The 2012 Georgia Manufacturing Survey found that: 1) Most Georgia manufacturers focus on quality and price-based strategies over innovation to compete, though innovation strategies are associated with higher profits. 2) While outsourcing affected about 14% of manufacturers, in-sourcing was higher at 16%. 3) Half of manufacturers exported, but adoption of advanced technologies and innovation activities was relatively low. 4) Marketing/sales concerns remained the top concern, followed by skills shortages, though concerns weakened slightly from previous surveys.

1. 2012 Georgia Manufacturing
Survey
Enabling Manufacturers to
Compete in the Global Economy

2. Enabling Manufacturers to Compete in the Global Economy
The 2012 Georgia Manufacturing Survey
Investing in the future
The theme of the 2012 Georgia Manufacturing Survey is how manufacturers are investing in the future.
Innovation, advanced technology, and sustainability play crucial roles in helping manufacturers achieve
competitiveness and maintain it for the future. Increasingly, manufacturers must operate using efficient and
productive technologies with finite resources and a greater awareness of environmental impact.
The current survey looks at how manufacturers have and plan to use information, quality
management, and production technologies. It also highlights the benefits of competing on
innovation rather than on low price and indicates the extent of engagement of manufacturers in
innovation. Emissions measurement for sustainable manufacturing is examined. And, as with
previous studies, the 2012 Georgia Manufacturing Survey also presents the top concerns of
Georgia manufacturers.
Summary of Findings
Strategies
The Georgia
Manufacturing
Survey, begun in
1994 and conducted
every two to three
years, benchmarks
the use of modern
manufacturing
technology, practices
and techniques by
industry statewide.
Information gleaned
from the survey is
used to improve
manufacturing
assistance programs
and regional
innovation initiatives
that, in turn, help
Georgia companies
compete, improve
their profitability and
create jobs for
Georgians.
Profitability
Profits of Georgia manufacturers generally declined between 2010 and
2012, but the profitability difference between companies competing
mainly through innovation and low price was maintained.
Outsourcing
In 2012, 14% of manufacturers were affected by outsourcing, that is,
work transferred from a Georgia facility, and 16% gained from
in-sourcing, or work transferred to a Georgia facility.
Exporting
Half of Georgia manufacturers had export sales, with 23% of
manufacturers increasing their export sales in 2011 over 2009 levels.
Research and
Development
Marketing and
Sales
Sustainability
Training
Investing in the
Future
1
17% of Georgia manufacturers choose low price to compete in the
marketplace compared to less than ten percent that compete through
innovation or new technology.
When Georgia manufacturers conduct R&D, they compare well with
manufacturers across the country. However, only one-third of Georgia
manufacturers conducted R&D in-house. Only four percent used public
loans or grants to pay for R&D and fewer than 20% used R&D tax
36% of the respondents identified marketing and sales as their top
concern. This figure is slightly below previous years, but still the most
common concern.
Only eight percent of Georgia manufacturers have produced an
emissions inventory or carbon footprint of their facility, including
nearly half of large manufacturers.
Respondents (24%) noted technical skills as another top
concern, but 27% reported not spending any funds on
employee training, whether it involved routine tasks or
new capabilities.
More than half of manufacturers reported using enterprise resource
planning, computer aided design, and preventive/predictive
maintenance. Plans for investing in new technologies are most common
for bar code readers (21%) and radio frequency identification (RFID)
(18%).

