PROGRAMME: MSc Business with Business Analytics
TITLE: Impacts of Technological Innovation on Global Business


Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Masters Degree in

MSc in international business management

Newcastle Business School at the University of Northumbria at Newcastle

I declare the following:
(1) that the material contained in this dissertation is the end result of my own work and that due acknowledgement has been given in the bibliography and references to ALL sources be they printed, electronic or personal.

(2) that unless this dissertation has been confirmed as confidential, I agree to an entire electronic copy or sections of the dissertation to being placed on the e-Learning Portal, if deemed appropriate, to allow future students the opportunity to see examples of past dissertations. I understand that if displayed on the e-Learning Portal it would be made available for no longer than five years and those students would be able to print off copies or download. The authorship would remain anonymous.

(3) I agree to my dissertation being submitted to a plagiarism detection service, where it will be stored in a database and compared against work submitted from this or any other School or from other institutions using the service. In the event of the service detecting a high degree of similarity between content within the service this will be reported back to my supervisor and second marker, who may decide to undertake further investigation that may ultimately lead to disciplinary actions, should instances of plagiarism be detected.

(4) I have read the Northumbria/Newcastle Business School Policy Statement on Ethics in Research and Consultancy as detailed in The Newcastle Business School Masters Dissertation Guidelines and I declare that ethical issues have been considered, evaluated and appropriately addressed in this research.

SIGNED*: _________________________________________
DATE: ________________________________________
Chapter One 4
Introduction 4
1.1 Background to the Study 4
1.1.1 The Concept of Competitiveness 5
1.2 Problem Statement 6
1.3 Objectives of the Study 9
1.3.1 The General Objective 9
1.3.3 Research Hypotheses 9
1.4 Significance of the Study 10
1.5 Scope of the Study 10
1.6 Limitations of the Study 11
1.7 Chapter summary 11
2.1 Theoretical Literature Review 13
2.1.1 Schumpeterian Theory of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 13
2.1.3 The Resource Based Theory 14
2.1.4 The Dynamic Capability Theory 15
2.2 Empirical Literature 17
2.2.1 Product Innovation and Firm Competitiveness 17
2.2.2 Process Innovation and Firm Competitiveness 19
2.2.3 Marketing Innovation and Firm Competitiveness 20
2.2.4 Organizational Innovation and Firm Competitiveness 21
2.2.5 Innovation and Firm Competitiveness 21
2.2.6 Firm Size, Innovation and Competitiveness/ Performance 23
2.4 Summary of Literature Review and Research Gaps 25
2.5 Directions for further research 27
3.1 Introduction 29
3.2 Research Philosophy 29
3.3 Research Design 30
3.4 Empirical Model 31
3.5 Target Population 33
3.6 Sample Size 34
3.7 Data Collection Instrument 35
3.8 Pilot Test 35
3.9. Data Collection Procedure 35
4.1 Introduction 37
4.2 Innovation 37
4.2.1 The Level of Innovation 37
4.2.2 Sources of Information for Industries 40
4.2.3 Innovation Co-operation Partners 42
4.3 Diagnostic Tests 43
a. Test for Normality 43
b. Test of Linearity 44
C. Test for Homoscedasticity 45
d. Test for Multicollinearity 46
4.4 Hypothesis Testing 47
4.5.1: Product Innovation effect on industry Competitiveness 49
4.5.2: Impacts of Process Invention on Company’s Competitiveness 50
5.1 Introduction 52
5.2 Summary 52
5.3 Conclusion 53
5.4 Recommendations 54
5.5 Contribution of the Study to Theoretical and Empirical Knowledge 57
References 58

List of tables
Table 3.2: Target Population Enterprise___________________________________ 38
Table 4.1: Level of Innovation____________________________________________41
Table 4.2 Degree of Newness of Innovation/ Nature of Novelty _______________42
Table 4.3 Sources of Information for Industries______________________________44
Table 4.4 Innovation Co-operation Partners________________________________ 46
Table 4.5: Normality Test Results_________________________________________ 47
Table 4.6 Tabulation of Linearity Test Results________________________________49
Table 4.7 Tabulation of Heteroscedasticity Test Results_______________________ 50
Table 4.8 Collinearity test_______________________________________________51
Table 4.9 Goodness of Fit- Regression of Innovation Variables on competitiveness___52
Table 4.10 ANOVA Table________________________________________________ 54

Businesses are the essential thrust of socioeconomic growth and competitiveness because of their varied share to the economy of every nation. Regardless of this essential role economic role, there are several objections that suppress their ability and donation to socioeconomic growth. Manufacturing firms are critical in the economic development of every country though they are noncompetitive, defined by production of non-diversified products, slug evolution a and low rates of survival. For efficient contribution to economic development, industries should establish and hold this competitiveness.
Invention is broadly recognized as an essential element competitiveness of firms and has become outstanding in the strategies of firms and government policies. The aim of every business is to increase the utilization of Innovation, Science and technology to better competitiveness and productivity of the essential elements. Regardless of the passionate attention on invention, empirical works connecting innovation and the competitiveness of firms are narrow in underdeveloped nations. Therefore this work wanted to constitute the impacts/effects of invention on industry competitiveness
The broad objective of this work was to analyze the effects of invention on the competitiveness of firms while the particular objectives were; to institute the impacts of product invention on the competitiveness of a firm, to examine the impacts of process invention on the competitiveness of a firm; to evaluate the impacts of marketing invention on the competitiveness of firms; to ascertain the impacts of organizational inventions on the competitiveness of firms; to analyze the cooperative impact of product, process, organizational and marketing innovations on the competitiveness of firms and finally to examine the alleviative impact of size of the firm on invention and the Manufacturing firms competitiveness. This work is supported by Schumpeter’s model of entrepreneurship and invention; the innovative firm theory; the theory based on resource and the changing capability model.
To realize the study objectives, a descripto-explanatory study plan with a strategy of survey was used. Inferential descriptive statistics were employed in data analysis. Multiple Linear regression model was employed in analyzing the associations and impacts of invention on the competitiveness of firms. The research findings unveil that all the these innovation types; Process, Product, Organizational, Marketing had positive impacts on competitiveness. The government also needs to encourage and aid research that results to the initiation of fresh knowledge necessary for invention.

