Inventions and innovations: does stage of development matter in assessments of market attractiveness?
Jones, Stephen C. ; Knotts, Tami L. ; Udell, Gerald G. 等
INTRODUCTION
Both invention and innovation are vital to a country's
economic growth; however, their meaning and overall role in the
innovation process differ. Invention is generally defined as the
development of a new and useful product, while innovation refers to the
ability to commercialize the invention based on a successful business
model (Schoen, Mason, Kline, & Bunch, 2005; Attridge, 2007).
Invention and innovation are important steps in new product development,
but other steps exist in the innovation process which determine the type
of invention created and the success of the innovation. A linear
explanation suggests that basic research occurs first, leading to new
knowledge or a better understanding of how something works. This
knowledge is then applied to create an invention. Once the invention is
produced or marketed, it becomes an innovation. Finally, when customers
first use the product, this is known as acceptance or diffusion (Godin,
2005).
Conventional wisdom would suggest that as products progress through
the innovation process they become more functionally sound and
commercially viable. However, we are not aware of any research that test
this belief using large databases of retail products at different stages
of development--specifically, invention and innovation. Therefore, we
compare which factors make products more attractive to the marketplace
at these two stages. For this study, products in the invention stage
were submitted by independent inventors to an evaluation firm for
assessment regarding their feasibility. Products in the innovation stage
were submitted by small manufacturing firms to Wal-Mart as part of a
mass retailer screening program. Both groups of products were assessed
using the same evaluation instrument. The remainder of the paper
describes the concepts of invention, innovation, and market
attractiveness in more detail, followed by a discussion of our
methodology, results and conclusions.
LITERATURE REVIEW
INVENTION VS. INNOVATION
An early perspective on the relationship between invention and
innovation was based on the views of Joseph Schumpeter. Schumpeter
(1939) regarded inventions as simply "acts of intellectual
creativity with little importance for economic analysis".
Innovation, on the other hand, was seen as a key factor in the economy
and considered to be independent of invention. Innovation could occur
without invention (Godin, 2005).
Later views on invention and innovation presented the concepts as
more connected and linear in nature. For example, Maclaurin (1953)
identified a five step sequence focused on research, invention,
innovation, financing, and acceptance. Unlike Schumpeter, he noted that
when innovations occurred, they were the result of commercially
introduced inventions. Redwood's (1987)
"investment-innovation" cycle showed a similar sequential
process. His model suggested that inventions led to patents and then
product innovations, also known as saleable products. These innovations,
once trademarked and branded, became commercialized products that
eventually produced revenues for the firm.
A more recent explanation of the innovation process focuses on a
non-linear approach. Schoen et al. (2005) suggested that previous
sequential models were not realistic. While the authors recognized the
role of basic research, invention, and innovation in the development of
a commercialized product, they argued that the innovation process did
not occur in order. Instead, the innovation cycle model proposed that
the path from invention to innovation was more random in nature. An
invention could result from either basic research or from market needs,
and delays could occur at any stage--research, invention, or
innovation--making the time to market longer than anticipated. The
innovation cycle model also emphasized the importance of a business
model for product commercialization.
MARKET ATTRACTIVENESS
According to Schoen et al. (2005), the outcome of invention is a
useful product, while the goal of innovation is to bring a product to
market that has strong customer appeal. In the retail marketplace,
producing a saleable product is only half of the commercialization
equation. Products still have to be accepted by retailers in order for
consumers to purchase them, and retail product acceptance depends
greatly upon product attractiveness (Swift & Gruben, 2000). Kaufman,
Jayachandran, and Rose (2006) broadly define product attractiveness as
any differentiating characteristic, such as product features, market
demand, or promotional strategy that gives a new product a competitive
advantage over an existing product. In this paper, we use the term
"market attractiveness" as an indicator of product
attractiveness at the retail level.
Prior research has identified product acceptance criteria for firms
wanting to supply the retail market. For example, St. John and Heriot
(1993) reported price, quality, and uniqueness as attractive features.
Research by Pearson and Ellram (1995), Piercy and Cravens (1997), and
Verma and Pullman (1998) echoed these findings. Retail buyers expected
quality products and fair prices from those individuals or organizations
who wanted to do business with them. In the mass retail market, Kim,
Jones, and Knotts (2005) found that other factors including demand
stability, amount of product testing, and promotional requirements
increased the overall attractiveness of the product, which in turn,
influenced the product's mass merchandising potential or market
readiness.
