be flexible in changing its entry modes quickly and efficiently, and thus gaining better competitive edge in the market. Her statements was also supported by Porter (1976) on the concept of flexible exits barriers strategy, while Klein (1989) added that firms should have less formalized and centralized organization structures to adapt to its dynamic environment.The final entry mode is ownership where Driscoll argues that by having full equity ownership, a firm should have greater control as compare to sharing that causes risk dissemination. Gatignon and Anderson (1988) asserted that ownership should have a direct relation to the amount of control, however there are cases where control can be achieved despite the above argument. For example, McDonald’s standardized franchise business.In relation to the above entry modes, Driscoll summarized a comparison of the entry modes characteristics across the generic foreign entry modes (refer to Appendix B). Some of the significant analysis includes the ideal level of entry modes characteristics through investment modes but has low level of flexibility, then exporting method that gives higher degree of flexibility despite the drawbacks of other modes, and contractual modes that facilitates as intermediate level for all the modes of entry as compare to the former methods. Some of the evidences supported in the article are by Erramilli and Rao (1993) and Klein (1989) that emphasizes on the needs of firm to weigh the factors (actual environment) that could affect their desired level of characteristic when making entry mode choices. (Remember to attach the summarized table in appendix B …. ; )4.3 Factors moderating mode choiceAccording to Driscoll, there are several factors that affect the firms ability to achieve the desired level of different mode of characteristics. They are government policies and regulations, firm size and corporate policies. For government policies, Driscoll discu...