Chapter One

1.1 Background to the Study
Businesses are internationally renowned as promoters for international economic development. They are considered the main influencers of socio-economic growth and effectiveness because of their complex aids to the economy. This area produces important revenue and engagement, offers chances for emerging and implementing suitable technology, and is the main source for inventions (OECD, 2000; Shiu & Walker, 2007; Subrahmanya, Mathirajan & Krishnaswamy, 2010). They also play a crucial function in the diffusion of new markets and inspire development economies (UNDP, 2015). Industries being at the center of invention practices are deliberated as main players in the effectiveness and development of countries (UNCTAD, 2002).
These enterprises dictate global businesses and are projected to be more than 95% internationally, providing over 60% of jobs in the reserved area. Industries contribute about 64% to the gross domestic product (GDP) and 62% of work (Ayyagari et al., 2007).in every country, industries cut across all the economic sectors and are the main source of occupation and revenue and are key to reducing poverty. Industries are vital in national growth policies intended to inspire commercial activity and decrease joblessness and scarcity. Therefore a viable industrial sector is necessary for every nation to remain viable in the global market.
1.1.1 The Concept of Competitiveness
In the active commercial environment, effectiveness is a crucial factor for a company’s survival, development, and accomplishment (Oral & Kettani, 2009). Concentrated opposition necessitates companies to be economical for continued existence. Minor companies in emerging nations need to improve their effectiveness to persist by overcoming the restrictions in their indigenous markets to prosper. Thriving small businesses due to their influence will affect the effectiveness of economies (Liargovas and Skandalis, 2015). The relativity of effectiveness imposes a problem in coming up with a decisive, convincing measure. However, there appears to be consensus on numerous factors/actions that can be employed to quantify effectiveness.
Effectiveness is a utility of interconnected industry factors, including production, market share, cost-effectiveness, efficiency, product variety, creation of value, and consumer gratification. Sources of industry effectiveness include product separation, product/ amenity value and range, innovation, process efficacy, cost lessening, implementation of technology, and export desirability (Pedraza, 2014). Economic enterprises are projected to display advanced development levels in terms of transactions and profits, better earnings on speculation, greater market share, higher access to the market, and control of supply instead of non-competitive companies (Selcuk, 2016). Such companies are described by condensed invention cost resulting in amplified returns and can sell in the market whereas attaining market necessities.
These aspects guarantee continuous returns with a growing market portion in the aspect of rivalry (Pedraza, 2014). Numerous effectiveness actions have been deliberated, from the usage of simple signs to composite catalogs (Buzzigoli & Viviani, 2009). For some duration, effectiveness was carefully related to a company’s long-term revenue and greater revenues (Buckley et al., 1988). Conferring to (Konstantinos and Skandalis, 2009), financial performance can be employed to quantify firm effectiveness; therefore, a decent economic performance shows an economical company (Konstantinos & Skandalis, 2015).
1.2 Problem Statement
The competitiveness of industries is important in attaining the business goals and pushing a fresh mechanized economy. These enterprises form an integral component of growth strategies to be internationally economical. The effectiveness of the industrial sector is influenced by several encounters that impede them from exploiting their prospective, subsequently restraining their impact on socio-economic growth. The encounters include solid competition from other international companies, incomplete access to capital, knowledge, and markets; congested flooded markets; restricted knowledge, and uncomplimentary legitimate regulation. Globalization has compounded these, condensed invention lifespans, progression in knowledge, improved ideal necessities, and the varying customer wants (Kiraka, 2009; KAM, 2012).
Therefore for the enterprises to stay applicable in nationwide growth, they need to advance approaches that will assist them in growing and withstanding their effectiveness. The Invention is generally recognized as an essential issue in industry competitiveness, existence, and progression (Becheikh, Landry & Amara, 2006; Kiraka, 2009; Lin & Chen, 2007). In the corporate setting, the Invention is often deliberated as the significant foundation of planned transformation by which companies can revive competitiveness (Lin & Chen, 2007). Therefore, the burden on all industries to persistently revolutionize by emerging and initiation fresh products and services are better than always (Kiraka, Kobia & Katwalo, 2013).
It has been underlined that businesses require better Invention to create and sustain effectiveness given they lack the reserve benefit over superior enterprises (Lin& Chen, 2007; Aikeli, 2007). The business invention is thus deliberately at the core of their progress, endurance, and effectiveness. Some industries are deliberated as more elastic, adaptive and are improved positioned to transform (Lin & Chen, 2007). The Invention is essential to allow manufacturing industries to yield value products, apply effectual procedures and schemes to attain competitive benefit (Gunday et al., 2008). Businesses require better Invention to withstand their effectiveness as they lack the resource benefit of their big enterprises (Lin& Chen, 2007; Aikeli, 2007). The Invention is thus deliberately at the core of their progress, existence, and effectiveness and that of a country’s economic effectiveness and development. Businesses are generally considered to be normally more elastic, adaptive, and better positioned to invent and typically come out as more inventive (Lin & Chen, 2007). Despite businesses being more inventive and better placed to modernize, most stay uncompetitive parallel to other larger complements.
However, there are several stress on firm Invention as a policy for competitiveness built on the view that Invention affects effectiveness. Experiential studies concerning Invention and firm effectiveness are very inadequate. Among the accessible studies, many are based on companies in industrialized nations (Belderbos, & Wynen, 2010; Terziovski, 2010; Rojas, Cerda, Garcia & Barcenas, 2012; Kiss, 2011). Most of the works on invention influence have also focused on the association between Invention and performance of the firm, with very few in view of the influence of Invention on effectiveness (Belderbos, Duvivier &Wyen, 2010; Kiss, 2010; Gakure et al., 2013; Rojas et al., 2013). Available studies done on the effect of innovation show mixed findings. Some found no significant effects of innovation on performance and competitiveness (Kiss, 2011; Terzioski, 2010). Some establish a substantial relationship between invention and effectiveness and company’s performance (Lin & Chen, 2007; Varis & Littunen, 2010; Ar & Baki, 2011; Atalay et al., 2013; Najib, 2013, Gakure et al., 2013; Rojas et al., 2013, Mensah & Acquah, 2015).
Centered on the idea that Invention influences effectiveness, there is a need to get information about the economy in which Invention is the main issue of lending effectiveness. In this hunt, there is a need to harness science, technology, and innovation in all phases of its common and economic expansion to nurture the creation of wealth, prosperity, and effectiveness. To this end, there is proposed increased use of STI in primacy divisions that include industrial to raise production, productivity levels, and effectiveness. The administrations have since articulated STI Strategy to encourage Invention in all economic sectors, emphasizing the import sectors that have a great perspective to harness STI in achieving a yearly growth rate of 10%. It is clear that Invention, particularly in the industrial division, is at the core of any economic growth and effectiveness.
Regardless of the proposal on the use of Invention to shoot the effectiveness of important areas, including industrial, this is not empirically supported. The limited studies conducted are not decisively adequate and are restricted in terms of range. (Gichui and Katuse, 2013) examined the function of Invention in defining the effectiveness of electrical and electronic industrial initiatives, (Ngirigacha and Bwisa, 2013) also conducted a study on the significance of business innovations on market effectiveness.
Besides the low effectiveness of some industries, there is proof of Invention taking place in the area. This research thus seeks to impact the information fissure by availing some experimental indication on the correlation between Invention and effectiveness in the industrial sector. The research examines the influence of Invention on global industrial markets by taking into account four kinds of Invention practiced in the Industrial sector: product, method, marketing, and organizational.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
1.3.1 The General Objective
The main goal of this study is to examine the impact of Invention and technology on global businesses.
1.3.2 Specific objectives
To institute the effect of product invention on the effectiveness of industries in the global market.
i. To examine the impacts of the innovation process on the competitiveness of industries globally.
ii. To determine the effects of market-related inventions on the global competitiveness of manufacturing industries.
iii. To determine the impacts of innovation on organizational competitiveness
1.3.3 Research Hypotheses
This Study verified the following Research Propositions considering definite objectives;
H01: Product invention has no substantial influence on the effectiveness of global industries.
H02: Process invention has no substantial influence on the competitiveness of global manufacturing industries
H03: Marketing invention has no substantial influence on the competitiveness of
Manufacturing industries
H04: Organizational innovation has no substantial influence on the competitiveness of
Manufacturing industries.
1.4 Significance of the Study
This Study donates to a greater appreciation of the Invention and modernization exercise in global businesses and how it touches the company’s competitiveness. This is significant to business practitioners, Government organizations, and other scholars. The research answers offer a linkage between Invention and effectiveness by authenticating Invention’s function in the company’s competitiveness. The research results offer a foundation for using invention strategy to increase industry competitiveness. For every administration and its suitable arms, the study results deliver the information essential for constructing appropriate and operative strategies and packages in the capacity of innovativeness growth and use of Invention as an instrument to improve growth and motivate innovativeness. This research’s results also add to the current body of information in business innovation and industry competitiveness. Due to the incomplete studies connecting invention and industry competitiveness, the research underwrites empirical information and the context of Study in global business competitiveness and Invention. The research also tries to authenticate present theoretical information in invention and industry competitiveness. Lastly, the research outcomes may kindle additional investigation in these fields of Invention and business attractiveness to seal up any study gaps or broaden the range.
1.5 Scope of the Study
The research wanted to examine the impacts of Invention on industry competitiveness aiming at the manufacturing industries. The enterprises were drawn from three manufacturing industries of the three different classes. Data on Invention and competitiveness were gathered for 3 years (2018-2020) as suggested for the studies of innovation (OECD, 2015). The reliant variable is industry competitiveness engrossed on two concepts, cost-effectiveness and share of the market. In contrast, the reliant variable Invention is reflected on the product, procedure, marketing, and administrative Invention. Compound Linear regression examination was employed to examine the influence of Invention on firm competitiveness.
1.6 Limitations of the Study
However, the research was intended to allow the scholar to gather correct and reliable data that can be employed to make some insinuations; it was although not at liberty from limits. First, the research beleaguered manufacturing industries though data was gathered from sections drawn from only a few industries. This might present some biasness. Though the examiner condensed this by multistage sample where group sample was followed by stratified indiscriminate sample to surge the sample’s representativeness and reduce biasness. Again, Invention influences enterprises to have a phase delay after enactment before they are recognized. The Study tried to deal with this restraint by attaining invention data for a time frame of three years instead of one year. Finally, data collection on the reliant and autonomous variables enterprises was self-reporting, which may result in prejudice. This was employed because most initiatives are timid to share histories or appraisal information from where the data can be gotten while not having the reports.
1.7 Chapter summary
This work is structured in five chapters. Section one of the Study familiarizes the study variables and the framework. The chapter comprises the contextual evidence, problem statement, research purposes, and impact of the research, the range, and the study boundaries.
The second chapter presents literature assessment, including the theoretical, conceptual, and empirical works of the key research variables that comprise effectiveness, Invention. Centered on the revised literature, a conceptual outline describing the imagined association of the variables was established.
Chapter three discusses the study methods that comprise clarification of Study the study viewpoint; the population targeted, sample design and model size, and Operationalization of the variables. The chapter also comprises experiential illustrations used in the research as well as facts gathering methods and tools, and finally, ethical contemplations of the Study
Chapter Four presents the study answers, results of data investigation, and a thorough conversation of the findings. It also comprises expressive statistics, analytical tests, and inferential statistics. Lastly, Chapter Five summarizes the study results, impact of the Study on information, deductions, and commendations for strategy and recommends extents for advanced studies.


