See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260604506

Managing Knowledge in Global Software

Development Projects

Article in IT Professional · January 2014

DOI: 10.1109/MITP.2013.19

CITATIONS READS

3 259

2 authors:

Torgeir Dingsøyr Darja Smite

SINTEF Blekinge Institute of Technology
93 PUBLICATIONS 2,592 CITATIONS 63 PUBLICATIONS 702 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Torgeir Dingsøyr
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 15 September 2016
 IT RISKS

Managing
Knowledge in
Global Software
Development
Projects
Torgeir Dingsøyr, SINTEF, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Darja Šmite, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden

How should knowledge be managed in global software development

projects? To answer this question, the authors draw on established
software engineering research and study three focus groups in
two global companies, discussing which knowledge management
approaches are appropriate.

S
oftware is increasingly being developed companies are still striving to increase the effec-
by global teams.1,2 In companies of all tiveness of global software development projects.
sizes, projects are being set up across As Pär Ågerfalk and Brian Fitzgerald4 describe,
several development sites, separated by global software development projects are chal-
distance, time zones, and cultural differences. In lenging, owing to a lack of informal interactions
the past, companies focused on outsourcing cer- between team members, which can reduce their
tain software projects to low-cost countries. To- awareness of others’ work tasks. Furthermore,
day, companies often instead choose to establish cultural differences can create misunderstand-
their own sites in different countries, enabling ings, and inconsistent work practices can impinge
access to sufficient personnel and technology effective coordination.
knowledge while ensuring the necessary control Knowledge management,5 which is “a method
over staff turnover and protection of intellectual that simplifies the process of sharing, distrib-
capital.3 Recent advancements in version-control uting, creating, capturing, and understanding
systems and the availability of both low-cost of a company’s knowledge,”6 helps ensure the
and high-end communication technology have development of a product that has the right fea-
made global collaboration easier. However, many tures and a sufficient level of quality. Studies of

22 IT Pro January/February 2014 Published by the IEEE Computer Society 1520-9202/14/$31.00 © 2014 IEEE

itpro-16-01-din.indd 22 08/01/14 6:38 PM

 teamwork show how shared knowledge improves knowledge in repositories. Studies in software
team effectiveness, because sharing knowledge engineering found that repositories have been
about the development process and what’s to be used to share different types of knowledge, such
developed helps teams avoid costly misunder- as risk assessment and software design experi-
standings. Also, having team members who can ence. One study shows broad application of an
perform other members’ tasks during times of easy-to-use repository.13 Because knowledge
high workloads helps ensure continued prog- is codified, this approach works well with geo-
ress, because all available resources can be used graphic and temporal distance. However, there
on high-priority tasks. Furthermore, a study might be sociocultural challenges—for example,
of software development performance shows different preferences regarding which knowledge
how better integration of domain and technical to maintain, how to communicate the knowl-
knowledge leads to increased software develop- edge, and how much detail should be described.
ment effectiveness and efficiency.7 The cartographic school focuses on knowledge
Here, we examine strategies for knowledge maps and creating knowledge directories. A study
management and, through a focus group study of a skills management system found that this
of three global collaborations, we describe cur- tool was in use for a variety of purposes, from al-
rent practices to address the question of how locating resources, to searching for competence
knowledge should be managed in global software and identifying project opportunities, to upgrad-
development projects. ing skills.14 The tool enabled learning both at the
individual and company level. Knowledge maps
Knowledge Management Approaches and directories on company intranets could be
Researchers have been paying closer attention to beneficial when the company is distributed geo-
knowledge management in global software de- graphically. However, this is most effective when
velopment projects. For example, Kevin Desouza the temporal distance is small and knowledge
and his colleagues have argued for new methods can be transferred orally. This school might
and models as companies increase global de- also be vulnerable to sociocultural distance—
velopment,8 and Ilan Oshri and his colleagues for example, there might be variations in terms
have described practical methods for manag- of what kind of knowledge is mapped in a skills
ing knowledge in global projects.9 Although the management system and how the skill levels are
number of documented empirical studies devot- evaluated.
ed to knowledge management in global software The engineering school focuses on processes and
engineering is small,10 a review of knowledge knowledge flows in organizations. A number of
management in software engineering in general studies in software engineering describe this
revealed 29 empirical studies,11 so we wondered if approach, focusing primarily on processes for
we could apply some of the lessons learned from mapping knowledge, conducting project retro-
general knowledge management to the particular spectives, mentoring programs, and describing
setting of global software development. work processes, such as in the Capability Ma-
As Ågerfalk and Fitzgerald point out, there are turity Model.15 This approach relies on explicit
three particular challenges in global software knowledge and thus isn’t affected by geographic
development: temporal, geographic, and socio- or temporal distance. However, knowledge about
cultural distances.4 In the following, we briefly processes might be interpreted differently in di-
present findings from the general studies of verse sociocultural settings.
knowledge management in software engineering The organizational school focuses on networks
and discuss how they might apply to global soft- for sharing or pooling knowledge. Many com-
ware development. We use Michael Earl’s frame- panies have applied this approach by establish-
work of knowledge management schools.12 This ing internal communities of practice—that is,
widely used framework, which has been applied groups who interact regularly to share knowledge
in software engineering,11 divides knowledge about a common topic of interest. The system-
management into five approaches. atic review11 refers to one study, which claims
The systems school focuses on applying tech- that communities built on existing networks
nology for knowledge management by storing are more likely to succeed. In a community, both

