49 views

Uploaded by mcbayon

Calculating cultural distance

- 1 - Introduction
- lecture29.pdf
- Attitude of Employees towards organizational changes
- Kerb 050414.xlsx
- E2655.16911
- Some Approximate Statistical Data Obtained From a Random Sample of Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation
- Eva Septiana Dewi (Bil)
- s 0218488511007489
- Lecture9 SHmaxFromDrillingInduced X
- Data Analysis
- Tut Value Improving Practices v2
- vibrationpart2presentation-131203204559-phpapp02
- lsuf_20100519_forbes
- Marketing Strategies
- Uncertainty Aspects in Process Safety Analysis
- How Do I Build My Business
- Caliper Exploratory Lumen-uncertainty
- PHR1203_P500203
- IHRM
- Rational Decision Making

You are on page 1of 8

and Finance

j o ur na l h om ep ag e: w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / r i b a f

Short communication

distance considering the relationship among different

dimensions of culture

Yener Kandogan

School of Management, University of Michigan-Flint, 303 E. Kearsley, Flint, MI 48503, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:

Received 8 July 2011

Received in revised form 24 October 2011

Accepted 4 November 2011

Available online 17 November 2011

Keywords:

Cross-cultural research/measurement

issues

Internationalization theories and foreign

market entry

Cultural distance

a b s t r a c t

National cultural distance construct has wide-spread use in the

international business literature, with many applications. Despite

its limitations as summarized by Shenkar (2001), the method

in Kogut and Singh (1988) is commonly adopted by researchers

to measure cultural distance. This article demonstrates that this

method is a special case of the distance measure in Mahalanobis

(1936) under the assumption of zero covariances between different dimensions of culture. Further, it demonstrates that this

assumption is not valid for several cultural dimensions of countries

measured by Hofstede (1980), and suggests a simple modication

to the method that corrects for this invalid assumption, and hence

produces more accurate measures of cultural distance. The article

concludes with a comparison of cultural distances as measured by

the original and the modied version of the method.

2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Various international business activities and cross-border managerial decisions are affected by

differences in national cultures. These have been rst demonstrated by Hofstede (1980) and the subsequent work of others. Despite its limitations later demonstrated by several researchers, most of the

relevant work in the literature used a measure of cultural distance developed by Kogut and Singh

(1988).

E-mail address: yener@umich.edu

0275-5319/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ribaf.2011.11.001

197

Management scholars used this cultural distance measure to assess team performance (Gibson,

1999), effectiveness of training (Tung, 1982), and conict management in teams (Von Glinow et al.,

2004). The same construct was also used by researchers in the strategy eld to measure the efciency of

the global value chain (Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001), that of knowledge transfer and diffusion (Ghoshal

& Nohria, 1989), institutional strength (La Porta et al., 1998), corporate governance (Bushman et al.,

2004), as well as the impact of cultural differences on market entry (Brannen, 2004) and on subsidiary

relations (Gupta, 1987). In nance, it was used to determine the capital structure (Chui et al., 2002),

nancial systems (Kwok & Tadesse, 2006), as well as foreign portfolio investment (Aggarwal et al.,

2012). Last but not least, in accounting, national cultural differences have been shown to impinge on

accounting practices (Salter & Niswander, 1995).

In several occasions, the results have been inconsistent. For example, in determining the foreign

market investment location, while Davidson (1980) suggests that cultural similarity encourages more

investment, Dunning (1988) argues that larger cultural distance helps overcoming transaction and

market failures and thus promotes foreign direct investment. In another application of this construct

to predict the choice of entry mode into a foreign market, Kim & Hwang (1992) argue that multinational enterprises want less control over their operations in culturally distant foreign countries. In

contrast, some empirical evidence suggests a positive correlation between control and cultural distance (Boyacigiller, 1990). In one last example of its application, Gomez-Mejia and Palich (1997) and

others use this construct to assess the performance of multinational rms with inconsistent results.

