The Sme Growth Strategies Economics Essay

The Sme Growth Strategies Economics Essay This paper focuses on factors affecting the growth and performance of small and medium enterprises. The aim was to identify strategic factors differentiating young and long-lived growth SMEs. The empirical data consisted of 32 young (8 years or less) and 33 long-lived (20 years or more) growth SMEs. A comparison of the two groups of growth SMEs revealed strategic differences with important implications between young and long-lived SMEs. The results suggest that firm age does matter for SME growth strategies. The results increase our understanding of the factors affecting SME growth and performance in two different contexts. Keywords: growth; performance; strategies; small and medium enterprises INTRODUCTION Firm growth is a central focus area in strategy, organizational and entrepreneurship research. Much research effort has been targeted particularly at investigating the factors affecting firm growth, but to date there is no comprehensive theory to explain which firms will grow or how they grow (e.g. Garnsey, 1996). It seems that not even very strong explanatory factors have been identified, though various explanatory approaches have been presented. The research community largely shares the view that growth SMEs have a special importance in the economy (see e.g. Storey, 1994). During the last ten years, the research on firm growth has largely focused on high-growth SMEs. It is argued that a relatively small proportion of all small firms are responsible for the major part of the small firm contribution to net new jobs (Storey, 1994; Birch et al., 1993). These firms have been described as gazelles, fliers, growers and winners, and the targeting of effort towards them has been described as picking, stimulating, or backing winners (see e.g. Gibb, 1997; Freel, 1998; Beaver Jennings, 1995). More recently, the role of fast-growing small firms has been questioned, and the issue is known as the mice vs. gazelles (Birch et al., 1993) or flyers vs. trundlers (Storey, 1994) debate. In other words, the debate has focused on the question: which of these actually has the major impact on net employment (Davidsson Delmar, 1998)? On the other hand, it has been recognized that attending exclusively to firm-level growth and jobs may be too narrow an approach. Firms, even very small and non-growing ones, can have different strategic roles or positions in the local economic system (Laukkanen 1999). Some are critical facilitators of other firms growth or of their very emergence, and thus are important for job creation at the local level. In fact, previous research reveals that firm growth is a multidimensional phenomenon. There is substantial heterogeneity in a number of factors associated with firm growth and related research (Delmar et al., 2003). The most recent research on firm growth has increased our understanding of different growth patterns. As Delmar et al. (2003) have shown, firm growth patterns are related to the demographic characteristics of firms such as firm age. SME growth is often closely associated with firm overall success and survival (e.g. Johannisson, 1993; Phillips Kirchhoff, 1989). Growth has been used as a simple measure of success in business (e.g. Storey, 1994). Also, as Brush and Vanderwerf (1992) suggest, growth is the most appropriate indicator of the performance for surviving small firms. Moreover, growth is an important precondition for the achievement of other financial goals of business (de Geus, 1997: 53; Storey, 1994; Reynolds, 1993; Day, 1992: 128; Phillips Kirchhoff, 1989). From the point of view of an SME, growth is usually a critical precondition for its longevity (Storey, 1994: 158). Phillips and Kirchhoff (1989) found that young firms that grow have twice the probability of survival as young non-growing firms. It has been also found that strong growth may reduce the firms profitability temporarily, but increase it in the long run (McDougall et al., 1994; cf. MacMillan Day, 1987). However, there are several conceptual and empirical challenges in the study of firm growth (see e.g. Davidsson Wiklund, 2000; Delmar, 1997). Firm growth in general refers to increase in size. In research, firm growth has been operationalized in many ways and different measures have been used. This may be one reason for the contradictory results reported by previous studies (Weinzimmer et al., 1998: 235), though other explanations have also been presented (see Delmar et al., 2003; see also Davidsson Wiklund, 2000). The most frequently used measure for growth has been change in the firms turnover (e.g. Weinzimmer et al., 1998: 238; Hubbard Bromiley, 1995; Hoy et al., 1992; Venkatraman Ramanujam, 1986). Another typical measure for growth has been change in the number of employees. However, it has been found that these measures, which are frequently used in the SME context, are strongly intercorrelated (North Smallbone, 1993; Storey et al., 1987). Such an intercorrelation may not exist among capital-intensive large companies. Most studies of firm growth have focused on large companies or new venture, while the growth of established, long-lived SMEs seems to have attracted much less attention. In fact, many organizational life cycle models present growth as one stage of development in the organizational life cycle. On the other hand, it has been shown that most new jobs are created by existing, not new, SMEs (e.g. Davidsson et al., 1993; see also North et al., 1992). However, previous studies of SME performance have focused on the performance of new ventures rather than on existing SMEs and on the factors behind their longevity and growth (e.g. Tsai et al., 1991; Duchesneau Gartner, 1990; Keeley Roure, 1990). This study takes a holistic and extensive approach to factors affecting SME growth and performance. Firm growth and performance are much affected