BoozCo_The-2012-Global-Innovation-1000-Media-Report.

7/30/2019 BoozCo_The-2012-Global-Innovation-1000-Media-Report.

1/22

Perspective Barry Jaruzelski

John Loehr

Richard Holman

The 2012 Global Innovation 1000

Key Findings


2/22

Booz & Company2

The 2012 Global Innovation 1000: Introduction and Key Findings

Every year since 2005, Booz & Company has conducted the Global Innovation 1000

study, which investigates the relationship between how much companies spend on R&D

and their overall nancial performance and long-term nancial successand every year,

the study reinforces the conclusion that there is no correlation between the two. Instead,

it is how companies leverage their R&D investments in conjunction with other resources

and internal structuressuch as personnel, capabilities, and decision-making processes

that determines their ability to execute their innovation agendas.

In our eighth annual study of the worlds 1,000 largest corporate R&D spenders, we

focus on the fuzzy front end of the innovation processthe tools, mechanisms, and

networks companies use to generate ideas and effectively convert them to commercial-

ized products. We surveyed nearly 700 companies and interviewed 12 senior innovation

executives and chief technology ofcers at leading companies to gain insights into the

early stages of innovation, as well as to understand which companies they viewed as the

most innovative in the world.

This year, weve identied ve key themes from the Global Innovation 1000 study:

The Worlds Top 10 Most Innovative Companies Are ChangingSamsung continues

its steady rise as Facebook falls.

R&D Spending is in RecoveryAfter the recession, R&D is back on a solid growth

trend.

Spending InnovationMore dollars spent doesnt guarantee innovation success.

Weve Got No IdeaNearly half of the organizations surveyed believe they are only

marginally effective at both idea generation and conversion.

Tried and True RulesThe most successful innovators employ traditional methods for

innovation success.

INTRODUCTIONAND KEYFINDINGS


3/22

Booz & Company3

The Worlds Top 10 Most Innovative Companies Are Changing

l l

i i

i i

i

i l

l l i

ill

i li i

l

i

CHANGE IN THE TOP 10 MOST INNOVATIVE COMPANIES20102012

2010 2011 2012

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

8th

9th

10th

Apple Apple Apple

Google Google Google

3M 3M 3M

GE GE

GEToyota

Toyota

Toyota

Microsoft

Microsoft

Microsoft

P&G

P&G P&G

Samsung

Samsung

Samsung

IBM

IBM

IBM

Intel Facebook Amazon

Tie

This year Amazon joined the Top 10 Most Innovative Companies ranking (#10),

bumping Facebook from the list.

For the second straight year, Samsung rose in rank (now ranked #4).

Apple, Google, and 3M kept their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd positions, respectively.


4/22

Booz & Company4

Barry Jaruzelski,

senior partner at Booz & Company:Facebooks drop from the Top 10 Most

Innovative Companies list may suggestthat social media companies have lost

some of their initial luster. In contrast,Amazons rst-time appearance on the listsuggests that both the R&D community

and consumers recognize companies asproviding superior value when theyoffer products and services in creativenew ways that meet customer needs

through technical innovation.


5/22

Booz & Company5

R&D Spending Is In Recovery

l l

i i

i i

ii l

l l i

ill

i li i

l

i

THE GLOBAL INNOVATION 1000 R&D SPEND20012011; $BILLION

l I i i l i i l i

$603

$550

$503$521

$495

$450

$417$391

$369$355$353

20112010200920082007200620052004200320022001

AnnualGrowth

0.6% 6.5% 7.9% 10.0%3.7% 6.2% 5.4% -3.5% 9.3% 9.6%

11-yearCAGR = 6%

3-yearCAGR = 3.5%

3-yearCAGR =9.5%

In 2011, corporate spending among the Global Innovation 1000 reached an all-time

high of $603 billion, an increase of 9.6 percent from the previous year. R&D spend

increased in 2011 across most industry sectors and geographies.

This is the second strong increase of R&D spending in a row (there was a 9.3 percent

increase in 2010), following a brief decline (3.5 percent) in 2009.

The recovery in R&D spend after the worst recession in generations is much faster

than it was after the dot-com bust at the beginning of this century.

Although companies are still feeling the lingering effects of the global economic

downturn, many seem to recognize the long-term value associated with R&D

investment.