For some buyers, firm characteristics were more important in their
product acceptance decisions. Piercy and Cravens (1997) and Verma and
Pullman (1998) identified trust, communication, delivery reliability,
and flexibility as essential criteria for product acceptance.
Trustworthiness and speed of development were factors that were also
used by small business executives in their decision making process (Park
and Krishnan, 2001). In the mass merchandising market, Kim et al. (2005)
found that management experience and support for R&D were necessary
to introduce new products that would satisfy consumers' diverse and
ever-changing tastes, thereby making them more attractive to consumers
and market ready.
The purpose of this study is to determine whether market
attractiveness is affected by the product's developmental stage. It
seems that products further along in the innovation process would be
more appealing to retailers looking for a commercial product. If this is
the case, which factors make a difference in market attractiveness for
products at the invention and innovation stages?
THE STUDY
The sample firms for this study were participants in one of two
separate projects undertaken by the Innovation Institute. The first
program evaluated small U. S. manufacturing firms in the 1990s that
participated in a mass merchandising screening program developed at a
regional Midwest university. The screening program consisted of two
assessments: an external review of the firm's submitted product and
a self-appraisal of the firm's management practices. For the
purpose of the paper, only the product evaluation measure will be
examined. Each product was either rejected from the program or sent on
to the mass merchandiser for buyer review based upon the results of
these evaluations. The final decision as to whether the forwarded
product was placed on-shelf was left entirely to the retailer.
All of the participating firms in this first program were
independently-owned manufacturers who wanted to be suppliers for
Wal-Mart. Out of 2113 potential suppliers, 1729 firms (81.8 percent)
completed the entire evaluation process. These participants were from
all states, and none were dominant in the industry. The products ranged
in suggested retail price from inexpensive and/or point-of-purchase to
major purchase levels. No racial, ethnic, or other minority data were
kept as part of the main database. Of these 1729 firms, 795 (46.0
percent) of the firms submitted products that were already on the market
at retail. These products are not part of this study. The 934 products
submitted that were at the prototype or market-ready level but not yet
on the market are part of this study. These prototype or market-ready
products were part of the innovation stage.
An argument could be made that the prototype and market-ready
levels are not the same, and, technically, this is true. However, both
of these levels require that a party have an actual, functioning
product, and this level of development is critical to an evaluator or
buyer assessing the actual viability of the product on the market. If a
functioning version of the idea is not yet developed, many hurdles still
face the inventor or innovator. Riquelme and Watson (2002) suggested
that venture capitalists are looking for a working product before making
a decision, and Richardson (1995) asserted that a facilitated innovative
community develops the prototype (and subsequently a market-ready
version) after several levels of idea evaluation have already been
passed. Auerswald and Branscomb (2003) placed the two levels together at
the fourth stage (of five) of their product development model. However,
one study (Clarysse, Wright, Lockett, Mustar & Knockaert, 2007)
tested the differences in venture capital interest at various stages of
the development process and found that market-ready versions did in fact
attract more funds than prototypes, however their analysis was done on
135 European academic spin-offs and not on retail-bound inventions and
innovations. It is probably true that the distinction between prototype
and market-ready products is potentially significant, but for the
purposes of this study we do not distinguish between these product
levels.
The second program evaluated product ideas from independent
inventors and manufacturers that wished for an external, third-party
review of the idea before attempting to take the product through further
development. These projects were not yet under manufacture and were at
the idea level only (invention stage). Some 2297 ideas were submitted
for review between 1997 and 2005. As with the first program, these
products were largely intended for consumer use.
METHODOLOGY
These two separate but related databases were combined for this
study: the earlier program evaluating existing firms with a prototype or
market-ready product (innovations) and the later program evaluating
product ideas submitted by inventors and manufacturers (inventions). The
first program required that firms have at least a functioning prototype
of the product because the aim of the program was to screen potential
suppliers to an existing retail base. The second program did not require
this level of development and was, instead, a screening process to
encourage market-worthy ideas for further development. Products and
ideas that were evaluated as having questionable future market interest
were given feedback that encouraged further development only with
extreme caution or were generally discouraged from further development.