by strategy, which involves choices along a number of dimensions and can be represented by a firms overall collection of individual business-related decisions and actions (Mintzberg, 1978; Miles Snow, 1978). Though there is a variety of definitions of the term of strategy, it can accurately be conceptualized as a pattern of strategic variables, because the elements of strategy the individual business-related decisions and actions are interdependent and interactive (Galbraith Schendel, 1983). It is argued that the identification of strategy patterns permits a more complete and accurate depiction of overall strategic behavior (see e.g. Hambrick, 1983; Robinson Pearce, 1988). Previous research has suggested that the paths to growth can differ systematically by firm-level factors such as firm age (Fisher and Reuber, 2003; Delmar Davidsson, 1998). In fact, already in the late fifties Penrose (1959) presented the view that a firms growth pattern is dependent on its age, size, and industry affiliation (see Delmar et al., 2003; also Stinchcombe, 1965). As Delmar et al. (2003) suggest, it is probable that different growth patterns have different implications for management and possibly also for the long-term performance of the firm. In this light it seems useful to compare young growth SMEs and long-lived growth SMEs and determine whether they differ in characteristics and strategies. The central research question is, how do young and long-lived growth SMEs differ in their strategic attributes? In other words, the aim of this paper is to investigate whether firm age plays a role in firm characteristics and strategies. The findings will increase our understanding of the factors associated with firm growth and performance in these two different contexts. FACTORS AFFECTING SME GROWTH Although there has been much interest in understanding small firm growth during the last ten years (e.g. Davidsson Delmar, 1999; Delmar, 1997; Wiklund, 1998), there is still not much of a common body of well-founded knowledge about the causes, effects or processes of growth (Davidsson Wiklund, 2000). Moreover, although several determinants of firm growth have been suggested, researchers have been unable to achieve a consensus regarding the factors leading to firm growth (Weinzimmer, 2000). Most of the research work in this area fails to provide convincing evidence of the determinants of small firm growth as a basis for informing policy makers (Gibb Davies, 1990: 26). Attempts to build models for predicting the future growth of the firm, i.e. picking winners, have not been particularly successful. Moreover, as Spilling (2001) reminds us, the status of being a growth firm may be rather temporary. Early studies of growth focused on large companies and their diversification strategies. However, small firms are not small big firms. In large companies the role of diversification, for example, may be significantly bigger than in the case of SMEs. Indeed, growth through diversification may be necessary for the growth of a large company (Kay, 1997). The existing research on the growth and strategy of SMEs has focused mainly on new ventures (Olson Bokor, 1995). There are few studies of the growth of established SMEs: one instance is Davidsson (1989), who studied the subsequent growth of an SME from the psychological point of view. Maybe the most comprehensive compilation of results of previous studies focusing on small firm growth is that presented by Storey (1994). Several classifications of factors affecting firm growth have been presented. The general preconditions for growth have been suggested to be (1) entrepreneurs growth orientation; (2) adequate firm resources for growth; and (3) the existence of the market opportunity for growth (cf. Davidsson, 1991). Storey (1994: 158) claims that there are three key influences on the growth rate of a small independent firm: (1) the background and access to resources of the entrepreneur(s); (2) the firm itself; and (3) the strategic decisions taken by the firm once it is trading. The most important factors associated with an entrepreneur are motivation, education, the firm having more than a single owner, and the firm having middle-aged business owners. The growth of the smallest and youngest firms is the most rapid. The location and industry sector also affect the growth. The most important strategic factors are shared ownership, an ability to identify market niches and introduce new products, and an ability to build an efficient management team. Storey argues that these three components need to be combined appropriately for growth to be achieved. Gibb and Davies (1990: 16-17), on the other hand, have grouped the factors explaining growth into four types of approach (Gibb, 1997: 2-3; Pistrui et al., 1997; Poutziouris et al., 1999). These are: (1) personality-dominated approaches, which explore the impact of personality and capability on growth, including the entrepreneurs personal goals and strategic business aspirations (e.g. Chell Haworth, 1991; 1992); (2) firm development approaches, which seek to characterize the growth pattern of the firm across stages of development and the influence of factors affecting growth process (e.g. Scott Bruce, 1987); (3) business management approaches, which pay attention to the importance of business skills and the role of functional management, planning, control and formal strategic orientation in terms of shaping the growth and performance of the firm in the marketplace (e.g. Bamberger, 1989; 1983); and (4) sectoral and broader market-led approaches which focus largely on the identificati on of growth constraints and opportunities relating to small firm growth in the context of regional development or the development of specific industrial sectors such as high-technology small firms (e.g. Smallbone et al., 1993). The entrepreneur and growth intention The behavior of entrepreneurs is