3. STRATEGIES
About the Survey
528 Georgia manufacturers
with 10 or more employees
participated in the survey
Manufacturers Prioritize Strategies
As part of the Georgia Manufacturing Survey, manufacturers were asked
to rank six strategies based on their importance in competing for sales.
The strategies were low price, high quality, innovation/new technology,
quick delivery, adapting to customer needs and sustainable
manufacturing strategies.
Strategy Preferences of Georgia Manufacturers :
Quality of service
Industry groups were as
follows:
more than 50%
Low price
17%
Adapting to customer needs
16%
Quick delivery
Food/Textiles ranges
from food, animal feed
and beverages to
leather and apparel
9%
Sustainable manufacturing
3%
Innovation/New technology
The survey was undertaken
between February and May
2012
Results were weighted by
industry and employment
size to represent the
population of
manufacturers
Material encompasses
industries in wood, pulp
and paper, plastics and
non-metallic minerals
less than 10%
Across all six strategies, results revealed that innovation strategies were
associated with the highest mean return on sales—over ten percent.
Low-price and quick delivery strategies were linked to the lowest mean
return on sales of five percent. High quality strategies brought margins in
the nine percent range while adapting to customer needs was associated
with seven percent margins.
Profits Increase for Firms Competing on Innovation
Machinery also
includes fabricated
metals
Electronics/Transportation
covers electrical appliances
Science comprises
industries from
petroleum to chemicals to
medical supplies
Average Return on Sales for Manufacturers Competing Primarily
through Price vs. Innovation
15%
Profitability – 3-Year Average Annual Return on
Sales (%) – by Primary Business Strategy 2010-2012
12%
More than half of the
survey respondents
introduced a new or
significantly improved
product or service
during the 2009-to-2011
period.
9%
6%
3%
0%
2010
Low Price
2012
Innovation
Source: Georgia Manufacturing Survey 2012, weighted responses of 528 surveys;
Georgia Manufacturing Survey 2010, weighted responses of 494 surveys.
2

4. Manufacturers that compete primarily using innovation strategies have relatively high returns on
sales and higher employee wages. Most Georgia manufacturers, however, use strategies associated
with low wages. Average wages for manufacturers that prioritize innovation/technology strategies are
$10,000 or more higher than those for manufacturers that prioritize other strategies.
Higher Returns to the Community Linked to Innovation
Manufacturing Wages by Percentages of Respondents Ranking Strategies
Highest in 2010
Innovation, new technology
High quality
Adapting product to customer needs
Quick delivery
Low price
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
Source: Georgia Manufacturing Survey 2012, weighted responses of 528 manufacturers.
Science-based industries had a higher percentage of manufacturers primarily competing on innovation.
All industries favored high quality as a primary sales strategy, especially those in the food and textiles
group. Electronics and transportation manufacturers were least likely to compete using low price as
their primary strategy.
Most Manufacturers Focus on Quality and Price
Most Important Manufacturing Strategies by Industry Group
(Percentage of firms indicating strategy is of highest importance)
Strategy
Food-Text
Materials
Mach
Elec-Trans
Science
High quality
64.9%
55.9%
54.7%
46.7%
52.9%
Adapting product
to customer needs
14.8%
19.0%
12.4%
33.3%
7.8%
Low price
13.8%
14.6%
23.7%
8.9%
19.6%
Quick delivery
12.9%
14.2%
12.8%
8.9%
9.8%
Innovation/ New
technology
5.0%
8.5%
9.2%
8.9%
13.7%
Source: Georgia Manufacturing Survey 2012 weighted responses of 528 manufacturers.
3

5. Innovation
Creation and Dissemination of New Knowledge
When manufacturers were asked to indicate the extent to which their facilities undertook
any of 13 innovation-related activities during the 2007 to 2009 period, the most common
innovations were: (1) working with customers to create or design a product, process or
other innovation; (2) signing a confidentiality agreement; (3) working with suppliers to
create or design a product, process or other innovation; and (4) purchasing machinery,
equipment, computers or software to implement innovations.
The least common innovation activities undertaken were: (1) purchasing external
research and development; (2) purchasing or licensing patents, inventions, know-how
or other types of knowledge; (3) publishing papers or technical articles; (4) registering a
trademark or (5) applying for a patent.
Firms Find Diverse Ways to Innovate
Adoption of Specialized Innovation Activities
(Percentage of establishments that engaged in the activity)
Work with customers for innovation
Sign a confidentiality agreement
Purchase equipment
Work with suppliers for innovation
In-house R&D
Training
Planning and development
Market research
82% of Georgia
manufacturers
experienced positive
profitability (average
annual return on
sales) from 2009 to
2011. The median
manufacturer’s
profitability was six
percent, while the
top ten percent of
manufacturers had
profitability levels of
25% and the bottom
ten percent had
negative three
percent. These
returns were similar
to the 2010
survey, except that
there were more
manufacturers with
three to 15%
profitability and
fewer with negative
profitability.
Register a trademark
Apply for a patent
Purchase patent
Publish papers
Purchase external R&D
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Source: Georgia Manufacturing Survey 2012, weighted responses of 528 manufacturers.
Four Types of Innovation
Product Innovation
Technologically new products or
significantly improved existing products.
Organizational Innovation
New or significant changes in
manufacturer’s structure, management
methods or information exchange systems.
Process Innovation
Technologically new or significantly
improved practices, technologies or delivery.
Marketing Innovation
New or significant changes to packaging,
design, sales methods or distribution
channels.
4

