27 visualizações

Título original: The Determinants of Technology Adoption The Case of the Banking Firm.pdf

Enviado por Erza Ageng

The Determinants of Technology Adoption The Case of the Banking Firm.pdf

© All Rights Reserved

- A Reverse-Innovation Playbook
- Big Think Strategy
- Final College Project
- Case Study on Automated Teller Machine
- CV_Atreyee Nandy.pptx
- Enterprise Express Volume 24th Sept 2010
- barclays
- BRIGHT IDEAS Ski Area Management Magazine
- Objectives
- Challenges to Strengthening Agricultural Innovation Systems.pdf
- CYCLIC INNOVATION MODEL (CIM)
- Review of Literature
- Sales Forecast
- Chap 017
- Uganda-Solutions to Affordable Banking
- Professional Curriculum Vitae
- KFAS
- 555380021_Apr2019
- Retail Banking in India [FULL]
- Financial Report

Você está na página 1de 9

Source: The RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 328-335

Published by: Wiley on behalf of RAND Corporation

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2555441

Accessed: 24-07-2015 08:45 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/

info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content

in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.

For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and RAND Corporation are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The RAND Journal of

Economics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:45:16 UTC

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol. 15, No. 3, Autumn 1984

the case of the banking firm

Timothy H. Hannan*

and

John M. McDowell**

Using data on the adoption of automatic teller machines by firms in the banking industry,

this study examines the relationship between the decision to adopt new technology and its

determinants. Since bankingfirms differ considerably in terms of the competitive environments in which they operate, focusing on this one innovation in this industry allows a

stronger test of the relationship between market structure and the adoption of new

technology than has been previously conducted. Using a failure time estimation procedure,

wefind that larger banks and banks operating in more concentrated local banking markets

register a higher conditional probability of adopting this new technology, all else equal.

We also find that other results are consistent with the underlying model and that the

bank's regulatory environment shapes its adoption decision in plausible ways.

1. Introduction

* The rate at which innovations are adopted by firms constitutes an important part of

the process of technological change. Thus, investigation of the firm-specific and marketspecific characteristics which influence decisions to adopt innovations has long been

recognized as an important area of study. In this article we seek to shed further light on

this question by choosing as our object of study the decision by banks to adopt automatic

teller machines (ATMs).' This choice allows us to avoid a number of the problems

encountered by earlier studies of the influence of market characteristics on the adoption

of technology because markets in which commercial banks operate are limited geographically. Thus it is possible to compare the adoption decisions by firms in the same industry

that operate under widely varying market conditions. By definition we avoid the

potentially serious problem frequently faced by previous researchers of accounting for the

affect of interindustry differences on the adoption of an innovation. In addition, because

* Federal Reserve Board.

** Arizona State University.

The views expressed herein are the authors' and do not necessarily reflect those of the Federal Reserve

Board or its staff. We wish to thank David Walker and Keith Quince for making the data employed in this

study available. We also owe a special debt to Robert Avery, without whose skill and advice in using the

estimation procedure, this article would not have been possible.

' Past studies of the adoption decision and its determinants include Mansfield (1968), Romeo (1975), and

Oster (1982).

328

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:45:16 UTC

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HANNAN

AND MCDOWELL

329

of the large number of banks and local banking markets in existence, we are able to

avoid the problem of few observations and few degrees of freedom encountered in

previous studies of the relationship between market characteristics and the adoption

decision.2

Another advance over the previous literature involves the estimation procedure that

we employ. Our study uses data indicating the point in time that each of a large number

of banks introduced an ATM system. The principal task is to assess the dependence of

adoption decisions on explanatory variables which may take on different values at

different points in time during the period that the innovation could have been adopted.

To account for possible changes in the value of explanatory variables over this time

period (and thus to avoid the usual assumption of unchanging values), we employ a

"failure time" estimation procedure used recently by Lancaster (1979) and Flinn and

Heckman (1983) to investigate unemployment duration.

The plan of the article is as follows. Section 2 introduces the explanatory variables

to be employed in the analysis and discusses their expected role in the adoption decision.