2.1 Theoretical Literature Review
2.1.1 Schumpeterian Theory of Innovation and Entrepreneurship
This model by Schumpeterian is part of the invention based endogenous development theories advanced by the economists of the twentieth century (Schumpeter, 1911). The model shapes the function of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in the growth of an economy. The model postulates that there is unremitting courses of revolution in markets and economies. In these lively economies, there is a forces inside these economies that are responsible for transformation and development embodied in the businessperson. Schumpeter defines the entrepreneur as “an representative of invention and spool of revolution” (Schumpeter, 1911, 1934). Conferring to him, in an active sphere invention and entrepreneurship are significant for the growth of economies (Schumpeter, 1912). Entrepreneurship all concerns invention and the purpose of entrepreneurs is to perform new blends of the production factors resulting to intermittent and fundamental alteration which are the foundation of economic growth.
Schumpeter points economic growth to invention that includes; “the introduction of a new merchandise or adjustment of the current product; the use of novel production methods, introductory to a new market; usage of new supply sources or raw material and the formation of a new business organization” (Schumpeter, 1934). He outlooks invention as a “process of business revolution, accountable for the economic structure alteration in a process he refers to as ‘inventive destruction’.
2.1.3 The Resource Based Theory
This is a prominent model in invention and combativeness work, this is a resource supported model founded by (Penrose, 1959), but advanced by (Barney, 2002). This model claims that industries possess resources which can make the become economical when well utilised. This model suggests that a company can increase competing reward by possessing unique resources or abilities that are valued, difficult to copy and uncommon at marketplace (Baark, 2011). Promoters of this opinion reason that companies should use interior resources of effectiveness as in contrast to exterior resources (Barney, 1995).
Conferring to resources based model promoters, it is reasonable to use extrinsic prospects using the present resources in a different way instead of attempting to obtain fresh abilities for every various prospect. Company assets and methods are essential to industries as they effect its conduct and undertakings. An asset is an information, ability, industry processes, asset, noesis or ability that is measured as distinctive if it is valued, uncommon, and hard to copy and with no equivalent (Barney, 2002). It is the unique resources that results to continued aggressiveness and greater revenues in companies ( Barney, 2002)
Companies are deliberated as a harmonized package of resources that may be used for viable competitory plus by the company (Barney, 1995). The assets and resources of a company that are linked temporarily to it and comprise technological, knowledge, fallible, cultural, material and fiscal (Barney, 2002). Companies owning rare valued resources and not definitely imitated, attain a maintainable competitory benefit in shape of inventive fresh commodity (Trott, 2008).Company resources absolutely impacts the innovation process by availing the resources that are pooled then converted to create inventions which results to aggressiveness (Trott, 2008). Invention makes available ways to economic benefit of the company by availing valuable products which are uncommon, and difficult to replicate (OECD, 2009).
Economic assets are one of the essential package of assets for a company that can be employed to back inventive act. Similarly social capital is an important determining element of the operation and competitiveness of a firm. Alternative essential resource for company’s competitiveness is the information grounded on the resources. Information enables the detection of concepts and utilization of chances for invention. Therefore beneficial for the handling, conversion and the improvement of new resources for effectiveness (Wiklund, 2003; Lee, 2007 and Mahoney, 2009).
The model enlightens the research on alternative aspect of aggressiveness as company asset that impacts a company’s activities comprising of invention. Industry resource effect a industry’s behavior and it entails how it participates in the market. Unique resources, discrete, occasional and hard to copy give the company a competing advantage.
2.1.4 The Theory of Dynamic Capability
This Changing ability model was founded by (Teece, 1994). This model clarifies the way companies succeed and stand to aggressiveness centered on the methods which taking place in a company to match the change, unpredictable surroundings. The beginning of the model was lead by the limitation of resource centered and activity supported models in dealing with changing economic systems. This changing ability model hold entrepreneurship, knowledge, industrial acquisition, innovation, and governance (Teece, 2010). The capability of a company to increase market variations via invention is important for competitive procedure of companies. It is claimed that the important compulsion driving the capitalist economy trunks from the invention of brand-new forms of industrial organization fresh products, new markets, fresh methods of production and new products (Schumpeter, 1942).
Dynamical ability refers to a company’s ability that permits the improvement of fresh merchandise and steps in reaction to dynamical market conditions” (Teece, 1997). Dynamical abilities include process, industrial composition, skills and selection guidelines that may be engaged by companies to make and acquire economic value. The abilities can change from stem schedules, innovative managerial abilities and product development. They allow the company to adjust their unique assets to the dynamic commercial surroundings. Dynamical abilities are critical to durable profitability of companies (Teece, 2007). Dynamic abilities allow companies to organize productively its assets, ability and other resources if the company must maintain herself in shifting markets and surroundings (Teece, 2009). The abilities are important in a changing situation of quick change, predominant in a developing of companies (Tierce, 2007).
Invention is recognized as one of the carping company abilities that impact company’s continuous competing pro and greater execution (Albaladejo, 2000). Invention ability allow companies to use actual assets to make fresh assets, commodity and structures and also to invent fresh methods using fresh assets to increase a competing benefit (Teece, 1997). Invention ability can be increased via training and education, R&D, , company organization and relations with other actors that comprise industry associations, public, clients, resource providers and enquiry institutes.
Ownership of dynamic abilities also signifies a company’s ability to understand market difficulties and attain fresh and inventive kind of competing benefit ( Teece, 2007) The move highlights the ability of a company to regenerate competency as to reconfigure and integrate assets to equal and make market variation by invention (Pisano, 1997; Eisenhardt, 2000).
This model familiarized the work of the relevancy of a company’s changing abilities that are decisive in attaining aggressiveness in a changing inconstant surrounding. Firms work in these surroundings and creating their changing abilities that comprise invention is important for their growth and survival. The dynamical ability move echoes company’s power to work out market difficulties and to attain aggressiveness (Teece, 1997). The model of dynamical abilities render an extensive structure to assist in understanding the way companies make up value for keenness in a changing surrounding. This is important owing to alterations in products, customer wants, technology and the forces of competition of different companies that can jeopardize a company’s present location or create the probability of a fresh or even improved one.
2.2 Empirical Literature
2.2.1 Firm Competitiveness and Product Innovation
Schumpeter (1934) referred to product invention as the outline of a fresh product; indefinite that customers are not ready common with, such products have improved improved attribute (Schumpeter, 1939). Schumpeter underscores the use of creation invention in urging structural development. He continue claiming that rivalry causing from fresh produces distantly surpass minimal differences in pricing of the present commodities (Schumpeter, 1942). (Wan, 2005) sees products invention as relating to the launching of bran-new work with an purpose of generating fresh markets, or satisfying the present markets and consumers (Wan., 2005).
Oslo invention extremity outlines commodity invention as the launching of a product that is evidently reinforced with regard to its intended functionality or characteristics” (OECD, 2005). Important modifications might be with regard to the components and materials, technological stipulations, user friendliness integral software, or even different useful features. Though system alteration in produces which do not relate to an important alteration in its useful features or deliberated usage do not include commodity invention (OECD, 2005). Commodity invention is also related to fresh improvements in actions done by companies to convey the set produce when devising it fascinating to customers (Acquah, 2015).
Commodity invention is a source of company’s aggressiveness which can be applicable to increase the superiority of produces resulting to increased company competitiveness and performance” (Sidek and Rosli, 2013). Commodity invention also delivers a collection of choices of a company’s commodity to the consumers and superior sensed value compared to the senior produces (Crawford, 2003).
(Oke, et al., 2007) in his study in company in UK then concluded that; product invention had a positive effect on company performance. (Atlay, Anafarta and Sarvan, 2013) in their study on companies in the automotive supplier company, in Turkey concluded that; product invention had a positive effect on company performance. (Belderbos, Duvivier and Wynen, 2010) conducted a study on invention and Export competitiveness in Flemish companies by examining the impacts of invention on growth and export intensity using all cross-sectional and panel information of 733 companies. They concluded that; implementation of inventions especially produce inventions had a robust positive correspondence with export intensity of companies.
Ar and Baki, 2011 according to their study on the “Antecedents and performance effect of a product against process invention in firms in Turkish Science and Technology parks” This study confirmed a positive and important influence of produce and procedure invention on company performance. (Sidek and Rosli, 2013) in their study on “the effect of invention on the performance of medium and Small Manufacturing Enterprises in Malaysia” using a example of 284 SMEs. Research results show that product invention influenced company performance positively.
2.2.2 Process Innovation and Firm Competitiveness
Conferring to (Schumpeter, 1934) process invention “is the overview of a fresh means of creation, not ready tested in the company”. (Schumpeter, 1934). Process invention has been well-defined as “the procedure of reengineering and improving the inner process and abilities of business procedure” (Sidek & Rosli, 2013). Such procedures include: commercial activities, management, technical design and manufacturing. It includes fresh processes, organizational forms, policies and knowledge embodied in produces, applications as well as distribution channels, customer expectations, needs and preferences (Sidek & Rosli, 2013).
Conferring to Oslo OECD invention Manual, a process invention includes “the enactment of afresh meaningfully developed methods of delivery or production. This comprises important alterations in equipment, software or techniques” (OECD, 2005). Process invention comprises of meaningfully enhanced means for the provision of services and production. Process inventions can consist of fresh or importantly enhanced techniques, software and equipment in auxiliary backing activities, like accounting, maintenance, computing and purchasing. Such invention may comprise important alterations in the software and equipment being used in services-oriented companies or in the processes or techniques which are employed to provide services. Process inventions are envisioned to lower the unit costs of delivery or production, so as to deliver or produce significantly improved product or even to increase quality, (OECD, 2005).
ONeira et al. 2009 claims that Process invention is very applicable to companies facing more rivalry when it boosts production. Process invention has a straight and instant effects on production enactment of firms and according to their managerial easiness (Castillejo et al., 2013). (Oke et al., 2013) restates that procedure invention should be stressed in industrialized enterprises as a primary unique competency.
2.2.3 Marketing Innovation and Firm Competitiveness
“Marketing invention refers to the execution of a fresh marketing method which contains important alterations in produce packaging or promotion, pricing, product placement or designing” (OECD, 2005). Fresh marketing procedures can also be established by the inventing company or adopted from other companies or organizations and may be applied for all fresh and prevailing produces. Marketing inventions include important modifications in product design which are part of a fresh marketing concept; changes in the product placement packaging of products, mainly involve the introduction of fresh sales channels (OECD, 2005).
Conferring to (Johne, 1999), marketing inventions comprise the market offerings and marketing mix which are made to fulfill customer’s wants. Rodriquez- (Cano et al., 2004) assert that, marketing invention aims at satisfying market desires as responding to market prospects. Hence any marketing invention must concentrate on meeting customer desires (Sidek & Rosli, 2013). Marketing invention emphasize on improved addressing consumer desires, opening up fresh markets and positioning a company’s product in the market, with the objective of growing the company’s sales (OECD, 2005).Conferring to (Johne & Davies, 2000), marketing inventions rise sales by rising product consumption leading to increase of profits to the company.
(Otero-Neira et al., 2009) according to their study on “Invention and Performance in SME Furniture companies” found strong proof that market invention definitely prejudiced trade performance. Similary, (Varis and Littunen, 2010) in their study of firms in Finland confirmed a strong important bond amongst firm performance and marketing innovation. However, (Sidek and Rosli, 2013) according to their study on “the impact of invention on the performance of medium and Small Manufacturing Enterprises in Malaysia” concluded that marketing invention did not have important impact on company performance.
2.2.4 Organizational Innovation and Firm Competitiveness
The “Organizational invention refers to the implementation of fresh organizational procedures in the company’s workplace organization, business practices, or external relations” (OECD, 2005). These comprise the “implementation of fresh means for organizing processes and routines for the performance of work ,quality-management systems lean production introduction of management systems, business re-engineering, implementation of new ways of organizing relations with external company /institutions and implementation of new methods for allocating responsibilities” (OECD, 2005).
2.2.5 Innovation and Firm Competitiveness
Company effectiveness has been mainly credited to a company’s internal aspects linked to the external surrounding and is dependent of company process offerings in the market and the effectiveness of its systems (Penrose, 1959; Porter, 1992; Cantwell, 2003). Particularly, invention is acknowledged as being critical in the upgrading of company process, services and product, organizational systems and marketing making the companies competitive (Ferreira & Marques, 2009). Hence for companies in a vibrant surroundings categorized by accelerating change, uncertainty and complexity, their capability to persist competitive in their external surroundings is narrowly connected to their volume to invent to continuously increase their services and products’ (Johannessen, Olsen & Lumpkin, 2001; OECD, 2005).
Invention is essential to allow firms harvest economical good products, apply efficient procedures to accomplish better and to find a viable advantage (Gunday, et al., 2008). industries need superior invention to improve and sustain effectiveness in the absence of economies of scale and resource pro of larger enterprises (Lin& Chen, 2007; Aikeli, 2007). Firms invention is therefore deliberately at the core of their, existence, competitiveness and growth as that of a state’s economic growth and competitiveness. Industries are deliberated to be as a whole more adaptive, adaptive and are better placed to invent and usually come out as being more inventive linked to large companies (Lin & Chen, 2007).
(Bozic and Sonja, 2005) did a research on the impacts of invention events in firms in the Republic of Croatia. The research was conducted on 498 firms in services, manufacturing enterprises and analyzed using various regression. The study findings exposed that, execution of inventions led to improved market share, improved product quality and reduced material cost per unit. (Lin and Chen, 2007) according to their study on invention and performance, explored the relationship between invention and company performance of firms in Taiwan. Their results reveal that invention had a fragile connection with company sales and that administrative invention was the most essential aspect in clarifying sales instead of scientific inventions.
(Terziovski, 2010) conducted a study on invention practice using an example of 600 firms in Austria. The study shown that approach and company structure were drivers of invention. However, the study did not get an important relationship between invention and the presentation. (Kiss, 2011) conducted a study on the effect of invention on company competitiveness in Hungary where Kiss analyzed the determining factor of invention activities and the effect of invention on effectiveness on Hungarian companies. According to his study he found that no important bond between competitiveness and invention.
(Sewang et al., 2011) conducted research on the effects of inventions on firms by use of balanced approach in Australia and Thai firms. The balanced approach used both non-financial and financial metrics to capture full potential profits of executing inventions. The effects of inventions were specified by return on investment, profit margin, growth, sales revenue, customer satisfaction and product or service quality. The research results specified that recognized industries which took a balanced approach were more likely to perceive profits of implemented inventions as compared to use only financial measures. (Rojas et al., 2013) conducted a study on Invention and Competitiveness in industries in San Luis, Potosi in Mexico. They analyzed the connection between invention and competitiveness via the measurement of operative activities in industries by use of regression analysis. Findings indicated a positive important relationship between invention activities of firms and Competitiveness.
2.2.6 Firm Size, Innovation and Competitiveness/ Performance
Company size is a significant internal aspect affecting all the invention capacity and company competitiveness. Company size has been defined differently in different nations and economies. Company size has been defined as workforce size, turnover or organization’s resources, (Zhang et al., 2013). Company size is indicated by numerous aspects that include total number of permanent workers, turnover and capital employed. The study used the total number of permanent workers to show the size of the company accordingly. Minor enterprises have 5-49 permanent workers while Average enterprises have 50-99 permanent workers (CBS, ICEG & K-REP, 1999).
Large companies are expected to have more competitive power because their resources pro and economies of scales thus more competitive as compared to small companies. Larger companies are also thought to engage more in internal R&D that results in invention a precursor 46 for company competitiveness (Selcuk, 2013). According to (Lin & Chen, 2007) company size maybe an antecedent for company performance. (Schumpeter, 1942) posits that bigger companies were more inventive because of their capability to access to funds and spread R&D risk.
Acs and Audretsch (1987) claims that small companies are more inventive in competitive markets but large companies do better in more monopolistic markets. Damanpour (1996) argued that, larger companies were more inventive due to access to assets essential for invention and company competitiveness. Large companies are thought to have the resource pro over small companies which they may leverage for their competitiveness. Company size is also thought to have a positive correlation with invention. Covin, et al., (2006) have also established that company size affects the company’s processes and performance, and its invention capability.
Company assets have been associated with company size and in some cases company size has been used to denote company assets. Based on the resource based model, company level competitiveness can be seen as competencies based on available human and physical resources and networks which allow a company to compete efficiently in its market (Szerb & Ulbert, 2009). Human resources financial resources, capabilities and organizational process are important aspects contributing to the competitiveness of enterprises. Among the important company processes affecting competitiveness is invention that is influenced by the availability of important company resources.
Though, the empirical evidence is mixed as other scholars have observed that firms are more innovative than bigger companies because of their flexibility and speed of response (Acs & Audretch, 1990; Afuah, 1998). Some have claimed that, Company size is just one aspect that 47 influences invention, and how salient that size is in a given case overall hinge on on other aspects that include: market competition, resources and company life cycle.
According to (Secluk, 2016)“aspects affecting company competitiveness: evidence from an emerging market”, got positive important effect of the company size on company competitiveness indicated by profitability and return on resources. (Liargovas and Skandalis, 2010) according to their study on aspects affecting company competitiveness investigated non-financial and financial determinants of company competitiveness. Research results indicated that leverage, company size, export activity and management competence had an important effect on company competitiveness showed by return on sales and return on assets.
(Dogan, 2013) regarding their study of the impact of company size on profitability by use of a data set of 200 listed firms for the period 2008-2011, got an important positive relationship between company size and profitability. (Giovanis and Ozdamar, 2014) regarding their study on the determinants of profitability got company size to have positive impacts on profitability up to a certain point only after which the relationship changes to negative.
2.4 Summary of Literature Review and Research Gaps
The Studies reviewed acknowledged the significant purpose played by SMEs and the manufacturing sector. The reviewed literature suggests that invention is a strategic solution to the firms that can be employed to enhance their growth, competitiveness survival in the dynamic competitive surroundings. Invention is highlighted as a central competence of companis for maintainable competitiveness (Gray, 2006; Dibrell et al., 2008; Kiraka, Kobia & Katwalo, 2013; .; AIkeli, 2007). It is also recognized that generally firms are thought to be in a better location to invent due to their structure and flexibility but have not realized this potential because of several aspects.
The conception of competitiveness was also reviewed from numerous literature from which numerous measures of competitiveness were identified. Most used performance measures which include: export performance, profitability, market share and productivity have been used as a proxy for company competitiveness (Sidek & Rosli, 2013; Lalinsky, 2013; Selcuk, 2013). Conferring to Najib (2013), performance measures like profitability are considered essential indicators of a company’s competitiveness. This study considered all non-financial and financial indicators of competitiveness. This study used market share and Profitability as indicators of company competitiveness. Profitability was measured by net benefit for the companies whereas market share was indicated by sales in the market. These two indicators were relevant to this study since profit and sales are important issues for their performance and survival.
Several companies’ related models were reviewed to inform the study. The models informed the study of the several independent/ moderating variables in the invention. From the reviewed models, numerous factors were found to influence company invention and competitiveness and they include: company’s assets such as human and financial resources, company size, and age, company activities and procedures, invention and company competencies. The models guided the choice of study variables and the conceptual framework.
An essential area reviewed in the literature was on the measures of invention based on different indicators. From the studies reviewed invention indicators can be categorized into two, indicators based on invention activities and inputs and those based on invention outputs. Some literature has indicated the use of R&D activities and expenditure as indicators of innovation while some used patents as a measure of invention activities. This is especially for studies in enterprises in the developed nations. The study hence adopted the use of the number and newness of new systems, services, processes and products to measure invention (Ahuja & Katila, 2001).
Though invention is generally regarded as means of companies sustaining and obtaining competitiveness, this connection is not strongly supported empirically. The effect of invention on company competitiveness and performance remains of important interest to economist, policy makers and researchers. Much of the earlier studies and empirical literature have examined the relationship between company performance and invention. Few studies have examined the relationship between competitiveness and invention especially in developing economie
2.5 Directions for further research
As explained before, competency generating initiatory needs a superior level of sub-unit liberty, and the embeddedness in mother nation or topically supported global system. At the same period, a cognition in quest for strategy necessitates central collective group cognition to be compounded with the skillfulness which lies backside the fresh lines of utilization being opened up by the competency generating sub-unit, which therefore needs a closer and more correlative connection with its genitor firm (Cantwell, 2014). This can afterwards rely on whether a subsidiary’s cognition comes to the attraction of its parental (Monteiro 2015), and on the motive affiliated with the existent headquarter quality (Song and Shin 2008). So industry constructions have continued changed in the cognition motivated and internationally interrelated info age to aid more aggravated action between the abilities of companies and those of areas, second to the dynamic administration composition of IB nets (Cantwell 2015).
In the info age with its knowledge ambitious sort of capitalist economy, and the related style in IB to knowledge searching FDI and more occupational dispersed competency generating activities, deduction is an alteration in the type of competing gains of companies and areas and in the superior degree of their common action (Alcácer, Cantwell, and Piscitello 2016). The benefits of the position of ancestry of industries, which are the knowledge that companies create or receive via their origin nation and IB nets, develop progressively via a capability to create knowledge-based international linkages among regions which symbolize important competency generating connections in what has become GVCs. While in Hymer’s primary conceptualization the gains of MNE were assessed comparative to internal companies in every parent nation only one market at a time, that appropriate the age of primal MNE growth and industry seeking FDI he delineated, these benefits have to now be apprehended as the important competence of a central MNE relation to the other leading MNEs existing in the same company. This identifies that, challenge has now become a worldwide activity (see Cantwell 2000). Which is much accessing foreign abilities via their IB system, progressively utilized in mixture with their personal interior abilities, had become a vital part of the intellect of the invention and development of industries We also need to cognize about this occurrence of of scientific cognition development and invention that at the same time transverses all national boundaries and organizational in IB networks.
So, to summarize, I have determined five places for further studies that offer possibly fruitful approach for donation to the literary study on the invention . First, there are chances to improve our apprehension of various components of international scientific knowledge connectivity (Cano-Kollmann et al. 2016), past a categorization transmission principal for knowledge transmittance and their relation importance in the information period (Bathelt and Henn 2014).