Those receiving more positive feedback were educated in how to best
proceed with future development for the market.
This study examines the evaluation results for products in both
programs. Conventional wisdom suggests that products that are better
developed will be more attractive to the marketplace, but, to our
knowledge, no studies using large databases of products at these two
stages (invention vs. innovation) have addressed this question.
Therefore, we assess market attractiveness for both groups of products
using the measure described below.
The market attractiveness measure for both programs consisted of
items based on the Product Innovation Evaluation System (PIES) developed
at the University of Oregon (Udell, O'Neill, and Baker, 1977).
Product areas included societal impact, business risk, demand analysis,
market acceptance, competitive capabilities, and experience and
strategy. An independent, trained evaluator completed this portion of
the assessment process. The independent evaluator was typically a
current or former retail buyer or an experienced small firm owner with a
retail background whose role was to assess the mass market potential of
the product.
Products were judged on a five-point ordinal scale using specific
achievement levels rather than a sliding subjective scale. The
three-point (or middle) response was the minimum performance level
acceptable to retail buyers. The independent evaluators rated each
product using items like the one below:
Functional Feasibility. In terms of its intended functions, will it
do what it is intended to do? This product:
(1) is not sound; cannot be made to work.
(2) won't work now, but might be modified.
(3) will work, but major changes might be needed.
(4) will work, but minor changes might be needed.
(5) will work; no changes necessary.
Additionally, an overall rating on a 0-to-100 point scale was given
by the evaluator for the project. A rating of at least 40 was needed to
receive a positive assessment for further market development.
Not Recommended (00-29)
Should Be Very Limited And Cautious (30-34)
Should Be Limited And Cautious (35-39)
Recommended But Need To Resolve Unknowns (40-41)
Recommended For Limited Development/Commercialization (42-43)
Recommended For Moderate Development/Commercialization (44-45)
Recommended For Significant Development/Commercialization (46 +)
A full listing of the individual items used for this evaluation can
be found in Table 1.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the results of a series of Mann-Whitney tests done on
the individual evaluation items across development stages. We compared
the mean rank independent evaluator results for each item for the
invention stage (INV) versus the developed but not on market
cases--innovation stage (INNOV). We chose the Mann-Whitney
non-parametric tests for this data because of the nature of the
responses themselves (ordinal instead of scale). Products with higher
evaluations scored higher on the item scales. The bolded figures
indicate which product stage had the higher mean rank for each item. The
table also includes the mean rating for each stage and the level of
significance of statistical difference between the stages when one
exists.
It is interesting to note that the results were nearly evenly
split. On average, invention stage products were more attractive to
evaluators than were innovation stage products on 18 of the 39 items in
the study (four items were not significantly different between the two
stages). Three of the competitive factors and one societal factor were
not significantly different between the development stages. Generally,
business risk and demand analysis factors were judged more favorably for
the innovation stage products, while the inventions were more favorably
viewed with respect to experience and strategy. However, one critical
experience and strategy factor the ability to create a new venture from
the product--was significantly higher for innovations. And the
evaluator's overall assessment item of market attractiveness was on
average more than 10 percent higher for innovation stage products than
those at the invention stage (39.72 vs. 35.66).
A stepwise linear regression analysis was then run using the
overall evaluator assessment rating (market attractiveness) as the
dependent variable and the individual assessment items as independent
variables in the model. The stage of development (0 = invention stage; 1
= innovation stage) was also entered into the model. The intent of this
process was to determine if, in the minds of evaluators, certain
assessment factors were more critical than others in deciding the market
viability of a project.
The results are shown in Table 2. While the overall model contains
ten variables and explains 20.1 percent of the variation in the overall
rating, the first two variables entered account for 17.8 percent of the
total variation (nearly 90 percent of that explained by the model). The
stage of development and new venture likelihood variables both have a
positive coefficient in the model and favor those projects in which the
innovator has a developed product. Three of the coefficients are
negative in the model, and the variables associated with those
coefficients are ones which are more highly assessed by evaluators for
invention stage projects.