Section 3 describes the data and the estimation procedure, and Section 4 presents the

econometric results. The final section concludes with a summary and a discussion of

implications.

* In examining those characteristics of banks and banking markets which are likely to

influence the decision to adopt ATM systems, we use as a guide the presumption that an

innovation will appear more attractive to a potential adopter, the greater is the positive

differential between profits obtainable with and without the innovation.3 This suggests

the role of a number of firm and market characteristics in the adoption decision.

Consider first the prevailing wage rate (WAGE) in the market in which the bank

operates. Since ATMs are labor-saving, an increase in the wages which must be paid

employees should reduce the profitability of ATM operations by less than it effects the

profitability of operations involving human tellers. Thus, adoption of ATM systems

should appear more attractive to banks operating in higher wage areas, all else equal.4

Market growth (GROWTH) is another characteristic which may influence the

profitability of an ATM system relative to its alternatives. To the extent that it allows

establishment of ATM operations without having to replace undepreciated capital

associated with human teller operations, ATMs should appear more attractive to banks

operating in markets experiencing faster growth.

We also include a measure of firm size in the analysis. Most researchershave focused

on its role as a proxy for the profitability of an innovation as a result of scale economies.

2 In focusing on the adoption of a given innovation by several different industries, past researchers have

been able to use only as many observations as there are adopting industries, and this in practice has turned out

to be a rather small number. Thus, Romeo's (1975) investigations of the adoption of numerically controlled

machine tools could muster only ten different industry observations and reported estimations with as few as four

degrees of freedom. Mansfield (1968) speculates on the relationship between the adoption decision and market

structure from the standpoint of even fewer observations.

3 While this simple presumption is sufficient for our purposes, the relationship between the adoption

decision and profits that may be obtained with and without the innovation and with and without rival adoption

of the innovation is more complex than the presumption may suggest. See Kamien and Schwartz (1982, Chs. 4

and 5) and an earlier version of our article (Hannan and McDowell, 1983) for a fuller discussion.

The precise sense in which "greaterattractiveness" translates into an adoption decision is developed fully

below. Note further that higher wage levels may make ATM adoption more attractive for other reasons as well.

Areas with higher wage rates have a higher proportion of people who value their time relatively highly, thus

registeringgreater demand for ATMs. Also, to the extent it proxies average educational levels, higher wage rates

may indicate a population more adaptable to the use of a new technology.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:45:16 UTC

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

330

OF ECONOMICS

attitudes between large and small firms and differences in relative risk exposure for firms

of different size. Thus, the effect of firm size cannot be predicted. Also included in some

estimations is a term representing size squared ((SIZE)2) to allow for more flexibility in

the relationship and to investigate the existence of a bank size most conducive to

technology adoption.

Of central concern in our study is the much debated relationship between market

structure and the tendency of firms to adopt new technology. We examine this question

by including in the analysis the three-firm concentration ratio as a measure of market

concentration.5 While several economists have undertaken the task of deriving from

theory the relationship between market structure and various aspects of firm "innovativeness," these relationships appear to be at best complex ones, contingent on circumstances

about which there may be little information in any empirical application.6 Thus, the

impact of market concentration in this study is not suggested a priori.

We also include a variable designed to control for differences in bank product mix.

According to Walker (1976, p. 13), cash withdrawals from checking accounts represent

the most common transaction performed with ATMs. We therefore include a measure

defined as the proportion of the bank's total deposits accounted for by demand deposits

(denoted PROMIX), with the expectation that banks specializing more in demand

deposits will find ATM adoption more attractive.

Included also is a measure of firm profitability. At issue here is the question of

whether a liquidity constraint in funding the adoption of the innovation exists. If the

availability of internally generated funds constrains investment in this new technology,

then the more profitable firm should evidence a greater tendency to adopt it. Since the

validity of such a constraint is open to question, the impact of profits is not suggested

a priori.