3.1 Introduction
This section gives a elaborated description and intellection of the methodological concept used in the study and comprises of actions and process. The section covers: Inquiry Philosophy; Research Designing; the Empirical Framework; Operationalization and variables measurements; Target Population description and the pilot study; Sampling Design and size of the sample; Study area; methods of data collection; data collection instruments, process of data collection,
3.2 Research Philosophy
This associates with the groundwork and development of noesis on which the assumptions of a research are founded. These presume support the enquiry plan and the know-how used in the research (Saunders, 2012). A Positive study Philosophy was selected with the assumption that societal realness is objective and singular and is not influenced by the enactment of inquiry (Collis & Hussey, 2009). The doctrine shadows the value of scientific validity in the pursuit for noesis. Positivity is quantifiable, impersonal and scientific, employing extremely organized method to alleviate reproduction (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012). Grounded on the philosophy, developed variables,theories and functional definitions were concluded depending on the current models.
Conferring to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2012), just evident phenomenon by the investigator may result to the production of convincing data in positivity. According to this philosophy, data was gathered on an evident reality invention. Tendency, symmetry and causative relation in the data were employed to deduce generalizations. The strategy in this research was also derived depending on present models. Theories were tried with the use of data and were ascertained in entire or partly resulting to additional share to model (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012).
In sensationalism, the investigator is autonomous (is neither affected by or affects the topic) of the study. This has the deduction of the study being carried out in a value independent way, where the research worker is extrinsic to the activity of data assemblage to guarantee little data intervention (Collis & Hussey, 2009). According to positivity, the research employed a reasoning move which included data aggregation used in examining prepositions associated with present models. The research wanted to explain causative relation betwixt variables that were sensationalized in a way that modify information to be quantitatively calculated . In order to extrapolate the outcomes, a sampling of adequate population magnitude was cautiously chosen (Saunders, , 2012).
3.3 Research Design
This research employed a descripto-explanatory plan which uses both prescriptive and informative stylisme (Saunders, 2012). Prescriptive plan is suitable in explaining the qualities of a specific entity/universe or physical process. This pattern was befitting in ensuring the position and quality of invention in the business sector. Similarly, informative design was became important in determining causative associations between the autonomous and dependent variables (Mugenda, A. & Mugenda, O., 2003). this became important in describing the impacts of invention on the competitiveness of an industry (Collis & Hussey, 2009; Saunders, Lewis & Thorn hill, 2012).
Cross sectional study plan was employed data collection to get a picture into the phenomenon of innovation in global businesses at a specific time period (Hair et al., 2010). This survey plan was viewed suitable in position of the concept that it enables the accumulation of sizable magnitude of data from a big aggregation in economical way while providing the investigator with more standard.
3.4 Empirical Model
The study employed an empirical exemplary to try the association betwixt the autonomous elements and reliant elements. Multiple linear regression methods were employed to set up the consequence of the autonomous elements invention and materials of a company on the dependent element aggressiveness of a company.
Aggressiveness which is the dependent element is denoted by (Y) and the autonomous variable innovation (X) is denoted by the different kinds of invention; operation, commerce, organizational invention and commodity, . The hypothesis can be represented by the below form;
Y=β0+β1X1+β2X2+… βn Xn + ε ………………………………………………………3.1
Multiple linear regression framework of the research can be given by;
Y=β0+β1X1+β2X2+β3X3+β4X4+β5X5+β6X6+ ε………………………………….…3.2
Y = Competitiveness
β0 = equation constant
β1 – βn = estimated regression coefficient
X1 – Xn = Autonomous variables
ε = Error term
To investigate for modification, a three pace hierarchal aggregate linear regression investigation was performed.
Step 1: The autonomous elements of the regression, Human resources, Financial materials and Invention were regressed against the dependent variable.
Step II: the magnitude of the firm was initiated into the exemplary. The Autonomous variables for regression were Fiscal resources, Human resources, Invention and the size of the company are regressed against dependent variable.
Step III: Action variable, the action between innovation (dependent variable) and the size of the firm is created and enclosed in the framework. The autonomous regression variables includes human resources financial resources,, invention, firm size and the action variable
The Empirical Model for the moderating variable is
Y=β0+β1X1+β2Z+β2X1Z ………………………………………………3.4
Hence our Regression Model will be;
Y = β0 + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + β4X4 + β5X5 + β6Z + β7Xi Z +ε ………………………3.5 222