DISCUSSION
The results of the statistical tests seem to indicate that
evaluators (including retail buyers and those trained to behave like
them) prefer cases in which the inventor or innovator has a more fully
developed product. This should not be a surprise since both conventional
wisdom and emerging research would seem to support it. However, the
results of the Mann-Whitney tests are interesting in that they do not
clearly favor the innovation stage products over the invention stage
products. While the reasons behind this are not completely clear, it is
likely that the value of the product to the market (consumer demand) is
not linked directly to any one specific criterion. Even poorly developed
ideas can often be embraced by the marketplace if they meet a demand
that is not already being satisfied by another product or service.
However, products that are better developed and which hold a better
prospect for creating a new venture seem to be more attractive to
evaluators and, by proxy, to potential investors. Having a good idea but
no way to get that idea into the marketplace would seem to inhibit
investor interest.
Evaluators appeared to more favorably assess innovations with
regard to both business risk and demand analysis, and business risk was
the most common factor grouping in the model. It would make sense that
the downside of investing and of accepting a product for retail sales
would be the chance of the business failing. Both buyers and investors
are keenly aware that the health of the business that produces the good
they are associating with can have immediate effects on the success of
their own investments. While the invention stage projects may have been
better prepared in the experience and strategy criteria, the perceived
new venture weakness may have been a critical factor for evaluators.
CONCLUSION
Does stage of development matter in assessments of market
attractiveness? The answer appears to be yes. Stepwise regression
results indicate that stage of development and new venture likelihood
are more critical than other factors in deciding the market feasibility
of a product. While the overall model explained about twenty percent of
the variation in market attractiveness, these two variables accounted
for nearly 90 percent of the variance explained by the model. This
finding supports the work of Schoen et al. (2005) who emphasized the
importance of a business model in order for a product to progress from
invention to innovation.
REFERENCES
Attridge, J. (2007). Innovation models in the biopharmaceutical
sector. International Journal of Innovation Management, 11(2), 215-243.
Auerswald, P. & L. Branscomb (2003). Valleys of death and
Darwinian seas: Financing the invention to innovation transition in the
United States. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(3-4), 227-239.
Clarysse, B., M. Wright, A. Lockett, P. Mustar & M. Knockaert
(2007). Academic spin-offs, formal technology transfer and capital
raising. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 609-640.
Godin, B. (2005). The linear model of innovation: The historical
construction of an analytical framework. Project on the History and
Sociology of S & T Statistics, Working paper No. 30, Montreal,
Canada.
Kaufman, P., S. Jayachandran & R. L. Rose (2006). The role of
relational embeddedness in retail buyers' selection of new
products. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 580-587.
Kim, K., S. C. Jones & T. L. Knotts (2005). Selecting and
developing suppliers for mass merchandisers. International Journal of
Manufacturing Technology and Management, 7(5-6), 566-580.
Maclaurin, W. R. (1953). The sequence from invention to innovation
and its relation to economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics,
67(1), 97-111.
Park, D. & H. Krishnan (2001). Supplier selection practices
among small firms in the United States: Testing three models. Journal of
Small Business Management, 39(3), 259-272.
Pearson, J. & L. Ellram (1995). Supplier selection and
evaluation in small versus large electronics firms. Journal of Small
Business Management, 33(4), 53-65.
Piercy, N. & D. Cravens (1997). Examining the role of
buyer-seller relationships in export performance. Journal of World
Business, 32(1), 73-86.
Redwood, H. (1987). The pharmaceutical industry--Trends, problems
and achievements. Felixstowe: Oldwicks Press.
Richardson, B. (1995). Learning contexts and roles for the learning
organization leader. The Learning Organization, 2(1), 15-33.
Riquelme, H. & J. Watson (2002). Do venture capitalists'
implicit theories on new business success/failure have empirical
validity? International Small Business Journal, 20(4), 395-420.
Schoen, J., T. W. Mason, W. A. Kline & R. M. Bunch (2005). The
innovation cycle: A new model and case study for the invention to
innovation process. Engineering Management Journal, 17(3), 3-10.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1939). Business cycles: A theoretical,
historical, and statistical analysis of the capitalist process. 2 vols.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
St. John, C. & K. Heriot (1993). Small suppliers and JIT
purchasing. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Management, 27(2), 11-16.
Swift, C. & K. Gruben (2000). Gender differences in weighting
of supplier selection criteria. Journal of Managerial Issues, 12(4),
502-511.
Udell, G., M. O'Neill & K. Baker (1977). Guide to
invention and innovation evaluation, Washington, DC: National Science
Foundation.