The data employed also allow us to examine the impact of regulatory restrictions on

this aspect of innovative activity, since states differ in terms of the restrictions imposed

on banks and their usage of ATMs. One such difference involves state branching

restrictions, which are controlled for in our estimation through the use of two dummy

variables. UNITBR denotes operation in a state in which no branches (only unit banks)

are allowed, while LIMBR denotes operation in a state where branching is allowed only

within limited geographic areas. Remaining banks operate in states which allow statewide

branching. Some authors have suggested that banks for which branching is restricted tend

to substitute other competitive devices for the prohibited branches.7 This in and of itself

might suggest that the existence of branching restrictions promotes the adoption of ATMs.

Other considerations may also be relevant, however. If, for example, the lack of branching

restrictions makes entry into new banking markets less costly, established banks operating

in such an environment may face a greater threat of entry. Since we cannot predict the

impact of these possible differences in potential competition, the role played by branching

restrictions is not suggested a priori.

State regulatory restrictions on the usage of ATMs themselves differ in at least one

important respect. While some states allow banks to locate ATMs away from the premises

of an established banking office, others do not. This distinction should prove important

in states which prohibit or restrict branching activity, since offpremise ATMs may enable

banks partially to circumvent these restrictions. To account for this, we use a dummy

5 This is the most commonly used measure of market concentration in studies of banking market structure

and bank performance. See Rhoades (1982) for a summary.

6 See, for example, the extensive work of Kamien and Schwartz as summarized in their book (1982, Chs.

4 and 5).

' See, for example, Flannery (1982, p. 1).

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:45:16 UTC

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HANNAN

AND McDOWELL

331

activity but which allows offpremise ATMs. Thus, the case in which OFFPREM = 1

should signify a situation in which ATMs appear more attractive to potential adopters.

We also account for two additional considerations. To control for differences between

urban and rural environments, we include a dummy variable (URBAN) which indicates

operation in an SMSA. We also introduce a dummy variable (BHCDUM) which indicates

ownership by a bank holding company. In neither case is the impact of these two

variables suggested a priori.

3. The test

* While we have thus far discussed determinants of the "attractiveness" of ATM

adoption to potential adopters, an empirical analysis clearly requires a more concrete

specification of the relationship between firm adoption behavior and explanatory variables.

As noted above, this should also be done in a way which accounts for changing values in

the explanatory variables during the time period in which the innovation could have

been adopted. We accomplish this by using the econometric specifications employed in

"failure time" estimation procedures.8 Allowing F(T) to denote the probability that a

bank will not have introduced an ATM system by period T (sometimes referred to as the

survivor function), it can be shown that

F(T)

exp(-J'

h(t)dt)

(1)

where h(t), called the "hazard rate," is defined as the conditional probability that the firm

will adopt the innovation at time t, given that it has not done so by that time. The link

between observed behavior and firm or market characteristics in the model is obtained

by specifying the conditional probabilities (the h(t)'s) as functions of firm or market

characteristics. In view of the nonnegativity of h(t), the most natural and commonly used

form is the exponential,

h(t) = exp(X43),

(2)

where X1 is a vector of firm and market characteristics prevailing at time t and : is a

vector of coefficients. Note that substitution of (2) into (1) yields F(T) as functions of the

firm and market characteristics prevailing in each period up to period T. The estimation

procedure employed maximizes a likelihood function composed of these probabilities.9

Estimated coefficients may be interpreted in terms of the relationship between explanatory

variables and the conditional probability of adoption, as expressed in (2).

The data set that we employ is extensive. It consists of annual observations of ATM

adoptions and bank and market characteristics for the period 1971-1979 and covers

8

See Kalbfleisch and Prentice (1980) and Lancaster (1979) for a full discussion.