The measurement and application of cultural distance to these variables in management and other

elds is clearly an important part of the process in understanding their effects. Given its widespread

use as illustrated above, it is no doubt very important to measure cultural distances between nations

correctly. Also to discover meaningful relationships that are useful for practitioners, accurate measurement of cultural difference is critical. However, partly driven by the above-mentioned inconsistency

in the results, Shenkar (2001) challenged the methodology used in measuring the cultural distance

construct, as well as its conceptual properties, pointing out to its hidden assumptions. He suggested

that these methodological properties, the assumptions of corporate homogeneity within a nation, lack

of intra-cultural variation, and reliance on single company data, result in measurement biases. This

article points out to another source of measurement bias and suggests a simple correction. Such corrections are especially important, especially after the seminal work of Tung & Verbeke (2010) on the

future of study of distance in international business. They studied various important issues that had

risen as a result of recent studies, and urged the international business scholars to develop an impeccable command of the full. . . arsenal of instruments for measuring distance dimensions and providing

distance scores. Several researchers are already working towards this goal (Brewer & Venaik, 2011).

The suggestions made in this article will hopefully contribute in this direction as well.

The rest of the article is organized as follows: after briey reviewing various measures of distance

from the mathematics realm, it is demonstrated that the Kogut and Singh (1988) method is a special

case of a more general method with the assumption of zero covariances between the different dimensions of culture. The validity of this assumption is questioned using the actual data on various cultural

dimensions of countries as measured by Hofstede (1980) and demonstrated not to be the case. In particular, statistically signicant positive covariance exists between individualism and power distance

dimensions, as well as between individualism and uncertainty avoidance dimensions. A signicant

negative correlation is also observed between power distance and uncertainty avoidance dimensions.

A simple modication to the method is suggested that corrects for this invalid assumption and takes

into account these signicant correlations. The paper concludes with comparison of cultural distances

as measured by the original and the modied version of the method. It is found that cultural distance

measured using the original Kogut and Singh method could under- or over-estimate the distance as

much as 60%.

2. Measures of distance

There are numerous methods of measuring distance, which is basically a numerical description

of the space between objects. Mathematics generalizes the concept of distance and the metrics of

describing the elements of some space to be close to or far from each other. The space can have

198

distance. The most ordinary measure of distance is the Euclidean distance. This is what one would

measure with a ruler and can be proved by the Pythagorean Theorem between two elements with n

dimensions:

Eij =

n

d=1

(Iid Ijd )

(1)

The Euclidean distance is a special case of a much more general method of measuring distances,

introduced by Mahalanobis (1936). It is a useful method of determining the similarity between two

elements:

Mij =

(Ii Ij )T S 1 (Ii Ij )

(2)

Ix1

Ix2

Ix =

..

.

(3)

Ixn

S is the covariance matrix for n dimensions of the space:

V1

CV 21

S=

..

.

CV n1

CV 12

...

CV 1n

..

..

.

V2

CV n2

...

CV 2n

(4)

Vn

where V are CV the variance and the covariance of the dimension(s) in the superscript, respectively.

Note that if the covariance matrix is an identity, the Mahalanobis distance is reduced to the

Euclidean distance. In other words, this special case would require that there is no covariance among

the dimensions of the space, and the unity variance for each dimension.

Kogut and Singh (1988) offer a simple standardized quantitative measure of cultural distance to be

used alongside other data from the cultural dimensions of Hofstede (1980):

n

d

d

1 (Ii Ij )

KSij =

n

Vd

(5)

d=1

where KSij is the cultural distance between countries i and j, ixd is the index of a country x in the

dimension d, Vd is the variance of the index for the dimension d, and n is the number of cultural

dimensions. Note that the above distance measure is a special case of the Mahalanobis distance. As

199

Table 1

Covariances across Hofstedes cultural dimensions.

Dimensions

Mean

Variance

2. Individualism (IDV)

61.2

41.1

422.0

505.6

3. Masculinity (MAS)

49.4

260.4

65.9

490.2

44.3

754.8

0.636**

(0.00)

0.039

(36.9)

0.210**

(3.67)

0.347**

(4.21)

0.073

(26.4)

0.172*

(7.01)

0.395**

(2.58)

0.013

(45.5)

0.180

(17.9)

0.024

(45.1)

90% and 95% signicance are denoted by * and **, respectively. P-values are given within parentheses.

illustrated below in the Kogut and Singh measure, the covariances across all dimensions are assumed

to be zero:

Mij

1 1 2 2

n

n

=

[ Ii Ij Ii Ij . . . Ii Ij ]

V1

...

V2

0

0

..

.

..

...

..

.

1 I 1 I 1

j

i

2 2

..