Verma, R. & M. Pullman (1998). An analysis of the supplier
selection process. Omega, 26(6), 739-750.
Stephen C. Jones, Arkansas Tech University
Tami L. Knotts, Louisiana State University-Shreveport
Gerald G. Udell, Missouri State University
Table 1
Mann-Whitney Variable Mean Ranks Test for Invention Stage vs.
Innovation Stage Cases
Mean Rank
Variable Name Inv Innov
N = 2297 934
Societal--Legality 1556.38 1651.91
Societal--Safety 1583.10 1577.38
Societal--Environmental Impact 1685.26 1318.73
Societal--Societal Impact 1672.74 1352.40
Business Risk--Functional Feasibility 1403.73 1981.08
Business Risk--Production Feasibility 1897.15 769.85
Business Risk--Commercialization Stg 1314.80 2251.13
Business Risk--Investment Costs 1421.07 2006.10
Business Risk--Payback Period 1621.10 1486.14
Business Risk--Profitability 1451.30 1921.43
Business Risk--Marketing Research 1517.16 1762.23
Business Risk--Research & Development 1440.39 1943.17
Demand Analysis--Potential Market 1704.95 1274.45
Demand Analysis--Potential Sales 1542.21 1691.93
Demand Analysis--Trend of Demand 1448.69 b
Demand Analysis--Stability of Demand 1547.28 1691.51
Demand Analysis--Product Life Cycle 1555.02 1669.82
Demand Analysis--Product Line Potential 1480.53 1860.77
Market Acceptance--Use Pattern Compatibility 1462.11 1904.59
Market Acceptance--Learning 1636.72 1453.05
Market Acceptance--Need 1605.87 1538.14
Market Acceptance--Dependence 1736.98 1194.78
Market Acceptance--Visibility 1674.30 1356.22
Market Acceptance--Promotion 1453.35 1928.65
Market Acceptance--Distribution 1439.81 1963.61
Market Acceptance--Service 1380.68 1292.07
Competitive--Appearance 1558.33 1583.93
Competitive--Function 1616.80 1464.08
Competitive--Durability 1463.73 1614.85
Competitive--Price 1552.72 1541.02
Competitive--Existing Competition 1667.77 1367.31
Competitive--New Competition 1598.79 1551.19
Competitive--Protection 1318.54 981.87
Experience & Strategy--Marketing Experience 1658.94 1397.00
Experience & Strategy--Technical Experience 1882.89 817.91
Experience & Strategy--Financial Experience
& Resources 1785.02 1052.36
Experience & Strategy--Management /
Production Experience 1757.00 1134.74
Experience & Strategy--Technical Experience 1745.08 1162.82
Experience & Strategy--New Venture 1372.96 2096.32
Overall Rating 1386.06 2156.42
Mean
Variable Name Inv Innov
N = 2297 934
Societal--Legality 4.53 4.63
Societal--Safety 3.91 3.91
Societal--Environmental Impact 4.00 3.75
Societal--Societal Impact 4.08 3.85
Business Risk--Functional Feasibility 4.23 4.66
Business Risk--Production Feasibility 4.93 4.18
Business Risk--Commercialization Stg 2.44 3.91
Business Risk--Investment Costs 3.76 4.23
Business Risk--Payback Period 3.64 3.55
Business Risk--Profitability 3.47 3.82
Business Risk--Marketing Research 3.56 3.73
Business Risk--Research & Development 4.18 4.57
Demand Analysis--Potential Market 3.58 3.09
Demand Analysis--Potential Sales 2.60 2.73
Demand Analysis--Trend of Demand 3.05 3.42
Demand Analysis--Stability of Demand 2.80 2.95
Demand Analysis--Product Life Cycle 2.44 2.65
Demand Analysis--Product Line Potential 1.97 2.28
Market Acceptance--Use Pattern Compatibility 2.85 3.21
Market Acceptance--Learning 3.97 3.80
Market Acceptance--Need 2.87 2.79
Market Acceptance--Dependence 3.81 3.17
Market Acceptance--Visibility 3.78 3.49
Market Acceptance--Promotion 2.60 2.99
Market Acceptance--Distribution 2.71 3.12
Market Acceptance--Service 4.53 4.45
Competitive--Appearance 3.14 3.14
Competitive--Function 3.42 3.33
Competitive--Durability 3.04 3.16
Competitive--Price 2.83 2.83
Competitive--Existing Competition 2.92 2.62
Competitive--New Competition 2.90 2.86
Competitive--Protection 3.36 2.63
Experience & Strategy--Marketing Experience 2.97 2.78
Experience & Strategy--Technical Experience 4.38 3.37
Experience & Strategy--Financial Experience
& Resources 3.44 2.88
Experience & Strategy--Management /
Production Experience 3.58 3.13
Experience & Strategy--Technical Experience 2.69 2.02
Experience & Strategy--New Venture 2.62 3.28
Overall Rating 35.66 39.72
Std Dev
Variable Name Inv Innov Signif.