9Because of problems with our adoption data for the years 1977 and 1978, we exclude adoption

information for these two years and use as our likelihood function

NX

J [Fi(Ti -

i= I

N3

N2

1) - Fi(Ti)] fJ [Fk(T'976)

k=I

- Fk(T'979)]

17Fj(T'979),

j=I

where N', N2, and N3 denote the number of banks that introduced ATMs by 1976, between 1977 and 1979, or

did not adopt by 1979, respectively. The first bracketed expression refers to the first six years of information and

notes that the probability of adoption during any of these years is the probability of not having the innovation

by the end of the previous year, minus the probability of not having it by the end of the year in question. The

second bracketed expression denotes the probability of adoption sometime during 1977 through 1979 (since we

do not use 1977 and 1978 adoption information). The last expression denotes the probability of not adopting

by the end of the last year, 1979. Because of the omission of two years of adoption information, this likelihood

function can be shown to be superior to the alternative of using probability densities.

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

332

OF ECONOMICS

3,841 banking firms operating in 392 different SMSAs or counties which have been

judged to approximate local banking markets.'0 Of these banks, 740 had introduced

ATM systems by 1979, the last year for which data are available.

4. The results

* Table 1 defines the variables used in the estimations reported below. We report

maximum likelihood estimations obtained for this sample of 3,841 banks in Table 2.

Columns (1) and (2) report coefficient estimates obtained with and without the size

squared term, (SIZE)2. Note first the positive and highly significant coefficients of market

concentration (CR3) in both estimations. All else equal, banks operating in more

concentrated markets are found to have a higher probability of introducing this new

technology, given that they have not yet done so. These results are important in that they

suggest the possibility of a Schumpeterian-like tradeoff in efforts designed to deconcentrate

local banking markets. While such efforts are generally undertaken to produce static

efficiency gains associated with lower profit rates and lower prices, our results suggest that

they may come at the price of slower introduction of new technology.

The coefficients of SIZE are positive and significant, while the coefficient of (SIZE)2

is negative and insignificant. Thus, larger banks are found to exhibit a higher conditional

probability of adoption, all else equal. " This finding is consistent with several different

explanations, including the existence of economies of scale in the use of ATMs, less

relative risk exposure on the part of larger banks, and different attitudes toward new

technology on the part of managers of larger banks.

Consistent with a priori expectations, the coefficients of WAGE are positive and

highly significant. Since ATMs are labor-saving, this positive impact of the area wage rate

on the conditional probability of adoption suggests that cost savings may be at least part

of the reason for the adoption of ATMs.

GROWTH fails to register a statistically significant impact in these estimations, while

the coefficients of PROMIX, defined as the proportion of the bank's deposits accounted

for by demand deposits, are positive and significant. This positive impact is consistent

with the expectation that, because cash withdrawals from demand deposits are the most

common type of transaction performed with ATMs, banks with greater proportions of

demand deposits find ATMs more suitable to their operations.

The impact of PROFITS on the conditional probability of adoption is negative but

statistically insignificant. We therefore fail to find statistical support for the notion that

profits, because of a binding constraint placed upon technology adoption by the supply

of internally generated funds, have a positive impact on the conditional probability of

adoption. This is consistent with the results of other studies which, focusing on other

aspects of technological progressiveness, also fail to find an important role for firm

profitability.12

The coefficients of BHCDUM are positive and highly significant, suggesting that all

else equal, banks that are members of bank holding company organizations have a higher

'0 This sample was obtained from Stephen Rhoades, who has used these market definitions in a number

of recent contributions. See Rhoades (1980). Data sources are the FDIC's Summary of Deposits, bank call

reports, bank income and dividend reports, the FDIC population surveys of bank ATM usage, the Bureau of

the Census, City and County Data Book, and state statutes pertaining to electronic funds transfer systems as

summarized by Penny and Baker (1980).

" Accepting the point estimates of the coefficients of SIZE and (SIZE)2, we find that the size of firm

consistent with the highest conditional probability of ATM adoption is several times larger than the largest bank

in the sample.

12 See Kamien and Schwartz (1982, p. 98) for a brief review of this literature.

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HANNAN

TABLE 1

AND McDOWELL

333

Variable Definitions

CR3 = Market three-firm concentration ratio, measured as the proportion of total market deposits

SIZE = Bank size, measured in total assets (in millions).

WAGE = Wage rate (manufacturing) prevailing in the market.

GROWTH = Yearly growth in market deposits.