Vn

n d d2

(Ii Ij )

=

=

d=1

Iin Ijn

(6)

Vd

n KSij

3. Suggested method

As Table 1 demonstrates, the assumption of zero covariances across dimensions does not hold.

The table shows the summary the mean, the variance for power distance, individualism masculinity, uncertainty avoidance and long term orientation cultural dimensions in Hofstede (1980) and the

covariances between these dimensions using all 77 countries or areas in his dataset. Accordingly,

power distance and individualism are negatively correlated with individualism and positively correlated with uncertainty avoidance and long term orientation, which are all statistically signicant at

95% level of condence. Furthermore, individualism is negatively corrected with uncertainty avoidance

and long term orientation.

Since the assumptions that reduce the Mahalanobis distance to the one used by Kogut and Singh

(1988) do not hold, this paper suggests using a modied version recognizing the non-zero covariances

among the dimensions. The modied version would basically square the original Mahalanobis distance

and divide it by the number of dimensions so that it is comparable to the Kogut and Singh measures

in magnitudes as follows:

T

I PDI I PDI

c11 c12 c13 c14

i

j

IiIDV IjIDV

1 IiIDV IjIDV

c21 c22 c23 c24

MMij = MAS

c

I MAS I MAS

4 I

IjMAS

31 c32 c33 c34

i

i

j

IiPDI IjPDI

IiUAI IjUAI

c41

c42

c43

c44

(7)

IiUAI IjUAI

The above distance measure has a similar functional form to the Kogut and Singh method, yet

recognizes the non-zero covariances among various dimensions. Only four primary dimensions are

taken into account and long term orientation dimension is omitted due to the lack of measurement

200

Fig. 1. Distances according to modied Mahalanobis and Kogut and Singh. Modied Mahalanobis, Kogut and Singh.

of this dimension for many countries. The covariance matrices are given in Table 2 for the Kogut and

Singh and the suggested modied method for comparison purposes.

4. Comparisons

The next set of gures and tables provides a comparison of the cultural distances using the original

Kogut and Singh and the suggested modied Mahalanobis methods. Fig. 1 gives the frequency distribution of distances between all possible 2896 pairs of countries in Hoftstedes analysis. Accordingly,

the Kogut and Singh method tends to overestimate the distance between countries that are culturally

very similar and very distant, and underestimate the distance between countries with some but not

very big differences in culture. This can be seen with fewer pairs of countries with distances smaller

than 1 and larger than 4, and larger number of country pairs with distances between 1 and 4 using

the modied method. Table 3 provides descriptive statistics of cultural distances using both methods. While the means under each are the same, the smallest and largest distances are both smaller

under the modied method with a smaller standard deviation, which implies that the Kogut and Singh

method tends to overestimate the cultural distance with greater variability. In fact, computation of

the percentage difference in measurements under these two methods show that the Kogut and Singh

measurements are an average of 1.42% higher than the modied method. The largest overestimation

by the Kogut and Singh method is as big as 63% and the lowest underestimation is as big as 73%.

Table 2

Covariance matrices.

Kogut and Singh (103 )

2.369

0

0

0

0

1.978

0

0

0

0

3.840

0

0

0

0

2.040

4.4049

2.287

0

0.388

2.287

3.330

0

0.137

0

0

3.840

0

0.388

0.137

0

2.139

Table 3

Descriptive statistics of distance measures.

Minimum

Maximum

Average

Standard deviation

Modied Mahalanobis

Deviation

0.0193

9.9087

2.0473

1.4148

0.0221

10.4233

2.0473

1.5621

73.02%

63.50%

1.42%

29.71%

201

Table 4

Over- and under-estimation by Kogut and Singh.

PDI

IND

MAS

UAI

estimate

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

41%

41%

0%

5%

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

64%

21%

19%

19%

30%

2%

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

55%

21%

37%

19%

23%

2%

48%

53%

11%

18%

23%

23%

48%

7%

64%

56%

24%

11%

24%

13%

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

18%

13%

41%

4%

32%

41%

45%

45%

4%

32%

Table 4 lists the deviations of Kogut and Singh method from the modied Mahalanobis method

when there are differences by 1 unit in only one, two, three and all four cultural dimensions between

two countries compared. The outcomes of only distinct situations are presented. In particular, per

the nature of the distance, the order of countries in nding distances does not matter. Hence, if all of

the differences in various dimensions between two countries are reversed, the amount of under- or

over-estimation remains the same. In the rst set of situations listed in the table, there are differences

in only one of the dimensions. Accordingly, when the difference is only in the masculinity dimension, the two measures of distance produce the same result. Similarly, when the difference is only in

uncertainty avoidance, the deviation in the measures is only 5%. However, when the difference is only

in power distance dimension or only in the individualism dimension, the Kogut and Singh method

understimates the distance by 41%.