This strong R&D recovery ($100 billion increase in the past two years alone) may

signal a jobs recovery, especially in North America, where the largest portion of the

absolute spending growth originates.

R&D spend grew 9.6% in 2011, continuing 2010's strong growth after the 2009 decline


6/22

Booz & Company6

R&D Spending Is In Recovery (continued)

l l

i i

i i

ii l

l l i

ill

2012Rank

Company IndustryGeography

$9.9

$9.6

$9.4

$9.1

$9.0

$9.0

$8.5

$8.4

$8.1

$7.8

$7.7

$7.5

$6.7

$6.6

$6.6

$6.3

$6.3

$5.8

$5.8

$5.5

$153.6

Auto

Healthcare

Healthcare

Healthcare

Software and Internet

Computing and Electronics

Healthcare


Auto


Auto

Healthcare

Healthcare


Auto

Healthcare



Auto

Healthcare

TOTAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Toyota

Novartis

Roche Holding

Pfizer

Microsoft

Samsung

Merck

Intel

General Motors

Nokia

Volkswagen

Johnson & Johnson

Sanofi

Panasonic

Honda

GlaxoSmithKline

IBM

Cisco Systems

Daimler

AstraZeneca

Japan

Europe

Europe

North America

North America

Asia

North America

North America

North America

Europe

Europe

North America

Europe

Japan

Japan

Europe

North America

North America

Europe

Europe

2011 R&DExp.; $Bn

THE 2012 TOP 20 R&D SPENDERS

The top 20 R&D spenders collectively invested $154 billion on R&D in 2011

26 percent of the Global Innovation 1000 spend.

Auto companies increased their rank in the top spender list:- The auto companies among the top 20 spenders in 2010 either moved up in the

rankings or stayed the same in 2011.

- R&D investment is becoming more critical as auto companies seek to meet ever

more stringent fuel economy standards, boost the electronics in their cars, develop

common platforms around the globe, and attract younger buyers.

Although the healthcare companies dominate the list, they have decreased their rank in

the top spender list:

- Of the eight healthcare companies in the top 20 spenders in 2010, all but Novartis

and Sano fell in the rankings in 2011.

- Given the recent dearth of successful product introductions, many healthcare compa-

nies are hesitant to continue investing in innovation, choosing instead to steer prots

to shareholders. Regulatory uncertainty has also taken its toll: large pharmaceuticalcompanies appear reluctant to invest in R&D without a clear path to market.

Automotive Gains, Health Loses in the Top 20 R&D Spenders


7/22

Booz & Company7


l l

i i

i i

ii

l li

il

l

Consumer 3%

Telecom 2% Other 2%

Aerospace and Defense 4%

Healthcare21%

Industrials10%

Auto16%

Software and Internet 7%

Chemicals and Energy 7%

Computing andElectronics

28%

2011 R&D SPEND BY INDUSTRY ($603 BILLION TOTAL)

The top three industries with the greatest R&D investment continued to be:

- Computing and Electronics (28 percent of total Global Innovation 1000 spend)

- Healthcare (21 percent of total Global Innovation 1000 spend)

- Auto (16 percent of total Global Innovation 1000 spend)

Computing and Electronics, Healthcare, and Auto Industries Top R&D Spending


8/22

Booz & Company8


l l

i i

i i

ii

l i

il

TotalAerospace

and Defense

$1,487

Telecom

$352

Consumer

$1,655

Other

$1,718

Chemicals

and Energy

$3,607

Healthcare

$6,037

Software

and

Internet

$6,229

IndustrialsAuto

$13,214

Computing

and

Electronics

$13,440

CHANGE IN 20102011 R&D SPEND BY INDUSTRY;$MILLION

Increases

Decreases

$52,632

Represents 66% oftotal R&D spend increase

While Health is the third largest

spender, Industrials experienced the

third largest absolute spend increase

While Healthcare is the third largestspender, Industrials experienced thethird largest absolute spend increase

l I i i l i l i

$7,867

65 percent of the overall $53 billion growth in R&D spend in 2011 came from the

Computing and Electronics, Auto, and Industrials sectors.

Though Healthcare was the second-largest spender on R&D in the Global Innovation1000, it experienced only the fth-largest increase in spend.