PROMIX = Product mix, defined as the ratio of each bank's demand deposits to its total deposits.

PROFIT = Bank profit rate, measured by net income divided by total assets.

UNITBR = Dummy variable indicating operation in a unit-banking state.

LIMBR = Dummy variable indicating operation in a state in which branching is restricted to limited

geographic areas.

OFFPRM

= Dummy variable indicating operation in a state where branching is either prohibited or restricted

URBAN = Dummy variable indicating operation in an SMSA.

BHCDUM = Dummy variable indicating ownership by a bank holding company.

TABLE 2

Coefficient Estimates

Variable

CONST

(1)

(2)

-7.81

(-7.73)

-7.96

(-7.86)

Adoption Probability

(la)

(2a)

CR3

.18E-1*

(6.51)

.19E-1*

(6.68)

.21E-2

.22E-2

SIZE

.33E-4**

(2.50)

.12E-3*

(2.81)

.39E-5

.14E-4

WAGE

GROWTH

PROMIX

-.20E-9

-. 17E-8

(-1.63)

(SIZE)2

.31*

(8.63)

.47E-1

(.06)

1.02*

(2.95)

.31*

(8.72)

.37E-1

.37E- 1

.11

(.13)

.56E-2

.13E- 1

.12

.12

.99*

(2.85)

PROFIT

-8.72

(-1.35)

-8.21

(-1.25)

BHCDUM

.98*

(11.84)

.96*

(11.50)

-1.04

-.97

.12

.11

URBAN

.23***

(1.75)

.23***

(1.74)

.27E-1

.27E- 1

UNITBER

.22***

(1.66)

.24***

(1.85)

.26E-1

.28E-1

.88E-1

(.66)

.88E-1

(.66)

.1OE-1

LIMBR

OFFPRM

N

-2 ln k

.42*

(3-95)

3841

430.12

.43*

(4.01)

.50E-1

IOE-1

.51E-1

3841

420.04

Note: *, * and *** represent significance at the .01, .05, and .10 level, respectively.

Numbers in parentheses are coefficients divided by asymptotic standard errors.

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

334

OF ECONOMICS

conditional probability of adoption. Less relative risk exposure on the part of large, more

diversified bank holding company organizations is a possible explanation.

We introduce the variables UNITBR, LIMBR, and OFFPRM to account for

potentially important differences in the regulatory environments in which banks operate.

The positive coefficients of UNITBR and LIMBR are consistent with the notion that

banks are more likely to adopt ATMs as a means of attracting customers when the

alternative of providing convenience through branching is restricted. Only the coefficients

of UNITBR reach significance at even marginal levels, however. The coefficients of

OFFPRM are positive and highly significant, thereby suggesting that banks are more

likely to introduce ATM systems in a regulatory environment in which offpremise ATMs

may be used as a vehicle to circumvent restrictive branching laws.

The coefficients of URBAN suggest that urban banks have a higher conditional

probability of ATM adoption, although statistical significance is at best marginal. This

result is roughly consistent with observations by Walker (1979, p. 12), who notes a higher

proportion of banks in SMSAs having ATMs than banks operating outside SMSAs.13

Finally, to illustrate the implications of coefficient magnitudes in terms of the

adoption probabilities over time, columns (la) and (2a) in Table 2 report the implied

derivatives of the probability of adoption by 1979 associated with a once-and-for-all

change (lasting throughout the nine-year study period) of each explanatory variable, as

derived from estimations (1) and (2), respectively. Derivatives are evaluated at the average

values of explanatory variables.'4 Note that the derivative estimate of the three-firm

concentration ratio implies that an increase of ten percentage points in CR3 would result

in an increase in the probability of adoption by the end of the study period of

approximately .02. This change may be viewed in the context of an actual proportion of

adoptions by 1979 of .19. Other derivatives may be interpreted similarly.