The next set of situations illustrates the deviations between the two measures when there are

differences in two cultural dimensions. Differences in power distance and individualism cause the

largest deviation. When a country is higher (or lower) in both dimensions, the Kogut and Singh measure

202

Table 5

Measures of cultural distances among select countries.

Country i

Country j

PDI

IDV

MAS

UAI

MM

KS

estimate

France

East Africa

Arab countries

France

Arab countries

Germany

Spain

India

Thailand

Thailand

East Africa

United States

11

13

16

4

16

5

20

21

18

51

11

24

1

15

18

9

11

4

0

12

4

22

16

19

0.71

1.16

1.17

2.81

0.78

0.84

0.27

0.61

0.63

1.62

0.46

0.50

62%

47%

46%

42%

41%

40%

Brazil

India

Russia

Mexico

Germany

Arab countries

Germany

United States

United States

United States

Mexico

United States

34

37

53

41

46

40

29

43

52

61

37

53

17

6

26

7

3

10

11

6

49

36

17

22

0.99

1.22

3.20

2.24

1.30

1.64

1.44

1.78

4.87

3.54

2.09

2.68

45%

46%

52%

58%

60%

64%

In computing, the distances in each dimension, country js index is subtracted from country is index.

seriously underestimate the distance by as much as 64%. When one country is higher in one of these

dimensions and lower in the other, it overestimates the distance by 55%. When there is a difference

in power distance and a difference in masculinity or uncertainty avoidance, the underestimation is

reduced from 41% down to 21% or 19%, respectively. A similar situation exists when the difference

in individualism is accompanied by a difference in these two dimensions. Differences in masculinity

and uncertainty avoidance dimensions continue to result in small deviations between the distance

measures compared. Similar observations can be made when there are differences in three of the four,

or in all four cultural dimensions. Same direction differences in power distance and individualism cause

largest underestimation by Kogut and Singh, and opposite direction differences in these cause largest

overestimation. These deviations get smaller when there are additional differences in masculinity and

uncertainty dimensions. For example, the size of the underestimation when the differences in power

distance and individualism are in the same direction (64%) is reduced rst to 48% when additional

difference exists in masculinity or to 53% when the additional difference is in uncertainty. Further,

when one more additional difference exists in both masculinity and uncertainty avoidance, the size

of the underestimation is further reduced to 41%. The same is true when the differences in power

distance and individualism are in opposite directions. In this case, the overestimation is reduced from

55%, down to 23% or 7%, when masculinity or uncertainty differences also exist, respectively, and then

further down to 5%, when differences in both also exist.

Lastly, Table 5 gives the absolute value of differences in four Hosftedes cultural dimensions and

measurement of cultural distances using both methods for select countries representing various

regions of the world. The table contains instances of the largest percentage underestimations and

largest percentage overestimations by the Kogut and Singh method for these countries. Consistent

with previous discussions in Table 4, it appears that differences in masculinity do not cause any major

differences in the measurements of these methods. However, large differences between countries in

the other three dimensions that are correlated with each other seem to cause underestimation or

overestimation of the cultural distance. When there are large differences between the countries in

the power distance coupled with large differences in either or both individualism and uncertainty

avoidance dimensions, the Kogut and Singh method overestimates the cultural distance. However,

when differences between countries in individualism are small, the Kogut and Singh method tends to

underestimate the cultural distance. These are consistent with the frequency distribution of distances

discussed earlier.

References

Aggarwal, R., Kearney, C., & Lucey, B., 2012 Gravity and culture in foreign portfolio investment. J. Bank. Finan. 36(2), 525538.

Brannen, M.Y., 2004. When Mickey loses face: recontextualization, semantic t, and the semiotics of foreignness. Acad. Manage.

Rev. 29 (4), 593616.

Brewer, P., Venaik, S., 2011. Individualism-collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 42 (3), 436445.

203

Boyacigiller, N., 1990. The role of expatriates in the management of interdependence. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 21 (3), 357381.