Y = Competitiveness
β0 =Constant of the equation
β1 – β5 – Regression Coefficient for variables X1, X2 X3 X4
β6 = Regression Coefficient for moderating variables Xi
ε = Error term
Y = Competitiveness
Z = Moderating Variable
Xi* Z = Interaction effect between the independent and the moderator variable
3.5 Target Population
The group targeted for this research were the business companies both medium and large scale that operate in global business environment.
Table 3.2: Target Population Enterprise
Enterprise Frequency
Medium 340
Large 645
Total 985

3.6 Sample Size
Various formulations are obtainable for the resolution of illustration size and comprise a count of the medium and large scale businesses; using same size of sample for a similar research; using promulgated tabulations or by a statistical method by calculation of the sample size depending on statistical expressions. This research employed Yamane expression to compute sampling sizes at a confidence level of 95%.

n = N
1 + N (e) 2
n is the sample size,
N is population size,
e the precision level.

3.7 Data Collection Instrument
The research employed secondary data to achieve its objectives therefore data was gathered from the companies. The study used both quantitative and qualitative. And a secondary data was retrieved from the companies websites and used as the major data collection instrument, Appendix II. Secondary data was taken as suitable because it enabled the gathering of information from a comparatively large sampling, in economical way. The study tools incorporate nearly all of the guiding procedures and formatting given in the Oslo Invention extremity on direction to collection and examination of invention data (OECD, 2005).
3.8. Data Collection Procedure
The aggregation of data for this research comprised a set of actions that comprisedetermination and establishment of the engagement of enterprisingness; detection, providing and education of study helper; pre-testing the study tools through a pilot study; acquiring a study permission ; distributing the questionnaires and assemblage of questionnaires.A pre-testing of data for clarity to determine whether they induced the results needed to obtain the study goals and whether it was related and sufficient. Connection was created with the designated sample industries via mailings and telephone to explicate the study, set up their accurate location and call for for audience participation.

4.1 Introduction
This chapter avails the results of the experiential research on the impacts of invention on the competitiveness of a firm depending on the objectives of the research. The chapter has two major segments.The first section presents findings through the use of descriptive applied mathematics to detail the main characters of the enterprises and their invention position. The second section present study results based on deductive statistics used to testing the research theories explaining the association between invention and competitiveness.
4.2 Innovation
4.2.1 The Level of Innovation
Invention was determined by the quantity of inventions enforced in the company over a given period of time 2017-2020.the study respondents were requested to show the quantity and innovation type they had enforced in their companies and how they affect the effectiveness of the firm in the recent years (2017- 2020). The findings of the study are as given in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1: Level of Innovation
Innovation number of innovations per enterprise
Innovation type 10
Product 85 63 23 4
Process 112 46 15 1
Marketing 81 13 4
Organization 43 9
Total 321 131 42 5

Table 4.1 shows that 203 of the medium level industries surveyed had at least one invention, while other 6 enterprises had no innovation at all. 91% of the studied companies had enforced product innovation, 86 % of the firms had enforced process invention and 70 % had enforced marketing and while 52 % had enforced marketing invention between 2017 – 2020. Nevertheless it is noticeable that though nearly all the industries were pioneering, a number of the industries had minimal innovations in the class of 1-3 innovation.
Table 4.2Degree of Newness of Innovation/ Nature of Novelty
Innovation type
Improved New
New in the company New in the market New in the county New in the world
Product 85 63 45 3 1
Process 80 68 28 5
Marketing 82 46 15
Organizational 50 33 9 3