5. Conclusion

* Using data on ATM adoptions by firms in the banking industry, we have examined

the relationship between the firm's adoption decision and various regulatory, market, and

firm characteristics in a manner that avoids the problems of interindustry differences and

few degrees of freedom faced by previous studies. We also use an estimation procedure

that allows us to account specifically for changes in the values of explanatory variables

over time. Our results are decidedly Schumpeterian. Larger banks, banks operating in

more concentrated local banking markets, and banks that are part of bank holding

company organizations evidence a higher conditional probability of adoption of this new

technology, all else equal. This raises the classic conflict between policies designed to

13 Assuming that the values of explanatory variables are stationary over time, Lancaster (1979) shows that

(1) and (2) imply

E(T) = exp(-X'O),

where X' denotes a vector of time-invariant explanatory variables and T denotes the number of periods until

adoption. Consistent with this, we estimated this relation using the actual time until adoption, as expressed as

ln(T) =-X':,

with Tobit maximum-likelihood with the 1972 values of the explanatory variables. All coefficients were opposite

in sign (with the exception of PROFITS) to those reported in Table 2, as this derivation suggests (since a

positive change in the conditional probability of adoption for each period of time implies a negative change in

the expected time until adoption) and all variables but PROMIX and PROFITS were significant. See Hannan

and McDowell (1983) for a fuller discussion.

14

Since the probability of adoption by the end of nine years may be expressed as 1 - exp(- z exp(Xf)),

1=1

its derivative with respect to any given Xi, affecting all nine periods and evaluated at average values, X, may be

expressed as [9 exp(-9 exp(Xfo))exp(Xfo)]*fi, where fi is the coefficient of Xi.

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HANNAN

AND McDOWELL

335

promote static efficiency and those that promote technological progressiveness. Our

findings make more critical the question of whether possible static efficiency gains

associated with less concentrated markets outweigh the resulting losses in technological

progressiveness. The other results we report are consistent with theoretical predictions,

thus tending to validate our underlying model. We also find evidence that the regulatory

environment in which banking firms operate shapes their decisions regardingthe adoption

of new technology in plausible ways.

References

FLANNERY, M. "The Social Costs of Unit Banking Restrictions." Working Paper #82-5, Federal Reserve Bank

of Philadelphia, 1982.

FLINN, C. AND HECKMAN, J. "Are Unemployment and Out of Labor Force Behaviorally Distinct Labor Force

HANNAN, T. AND McDoWELL, J. "The Structural Determinants of Technology Adoption: The Case of the

J. AND PRENTICE, R. The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data. New York: John Wiley &

Sons, 1980.

KAMIEN, M. AND SCHWARTZ, N. Market Structure and Innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1982.

LANCASTER, T. "Econometric Methods for Duration of Unemployment." Econometrica, Vol. 47 (July 1979),

pp. 939-956.

MANSFIELD, E. Industrial Research and Technological Innovation. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1968.

OSTER, S. "The Diffusion of Innovation among Steel Firms: The Basic Oxygen Furnace." Bell Journal of

Economics, Vol. 13 (Spring 1982), pp. 45-56.

PENNY, N. AND BAKER, P. The Law of Electronic Funds Transfer Systems. Boston: Warren, Gorham and

Lamont, 1980.

RHOADES, S. "Monopoly and Expense Preference Behavior: An Empirical Investigation of a Behavioralist

Hypothesis." Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 47 (October 1980), pp. 419-32.

. "Structure-PerformanceStudies in Banking: An Updated Summary and Evaluation." Staff Studies #1 19,

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 1982.

ROMEO,A. "Interindustry and Interfirm Differences in the Rate of Diffusion of an Innovation." Review of

Economics and Statistics, Vol. 57 (Autumn 1975), pp. 311-319.

WALKER, D. "An Analysis of EFT Activity Levels, Costs, and Structure in the U.S." Working Paper #76-1,

F.D.I.C., 1976.

. "An Analysis of Financial and Structural Characteristicsof Banks with Retail EFT Machines." Working

Paper #79-1, F.D.I.C., 1979.