6. R&D Intensity: Georgia versus U.S.
How do Georgia manufacturers’ R&D
expenditures compare with that of
manufacturers throughout the United
States? Comparing R&D intensity –
which is calculated by dividing R&D
expenditures by sales and shown as a
percentage – from respondents to the
Georgia Manufacturing Survey and
from the National Science Foundation’s
Business R&D and Innovation Survey,
we see that Georgia manufacturers, as a
whole, are slightly below, but relatively
close to, the U.S. benchmark. Georgia’s
food/beverage/textiles/apparel/leather
and materials groups have higher R&D
intensity levels than the U.S.
benchmark, the machinery group is
about on par, while the
electronics/electrical/transportation and
science-based industries have R&D
intensity levels far below the U.S.
benchmark.
(R&D intensity measured by R&D expenditures as a percentage of sales)
R&D Intensity
2011 Georgia
Total
R&D Intensity
2009 US (domestic*)
1.25%
4.54%
Food-text
1.65%
0.86%
Material
2.43%
1.46%
Mach
0.86%
4.03%
Elec-Trans
1.98%
7.77%
Science
2.24%
6.56%
*Domestic means R&D is conducted at any US location in the enterprise group.
Sources: Georgia Manufacturing Survey 2012, weighted responses of 296
manufacturers; U.S. National Science Foundation/Division of Science
Resources Statistics, Business R&D and Innovation Survey: 2009.
The average respondent that introduced new-to-the market
goods or services reported that these goods and services
accounted for nearly 16% of the facility’s sales. More than 60% of
respondents with new-to-the market goods or services received
at least five percent of their sales from these new goods or
services.
The percentage of sales from new-to-the-market goods and services in
2012 is above the value for 2010.
Some Specifics
Nearly half of survey
respondents introduced a
new or significantly
improved product during
the 2009 to 2011 period
14% introduced a new or
significantly improved
service
Larger manufacturers
were more likely to
introduce new goods
28% percent of
respondents introduced
a new-to-the-market
product or service in the
2009 to 2011 period
Only 18% of manufacturers said they
use R&D tax credits even though more
than 30% conduct R&D in-house.
5
Sales Reflect Modest Gains
Percentage of Sales from New-to-Market Goods/Services, 2010 vs. 2012
50%
40%
2012
30%
2010
20%
10%
0%
0-5%
5.1-10% 10.1-15% 15.1-20%
% Sales from New Products
> 20%
Source: Georgia
Manufacturing Survey 2012,
weighted responses of 215
manufacturers; Georgia
Manufacturing Survey 2010,
weighted responses of 199
manufacturers.
Financial concerns are a major limitation on innovation. However, only four
percent of Georgia manufacturers use public loans or grants, only three percent
received private equity support such as venture capital, and only one percent of
the respondents used the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program.
These low usage rates exist despite more than half of manufacturers having
introduced a new product and one-third of manufacturers conducting in-house
R&D, and therefore could have made use of these resources. Less than 30% of
respondents financed innovations with private conventional loans.
Large manufacturers with 250 or more employees were somewhat
more likely than small manufacturers to have received public
support. The use of private loans was more prevalent among
smaller facilities.