Freshness is the newness of an invention and has a positive relation with innovation (Keijl, 2013). Four wide stages of innovation novelty are characterized in relation to the innovation type, level of freshness/ the novelty nature, importantly developed fresh to the industry new market. In terms of invention freshness, the results show 50 % of the organization showed that they had initiated inventions that were only importantly developed the least level of originality, whereas 34 % had enforced inventions that were fresh to the industry, 16 % of the industries had initiated inventions that were fresh in the market. Solely, a single industry corresponding to 0.006 % of the overall responders had enforced a product invention that was fresh globally with success,therefore attaining advanced level of novelty.
Invention is affected not only by the amount of inventions but also by the degree/ quality of invention shown by the level of freshness. An innovation comprises an transformation in the present process, product, marketing know-how and organisational to a better degree or importantly. A process, commodity, marketing method or structure method might have been enforced by different industries, but in case it is fresh to the industry, then it is an invention for that industry. similarly, fresh to the market and fresh globally concerns if or not a given invention has been enforced by other industries, or if the industry is the initial in the industry or market or world-wide to have enforced it. Inventions are regarded as fresh to the industry when the industry is the leader to initiate the invention in the market and an invention is fresh worldwide when the company is the first to initiate the invention for every markets and business, the internal and worldwide.
This implies a quantitative better levels of freshness than newfound to the industry, and is the desirable degree to guarantee aggressiveness and sustainable economical development. However several of the organizations were inventing, study results shown above show that a number of the firms carrying out innovation at a lower level of freshness which may have had an effect on the firm level aggressiveness. Conferring to (Schumpeter, 1947), Extremist inventions have greater level of freshness and also have the greatest degree of effect on endeavor. Low novelty levels (as in additive innovation) symbolize innovations that are not adequately specific to industry competitiveness and builds on the present information and firm resources (Noteboom, 2002). Based on these study results, the degree of competitiveness of the firms might have been affected by the level of novelty of the inventions displayed in the firms.
4.2.2 Sources of Information for Industries
Information on invention is essential for industry’s invention, and therefore the type of innovation depends on the type and origin of innovation knowledge. The research here wanted to know the information sources for organizational innovation. The sources of information were classified as: Inner sources, industry sources, organizational sources and different sources. The results are shown in table below
Table 4.3 Sources of Information for Industries
Source of information Unimportant Somehow important Fairly important important Highly important
internal Within the company 11 12 28 48 102
Market sources Equipment and material suppliers 21 8 31 37 103
Customers and clients 1 5 8 38 156
competitors 6 6 22 48 118
Consultants 73 25 36 19 33
Institutional sources Government institutes 63 47 28 22 26
Other sources Trade fairs, conferences 64 33 27 34 43
Scientific and trade journals 77 28 36 28 21
Industry and its associates 76 27 22 28 43

The results tabulated above shows that industry sources consisting of consumers, rivals and other firms, then the providers were rated as highly essential sources by a number of firms. Then followed by interior information sources. These indicates a weak connection between research institutions, authorities, and private sectors. The industries may not be able to get the current information created that is distributed in technological journals and trade publications. Extremist inventions with the higher degree of newness necessitate entirely fresh noesis that can be gotten from information producing organizations which comprise: Diary and higher learning organizations. Information sources have an impact on the type of invention which then impacts the aggressiveness of the firms.
4.2.3 Innovation Co-operation Partners
Invention practice is an essential feature in innovations because it assists endeavor allowing them to deal with restraints to invention. This research wanted to found if the businesses had invention cooperation relations, the nature of invention group action they have and if the practice associates were from the nation of operation or from another nation. Respondents were required to show the type of Invention Cooperation associates they had in the innovation period.
Table 4.4 Innovation Co-operation Partners
The corporation partner Within the nation Other nations
Other firms within the industry 77 7
Materials, components and equipment suppliers 63 18
Customers and clients 102 6
Consultants and private institutes 33 7
Government institutes 35 1

Related to the Innovation information sources, a good number of organizations cooperated with customers and clients, then the other firms, and equipment suppliers, components and materials. The lowest co-operators were consultants, commercialized labs, or private Organizations then social control or open exploration institutes. Most of the associates were inside the nation as compared to other nations.
4.3 Diagnostic Tests
a. Normality test
A test for normality determines whether the data has been gotten from a common population distribution. Normality is tried by the use of Kolmogorov Smirnov test. At the point P > 0.05 where the trial is non-significant, the variable dispersion is significantly indifferent from a typical dispersion, therefore it is usually dispersed. In case of a significance with a p value 2
>9 .056 108 .200
.262 4 .
Market innovation >2
6-9 .062 96 .200
.277 7 .
Organizational innovation >2
2-5 .117 52 .086
.233 11 .172

b. Linearity Test
This test examines linearity of the association betwixt the dependent and autonomous. Linearity was examined by employing the test for linearity in the exemplary. This is shown by the sig. Divergence value from Linearity p, if p > 0.05 then the H0; the relation is linear and if p 0.05 therefore non-significant, p measure for Commodity Invention is 0.496> 0.05, P value for Process Invention is 0.996 > 0.05, The P value for Merchandising Invention is 0.676> 0.05 and finally the p value for Organizational Invention is 0.603 > 0.05. Consequently, we do not reject the H0 that the association between profits and Process, commerce, Product, and structural Invention is lineal and resolve that the linearity suppositions between effectiveness and process, commerce product and structural invention mitigated.
C. Test for Homoscedasticity
This is the supposition that that the dependent elements have same deviation across the limit of the autonomous variables. In cases of deviation in variances across the independent variables, there is heteroskedasticity which breaks the linear regression supposition. Levene’s test statistic is employed in this case to test the error term variance . The hypothesis below was used in testing for homoscedaticity.
H0 –There is variance homogeneity , therefore there is non variation between the variance.
H1- There is no variance homogeneity ; hence variation exists between the variance.
In case of significance in Levene’s test and p 0..5 we accept H0, therefore the homoscedaticity posit is consummated. The table below presents the results of the Levene’s test.
Table 4.7 Tabulation of Heteroscedasticity Test Results
Independent variable Levene statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Product innovation .6021 5 188 .663
Process innovation 1.657 4 179 .177
Marketing innovation 1.867 3 142 .137
Organizational innovation .549 2 104 .581

The table presents homogeneity results indicating the Levene’s statistic for product invention is 0.663 > 0.05, Process invention 1.657 (5, 189) p = 0.179 > 0.05, Marketing Innovation 1.866 (4, 142) p = 0.139 > 0.05 and Organizati0nal Invention 0.549 (3, 106) p= 0.580. therefore the H0 hypothesis is accepted, that there is equal variance because the p value in Process, marketing Product, and Structure invention p > 0.05 thus non-significant. The research thus resolves that there are equal discrepancy and the homoscedaticity supposition was observed.
d. Test for Multicollinearity
The collinearity assumption requires no correlation between the independent variables . Multicollinearity is found when there is a powerful correlation among two or more autonomous variables and this lessens the prognostic ability of respective elements. This research analyzed elements for multicollinearity through the multicollinearity Tolerance Statistics and the Inflation factors of variance (VIF). VIF shows if the autonomous velements has a powerful linear association with other autonomous variables. VIF values that are higher than ten indicates multicollinearity and the values of tolerance below 0.1 shows serious multicollinearity trouble. The table below presents the results of the collinearity test.
Table 4.8 Collinearity test
Variables collinearity statistics
Tolerance VIF
Product innovation
Process innovation
Market innovation
Organizational innovation
Size of the firm
Financial resources .547 1.825
.721 1.388
.646 1.552
.652 1.531
.601 1.663
.289 2.578

Based on the results, the collinearity statistics Commodity Invention (VIF = 1.825, T = 0.547); Process Invention (VIF= 1.388, T= 0.721); Marketing Invention (VIF= 1.552, T= 0.646); Structure Invention (VIF= 1.551, T= 0.652); size of the firm (VIF =1.663, T = 0.601) and Financial Resources (VIF = 2.578, T = 0.389). All the autonomous variables VIF measures are below 10, and the values of tolerance for all the autonomous variables are bigger than > 0.1 showing the absence of multi-collinearity (Field, 2009).grounded on the findings, there is no collinearity among the autonomous variables that can impact their prognostic ability, therefore all the autonomous elements are suitable for the regression investigation.
4.4 Hypothesis Testing
This work is based the supposition that Invention has a affirmative influence on a company’s aggressiveness and the association is regulated by the size of the firm. A multiple linear regression was performed at 95% level of confidence (α =0.05).
A double phase stratified multiple regression was carried out having aggressiveness as the dependent variable to analyze the impact of the autonomous variabless on the competitiveness. company resources were considered in the first regression measure as standard element and Invention variables ( Marketing Commodity, process and Structure) were used at the second step. The outcome are as tabulated below.
Table 4.9 Goodness of Fit- Regression of Innovation Variables on competitiveness
Model R R square Adjusted R-square Standard error Change in R square
2 .556
.700 .309
.488 .295
.457 .75992
.66692 .307

The findings in the above table indicates an R 2 = 0.309, and Adjusted R2 = 0.295 for the first model with standard variables. This shows that the standard variables which are human resource and finance accounts for 30.7% of the total alteration in company’s competitiveness. Whereas R 2 = 0.488, Adjusted R2 = 0.457 for the second model which entails the invention variables depicting that the variables of invention , product,marketing, process, and structure with the standard variables justify 48.8 % of the change in competitiveness.
Modification in R2 with the entry of invention variables 0.182 showing that invention variables exclusively explains 18.2% of the variation in the company’s competitiveness. The findings shows that company resources and invention as autonomous variables have an effect on the company’s competitiveness. Even so it is detected that though invention has a substantial impact on the competitiveness of a firm, its informative ability is inferior.
Table 4.10 ANOVA Table
Model Sum of squares df mean square f sig.
1 (control variables) Regression
2 (innovation) Regression
24.987 2 12.487 21.613 .000(a)
56.024 98 .579
81.000 99
39.637 6 6.616 14.864 .000(b)
41.353 94 .435
81.000 99

The above tabulation of ANOVA of the first model shows an F statistic of F (2, 98) = 21.613, p = .000 < 0.05 indicating an impact of company resources on the company’s competitiveness. The second model with the incorporation of invention variables as autonomous variable has an F statistic F (6, 94) = 14.854, p = .000 0.05) shows a statistically unimportant association among product invention and firm competitiveness. Therefore, H01 is acceptable and the conclusion of the study is that Commodity invention has no significant impact on the aggressiveness of companies globally..
Therefore an increment in product invention results in an increment in competitiveness however non-significant. The results deviates with a number of previous research results that deduced that there is a important positive association with commodity invention and the execution of a firm (Atalay, 2013; ; Belderbos, Duvivier & Wyen, 2010; Jayaram & Prajogo, 2013; Sidek, 2013). (Lin and Chen, 2007) got a weak association among commodity invention and the income of a company. According to (Gunday, 2005), product invention was connected to an rise in share of market and sales; therefore creative companies had a greater sales volume as compared to non-innovative companies. Nonetheless the results are consonant with (Acquah and Mensah, 2015) work that established that commodity invention has no significant impact on the aggressiveness of a firm.