Two-thirds of the $53 billion spending increase came from the Computing and Electronics, Auto, and Industrials sectors


9/22

Booz & Company9


l l

i li l

i li l

ii l

l l i i

ill

India/China 2.7%

Rest ofWorld6.1%

Japan23.3%

Europe29.9%

North America37.9%

2011 R&D SPEND BY REGION$603 BILLION TOTAL

Nearly 70 percent of the total Global Innovation 1000 spend is concentrated in North

America and Europe.

India and China, with 3 percent of the total R&D spend, play a minor but growingrole.

India and China Outpace Other Regions in R&D Spend Growth, Though from a Small Base


10/22

Booz & Company10


l l

i i

i i

ii l

l l i

ill

l

l

TotalRest ofWorld

$3,434

India/China

$3,912

Japan

$12,424

Europe

$14,736

NorthAmerica

$18,126

CHANGE IN 20102011 R&D SPEND BY REGION;$MILLION

l I i i l l i

$52,632

0%

4%

8%

12%

16%

20%

24%

28%

Average9.6%

Japan

2.4%

Europe

5.4%

9.7%

12.2%

India/China

27.2%

CHANGE (%) IN R&D SPEND BY REGION 20102011

Rest ofWorld

NorthAmerica

While India/Chinaexperienced thegreatest percentageincrease in R&Dspend, North Americaexperienced the largestabsolute spend increase

North America and Europe were the largest contributors to the overall R&D spend

growth in 2011; more than 60 percent of the increase came from these regions.

India and China contributed 7 percent to the overall R&D spend increase.

India and China had the strongest relative growth in R&D spending. North America

was above average, while Europe and Japan lagged behind.

- India- and China-based rms increased R&D spend by a phenomenal 27 percent

over the previous year, albeit from a small spend base. It is also worth noting that

their combined rate of growth was down from 38.5 percent in 2010, which may

reect the cooling down of the Chinese economy.

- Companies headquartered in North America grew their R&D spending at a slightly

above-average rate of 9.7 percent.

- Europe and Japan grew at below-average rates of 5.4 percent and 2.4 percent,

respectively.


11/22

Booz & Company11


l l

i i

i i

ii

l i

il

31.1%

35.0%

32.1%

34.5%

30.1%

32.4%

29.9%

33.6%

9.5%5.3%

9.6%6.1%

11.7%

6.1%

10.5%

4.9%2.7%2.3%1.5%1.0%

21.7%

30.0%

7.3%

21.1%

23.3%

4.2%

38.5%

22.6%

27.3%

20.1%

8.5%

37.9%

23.3%

27.4%38.3%

29.9%

21.3%

4.3%

38.6%

24.4%

Japan

Europe

North America

Rest of World

India/China

GLOBAL INNOVATION 1000 COMPANY R&D SPEND AND REVENUE BY REGION

20082011

l I i i l i i l i

RevenueR&DSpend

2008

RevenueR&DSpend

2009

RevenueR&DSpend

2010

RevenueR&DSpend

2011

India and China are steadily gaining share in R&D spending, at a faster year-on-year

rate than their proportionate gain in revenue. In 2008, India- and China-based rms

accounted for 4.3 percent of the revenue generated by the Global Innovation 1000

companies; today that number has risen to 8.5 percent.

Because Chinas economy is much larger than Indias, and far more of its companies

appear in the Global Innovation 1000 (47 companies from China, compared with

just nine from India), China accounted for more than 90 percent of the two countries

spending.

More than half of all the Global Innovation 1000 companies that are headquartered in

India and China are from the Chemicals, Energy, Construction, and Mining sectors

all historically low spenders on R&D.

The high growth rates of R&D spending in India and China may well continue (or

even accelerate) as these countries continue to develop more R&D-intensive sectors

such as Computing and Electronics or Auto.

India and China have been steadily gaining share in R&D spending but are gaining revenue share at an even faster rate


12/22

Booz & Company12

Spending Innovation

l l

i i

i i

ii l

l l i

ill

l

PERFORMANCE OF THE TOP 10 MOST INNOVATIVE COMPANIES VS. TOP R&D SPENDERS

i

l

i i

i ii

l I i i l i i l i

Revenue Growth

5-yr. CAGR

EBITDA as % of Revenue

5-yr. Avg.