7. Outsourcing
Outsourcing and In-sourcing
Between 2009 and 2011, about 14% of Georgia manufacturers were affected by outsourcing, somewhat less than was
reported in the 2010 survey. For those affected, the most common outsourcing locations were elsewhere in the United
States, followed by Asia and Mexico and Central and South America. In-sourcing also occurred. The rate of transfer of
work to Georgia manufacturers was 16%, higher than the percentage of firms affected by outsourcing. There was a marked
increase in work transferred from Asia to Georgia manufacturers (from 2.6% in 2010 to 4.3% in 2012). In-sourcing and
outsourcing are not mutually exclusive; nearly all of the manufacturers affected by in-sourcing and outsourcing were
involved in both.
In-sourcing Exceeds Outsourcing Rates
20%
(Percentage of Establishments Reporting Work Transferred from Facility (Outsourcing) or
to Facility (In-sourcing))
15%
Some Specifics
Outsourcing
Eight percent of manufacturers
had work moved from Georgia
to another establishment
within the United States
In-sourcing
10%
2005
2008
2010
2012
Source: Georgia Manufacturing Survey 504 weighted responses (2012); Georgia Manufacturing Survey
494 weighted responses (2010); 676 weighted responses (2008); 617 weighted responses (2005)
Five percent had work moved
from Georgia to Asia (including
China and India)
In contrast to prior surveys, manufacturers competing on innovation were as likely as
manufacturers competing on low price to be affected by outsourcing. However, manufacturers that
prioritize innovation as one of their top two strategies for competing were more likely to benefit
from in-sourcing than manufacturers competing based on low price.
25%
Innovation Means More In-sourcing
20%
Percentage of Establishments Reporting Their
Facility was Affected by Outsourcing/In-sourcing
Innovative
Strategies
15%
10%
Low Price
Strategies
5%
Large Firms Outsource More
Percentage of Establishments Reporting Their Facility Was
Impacted by Outsourcing/In-sourcing
10-49
The rate of outsourcing was
somewhat higher for large companies
than for smaller companies. But the
rate of in-sourcing was significantly
higher for large companies.
50-249
250+
Food-text
Material
Mach
Elec-Trans
Outsourcing
Science
In-sourcing
Northwest
Northeast
Atlanta
Region
Half of Georgia manufacturers had export
sales, with 23% of manufacturers increasing
their export sales in 2011 over 2009 levels.
Manufacturers in science-based industries
were more likely to have export sales,
followed by those in the
electronics/electrical/transportation industry
group. Manufacturers in the materials group
were least likely to have export sales.
Total
% Impacted by
In-sourcing
Employment
% Impacted by
Outsourcing
Less than one percent had work
moved from Georgia to Europe or
elsewhere in the world
Source: Georgia Manufacturing Survey 2012,
weighted responses of 528 manufacturers.
Industry Group
0%
Four percent had work moved
from Georgia to Mexico or
other Central or South
American country
West
Central
Augusta
South
Coastal
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Source: Georgia Manufacturing Survey 2012, weighted responses of 528 manufacturers.
6

8. Concerns
Some Specifics
Marketing and Sales Concerns Weaken in 2012
24% of respondents reported
problems finding technically
skilled workers and 16%
reported problems finding
workers with basic skills; this
percentages are much greater
than in 2010
Manufacturers with 250 or
more employees were more
likely to have greater concern
about finding employees with
technical skills, while
medium-sized manufacturers
with 50-249 employees were
slightly more likely to have
greater concerns about finding
employees with basic skills
Small manufacturers were
more concerned about
marketing and sales and
business strategy and financial
analysis
Compared with 2010, marketing and sales have become slightly less important to Georgia
manufacturers in 2012. At the same time, marketing and sales are still the most common
problem or need among Georgia manufacturers in 2012. Lean manufacturing priorities are
the second most common need or problem. Technical skills are also important, having
become more so since 2010.
Energy management, which declined in importance in the 2010 survey (compared to
previous survey results), rose again in the 2012 survey. Quality assurance rebounded in
importance in the 2012 survey after having declined in the 2010 survey relative to
previous survey responses. Fewer manufacturers expressed needs for product
development in the 2012 survey than in the 2010 survey. In addition, needs for business
and finance and management and leadership were less prevalent in 2012 than in the 2010
survey.
Manufacturing
Problems and
Needs,
2010 – 2012
Among manufacturers that
spent money on training in
2011, the median respondent
reported that ten percent of
training dollars were spent on
non-routine training. 25% of
respondents spent more than
50% of their training dollars
on new activities and tasks.
Small manufacturers not only
spent less, but most of their
spending (90%) was for
routine training.
Problems/Needs
Marketing and sales
Manufacturing process/lean
Technical skills
Energy costs management
Basic skills
Expansion planning, facility layout
Quality Assurance
Environmental, safety compliance,
health, workplace
Management and leadership
Information systems & hardware
Product development, design
Business, Finance
COMPARISON
DIFFERENCE
2012 - 2010
2012
2010
36.0%
31.6%
23.5%
21.4%
16.4%
13.8%
13.6%
39.1%
31.6%
18.8%
18.9%
13.9%
13.5%
11.5%
-3.1%
0.0%
4.7%
2.5%
2.5%
0.3%
2.1%
13.5%
12.3%
1.2%
12.2%
12.2%
11.4%
11.4%
12.8%
11.1%
15.4%
13.5%
-0.6%
1.1%
-4.0%
-2.1%
Source: Georgia Manufacturing Survey 2012, weighted responses of 528 manufacturers;
Georgia Manufacturing Survey 2010, weighted responses of 494 manufacturers.
Training
Workforce Skills Remain an Issue
Median training $ per employee
Median percent training for new tasks
350
300
25%
20%
250
150
10%
100
5%
50
0%
l
0
10
-4 9
20
-2 4
9
25
0+
Foo
d-t
e
Ma xt
ter
ial
Ma
Ele ch
c-T
ran
S ci s
en
ce
No
rth
w
No est
rth
ea
Atl st
an
ta
We
st
Cen
t
Au ral
gu
sta
So
uth
Co
ast
al
7
15%
200
Tot
a
Median
Expenditures Per
Employee on All
Training Activities in
2011 and Median
Percentages of
Training Dollars
Related to New
Activities and Tasks
Source: Georgia
Manufacturing
Survey 2012,
weighted
responses of 330
manufacturers.

