedded in the
communication and information technology saga.
References
[1]. Abouzeedan, A. 2003. ‘Performance of Small andMedium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) in
Dispersal Economy versus Agglomeration Economy’, in theUddevalla Symposium 2003
Anthology (Research Reports 04:01), Entrepreneurship, Spatial Industrial Clusters and
Inter-firm Networks, Uddevalla, Sweden, 12–14 June: 9–30.
[2]. Abouzeedan, A. and M. Busler. 2002. ‘Information Technology (IT) Impact on
Performance of Small and Medium-size Enterprises (SMEs)’, in the Proceedings of RENT
XVI, Research in Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 16th Work Shop. Barcelona, Spain,
21–22 November, 2: 127–56.
[3]. Andersen, O. 1993. ‘On the Internationalization Process of Firms: A Critical Analysis’,
Journal of International Business Studies, 24(2): 209–31.
[4]. Andersson, S., J. Gabrielsson and I. Wictor. 2004. ‘International Activities in Small
Firms: Examining Factors Influencing the Internationalization and Export Growth of Small
Firms’, Canadian Journal of Administrative Science, 21(1): 22–34.
[5]. Axelsson, B. and G. Easton. (eds). 1992. Industrial Networks: A New View of Reality.
London: Routledge.
[6]. Axinn, C.N., R. Savitt, J.M. Sinkula and S.V. Thach. 1994. ‘Export Intention, Beliefs,
and Behaviors in Smaller Industrial Firms’, Journal of Business Research, 32: 49–55.
[7]. Baird, I.S., M.A. Lyles and J.B. Orris. 1994. ‘The Choice of International Strategies by
Small Businesses’, Journal of Small Business management, 32(January): 48–59.
[8]. Barkema, H., J. Bell and J. Pennings. 1996. ‘Foreign Entry, Cultural Barriers, and
Learning’, Strategic Management Journal, 17(February): 151–66.
[9]. Bartlett, C.A. and S. Ghoshal. 1989. Managing Across Borders: The Transnational
Solution. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
[10]. Bell, J. 1995. ‘The Internationalization of Small Computer Software Firms’, European
Journal of Marketing, 29(8): 60–75.
[11]. Bilkey, W.J. and G. Tesar. 1977. ‘The Export Behavior of Smaller Sized Wisconsin
Manufacturing Firms’, Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1): Spring/Summer, 93–
98.
[12]. Calof, J.L. and P.W. Beamish. 1995. ‘Adapting to Foreign Markets: Explaining
Internationalization’, International Business Review, 4(2): 115–31.
[13]. Cavusgil, S.T. 1980. ‘On the Internationalisation of Firms’, European Research,
8(November): 272–81.
[14]. ———. 1984. ‘Differences among Exporting Firms Based on their Degree of
Internationalisation’, Journal of Business Research, 12(2): 195–208.
[15]. Cyert, R.M. and J.G. March. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[16]. Dana, L.P., H. Etemad and I. Wilkinson. 2002. ‘Internetisation: A View for the New
Economy’, in the Proceedings of The Third Biennial McGill Conference on International
Entrepreneurship, Researching New Frontiers, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. 13–16
September, 2(3).
[17]. Dichtl, E., M. Leibold, H.G. Köglmay and S. Muller. 1984. ‘The Export-decision of
Small and Medium sized Firms: A Review’, Management International tronic by SMEs in
Victoria, Australia’, Journal of Small Business Management, 40(3): 250–53.
[18]. Calof, J.L. and P.W. Beamish. 1995. ‘Adapting to Foreign Markets: Explaining
Internationalization’, International Business Review, 4(2): 115–31.
[19]. Etemad, H. 2004. ‘International Entrepreneurship as Dynamic Adaptive System:
Towards a Grounded Theory’, Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 2(1–2): 5–59.
[20]. Etemad, H. and K. S. Salmasi. 2001. ‘The Rugged Entrepreneurs of Iran’s Small-scale
Mining’, Small Business Economics, 16: 125–39.