Market Cap Growth

5-yr. CAGR

68%65%

62%

45%

54%

Top 10 Most Innovative

40%

Top 10 R&D Spenders

Normalized Performanceof Industry Peers: 50%

Highest Possible Score: 100%

Lowest Possible Score: 0%

l Once again, there are signicant differences in performance between the Top 10

Most Innovative Companies and the top 10 R&D spenders. The 10 Most Innovative

Companies outpace the top 10 R&D spenders on three key nancial metrics: revenue

growth, market cap growth, and EBITDA as a percent of revenue.

The top 10 R&D spenders also lag their industry peers in the Global Innovation 1000

on revenue growth and market cap growth.

Interesting to note is the limited overlap between the top 10 R&D spenders and the 10

Most Innovative Companies list:

- Only Toyota, Microsoft, and Samsung are among both the Top10 Most Innovative

Companies and the top 10 R&D spenders.

- Although there are four healthcare companies among the top 10 spenders (Novartis,

Roche, Pzer, and Merck), no healthcare organization made it into the 10 Most

Innovative Companies.

This reinforces our long-standing nding that a companys nancial performance and

innovativeness do not correlate with how much it spends on R&D, but rather with how

well it executes its innovation strategy.


13/22

Booz & Company13

Weve Got No Idea

l

ii

ii

ii

l i

il

Highly EffectiveMarginally Effective

Highly Effective

Marginally Effective

Idea Generation

Idea Conversion

11%

46%

25%

18%

Perhaps the most surprising result of this years study of the front-end of the innovation

process is just how many companies say they simply arent very good at it.

A full 46 percent of respondents say their companies are just marginally effective oraverage at generating ideas and converting them to commercial projects.

A similar proportion (40 percent) told us last year that their companys culture did not

support efforts to come up with new ideas.

It is clear that many companies have yet to master the right mix of factors to foster

sustained innovation.

Performance at Idea Generation and Idea Conversion


14/22

Booz & Company14

Matthew Ganz, vice president and generalmanager of research and technology at the

Boeing Company: If you have a creativeidea and it doesnt create value, its not

technology. Its art. If youre all about valuecreation with no creativity, the accountantsare going to take over. You need to prime

the pump with creative ideas, and then youneed to have rigorous processes in place to

turn those ideas into dollars.


15/22

Booz & Company15

Weve Got No Idea (continued)

l l

i i

i i

ii l

l li

ill

l

i

l

i i

i ii

l I i i l i i l i

RevenueGrowth

5-yr. CAGR

EBITDA as% of Revenue

5-yr. Avg.

MarketCap Growth5-yr. CAGR

i

Normalized Performanceof Industry Peers: 50%

Highest Possible Score: 100%

Lowest Possible Score: 0%

l

49%

58%56%60%

42%

50%

Marginally EffectiveStrongly Effective

FINANCIAL COMPARISON OF

IDEA CONVERSION PERFORMANCE

54%52%50%

65%

45%46%

Marginally EffectiveStrongly Effective

FINANCIAL COMPARISON OF

IDEA GENERATION PERFORMANCE

RevenueGrowth

5-yr. CAGR

EBITDA as% of Revenue

5-yr. Avg.

MarketCap Growth5-yr. CAGR

Most of the 25 percent of survey respondents who said their companies were highly

effective at both ideation and conversion also reported that they outperformed their

peers on three important nancial measuresrevenue growth, market cap growth, and

EBITDA as a percentage of revenue.

This correlation between effectiveness at the early stages of innovation and superior

nancial performance is a worrisome nding for the many companies that struggle at

the front end.

Financial Success vs. Idea-Generation Performance


16/22

Booz & Company16

Conversion Isnt EasyMajority of Ideas Dont Take Off

l

ii

ii

ii

l

il

PERCENTAGE OF IDEAS THAT MOVE TO DEVELOPMENT AND FULL COMMERCIALIZATION

i

70%100% of ideas

i i

i ii

l I i i l i i l i

Approximately what percentage of yourorganizations ideas become product

or service concepts that move tofull development projects?

l

12%23%

38%

33%

49%43%

Approximately what percentage of yourorganizations product or service

development projects arelaunched into the market?