KALBFLEISCH,

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

- A Reverse-Innovation PlaybookEnviado porAmit
- Big Think StrategyEnviado poriishahrulll
- Final College ProjectEnviado porTejashri Prabhulkar
- Case Study on Automated Teller MachineEnviado porAbhijit Pathak
- CV_Atreyee Nandy.pptxEnviado porParag Shetty
- Enterprise Express Volume 24th Sept 2010Enviado porRayDuff
- barclaysEnviado porRuhul Amin
- BRIGHT IDEAS Ski Area Management MagazineEnviado porLaura Moriarty
- ObjectivesEnviado porGailDe-AroLabrador
- Challenges to Strengthening Agricultural Innovation Systems.pdfEnviado porJesús M. Villero
- CYCLIC INNOVATION MODEL (CIM)Enviado porGustavo Canova
- Review of LiteratureEnviado porShveta Vatas
- Sales ForecastEnviado poralexandru_beznoiu
- Chap 017Enviado porVita Depante
- Uganda-Solutions to Affordable BankingEnviado porAiyaz
- Professional Curriculum VitaeEnviado porAnonymous zeqDcNJuH
- KFASEnviado porMahfuzh
- 555380021_Apr2019Enviado porజెల్ల ఉమేష్ అను నేను
- Retail Banking in India [FULL]Enviado porAniket Kamble
- Financial ReportEnviado porNikki Go
- Questionaremodified.doc(2)Enviado porHarsh Jeet Singh
- Republic of IIM-IEnviado porSatyajitBehera
- BMAin ClassEnviado porAbhishek Gera
- Jobswire.com Resume of mecool71Enviado porapi-31756294
- BGSG BDO PitchChallenge PreliminariesEnviado porIgor Dautovic
- DOCUMENT 2.docxEnviado porMuru Gesan
- Construction Sequence 19Enviado porkaykaysoft
- Expected Interview QuestionsEnviado porarundbest1
- va_14_05Enviado porAdrian
- Fin. Acc II FrontEnviado porMM Fakhrul Islam

- Introducing the Binomial Distribution.pdfEnviado porwolfretonmaths
- Eysenck personality inventoryEnviado porZmada Anghel
- An Extension to the Zero-Inflated Generalized Power Series DistributionsEnviado porinventionjournals
- Algebra Fx 20 Plus Users GuideEnviado porRodolfo Sergio Cruz Fuentes
- _yzing Neural Time Series Data Theory and PracticeEnviado porJuan Pablo Dehesa Golding
- articol3Enviado porAlex Andru
- Bio Lab 3.2Enviado porAndres Saravia
- Coefficient of Corr and DeterEnviado porVinchi L. Lim
- Application of StatisticsEnviado pormaksonaug7
- topic4 Bayes with REnviado porDanar Handoyo
- mad2da2Enviado porMuhamad Nurmahmudi
- The calculation of the dosage - mortality curve - BLISS 1935Enviado porCamilla Karen Fernandes Carneiro
- GDTOPICSACTUALLYASKEDSET1Enviado porBanashree Das
- Aparat Pt Biodiesel METROHMEnviado porCorina Stanculescu
- 10.1007@978-981-10-4720-6.pdfEnviado porJitendra Panthi
- Rowing With RowProEnviado porbyrnelad
- QBUS2820 Mid-Semester 2015s2 (Solution)Enviado porErica
- Old Chapter 5 on Estimating DemandEnviado porOmar Ibrahim
- ECS315 - Lecture 3Enviado porAli Khormi
- Sms Unit-wise Qs (Sjbit)Enviado porRudresh CM
- 19.dr. b. s. jamwalEnviado porAnonymous CwJeBCAXp
- Adjust CEnviado porFelipe Carvajal Rodríguez
- Ginger CandyEnviado porRizka Arifani Kromodimedjo
- Econ589multivariateGarch.rEnviado porJasonClark
- Projecting Gender Identity Through MetadiscourseEnviado porSu Handoko
- t TESTEnviado poranmolgarg129
- ch04inclassEnviado porKamran Abdullah
- CGE676 Tutorial 1Enviado pornajmi firdaus
- RudjitoPhDEnviado pormaucoi
- B.Com & MBA Course CataloguesEnviado porwaqasrazas