[21]. Etemad, H. and R.W. Wright. 2003. ‘Internationalization of SMEs: Toward a New
Paradigm’, Small Business Economics, 20: 1–4.
[22]. Gill, K.S. (ed.). 1996. Information Society. London: Springer Publishing.
[23]. Johanson, J. and J.-E. Vahlne. 1977. ‘Internationalization Process of the Firm—A
Model of Knowledge Development and Increasing Foreign Market Commitments’, Journal
of International Business Studies, 8(1): 23–32.
[24]. Johanson, J. and F. Wiedersheim-Paul. 1975. ‘The Internationalization of the Firm—
Four Swedish Cases’, Journal of Management Studies, 12(3): 305–22.
[25]. Jones, M.V. 1999. ‘The Internationalization of Small High-technology Firms’, Journal
of International Marketing, 7(4): 15–41.
[26]. Korhonen, H. 1999. Inward-outward Internationalization of Small and Medium
Enterprises. Helsinki, Acta Universitatis Oeconomicae Helsingiensis, A-147,
HeSe print.
[27]. Kundu, S.K. and J.A. Katz. 2003. ‘Born-international SMEs: BI-level Impacts of
Resources and Intentions’, Small Business Economics, 20: 25–47.
[28]. Leonidou, L.C. and C.S. Katsikeas. 1996. ‘The Export Development Process: An
Integrative Review of Empirical Models’, Journal of International Business Studies, 27(3):
517–51.
[29]. Luostarinen, R. 1979. Internationalization of the Firm. An Empirical Study of the
Internationalization of Firms with Symposium 2002, Innovation, Entre-preneurship,
Regional Development and Public Policy in the Emerging Digital Economy, University of
Trollhättan/Uddevalla, Uddevalla, Sweden, 6–8 June: 393–411.
[30]. Melin, L. 1992. ‘Internationalization as a Strategy Process’, Strategic Management
Journal, 13: 99–118.
[31]. Naidu, G.M. and V.K. Prasad. 1994. ‘Predictors of Export Strategy and Performance
of Small and Medium-sized Firms’, Journal of business Research, 31: 107–15.
[32]. Newbould, G.D., P.J. Buckley and J.C. Thurwell. 1978. Going International—The
Enterprise of Smaller Companies Overseas. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
[33]. Oviatt, B.M. and P.P. McDougall. 1994. ‘Toward a Theory of International New
Ventures’, Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1): 45–64.
[34]. Saarenketo, S. 2002. ‘Born-Globals: Internationalization of Small and Medium-sized
Knowledge—Intensive Firms’, Ph.D thesis, Lappeenranta University of Technology (ISBN
951-764-718-2).
[35]. Tapscot, D. and A. Caston. 1993. Paradigm Shift: The New Promise of Information
Technology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[36]. Turban, E., E. McLean and J. Wetherbe. 1999. Information Technology Management:
Making Connections for Strategic Advantages. 2nd Edition. New York: John Willey & Sons
Inc.
[37]. Turnbull, P. W. 1987. ‘A Challenge to the Stages Theory of the Internationalization
Process’, in P.J. Rosson and D.R. Stanely (eds), Managing Export Entry and Expansion.
New York: Prager.
[38]. Welch, L. S. and R. Luostarinen. 1988. ‘Internationalization: Evolution of a Concept’,
Journal of General Management, 14(2): 34–55.
[39]. Wolff, J.A. and T.L. Pett. 2000. ‘Internationalization of Small Firms: An Examination
of Export Competitive Patterns, Firm Size, and Export Performance’, Journal of Small
Business Management, 38(2): 34–47.
[40]. Wright, R.W. and D.A. Ricks. 1994. ‘Trends in International Business Research:
Twenty-five Years’, Journal of International Business Studies, 25(4): 687–701.
[41]. Young, S., J. Hamill, C. Wheeler and J.R. Davies. 1989. International Market Entry
and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.