30%60% of ideas

1%20% of ideas

70%100% of ideas

30%60% of ideas

1%20% of ideas

The process of choosing which ideas to convert to full-scale product development is

perhaps even more critical to a companys innovation success than the actual generation

of ideas. The conversion stage is the point at which companies use all the processes and

tools at their command to decide whether a given idea in the pipeline is a go or a no-go for a full-scale commercialization project. In the view of many innovation experts,

this is where the most value is added.

Nearly half of respondents reported that fewer than 20 percent of their projects were

converted to full development projects.

Of the projects that do move to full development, fewer than 20 percent are converted

into commercialized projects, according to 43 percent of survey respondents.

Survey results show that the smaller companies in the Global Innovation 1000 (those

ranked 101-1000) rank themselves twice as effective at the twice as effective at the

conversion stage as the top 100 spenderslikely due to these organizations having an

easier time converting ideas since they are smaller, more focused organizations.


17/22

Booz & Company17

Darlene Solomon, chief technologyofcer of the measurement company

Agilent Technologies: In managing the

conversion funnel, were constantly askingourselves, What have we learned about

the technology that makes it more orless attractive than a year ago?

What have we learned about the marketand the competition that might help usdecide whether the technology is even

more valuable or more of a me-tootechnology now? Whats changed within

Agilent in terms of our business priorities,and how might this inuence whether

this is something that we want tocontinue investing in?


18/22

Booz & Company18

Tried and True Rules

l

ii

ii

ii

l

il

TOP 5 RANKING FOR WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING TOOLS AND MECHANISMS,IF ANY, DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION USE TO GENERATE NEW IDEAS?

ALL RESPONDENTS (N = 685)

l i ll i l i i l i i l i l i i l i l il i ll

15%

18%19%

22%

31%

42%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

All other categories(


19/22

Booz & Company19

Tried and True Rules (continued)

l l

i i

i i

ii

l i

il

INDUSTRY BREAKOUT OF RESPONDENTS RANKING SOCIAL NETWORKSWITHIN THE TWO MOST USED TOOLS FOR GENERATING IDEAS

0%

5%

10%

15%

Recoded Mean

Chemicalsand Energy

ConsumerComputingand

Electronics

2%

0%

10%

Healthcare

11%

Software andInternet

15%

IndustrialsAuto Telecom Aerospaceand Defense

3%3%

6%

7%

Average Across Industries >10%

Social Networks were ranked among the least commonly used "tools and mecha-

nisms" for generating ideas; fewer than 10 percent of respondents ranked it among

their top tools for idea generation.

Highly engineered products industries like Auto, Industrials, and Aerospace and

Defense were the least likely to use these mechanisms.

Social Networks are the least inuential idea generation mechanisms for engineered products industries like Auto, Industrials, and Aerospace

and Defense


20/22

Booz & Company20

Innovation Strategy Models

l l

i li l

i li l

ii l

l l i i

ill

l

INNOVATION STRATEGY MODELS

l

l

Need Seekers, such as Apple and Procter & Gamble, make a point of engagingcustomers directly to generate new ideas and help shape new products andservices based on superior end-user understanding. Their goal: to seek outboth articulated and unarticulated needs, and then to try to get their newproducts to market first.

NEED SEEKERS

MARKET READERS

TECHNOLOGY DRIVERS

Market Readers, such as Hyundai and Caterpillar, use a variety of means togenerate ideas by closely monitoring their markets, customers, and competitors,focusing largely on creating value through incremental innovations to their products.This implies a more cautious approach, one that depends on being fast followersin the marketplace.

Technology Drivers, such as Google and Bosch, depend more on their internaltechnological capabilities to develop new products and services, leveraging theirR&D investments to drive both breakthrough innovation and incremental change,in hopes of meeting the known and unknown needs of their customers vianew technology.

Respondents from companies identied as following a Need Seekers strategy reported to

be the most effective among the strategy models at both the idea-generation and conversion

stages.- A full 50 percent of Need Seekers reported being highly effective at both.

- Just 12 percent of Market Readers and 20 percent of Technology Drivers reported

being highly effective at both.

