Managers of Sydney offices of foreign multinationals were asked about the extent of work (both formal and informal) with Sydney-based entities (see Exhibit 21). The greatest amount of collaboration was with customers, with the mean response indicating extensive links with customers. The companies also reported significant work with Sydney-based industry organisations and associations, indicating that they are plugged into the local corporate community and showing at least some level of satisfaction with such organisa- tions and associations. The next most extensive interaction is with local partners/ complementors and suppliers, representing a potential benefit to Sydney as well as to the multinationals through business relations between foreign multinationals and Sydney- based companies.
Not surprisingly, the multinationals reported less extensive work with government and com- petitors. Australia is a place in which the legal and regulatory environment lets companies get on with their business without the need for extensive interaction with government. The least amount of work was reported to be with public research institutes and universities. On the one hand, this is consistent with a view that multinationals tend not to do much research and development in the Asia-Pacific in general and Sydney in particular. It is also consistent with the Sydney operations generating what knowledge they deploy internally rather than through interaction with other entities. The results do suggest that at present there are rela- tively few links between foreign multinationals and research institutes and universities that enhance the Sydney operations of multinationals.
This is an area in which significant improvement would appear to be possible, though the extent to which it will be possible to enhance Sydney’s role as a source of knowledge for use throughout the multinational through its universities and research institutes is not certain. It is also recognized that the universities may play a broader role in value creation and engage with the Sydney based office of the foreign multinational in ways other than those that might commonly be expected. So, too narrowly defining the role of a university is one possible rea- son that the surveyed companies did not rate interaction with local universities as being particularly strong.
EXHIBIT 21. The Extent of Work between Sydney Office and Sydney-based Entities (1=Not at
all to 7=To a Great Extent)
Category Mean Response
Customers (n=84) 6.3 Industry organisations/associations (n=84) 5.1 Local partners/complementors (n=84) 4.6 Suppliers (n=84) 4.5 Competitors (n=84) 3.7 Government (n=84) 3.7
Public research institutes/universities (n=84) 3.4
The data were further analysed by compiling a frequency distribution of responses. This was done to ensure that the means are representative in terms of the spread of the data and to evaluate whether there are any interesting subgroups of companies that might be obscured by just reporting the means. The frequency distribution is shown in Exhibit 22.
EXHIBIT 22. The Extent of Work between Sydney Office and Sydney-based Entities (1=Not at
all to 7=To a Great Extent), Frequency Distribution of Responses
Not To a great
at all extent
Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA Total
Customers (n=84) 0 0 3 5 8 19 49 1 85
Industry organisations/ associations (n=84) 0 3 8 18 19 20 16 1 85 Local partners/ complementors (n=84) 8 8 4 13 16 21 13 2 85
Suppliers (n=84) 10 6 8 15 12 15 18 1 85
Competitors (n=84) 15 12 10 14 14 12 6 2 85
Government (n=84) 21 11 3 18 9 12 10 1 85
Public research institutes/ universities (n=84) 20 17 7 14 10 10 6 1 85
From Exhibit 22 it is clear that the means are fairly representative of the spread of responses for each item across the numerical range, but it is worth noting that in the case of “customers” there is a heavy bias towards the positive end item “to a great extent.” Also, for both “customers” and “industry organisations / associations” no respondent claimed that there is a total absence of work between the Sydney office and these entities. All categories had 6 or more respondents claiming that their Sydney office and Sydney- based entities work together “to a great extent.” In the order of one-fourth of the respondents indicated no work at all was done with government and public research insti- tutes/universities.
Respondents were also asked a similar question targeting their involvement in Sydney with other foreign-based entities (see Exhibit 23). As might be expected, the most interaction was with the parent company/corporate headquarters as well as other units of the corpo- ration. In relation to entities external to the firm, there were low to moderate levels of involvement, with links to non-local suppliers and non-local customers and distributors being the most extensive. Links with non-local sources of technology were reported to be the least extensive.
The results support the notion that Sydney operations have local links to serve the local mar- kets, but have significantly less extensive international linkages that would reflect wider knowledge generation and application, and management roles. Again, the results indicate that the Sydney operations do not actively interact with independent sources of knowledge
or information outside the company and outside Australia, which in turn reinforces the notion that the Sydney operations tend to be local implementers rather than regional or global innovators for the parent companies.
EXHIBIT 23. The Extent of Work between Sydney Office of the Foreign Based Multinational and
Other Foreign-based Entities (1=Not at all to 7=To a Great Extent)
Category Mean Response
Parent company/HQ 5.7
Other units of your corporation 4.9
Non-local suppliers 3.9
Non-local customers/distributors 3.7
Non-local sources of market knowledge 3.4
Non-local partners 3.4
Global industry organisations/associations 3.2
Non-local sources of technology 3.1