N = 2297 934
Societal--Legality 0.68 0.59 0.01
Societal--Safety 0.56 0.47 NS
Societal--Environmental Impact 0.38 0.54 0.001
Societal--Societal Impact 0.46 0.50 0.001
Business Risk--Functional Feasibility 0.62 0.50 0.001
Business Risk--Production Feasibility 0.32 0.50 0.001
Business Risk--Commercialization Stg 1.36 0.74 0.001
Business Risk--Investment Costs 0.63 0.71 0.001
Business Risk--Payback Period 0.62 0.63 0.001
Business Risk--Profitability 0.61 0.64 0.001
Business Risk--Marketing Research 0.61 0.66 0.001
Business Risk--Research & Development 0.67 0.67 0.001
Demand Analysis--Potential Market 0.86 0.85 0.001
Demand Analysis--Potential Sales 0.57 0.70 0.001
Demand Analysis--Trend of Demand 0.51 0.58 0.001
Demand Analysis--Stability of Demand 0.52 0.75 0.001
Demand Analysis--Product Life Cycle 0.67 1.13 0.001
Demand Analysis--Product Line Potential 0.52 0.74 0.001
Market Acceptance--Use Pattern Compatibility 0.64 0.56 0.001
Market Acceptance--Learning 0.59 0.81 0.001
Market Acceptance--Need 0.70 0.88 0.05
Market Acceptance--Dependence 0.82 1.05 0.001
Market Acceptance--Visibility 0.68 0.70 0.001
Market Acceptance--Promotion 0.52 0.67 0.001
Market Acceptance--Distribution 0.49 0.62 0.001
Market Acceptance--Service 0.69 0.73 0.001
Competitive--Appearance 0.50 0.54 NS
Competitive--Function 0.56 0.55 0.001
Competitive--Durability 0.33 0.46 0.001
Competitive--Price 0.67 0.75 NS
Competitive--Existing Competition 0.97 0.96 0.001
Competitive--New Competition 0.75 0.76 NS
Competitive--Protection 1.32 1.31 0.001
Experience & Strategy--Marketing Experience 0.40 0.58 0.001
Experience & Strategy--Technical Experience 0.73 0.61 0.001
Experience & Strategy--Financial Experience
& Resources 0.59 0.53 0.001
Experience & Strategy--Management /
Production Experience 0.63 0.46 0.001
Experience & Strategy--Technical Experience 0.95 1.01 0.001
Experience & Strategy--New Venture 0.76 0.68 0.001
Overall Rating 4.91 3.70 0.001
NOTE: INV = Invention Stage Case INNOV = Innovation Stage Case
Table 2 Regression Analysis (Dependent: Evaluator Overall Rating)
Variable Entered MW R-Sq Sig. F Coeff.
Result Change Change
Constant 0.000 34.544
Stage of Development INNOV 0.161 0.000 1.899
Experience & Strategy--New Venture INNOV 0.017 0.000 0.605
Business Risk--Payback Period INV 0.005 0.001 -0.91
Business Risk--Profitability 0.005 0.000 0.503
Societal--Societal Impact INV 0.004 0.003 -0.832
Business Risk--Investment Costs INNOV 0.003 0.005 0.646
Market Acceptance--Need INV 0.003 0.006 0.365
Demand Analysis--Potential Sales INNOV 0.002 0.016 0.439
Competitive--Appearance 0.002 0.019 0.458
Experience & Strategy--Management/ INV 0.002 0.048 -0.375
Production Experience
NOTE: INV = Invention stage
case
INNOV = Innovation stage
case