computer.org/ITPro 23

itpro-16-01-din.indd 23 08/01/14 6:38 PM

 IT RISKS

Table 1. Knowledge management approaches and their application in global projects.

Potential challenges in
Approach Focus Aim global software development
Systems Technology Knowledge bases Sociocultural differences
Cartographic Maps Knowledge directories Sociocultural differences
Engineering Processes Knowledge flows Sociocultural differences
Organizational Networks Knowledge pooling Geographic and temporal distance
Sociocultural differences
Spatial Space Knowledge exchange Geographic and temporal distance

tacit and explicit knowledge can be exchanged, international companies developing complex em-
but typically, the explicit knowledge exchange is bedded software solutions using product-oriented
less formal than in a knowledge repository. Les- processes.
sons learned reports and templates are typical “Alpha” is headquartered in Sweden and is rap-
examples. Knowledge is usually communicated idly extending its operations into Asia. We held
orally in physical or virtual meetings. Thus, this two workshops focusing on collaborations in-
school can suffer from challenges related both to volving sites in Sweden, China, and India. “Beta”
geographic, temporal, and sociocultural distance. is headquartered in the US. Our study focused
The spatial school focuses on how the design of an on collaborations involving sites in Sweden and
office space can facilitate knowledge management. Russia. Organizations were selected on the basis
This can range from setting up whiteboards close of accessibility and their interest in taking part
to water coolers or coffee machines to making use in this research. Both companies represent typi-
of open-plan offices. A popular approach in agile cal global companies in terms of their knowledge
development is to establish taskboards, which pro- management—neither had an explicit initiative
vide visible information regarding the project status related to knowledge management.
to team members and other stakeholders during Alpha had a mature agile development environ-
formal and informal meetings. The systematic re- ment, while Beta had recently started using agile
view11 didn’t identify any studies of this knowledge development. The time difference between the
management approach in software engineering. sites was seven hours in workshop 1 and 3.5 hours
Notably, this approach depends on physical colo- in workshop 2. Participants from workshop 3 had
cation, and from studies of agile software develop- fully overlapping work hours, after an adjustment
ment, it seems to work well for small teams. on the Russian site. Representatives from both
Thus, when applying such knowledge manage- companies nominated participants and proj-
ment approaches in global settings, temporal and ects for the workshop based on their interest in
geographic distances affect the ability to access improving particular collaborations. Participants
and share knowledge, while sociocultural differ- with different roles (developers, designers, tes-
ences introduce challenges in terms of aligning ters, and team leads) were selected to cover differ-
how knowledge is shared and maintained (see ent experiences. Table 2 provides more detailed
Table 1). We would expect traditional global proj- participant information.
ects to rely on systems and engineering schools, We used the focus group research method16 to
because codified information sharing is less vul- capture employee perceptions, opinions, beliefs,
nerable given the distances. Agile development, on and attitudes regarding knowledge management.
the contrary, implies the dominance of spatial and This method helped us quickly obtain informa-
organizational schools, with its focus on sharing tion on emerging phenomena through struc-
tacit knowledge. The cartographic school can pro- tured, moderated discussions with groups of
vide a cost-effective means for managing knowl- practitioners. In a workshop lasting four hours,
edge globally for both traditional and agile projects. we explored knowledge management strategies,
challenges, and potential improvements, asking
Knowledge Sharing: Focus Groups the following key questions:
To explore how knowledge is shared in global proj-
ects, we organized three focus group workshops t
What knowledge is important for efficient
in two organizations. Both organizations are large completion of daily work?

