Propositions on firm characteristics

Proposition 1: Most of the projects funded by FHF belongs to young firms with a low degree of network

H0: Group 1 ≤ Group 0 & Experience Group 1 > Experience Group 0

When analyzing the data, we find that most of the projects in this dataset belong to firms older than five years (Group 0, n=99), which we set as our cut-off point for belonging to the “new”

firm (Group 1, n=9) category. However, the sentiment that new firms have a low degree of network holds true.

When testing the firm experience with previous FHF projects by these groups, we find that we can reject H0 at a 5% level. There is a significant difference in the mean between the two groups, and the firms belonging in the new category, group 1, have significantly less experience compared to the firms belonging in group 0.

Result for Proposition 1: New firms do not perform the majority of projects. New firms, however, do have significantly less experience compared to older firms. We fail to reject H0.

by Project manager high experience

diff.

Total Participants including FHF 1.513

⁺

(1.98)

Observations 108

t statistics in parentheses

+

p < 0.10,

^*

p < 0.05

72

Table 20 T-test proposition 1

Proposition 2: Well-established firms are more successful in collaboration.

Our null hypothesis being that well-established and newer firms are equally successful in collaboration.

No significant results were found. We are unable to reject the null hypothesis and as such we cannot demonstrate a significant difference between newer and well-established firms when it comes to successful collaboration.

Proposition 3: The larger the firm size, the more successful, and the more extensive is the collaboration.

Our null hypothesis being that firms of a large size are equally successful and have equally extensive collaboration as the rest of the firms.

Three significant results were found, but they were all contrary to our proposition. We are

unable to reject the null hypothesis. We are unable to demonstrate a significant and positive

relationship between larger firms and success and extent of collaboration.

73 Proposition 3.8 The firms in the top quartile of number of employees (Group 1) will have a higher project success score compared to the remaining firms (group 0) from a firm perspective.

H0: success_firm Group 1 = success_firm Group 0

As we can see from the data, there is a significant difference in the mean between the two groups; group 1 has a lower mean than group 0.

Result Proposition 3.8: We can reject H0 at a 10% level, but the result is contrary to our proposition.

Table 21 T-test proposition 3.8

74

Table 22 Distribution Proposition 3.8

Proposition 3.12 The firms in the top quartile of Revenue (Group 1) will have a higher project success score compared to the remaining firms (group 0) from a firm perspective.

H0: success_firm Group 1 = success_firm Group 0

There is a significant difference between the mean of the two groups at the 5% level. The firms in the top quartile of earnings demonstrate a lower project success score in a firm perspective, relative to the rest of the population. This finding is contrary to our proposition.

Results Proposition 3.12: We reject H0 at 5% level.

75

Table 23T-test Proposition 3.12

Table 24 Distribution Proposition 3.12

Proposition 3.18 The firms in the top quartile of number of employees (Group 1) will have

higher total project participants compared to the remaining firms (group 0).

76 H0: TotalParticipantsincludingFHF 1 = TotalParticipantsincludingFHF Group 0

There is a significant difference between the mean of the two groups at 10% level. This is contrary to our proposition. The projects by firms in the top quartile of revenue have fewer total participants compared to the rest of the population.

Results Proposition 3.18: We reject H0 at 10% level.

Table 25 T-test proposition 3.18

77

Table 26 Distribution proposition 3.18

Proposition 4: The smaller the firm size, the higher level of speed/ acceleration of projects.

Our null hypothesis is that smaller firms have an equal level of speed/acceleration to the rest.

Two significant results were found, but they were both contrary and in direct opposition of our proposition. According to the results firms in the top quartile of number of employees enjoy a higher speed/acceleration score compared to the rest, and firms in the top quartile of results pre-taxes also have a higher speed/acceleration then the rest.

We fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Proposition 4.2 The firms in the top quartile of number of employees (Group 1) will have lower speed/acceleration compared to the remaining firms (group 0) in an industry perspective.

H0: speed_ind Group 1 = speed_ind Group 0

78 The difference between the mean between the two groups is significant and negative at 10%

level; the top quartile of firms by numbers of employees have a higher speed/acceleration compared to the rest of the population. This finding is contrary to our proposition.

Results Proposition 4.2: H0 rejected at 10% level.

Table 27 T-test proposition 4.2

79

Table 28 Distribution proposition 4.2

Proposition 4.9 The firms in the top quartile of results pre-taxes (Group 1) will have lower speed/acceleration compared to the remaining firms (group 0) from a firm perspective.

H0: speed_firm Group 1 = speed_firm Group 0

Here we see that there is a significant and negative difference in the mean between the groups at 5% level. Group 1 has a higher mean, indicating a higher speed/acceleration, which is contrary to our proposition.

Results Proposition 4.9: H0 rejected at 5% level.

80

Table 29 T-test proposition 4.9

Table 30 Distribution proposition 4.9

81 Proposition 5: A firm that has previously been involved with R&D projects will be more

successful in collaborations

Our null hypothesis here is that previous experience does not influence successful collaboration score.

We have two significant results, both contrary to our proposition. They demonstrate a significantly lower level of collaborative success for the firms belonging to the top quartile of previous experience with FHF projects, both in a firm and in an industry perspective.

We reject the null hypothesis; previous experience with FHF projects directly and negatively impacts the collaborative success score.

Proposition 5.6: The collaborative score in an industry perspective of firms in the top quartile of firm experience (group 1) will be higher compared to the rest of the population (group 0).

H0: collab_ind Group 1 = collab_ind Group 0.

There is a significant and positive difference in the mean between the two groups; group 1 has a lower mean at the 5% level. This means that firms in the highest quartile of experience have a lower collaborative success score in an industry perspective. This is contrary to our proposition.

Results Proposition 5.6: We reject H0 at a 5% level.

82

Table 31 T-test proposition 5.6

Table 32 Distribution proposition 5.6

Proposition 5.8: The collaborative score in an industry perspective of firms in the top quartile

of firm experience (group 1) will be higher compared to the rest of the population

(group 0).

83 H0: collab_firm Group 1 = collab_firm Group 0.

There is a significant and positive difference in the mean between the two groups; group 1 has a lower mean at the 10% level. This means that firms in the highest quartile of experience have a lower collaborative success score in an industry perspective. This is contrary to our proposition.

Results Proposition 5.8: We reject H0 at a 10% level.

Table 33 T-test proposition 5.8

84

Table 34 Distribution proposition 5.8

Proposition 6: A firm that has previously been involved with R&D projects will be more successful (in general)

Our null hypothesis here is that previous experience with FHF R&D projects does not lead to a higher project success score.

We have one significant result showing that projects in the top quartile of project experience have a higher project success score compared to the those not in the top quartile of project experience. This is in line with our proposition. The other results are inconclusive where we fail to reject the null. In total we are unable to reject the Null hypothesis for this proposition.

Tests are inconclusive as to the positive effects of prior R&D experience.

Proposition 6.7 The projects at the top quartile of project experience (group 1) will have more success in a firm perspective compared to the rest of the population (group 0).

H0: success_firm Group 1 = success_firm Group 0

85 There is a significant difference between the mean of the two groups at 10% level. This is in line with our proposition. Projects at the top quartile of project experience (group 1) have a higher success in a firm perspective, compared to the rest of the population (group 0).

Results proposition 6.7: We reject H0 at 10%.

Table 35 T-test proposition 6.7

86

Table 36 Distribution proposition 6.7

In document A quantitative analysis on the effect of firm and project characteristics in FHF funded R&D projects (sider 72-87)