It is important to remember that companies can signicantly outperform their peers no

matter which of the three strategies they follow. A far more critical factor is how well they

follow their chosen innovation strategy. Companies that align their innovation strategy to

their business strategy, capabilities, internal cultural support for innovation, and front-end

processes have a distinct advantage in the race for new ideas, products, and services.

l l

i i

i i

ii l

l l i

ill

FRONT-END TOOLS, MECHANISMS, AND STRUCTURES EMPLOYED BY COMPANIES

l

l

Top Ranked Front-EndMechanisms- Idea Work-out Sessions- End-user focus groupsTop Ranked Internal Network Structure- Focused Technical InnovationNetworks across the business

i ill ii l l i i i i

i l l i l i l i i ii i li i i ll

i l

l i i ll i l ili i l i l i i

i i i i i l

Need Seekers

All Three

Market Readers

Tech Drivers

No distinct difference inExternal networks by strategy model

Top RankedFront-End Mechanisms- Technology Road-mapping- Meetings w/ ExternalTechnical Community

Top Ranked InternalNetwork Structures- IT Collaboration Tools- Facilities Layout

Top Ranked Front-End Mechanism- Direct Customer ObservationTop Ranked Internal Network Structures- Innovation Champions- Cross-unit Staffing (non-rotational)Top Ranked External Network Structures- Customers- Channel Partners & Suppliers

Top Ranked Front-End Mechanisms- Sales & Customer Support Feedback- Traditional Market Research

Top Ranked Internal Network Structures- Communities of Practice- Organized Conferences w/Technical staff

Five years ago, Booz & Companys research showed that nearly every company follows one of three fundamental innovation strategy

modelsthey are Need Seekers, Market Readers, and Technology Driversand each model has its own distinct approach to the innovation

process and to the customers and markets the companies serve.

The types of techniques and tools companies employ to convert ideas depend in large part on

each companys innovation strategy.


21/22

Booz & Company21

Booz & Company identied the 1,000 public companies around the world that spent the

most on research and development in 2011 (companies for which public data on R&D

spending was available). To be included, companies had to make data on their R&D

spending public; all analysis is based on the most recent annual nancial data published

as of June 30, 2012. Subsidiaries that were more than 50 percent owned by a single

corporate parent were excluded if their nancial results were included in the parent com-

panys nancials. This is the same approach used in the previous seven years in which the

study was conducted.

Booz & Company analyzed key nancial metrics for each of the top 1,000 companies

over the past decadeincluding sales, gross prot, operating prot, net prot, R&D

expenditure, and market capitalization. All foreign currency sales and R&D expenditure

gures prior to 2011 were translated into U.S. dollars according to the average exchange

rate in 2011.

Each company was coded into one of nine industry sectors (or other) according to

Bloombergs industry designations and into one of ve regions as determined by each

companys reported headquarters location. To enable meaningful comparisons across

industries, Booz & Company indexed the R&D spending levels and nancial perfor-

mance metrics for each company against the industry groups median values. Figures fortotal shareholder return were gathered and adjusted to reect each companys total share-

holder return in its local market and to control for local market performance uctuations.

Booz & Company conducted a separate online survey of nearly 700 innovation leaders in

companies around the world to explore how companies employ various tools, processes,

mechanisms, and networks in the front-end phases of innovation as they relate to suc-

cessful innovation and nancial performance. Survey respondents were also asked a series

of questions to help classify their companies into one of our three innovation strategy

models: Need Seekers, Market Readers, or Technology Drivers. The classication

of each company into one of these three models is based on an algorithm applied to their

answers to our four proling questions.

METHODOLOGY


22/22

Booz & Company is a leading global management

consulting rm focused on serving and shaping the

senior agenda of the worlds leading institutions.

Our founder, Edwin Booz, launched the profession

when he established the rst management consultingrm in Chicago in 1914. Today, we operate globally

with more than 3,000 people in 58 ofces around

the world.

We believe passionately that essential advantage lies

within and that a few differentiating capabilities

drive any organizations identity and success. We

work with our clients to discover and build those

capabilities that give them the right to win their

chosen markets.

We are a rm of practical strategists known for our

functional expertise, industry foresight, and sleeves

rolled up approach to working with our clients.

To learn more about Booz & Company or to access

its thought leadership, visit booz.com. Our award-

winning management magazine, strategy+business,

is available at strategy-business.com.

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	storm-williams
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

BoozCo_The-2012-Global-Innovation-1000-Media-Report.

Documents