24 IT Pro January/February 2014

itpro-16-01-din.indd 24 08/01/14 6:38 PM

 Table 2. An overview of the three focus group workshops.

Workshop Participants Collaboration Format Focus

1 Six participants Sweden - China Held in Sweden, A large-scale software development
from Sweden moderated by two project. Each site is involved in
researchers developing a component for a
compound system and contributes
to the shared parts of the platform.
The project follows the Scrum agile
software development framework.
2 Four participants Sweden - India Held through a Two related software development
from Sweden video-conference, projects. Each site is involved in
Three participants moderated by developing a product that has
from India two researchers at interfaces to a common platform.
Swedish site Both projects follow Scrum.
3 Seven participants Sweden - Russia Held in Russia, Three small-scale software
from Russia moderated by one development projects. In all projects,
researcher development is primarily done in
Russia, while project and product
management is in Sweden. Two out of
three projects recently implemented
some elements of Scrum, and will
continue to expand the use of agile
methods in the future.

t
Which knowledge resides locally, and which is One possible explanation for this difference is
shared globally? related to the nature of work conducted in each
t
How is knowledge shared and maintained? case. In Alpha, we explored two collaborations in
t
What knowledge is easy to share, and what in- which the product components shared a platform.
troduces challenges? The majority of the work was conducted solely in
one location, and only the shared platform part
The moderator instructed the participants, who required joint coordination. In Beta, we explored
engaged in the workshop activities for individual an offshore site, which was represented by par-
brainstorms and group discussions. In the colocat- ticipants from different projects. Most of these
ed workshops, we used whiteboards and flip charts projects involved maintaining systems previously
to structure results. Participants used post-it notes developed in Sweden. This could affect the com-
and markers to document answers to questions plexity of the necessary knowledge management.
posed by the moderator. Here, we present findings from each workshop
In the video-conference workshop involving two in relation to each school (see Figure 1).
sites, one of the moderators documented the re-
sults using a mind-map software tool. The results Systems School
were shown on a shared screen to all participants. In all three workshops, participants described ex-
Meeting minutes were sent to all participants for tensive use of knowledge repositories available in
validation, and then the description of knowledge corporate databases, intranets, and local project
management practices from the minutes was cod- file servers. Figure 1 shows that this approach was
ed into knowledge management schools—for ex- mainly used to manage knowledge globally, and the
ample, “use of knowledge repositories” was coded two most mature agile projects viewed this knowl-
as the systems school. The results were presented edge as easy to manage, while the project in Beta
to the companies for verification and feedback. found much of this knowledge difficult to manage.
A common challenge with this school is that re-
Global Knowledge Management positories easily become information graveyards,
Many knowledge management schools were in where knowledge is stored but not retrieved.
use locally and globally, as shown in Figure 1. Also, codifying knowledge is usually more expen-
Beta seemed to struggle with managing important sive than transferring it orally. Participants from
knowledge both globally and locally, while Alpha all three projects complained about the search
was able to easily manage most knowledge. functions in the repositories. During Alpha’s first

computer.org/ITPro 25

itpro-16-01-din.indd 25 08/01/14 6:38 PM

 IT RISKS

Global versus Local Hard versus Easy Hard versus Easy

Workshop 1 I Alpha Systems Global
Cartographic Not identified Not identified Local
Engineering
Organizational
Spatial

Global versus Local Hard versus Easy Hard versus Easy

Workshop 2 I Alpha

Systems Global
Cartographic Not identified Not identified Local
Engineering
Organizational
Spatial Not identified Not identified

Global versus Local Hard versus Easy Hard versus Easy

Workshop 3 I Beta

Systems Global
Cartographic Local
Engineering
Organizational
Spatial

Figure 1. Focus group results coded into knowledge management schools. Participants also stated
whether the knowledge was managed locally or globally and whether it was hard or easy to manage.