4.5.2: Impacts of Process Invention on Company’s Competitiveness
The second hypothesis H02: Process Invention has a non-significant impact on Competitiveness. The regression Coefficient outcomes shown where Process invention (β= 0. 307, p=0.001 < 0.05) shows that a statistically fundamental association betwixt process invention and aggressiveness. A portion rise in Process invention will lead to 0.307 rise in aggressiveness.Therefore industries enforce procedure invention are possibly to be more competitive than the ones that are not. The null hypothesis is rejected at α =0.05 and the research deduced that Process invention has positive significant impact on the company’s competitiveness. The regression outcomes shows that process invention had the higher impact on competitiveness when matched to other of invention types. The results are in harmony with the (Pratali, 2003) results who found in his work that process invention reinforced a company’s aggressiveness.
Different works have resulted into affirmative correlation within process invention and execution of a company (Mensah & Acquah, 2015; Oke et al., 2013; Sidek & Rosli, 2013; Atalay et al. 2013). (Neira et al. 2009) posits that process invention is very applicable particularly to businesses experiencing strong rivalry because it has direct and close effect on fecundity operation of the firms. (Oke, 2013) stressed on the importance of process invention by the companies based on its identifiable ability for competing advantage and therefore should be stressed as a major competitive cause.

5.1 Introduction
This chapter shows the conclusion and research findings summery while giving suggestions and recommendations for foster studies.
5.2 Summary
Companies has an important function in the development and improvement of every economy. Therefore adjuratory that they set up and uphold their competitiveness. Innovation is an important factor in industry competitiveness and stay a presumptive objective of the industry scheme and government policies. Globally there is intense innovation, science and technology to better the competitive ability of the the industries.
Though innovation is broadly taken as a way of acquiring and maintaining competitiveness, this association is weakly backed empirically. The experiential works that ties invention to competitiveness are limited. The study therefore purposes to create the impacts of of innovation on industry competitiveness.
The research outcomes show a higher innovation rate among the industries for the period under study, with the sampled industries having at least an innovation. Many of the industries had enforced product invention then the process invention, marketing invention and the least organizational invention. According to the nature of inventions enforced, the study results shows bulk of the industries implemented insignificant or additive changes, which imply adaptations, improvement and products enactment, procedures, means and systems. The initiatives were plainly advanced utilization of the current innovations. These inventions were only fresh to the industry showing other industries could have formerly enforced them.
The first goal of this research was to constitute the consequence of merchandise invention on industry competitiveness. From the reviewed literature, the work proposed a positive association between product creation and industry competitiveness. The study results confirmed though insignificant but a positive association betwixt product creation and industry competitiveness. This means that with product innovation implementation, industries will experience an increment in the competitiveness though insignificant.
Another goal this work was to ascertain the consequence of process invention on the competitiveness of industries. The work proposed a positive association betwixt process invention and the competitiveness of industries. The study results showed a positive significant association betwixt process invention and the competitiveness of a firm. Operation invention had the greatest impact among the invention attribute on competitiveness. It is stressed that process invention is much essential in these industries depending on its identifiable competency for competing advantage.
The last aim of this work was establishing the effect of marketing invention on the competitiveness of industries. The research proposed a positive association betwixt marketing invention and the competitiveness of industries. The results showed a positive significant association betwixt marketing invention and the competitiveness of industries. Through the execution of marketing invention, there is increased industry competitiveness.
5.3 Conclusion
Invention is an essential element in competitiveness of a firm. The industries have clutched it with 96% of the responsive firms with at least an invention. The study results, show that product, organizational, marketing and process invention have a positive influence on the competitiveness of a firm. Process,organizational and marketing invention had a significant statistical impact on competitiveness whereas product invention had an non-significant impact. Among these three inventions with a significant impact on competitiveness, the process invention had the greatest effect on competitiveness, then marketing invention and lastly organizational invention.
The conclusion is that the execution of process, organizational and marketing inventions leads to an increment in the competitiveness of a firms. Industries can thus better their competitiveness through the implementation the various innovations types. The joint impact of all these types of innovation is greater than for every single type of innovation therefore industries are healthier of applying the various innovations types as opposed to each singular innovation type individually. The function of the size of the firm alleviating the association betwixt invention and the competitiveness of a firm was ascertained.
Though the marketing,process and organizational inventions all have a positive significant impact on the competitiveness of a firm, their informative strength was down to average. This shows that though invention is an important element in the competitiveness of a firm, other elements also attribute to the competitiveness of a firm. From reviewed literature, these other elements comprise of the resources of the firms; human, physical, capital and intellectual resources, competences and other extrinsic elements. The extrinsic environment comprise of conditions of the market, economic situation and lawful environment also has an influence on industry’s competitive ability. Thus for the competitiveness of any industry, invention should be linked with a tributary, supportive interior and extrinsic environment.
5.4 Recommendations
The study findings concludes that process, organizational and product marketing and invention have positive impact on the competitiveness of a firm. Marketing, process, and organizational have significant impact. Fiscal resources also have the same significant impact on the competitiveness of a firm. The work thus recommend to proprietor/ directors of the firms create and enforce inventions in their industries to better their competitiveness. Firm proprietor/ directors can conceive following invention scheme to better the competitiveness of a firm. This involves importantly alleviating their processes, products, organizational marketing methods and creating a totally fresh organizational,processes, products and marketing methods.
Firms can conceive rising their present products in ways of technical stipulation, material used, person disposition, practicality, via form, importance and designing. Firms may also better on technology employed in the processes, better on process effectiveness in creation and conveyance and conceive using improved production methods. Additionally they can regard enforcing significant modification in product plan, diagnose new markets, promotional material, valuation and marketing ways. Finally firms should create or modify managing process for the firms, work process, enclose improved scheme that include administration schemes, attribute management schemes and business re-engineering. These will eventually result to reductions in costs, consumer contentment, entrance into fresh markets, increased sales volume and better attribute products.
In order to gain from inventions industries should better their intrinsic environment including the industry resources, and other abilities. According to the study results, most industries were inventing at the worst levels of innovation enforcing mainly additive invention. From the reviewed literature, it was supposed that inventions with greater novelty i.e. the new ones in the market,nation or global have a greater level of effect on the competitiveness. Thus this work recommends that firms both perform additive new invention and pursue in inventions with a greater novelty level and new in the market, industry, nation and globally. Thus this results into a greater degree of impact on the competitiveness of industries. To accomplish this, this research recommend the following to firms, authorities and policy-makers, inquiry and higher learning institutions;
Inventions with greater novelty levels and effect on the competitiveness of an industry necessitate fresh cognition subsequent from the new technology. In order to create and enforce such inventions, it is recommended that the firms pursue cooperative inquiry with research foundations. Firms should also form connection with institutions generation the information like universities, private investigation research lab which create fresh cognition essential for inventions of greater novelty. It is necessary this way because inventive act of industries depends on its connection with information sources, knowledge, resources and technologies.
Political administration is an essential stakeholder in nationwide invention systems and in controlling the operational environment of the firms. This work thus recommends that the governments via the related agents support the evolution and usage of invention for industry competitiveness. This may be done by predisposition, publicity of noesis generation by researches useful and relevant to firms. The government should also raise financial backing to investigatory organization while prioritizing national devolution. Resources are captious factors in the invention act of firms. For this reason, the government should to enforce programme that modify availability and supply of the respective resources e.g finances needed by firms. Additionally, the government should theorize related policies and programs that encourage invention and modify the invention infrastructure and trading environment.
The systems innovation approach link up the power of extrinsic organizations and actors on the inventive firm operations. Invention needs institutional set up for the creation of knowledge and dissemination whereby the government has a crucial function. This work thus recommends the government and also fortify the national system on innovation to encourage connection and cooperation betwixt the firms and other participants in the invention scheme. Additionally, the government should create fortified intelligence property rights that will allow innovating industries to defend and gain from their inventions.
Institutions generating knowledge are art of the general system of invention and has an important role in the process of innovation therefore industry competitiveness. This study recommend that these organs particularly universities concentrate on inquiry and generation of knowledge generation that is applicable to firms for invention. The degree to which perform this function determines the superiority of the available knowledge for innovation. These organization require an improvement on their diffusion of fresh noesis and findings through availing it to the firms for the improvement of new inventions. To accomplish these, establishments should undertake connections and collaborate with industries in order to create relevant and useful knowledge.

5.5 Contribution of the Study to Theoretical and Empirical Knowledge
Despite the wide view held that invention contribute to competitiveness industries, empirical works and synthesis to aid this conception is narrow and not definitive. Therefore this work adds to the existing knowledge on invention and the competitiveness of firms by availing empirical evidence of the effect of specific innovation on firm competitiveness. Whereas early works have looked at the consequence/effect of invention on industry competitiveness and performance, this work looked at the impacts of the different innovations types.
This work adds to the invention noesis, research and logical argument framing. It spotlight the necessity to better the f innovation quality in quest of accrued competitiveness of the firm. several literature works have centered on the conception of inventions. Greater level of freshness should be stressed in industry plans and regime policies for better industry competitiveness. Finally, this work adds to the knowledge body by giving a model that can be used for invention and competitiveness studies.