9. Sustainability
Some Specifics
Respondents in the Northwest region
spent the most on training on a
per-employee basis, and those in
west, Augusta and coastal regions
spent the least
Sustainable manufacturing involves minimizing use of natural resources,
toxic materials, waste emissions and production materials over the life
cycle of the product or part to achieve cost savings, environmental, and
social benefits.
Georgia manufacturers are widely engaged in sustainability practices, with
more than 75% having set goals to improve the sustainability of their
processes. Sustainability goals to eliminate waste sent to landfills are most
prevalent. Less common are goals to reduce energy use and emissions in
shipping in employee commuting or business travel. The most common
planned goal is to reduce energy use in shipping.
Manufacturing Goals for Sustainability
100
Do not plan
Plan to Practice
Practice now
80
Percentage of Respondents That Have Conducted a Carbon Footprint
Estimate or Emissions Inventory by Annual Emission Level
60
Source: Georgia
Manufacturing
Survey 2012
weighted
responses of 528
manufacturers.
40
20
0
The median manufacturing
establishment had only 12% of
employees with two or more years of
technical or vocational college. Seven
percent had bachelor’s degrees in at least
half of their workforce. Nearly 30% of
manufacturers have at least one
employee with a master’s or doctorate in
science, engineering, or information
technology; this is an indicator of
innovation capability
Eliminate
waste
materials
Reduce air, Recovery
Reduce
Reduce
Use
water
and reuse energy use energy use, renewable
energy
pollutants
in shipping employee
travel
16%
Metric Tons
< 10,000
18%
66%
10,000-24,999
25,000 or more
Source: Georgia Manufacturing Survey 2012,
weighted responses of 30 manufacturers
Large manufacturers are more likely to have set sustainable manufacturing goals, especially for the operation of
facilities with renewable energy sources. Materials manufacturers were most likely to have eliminated waste
and reused products and materials. Science-based manufacturers had the highest share of manufacturers
practicing pollution reduction. Reduced shipping was highest for the food/textiles/apparel/leather, materials,
and electronics/electrical/transportation groups. Reduced employee travel is highest among manufacturers in
the electronics/electrical/transportation group. The food/textiles/apparel/leather and materials groups had the
highest rates of operation with renewables.
Eight percent of Georgia manufacturers have conducted emissions inventories of their carbon footprint, down
from 11% in the 2010 survey. However, nearly half of large manufacturers have conducted these inventories.
In comparison, more than ten percent of medium-sized manufacturing respondents and fewer than five
percent of small manufacturing respondents had produced a carbon footprint or emissions inventory.
Science-based industries were most likely to have produced a carbon footprint or emissions inventory. Metals
and machinery industries were least likely to have produced a carbon footprint or emissions inventory.
8