workshop, we identified a lack of awareness of wiki page containing indexed links to project in-
how to search effectively. During Beta’s work- formation sources in one of the projects in Beta.
shop, we learned that some knowledge reposito- An overview of “what is where” in global projects
ries contained limited knowledge but were easy is important, because each site might use local
to search, while others contained much more knowledge repositories or many repositories for
information but were difficult to search. different types of knowledge.
The challenge in this approach is thus primar- Gaps in understanding “who knows what” were
ily related to how the knowledge repository is de- stressed in all three workshops. Although colo-
veloped, which supports the theoretical argument cated team members knew each other well, famil-
that this school is robust to temporal and geo- iarity with colleagues from other teams (in large
graphic distance. Sociocultural differences didn’t projects) and from remote sites was challenging.
seem to influence use of the systems school. This Formal meetings usually provided individuals
might be because the sites had a long history of with knowledge about where they could obtain
collaboration—the systems school might be more further knowledge.17 However, if such meetings
problematic for new projects. were held only locally, the cross-site links weren’t
We also observed that progress and future plans created. The knowledge of who has decision
weren’t reported across the sites. Participants of power was missing in both projects in Alpha.
the first Alpha workshop explained that each site Although cartographic knowledge manage-
managed the knowledge locally in its own re- ment solutions seem easy in theory, they require
pository, making the knowledge inaccessible for commitment and joint effort from all collaborat-
remote colleagues. ing parties and thus are difficult to put into prac-
tice. There’s a great need to introduce easy-to-use
Cartographic School cartographic knowledge management strategies
Interestingly, we found only one example of the in global projects, which could help increase
cartographic school. It was a globally maintained awareness and improve coordination.

26 IT Pro January/February 2014

itpro-16-01-din.indd 26 08/01/14 6:38 PM

 Engineering School product architecture, implementation, and de-
Distance introduces coordination challenges, but pendencies—wasn’t shared globally. This could
defining and standardizing work processes across explain why the knowledge managed with organi-
sites can help, as outlined in the engineering zational school approaches wasn’t seen as hard in
school. This school was implemented as a global this project. Live meetings necessary for sharing
effort in Alpha, while Beta had a mixture of locally such information were challenged by time-zone
and globally supported processes. Such knowledge differences. In Beta, developing a cross-site com-
was mainly viewed as easy to manage, but from the munity required “bridgeheads,” a person staying
Alpha projects, we learned that the ways of work- at the other site to get acquainted with the remote
ing differ across sites, and even within a site, when organization and learn from experts or a person
a large project is divided into teams. This corre- from the other site who can facilitate this. Par-
sponds with previous findings regarding the chal- ticipants from Beta admitted that it was difficult
lenges of standardizing work practices through to create a community with remote colleagues.
role and process descriptions on intranets.18 Building personal relationships without face-to-
Some processes were missing, thus prohibiting face interaction takes a long time.
knowledge sharing across project teams. In Alpha,
feedback from team retrospectives was stored in a Spatial School
corporate repository but not shared across teams. The Alpha projects and one of the projects in
Only a few participants in Sweden were aware of Beta used taskboards to visually communicate
a process improvement initiative, which targeted the team’s work status. The knowledge managed
cross-team learning, presenting their findings through this approach was seen as easy to share,
once a year. Learning from each other was even especially because it was maintained locally. We
more challenging across remote sites. haven’t found sufficient evidence that this school
Furthermore, some processes were hard to de- could work effectively over long distances.
scribe. In Alpha, we learned that sharing knowledge In Alpha, the teams that use agile methods local-
about the notion of good versus bad code quality ly share knowledge on taskboards and innovation
and test quality was challenging due to sociocul- boards to capture ideas that are unavailable across
tural differences. sites. One project in Beta recently started using a
video camera to show a taskboard to the other site;
Organizational School however, it’s unlikely that a temporary video-feed
This approach to knowledge management devel- of the board will create the same form of aware-
ops communities, where members keep in touch ness of tasks. In fact, the local team in Beta was also
through video conferences, physical meetings, forced to maintain the board in a separate meeting
and telephone and email conversations. These room instead of having it close to the team’s work-
communities can be within and across sites. Most ing location. Although advanced tools for video-
of the knowledge managed through these means walls ensuring real-time projections from remote
was local in Alpha, and evenly local and global in offices are available, none were applied in the com-
Beta. The Alpha participants of the second work- panies studied.
shop found this knowledge to be the most hard
to manage, while it was moderately hard in Beta.