Bushman, R.M., Piotroski, J.D., Smith, A.J., 2004. What determines corporate transparency? J. Accounting Res. 42 (2), 207252.

Chui, A.C.W., Lloyd, A.E., Kwok, C.C.Y., 2002. The determination of capital structure: is national culture a missing piece of the

puzzle? J. Int. Bus. Stud. 33 (1), 99127.

Davidson, W.H., 1980. The location of foreign direct investment activity: country characteristics and experience effects. J. Int.

Bus. Stud. 11 (2), 922.

Dunning, J.H., 1988. The eclectic paradigm of international production: a restatement and some possible extensions. J. Int. Bus.

Stud. 19 (1), 131.

Gibson, C., 1999. Do they do what they believe they can? Group efcacy beliefs and group performance across tasks and cultures?

Acad. Manage. J. 42 (2), 138152.

Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Palich, L., 1997. Cultural diversity and the performance of multinational rms. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 28 (2), 309335.

Ghoshal, S., Nohria, N., 1989. Internal differentiation within multinational corporations. Strategic Manage. J. 10 (4), 323337.

Govindarajan, V., Gupta, A., 2001. The Quest for Global Dominance: Transforming Global Presence into Global Competitive

Advantage. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Gupta, A., 1987. SBU strategies, corporate-SBU relations, and SBU effectiveness in strategy implementation. Acad. Manage. J. 30

(3), 477500.

Hofstede, G., 1980. Cultures Consequences. Sage, New York.

Kim, W.C., Hwang, P., 1992. Global strategy and multinational entry mode choice. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 23 (1), 2953.

Kogut, B., Singh, H., 1988. The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 19 (3), 411432.

Kwok, C.C.Y., Tadesse, S., 2006. National culture and nancial systems. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 37, 227247.

La Porta, R., Lopez de Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., Vishny, R., 1998. Law and nance. J. Polit. Econ. 106 (6), 11131155.

Mahalanobis, P.C., 1936. On the generalised distance in statistics. Proc. Natl. Inst. Sci. India 2 (1), 4955.

Salter, S.B., Niswander, F., 1995. Cultural inuence on the development of accounting systems internationally: a test of Grays

(1988) theory. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 26 (2), 379397.

Shenkar, O., 2001. Cultural distance revisited: towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 32 (3), 519535.

Tung, R., 1982. Selecting and training procedures of US, European, and Japanese multinational. Calif. Manage. Rev. 25 (1), 5771.

Tung, R.L., Verbeke, A., 2010. Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE: improving the quality of cross-cultural research. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 41

(8), 12591274.

Von Glinow, M., Shapiro, D., Brett, J., 2004. Can we talk, and should we? Managing emotional conict in multicultural teams.

Acad. Manage. Rev. 29 (4), 578592.

- 1 - IntroductionUploaded byAlen Salvo Pratomo
- lecture29.pdfUploaded byupendras
- Attitude of Employees towards organizational changesUploaded byraj_moon
- Kerb 050414.xlsxUploaded byMohit Verma
- E2655.16911Uploaded byCJPATAGAN
- Some Approximate Statistical Data Obtained From a Random Sample of Cases Suggestive of ReincarnationUploaded bypgmetgud
- Eva Septiana Dewi (Bil)Uploaded byaekim
- s 0218488511007489Uploaded byjimakosjp
- Lecture9 SHmaxFromDrillingInduced XUploaded byLuizk ← → Ruiz
- Data AnalysisUploaded byPerwyl Liu
- Tut Value Improving Practices v2Uploaded byDzuhri Elrich Asakura
- vibrationpart2presentation-131203204559-phpapp02Uploaded byMustafa
- lsuf_20100519_forbesUploaded byGrant Atoyan
- Marketing StrategiesUploaded byjelena79
- Uncertainty Aspects in Process Safety AnalysisUploaded by安妮
- How Do I Build My BusinessUploaded byAnonymous vCCKUda
- Caliper Exploratory Lumen-uncertaintyUploaded byrodikamatei
- PHR1203_P500203Uploaded byChetan Joshi
- IHRMUploaded byMuneeza Hashmi
- Rational Decision MakingUploaded bySenthil Kumar
- Topic 1: Uncertainties and propagation of errorUploaded byKari Eloranta
- Experiment 1 (Propagation of Errors)Uploaded byNoele Lopez
- Hydrological Model Sensitivity to Parameter and Radar Rainfall Estimation UncertaintyUploaded bySudharsananPRS
- Third Virial Coefficients, Helium.pdfUploaded byDavid Escobar
- autonomous_robots02Uploaded bysrikumarau
- Ecim Assignment 1Uploaded byaskdgas
- Uncertainty ManagamentUploaded byOskar Mauriiciio II
- 2013PalisadeRiskConfVegas HuybertGroenendaal Uncertainty and VariabilityUploaded bymariosal
- 62005_prefUploaded byemadsafy
- Case AnalysisUploaded bySandeep Kumar