Boachie-Mensah, F., & Acquah, I. S. (2015). The effect of innovation types on the performance of small and medium-sized enterprises in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis. Archives of Business Research, 3(3).
Buzzigoli, L., & Viviani, A. (2009). Firm and system competitiveness: Problems of definition, measurement and analysis. Firms and system competitiveness in Italy, 11-37.
Drummond, D. (2015). Progress on the mystery of productivity: A review article on the OECD report The Future of Productivity. International Productivity Monitor, (29), 83.
Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., & Alpkan, L. (2008, September). Modeling innovation: determinants of innovativeness and the impact of innovation on firm performance. In 2008 4th IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology (pp. 766-771). IEEE.
Liargovas, P., & Skandalis, K. (2015). Motives and marketing strategies of Greek companies exporting to South-East European Markets. South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics, 6(2).
Lin, C. Y. Y., & Chen, M. Y. C. (2007). Does innovation lead to performance? An empirical study of SMEs in Taiwan. Management research news.
Ngirigacha, S. M., & Bwisa, H. (2013). THE IMPORTANCE OF ENTREPRENEURIAL INNOVATIONS ON SMES’MARKET COMPETITIVENESS: A CASE STUDY OF THIKA TOWN. Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, 479.
Subrahmanya, M. H., Mathirajan, M. K. K. N., & Krishnaswamy, K. N. (2010). Importance of technological innovation for SME growth: Evidence from India (No. 2010/03). WIDER Working Paper.
Varis, M., & Littunen, H. (2010). Types of innovation, sources of information and performance in entrepreneurial SMEs. European Journal of Innovation Management.
Wang, H. C., He, J., & Mahoney, J. T. (2009). Firm‐specific knowledge resources and competitive advantage: the roles of economic‐and relationship‐based employee governance mechanisms. Strategic management journal, 30(12), 1265-1285
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy.
Kiraka, R. N., Kobia, M., & Katwalo, A. M. (2013). Micro, small and medium enterprise growth and innovation in Kenya: A case of the women enterprise fund.
Liargovas, P. G., & Skandalis, K. S. (2010). Factors affecting firms’ performance: The case of Greece. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 2(2), 184-197.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business students (6. utg.). Harlow: Pearson.
Gakure, R. W., Mukuria, P., & Kithae, P. P. (2013). An evaluation of factors that affect performance of primary schools in Kenya: A case study of Gatanga district. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(13), 927-937.
Lin, C. Y. Y., & Chen, M. Y. C. (2007). Does innovation lead to performance? An empirical study of SMEs in Taiwan. Management research news.
Cantwell, J., & Piscitello, L. (2015). New competence creation in multinational company subunits: The role of international knowledge. The World Economy, 38(2), 231-254.
Cano-Kollmann, M., Cantwell, J., Hannigan, T. J., Mudambi, R., & Song, J. (2016). Knowledge connectivity: An agenda for innovation research in international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(3), 255-262.
Augier, M., & Teece, D. J. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and the role of managers in business strategy and economic performance. Organization science, 20(2), 410-421.
Lazonick, W. (2013). The theory of innovative enterprise: A foundation of economic analysis. A revised and elaborated version of an essay that appeared as ‘The theory of innovative enterprise: Methodology, Ideology, and Institutions’, in JK Moudud, C. Bina & PL Mason (eds.), Alternafive theories of compefifion: Challenges to the Orthodoxy, 127-159.
Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2013). Business research: A practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Curristine, T. (2006). Performance information in the budget process: Results of the OECD 2005 questionnaire. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 5(2), 87-131.

Appendix One
Reflective learning statement

Independent reflective critical thinking
In developing self-assignment there is need to know set the objectives of the assessment. Obviously from the assessment I would require there is a target to be achieved and planning for these targets is the first step I took in my plans bearing in mind my study module. Reflecting my module goals into my assessment will result into the desirable outcome of the of the assessment. It was also important checking on my own aims of taking the module, the better performance and a final success.
As my module involves socialization during data collection, assessing this became necessity so as to prevent any unnecessary colition during the work. This assessment helped in maintaining discipline throughout the work. Financial assessment also became necessary because the work was accompanied with distance traveling in order to perfectly get the necessary data. Some work involved direct communication and this necessitated proper communication skills. Finally, I would plan myself to work within the time limit provided by the university in order to meet the assessment deadline.
Cultural and ethical awareness
Maintaining ethics is the key to the success of any study project because it involves interaction with different people. Group work has been amazing with proper group management. In group we assigned duties to every member to do their personal research on the topic and later present in in the next meeting. This encouraged the art of doing research between the group members. These teams have also contributed in availing the ideas from different origins because the group members are from different nation. The management of these groups were not centralized as everyone was left responsible for their actions.
For the success of every dissertation, the ethical issues must be strictly considered. Research project involves corporation of many non-learning institutions and for the collection of necessary data required to conduct the study. All these organizations must ensure that the heir rights are preserved when conducting such an activity. This research considered all the ethical requirements by the school, the non-learning institutions and the legal requirements.
Leadership and management capability
Throughout this module I have gained management skills. The module involved a weekend business game. The management of these games added to may management skills. In the business game I was accorded the management role. This role brought with it different challenges but became a good learning section. Controlling a team require advancement in skills and this calls proper thinking. The business team required borrowing of ideas from outside sources and the fellow participants thereby improving om my skills.
Knowledge of international business and management
The study period has always been important in the development of my profession. Across my year of study, I have of the module, international business ideas have been evident in every unit. The module is based on the global business and this brings a better understanding of how businesses are carried out globally. The module project emphasized on this as the project covered global business. It involved checking the business trends of different nations and comparing them mathematically. The module also brought people from different nations and through sharing of ideas I got to understand better hoe business is carried out globally.
Research skills and project capabilities
The dissertation has been purely a self-project that became demanding on my abilities to carry out the research by myself. The project required actual collection and analysis of data. From this I would improvise the appropriate data collection tool for my work. The method must provide me with accurate data to analyze. After data collection I would feed them into the SPSS for the analysis. With SPSS I carried out regression analysis of the data. Data presentation techniques were also employed. I use tables and graphs to present the results.

Appendix Two
Microsoft industry Innovation Data
Date Open High Low Close Adj Close Volume
2/1/2020 154.960007 175.5 133.020004 142.940002 139.853928 398436
3/1/2020 147.899994 157.199997 121.980003 146.100006 143.368851 514342
4/1/2020 140.320007 168.5 138 163 159.952896 273283
5/1/2020 163 173 158.020004 164.339996 161.267868 145388
6/1/2020 164.339996 180 161.039993 179.139999 176.320236 130339
7/1/2020 180.460007 191 168.080002 170.440002 167.757172 207669
8/1/2020 176 195.020004 173.639999 189.039993 186.064392 126376
9/1/2020 188.199997 197 165.600006 180.059998 177.739029 167971
10/1/2020 180.339996 191.520004 171 171.979996 169.763168 134791
11/1/2020 174.679993 192.600006 172.919998 177.699997 175.40947 119465
12/1/2020 179.220001 185.240005 172.639999 182.860001 181.060043 126606
1/1/2021 182.860001 200 172.339996 190.899994 189.020889 168070
2/1/2021 192.699997 203.699997 186.259995 193.639999 191.733948 109743
3/1/2021 195.619995 203 187.080002 200.899994 199.477127 89415
4/1/2021 202.5 218.449997 202.5 209.350006 207.867294 85848
5/1/2021 210.449997 210.649994 195.600006 204.050003 202.604828 69153
6/1/2021 204.850006 228.5 200.300003 228.199997 227.217606 61706
7/1/2021 229.350006 247.449997 227.399994 240 238.966827 56406
8/1/2021 242.199997 262.5 239 256.799988 255.694489 58518
9/1/2021 256 259.899994 243.399994 244.449997 243.945313 73801
10/1/2021 242.5 285.399994 239.899994 285.100006 284.511383 69774
11/1/2021 288.549988 310.450012 282 292.100006 291.496948 103056
12/1/2021 297.950012 307 280.850006 302.299988 302.299988 81613

Appendix Three
clothing industry data
Date Open High Low Close Adj Close Volume
2/1/2020 6.6 8 6.3 6.6 6.6 1253495
3/1/2020 6.6 6.9 3.4 4.1 4.1 1825440
4/1/2020 4.3 6.7 4.2 6.1 6.1 1065761
5/1/2020 6.1 6.25 5.25 5.45 5.45 924051
6/1/2020 5.5 10.15 5.3 9.3 9.3 1893462
7/1/2020 8.85 9.6 5.8 6.4 6.4 1263062
8/1/2020 6.5 10.2 6.05 9.45 9.45 2140042
9/1/2020 9.05 12.45 8.55 9.95 9.95 4256411
10/1/2020 10.25 10.25 8.55 8.95 8.95 735822
11/1/2020 8.95 10.95 8.3 10.55 10.55 1512478
12/1/2020 10.75 13.2 10.2 13.2 13.2 3235099
1/1/2021 13.6 18.299999 12.8 14.55 14.55 4226937

Appendix Four
Data on Shoes
Date Open High Low Close Adj Close Volume
2/1/2020 185 195 132.149994 142.5 136.149033 1239016
3/1/2020 142.5 155 58 83.5 83.5 950606
4/1/2020 83.5 97.849998 35 78 78 1138997
5/1/2020 80.5 103.547997 72 96 96 485328
6/1/2020 96 98 81 87 87 576082
7/1/2020 87 86 60 63 63 364935
8/1/2020 63 62.799999 48 52 52 1406215
9/1/2020 52 54.599998 43 44.25 44.25 557963
10/1/2020 44.25 47.299999 36.080002 38 38 1015871
11/1/2020 35.5 63 34.560001 49 49 12208557
12/1/2020 49 70 45 65 65 4192462
1/1/2021 65 66 49 50.400002 50.400002 2316669

Leave a Comment