T
With this school, much of the product and proj- his study shows that knowledge manage-
ect knowledge remains tacit and is accumulated ment is challenging both at local and glob-
in the heads of experts. Distance introduces new al levels, and companies need to focus on
challenges for sharing this knowledge. While both. Rather than selecting one knowledge man-
knowledge locally is shared through personal agement school, companies should carefully con-
contact networks and during formal and informal sider several. Approaches can be perceived as easy
meetings, reliance on an organizational knowledge or hard to implement, depending on the context.
management school in global projects becomes Developers working on global projects need suf-
more challenging. ficient information to create a shared knowledge
Participants from the Alpha project explained of the task and team and to increase task aware-
that certain knowledge—such as code anatomy, ness, thereby improving project coordination.19

computer.org/ITPro 27

itpro-16-01-din.indd 27 08/01/14 6:38 PM

 IT RISKS

In particular, companies looking to manage global References

software projects should consider the following. 1. D. Smite, N.B. Moe, and P. Ågerfalk, Agility Across
First, identify the main global challenges in the Time and Space: Implementing Agile Methods in Global
project. Are there barriers for knowledge manage- SINTEF Information and Communication Technology Soft-
ment due to geographic, temporal, or sociocul- ware Projects, Springer-Verlag, 2010.
tural distance? 2. E. Carmel and P. Tjia, Offshoring Information Technol-
Second, define what should be shared locally ogy: Sourcing and Outsourcing to a Global Workforce, Cam-
and globally. Discuss different strategies for man- bridge Univ. Press, 2006.
aging knowledge in the project as early as pos- 3. N.B. Moe, D. Smite, and G.K. Hanssen, “From Offshore
sible. Knowledge sharing needs can vary between Outsourcing to Offshore Insourcing: Three Stories,” Proc.
different sites, so focus group workshops (such as IEEE Int’l Conf. Global Software Eng., IEEE, 2012, pp. 1–10.
the ones used for this study) are useful in facilitat- 4. P. Ågerfalk and B. Fitzgerald, “Flexible and Distribut-
ing an awareness of the challenges. ed Software Processes: Old Petunias in New Bowls?”
Third, for local knowledge management, use ap- Comm. ACM, vol. 49, no. 10, 2006, pp. 27–34.
proaches that require fewer resources first, such 5. I. Rus and M. Lindvall, “Knowledge Management in
as the spatial, organizational, and cartographic Software Engineering,” IEEE Software, vol. 19, no. 3,
schools. Use visual boards, build on existing net- 2002, pp. 26–38.
works, and establish easy-to-use overviews of em- 6. T.H. Davenport and L. Prusak, Working Knowledge:
ployee knowledge. Finding the right balance of local How Organizations Manage What They Know, Harvard
and global knowledge management can be difficult, Business School Press, 1998.
as our focus groups showed. For global knowledge 7. A. Tiwana, “An Empirical Study of the Effect of
management, select an approach after evaluating Knowledge Integration on Software Development
the challenges inherent in your global software de- Projects,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 46,
velopment project. Remember that cross-site col- no 13, 2004, pp. 899–906.
laboration must be fostered over time. This can be 8. K.C. Desouza, Y. Awazu, and P. Baloh, “Managing
done through collaborative workshops on team Knowledge in Global Software Development Efforts:
tasks but also supported through indexes and pro- Issues and Practices,” IEEE Software, vol. 23, no. 5,
file pages that help remote teams learn who knows 2006, pp. 30–37.
what and where to find information. This offers an 9. I. Oshri, J. Kotlarsky, and L.P. Willcocks, “Leverag-
inexpensive way of sharing knowledge globally. ing Knowledge and Expertise,” The Handbook of Global
Fourth, avoid known knowledge management Outsourcing and Offshoring, Palgrave Macmillan, 2009,
pitfalls. Companies often rely on codified knowl- pp. 61–74.
edge and process standardization efforts in glob- 10. C. Wohlin, R. Feldt, and T. Gorschek, “Empirical Evi-
al projects. We recommend that companies learn dence in Global Software Engineering: A Systematic Re-
from successful cases in the systems school when view,” Empirical Software Engineering, Feb. 2010, pp. 91–118.
using knowledge repositories. Avoid repositories 11. F.O. Bjørnson and T. Dingsøyr, “Knowledge Manage-
that create impediments to knowledge sharing ment in Software Engineering: A Systematic Review
or that are only used in certain sites or not used of Studied Concepts and Research Methods Used,”
at all. We also stress exploiting approaches that Information and Software Technology, vol. 50, no. 11,
promote sharing tacit knowledge, unless there’s 2008, pp. 1055–1168.
a large potential for reusing explicit knowledge. 12. M. Earl, “Knowledge Management Strategies: Towards
Finally, apply strategies to improve work practice a Taxonomy,” J. Management Information Systems, vol. 18,
as identified in studies in the engineering school. no. 1, 2001, pp. 215–233.
General findings and our focus group study indi- 13. T. Dingsøyr and E. Røyrvik, “An Empirical Study of an
cate that describing work methods on an intranet Informal Knowledge Repository in a Medium-Sized
won’t lead to changes in work processes. Software Consulting Company,” Proc. Int’l Conf. Soft-
ware Engineering (ICSE 03), IEEE, 2003, pp. 84–92.
Acknowledgments 14. T. Dingsøyr, E. Røyrvik, and H.K. Djarraya, “Practical
We are grateful to Claes Wohlin at the Blekinge Institute of Tech- Knowledge Management Tool Use in a Software Con-
nology and Tore Dybå and Tor Erlend Fægri at SINTEF for com- sulting Company,” Comm. ACM, vol. 48, no. 12, 2005,
ments on an earlier version of this article. pp. 96–100.