- 2017 Gomez-aruajo, bayon, Moreno-Gomez IJER.pdfUploaded bymcbayon
- Age and Entre AspirationsUploaded bymcbayon
- EOQ and JITUploaded bymcbayon
- 2013 Cognition and CapabilitiesUploaded bymcbayon
- 2012 the Influnce of Socio Cultural EnvironmentUploaded bymcbayon
- 2016 Intrapreneurship in the Spanish Context a Regional AnalysisUploaded bymcbayon
- EntrepreneurshipUploaded byAshokkumar Joshi
- GEM ManualUploaded bymcbayon
- 2011 the Future of RBVUploaded bymcbayon
- 2017 bayon socio cultural.pdfUploaded bymcbayon
- 2017 bayon socio cultural.pdfUploaded bymcbayon
- GEM Colombia 2014 Versión DigitalUploaded byArthur Cárdenas
- exploring_firm_formation_1-13-10Uploaded bymcbayon
- Articles Using GEM Data Dec 2009Uploaded bymcbayon
- Introduction to SemUploaded byvishalkvyas1
- Economics of the Private Equity Market December 1995 - U.S. Federal ReserveUploaded byAsiaBuyouts
- Us as Be 2011 CallUploaded bymcbayon
- Us as Be 2011 CallUploaded bymcbayon
- 2010 Founding Conditions and Survival of New FirmsUploaded bymcbayon
- keynote_prof_suresh-basna_15th_decUploaded bymcbayon
- Private Equity PerformanceUploaded bymcbayon
- Changing From a Permit for StudiesUploaded bymcbayon
- Productivitry MgtUploaded bymcbayon

- A Remarkable InequalityUploaded bykousiksett
- le corbusierUploaded byRamu Velusamy
- chemical eng science2Uploaded byNanban Jin
- 3HAC18152-1_RevB_enUploaded bySusheel Shukla
- Description Logic - DolceUploaded byDanteoneiros
- Direct Shear TestUploaded byNishanth Nanthakumar
- Tutorial 3Uploaded byloveloveng
- Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 DM Multipath Es ESUploaded byJose L Sanchez
- Usa Varios Metodos EstocásticosUploaded byClaudir Oliveira
- Measures of Central Tendency[1]Uploaded bySheila Mae Guad
- ADD MATHSUploaded byLim Sing Nee
- Profile Calculation[1]Uploaded byAtsis Papadopoulos
- soil constitutive modelUploaded byMohamed Yousuf
- A Self-Assessment Test for CongruenceUploaded byChris Babatzimopoulos
- design of offshore structureUploaded byDINESH
- RRB Senior Section Engineer Exam Pattern Syllabus 2015.pdfUploaded byPrafull
- E-7000_RAS_05-2012Uploaded byPravesh Kumar Thakur
- An Improved Method for Sensor Node Failure Detection in Wireless Sensor NetworksUploaded byIOSRjournal
- Binge ManUploaded byPrima Adhiyasa
- Problemas Algebra de BooleUploaded byRene Nadir Hernandez Escobar
- Magma ViscosityUploaded bySambit Shuvankar Panda
- EM302%20%26%20EM317%20-%20Assignment%201%20-%20Jan%202019.docxUploaded by立敬
- probSet1.pdfUploaded byFirman Effendi
- Elastic-Plastic Triaxial TestsUploaded byDurval Párraga
- An Introduction to Orthogonal Frequency Division MultiplexingUploaded bySalafee Libee
- I K Rana: Technology and Math Education - What? Why? How?Uploaded byAmber Habib
- DecTree SupplementUploaded byss
- Text SummarizationUploaded byJournalNX - a Multidisciplinary Peer Reviewed Journal
- Amortizado-1Uploaded byPurcell Edx
- PowerpointProject_Minden_c.pdfUploaded byAdvait Chauhan