10. If basic and advanced
technologies are
distinguished, 92% of
respondents used at
least one basic
technology (such as
machine
maintenance,
computer aided
design, or ISO 9000),
while 84% used at
least one advanced
technology (such as
RFID, additive
manufacturing, or
new materials).
HOW MANUFACTURERS ARE INVESTING IN THE FUTURE
Manufacturers are investing in the future through using a range
of information technologies, quality management and
continuous improvement techniques, and manufacturing
production technologies. Software for scheduling, inventory
control of purchasing such as enterprise resource planning
(ERP) is the most commonly used (71%), followed by computer
aided design (65%), preventive and predictive maintenance
(60%), and lean manufacturing (50%). Plans for acquiring new
technologies are most common for bar code readers (21%) and
radio frequency identification (RFID) for inventory and
warehouse tracking (18%).
Technologies and Techniques Manufacturers Use and Plan to Use
Software for Scheduling,
Inventory Control, or Purchasing
Computer Aided Design
Preventative/ Predictive Machine
Maintenance Program
Lean Manufacturing
Bar Code Readers for
Data Collection
Supply Chain Management Systems
Quality Systems (e.g. Six Sigma)
ISO 9000, TS16949 Certification
Computer-integrated
Manufacturing (CIM)
Life Cycle Analysis
RFID for Inventory and
Warehouse Tracking
Robots
Rapid Prototyping
Mass Customization Systems
ISO 14000 Environmental
Management Systems
Advanced Materials
Additive Manufacturing,
Printed Manufacturing
ISO 500001,
Energy Management System
0%
Practice Now
Plan To
Source: Georgia Manufacturing
Survey 2012, weighted responses
of 471 manufacturers.
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Use of technologies and techniques increases with facility employment size. This is particularly true for use of supply chain
management, quality systems, lean manufacturing, robots, and bar code readers. Rapid prototyping and advanced
materials use are not related to employment size, however. By industry, the electronics/electrical/transportation and
science-based groups tend to have the highest use of these technologies and techniques. However, RFID is most prevalent
in the food/textile/apparel/leather group (used by 25% of these respondents) and CAD in the machinery group (used by
80% of these respondents).

11. About the Staff
Dr. Jan Youtie is the director of the 2012 Georgia Manufacturing Survey. Youtie is a
director of policy research services in Georgia Tech’s Enterprise Innovation Institute
and an adjunct associate professor in Tech’s School of Public Policy. She specializes
in applied research in economic development and industrial modernization.
Professor Philip Shapira is the co-director of the 2012 Georgia Manufacturing
Survey. Shapira is a professor at Georgia Tech’s School of Public Policy and also a
professor of innovation management and policy with the Manchester Institute for
Innovation Research at the United Kingdom’s Manchester Business School.
Dimitri Dodonova at Kennesaw State University (KSU) led survey research and
analysis at KSU. Dodonova is assistant director of the Econometrics Center at KSU.
Professor Donald Sabbarese, Director of the Econometrics Center, is a co-leader at
KSU, conducting analyses for the Georgia Manufacturing Survey.
Adam Beckerman is the partner in charge of Habif, Arogeti & Wynne, LLP’s
manufacturing and distribution group, which is one of the largest practices in the
Firm. Beckerman has been enabling the success of manufacturers that are
starting-up, growing or getting ready for an equity event for more than 18 years. He
is also recognized as a thought leader on manufacturing trends and business issues.
About HA&W
Additional Research assistance was provided by Luciano Kay at
Georgia Tech and Carmen Morales at Kennesaw State University.
Habif, Arogeti & Wynne, LLP is one of the top
50 U.S. accounting and consulting firms and an
underwriter of this year’s survey. In addition
to delivering traditional audit and tax services,
the Firm‘s manufacturing and distribution
group is committed to helping clients gain
greater control over production and
operations, reduce waste and lower
inventories, and develop a synchronized
supply chain, which all improve profitability
and competitive edge.
For more information contact Adam Beckerman
at adam.beckerman@hawcpa.com
“Manufacturers have been investing in the future, and
this investment has paid off in many ways. Georgia
manufacturers are attracting work from outside the
state to a greater extent than the rate of outsourcing.”
- Jan Youtie
“Innovation remains as important as ever. Those
Georgia companies that innovate receive rewards for
doing so. But a significant number of companies still
have not adopted innovation as a leading strategy.”
- Philip Shapira
A special thanks to this year's sponsors: Georgia
Tech Enterprise Innovation Institute; School of
Public Policy, Ivan Allen College, Georgia Tech;
Georgia Department of Labor; Kennesaw State
University; and Habif, Arogeti & Wynne, LLP.
For more survey information, contact Jan Youtie at
404.894.6111 or jan.youtie@innovate.gatech.edu.
Visit www.cherry.gatech.edu/survey to download a PDF of the full report.
10