28 IT Pro January/February 2014

itpro-16-01-din.indd 28 08/01/14 6:38 PM

 15. W. Humphrey, Managing the Software Process, Addison- management, software process improvement and agile de-
Wesley, 1989. velopment methods. Dingsøyr received his doctoral degree
16. D.W. Stewart, P.N. Shamdasani, and D. Rook, Focus in software engineering from the Norwegian University of
Groups: Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, 2007. Science and Technology. Contact him at torgeir.dingsoyr@
17. P.A. Nielsen and K. Kautz, Software Processes and Knowl- sintef.no.
edge: Beyond Conventional Software Process Improvement,
Software Innovation Publisher, 2008. Darja Šmite is an associate professor in Blekinge Insti-
18. T. Dingsøyr and N.B. Moe, “The Impact of Employ- tute of Technology in Sweden and a professor at University
ee Participation on the Use of an Electronic Process of Latvia. Her research interests include various aspects of
Guide: A Longitudinal Case Study,” IEEE Trans on Soft- global software engineering, as well as agile software de-
ware Eng., vol. 34, no. 2, 2008, pp. 212–225. velopment. Šmite received her doctoral degree in computer
19. J.A. Espinosa et al., “Team Knowledge and Coordina- science from University of Latvia and her habilitation in
tion in Geographically Distributed Software Devel- software engineering from Blekinge Institute of Technology.
opment,” J. Management Information Systems, Summer Contact her at [email protected].
2007, pp. 135–169.

Torgeir Dingsøyr is a senior scientist at SINTEF In-

formation and Communication Technology and an ad-
junct associate professor in the Department of Computer
and Information Science, Norwegian University of Science Selected CS articles and columns are available
and Technology. His research interests include knowledge for free at http://ComputingNow.computer.org.

  
 
,
    


Advertising Personnel Southwest, California:

Mike Hughes
Marian Anderson: Sr. Advertising Coordinator Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected] Phone: +1 805 529 6790
Phone: +1 714 816 2139 | Fax: +1 714 821 4010
Southeast:
Sandy Brown: Sr. Business Development Mgr. Heather Buonadies
Email [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Phone: +1 714 816 2144 | Fax: +1 714 821 4010 Phone: +1 973 304 4123
Fax: +1 973 585 7071
Advertising Sales Representatives (display)
Advertising Sales Representatives (Classified Line)
Central, Northwest, Far East:
Eric Kincaid Heather Buonadies
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Phone: +1 214 673 3742 Phone: +1 973 304 4123
Fax: +1 888 886 8599 Fax: +1 973 585 7071

Northeast, Midwest, Europe, Middle East: Advertising Sales Representatives (Jobs Board)
Ann & David Schissler
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
Heather Buonadies
Phone: +1 508 394 4026
Email: [email protected]
Fax: +1 508 394 1707
Phone: +1 973 304 4123
Fax: +1 973 585 7071

computer.org/ITPro 29

itpro-16-01-din.indd 29 08/01/14 6:38 PM