strongly affected by intentions (e.g. Krueger Carsrud, 1993: 315; Bird, 1988: 442). The firms strategic behavior and subsequent growth is understandable in the light of its growth intention. Therefore, firm growth is based not merely on chance, but on the managements conscious decision making and choice. Naturally, the firm can grow even though it is not the managements aim, but in such a case the growth is not planned and so may include more risks. Planning helps in managing growth. In general, goals and objectives can be divided into two categories. On the one hand, there are final goals which are valuable as such. On the other hand, there are goals which have instrumental value for achieving some other goals. Growth can be regarded as the second most important goal of a firm, the most important one being firm survival, i.e. the continuity of the business. Moreover, growth is an important precondition for a firms longevity. Negative growth of an SME is often a sign of problems, while stagnation, i.e. a situation where growth has stopped, is usually indicative of problems that a firm will face in the future. As a matter of fact, growth often has instrumental value. For new ventures, firm growth is needed to ensure an adequate production volume for profitable business. Growth can serve as an instrument for increasing profitability by enlargening the firms market-share. Other similar goals include securing the continuity of business in the conditions of growing demand or achieving economies of scale. Moreover, growth may bring the firm new business opportunities (cf. the corridor principle, Timmons 1999), and a larger size enhances its credibility in the market. Also, achieving a higher net value of the firm can be regarded as a motive for firm growth. In SMEs, growth objectives are often bound up with the owner-managers personal goals (e.g. Jennings Beaver, 1997), and so it is important that they support each other. Much has been written about the importance of the entrepreneurs growth motivation (e.g. Perren, 2000; Davidsson, 1991; Miner, 1990). The close connection between an owner-manager and the firm is the dominant characteristic of small firms (Vesalainen, 1995: 18). Instead of profit maximization or growth, a firms primary goal may be the entrepreneurs independence or self-realization (see e.g. Foley Green, 1989). Moreover, there may be no adequate resources for growth, or the expected increase in business risks may limit a firms growth willingness. However, aversion to growth has been said to be the principal reason why most SMEs stagnate and decline (Clark et al., 2001). In several typologies, entrepreneurs and firms are categorized by their business goals, so growth has been a widely used dimension in many typologies. There are two broad approaches in the studies of small firm success: (1) the business professionals model, and (2) the small business proprietors model (Bridge et al., 1998: 140-142). These two approaches can be identified in several typologies of entrepreneurs (e.g. Smith, 1967; Stanworth Curran, 1976). According to the business professionals model, a successful firm is one that achieves its highest potential in terms of growth, market share, productivity, profitability, return on capital invested or other measures of the performance of the firm itself. In the small business proprietors model, the owner-managers main concern is whether the firm is providing them with the benefits they want from it. These benefits are often associated with a lifestyle and an income level to maintain it. In the latter model, firm success therefore mean s being able to reach a level of comfort rather than achieving the businesss maximum potential. Firm development In firm development approaches, firms are seen as temporal phenomena which are born, grow, mature, decline and die. Firm growth is the basic dimension of the models of organizational life cycles (e.g. Greiner, 1972; 1998; Mintzberg, 1979; Churchill Lewis, 1983; 1991; Miller Friesen, 1983b; Scott Bruce, 1987). Numerous models of organizational life cycles have been presented, e.g. a three stage model (Smith et al., 1985), four stage models (Quinn Cameron, 1983; Kazanjian, 1988), five stage models (Greiner, 1972; Galbraith, 1982; Churchill Lewis, 1983; Scott Bruce, 1987), and a seven stage model (Flamholtz, 1986). These multistage models use a diverse array of characteristics to explain organizational growth and development. Organizational life cycle models is one application of the configurational approach in describing the stages of life cycles and the transformation from one stage to another (Mintzberg et al., 1998). Common to these growth pattern models is the claim that changes in an organization follow a pattern characterized by discrete stages of development (Dodge et al., 1994). Typical of these patterns are the sequence of events that show how things change over time, a hierarchical progression that is not easily reversed, and a composite of a broad range of organizational activities and structures. Organizational life cycle models are important in understanding the differences in success factors of the firm between the stages of the life cycle. However, organizational life cycle models have been criticized because of their extreme simplification of reality: in some cases not all stages of development are found, some stages of development may occur several times, the stages of development may occur in an irregular order, and there is a lack of empirical evidence to support the theories (e.g. Gibb Davies, 1990; Bridge et al., 1998: 105; Eggers et al., 1994; Birley Westhead, 1990; Miller Friesen, 1983a; Vinnell Hamilton, 1999; cf. Dodge et al., 1994). In addition, on the basis of the results of their study of high-growth firms, Willard et al. (1992) concluded that the applicability of conventional wisdom regarding the leadership crisis in rapid growth entrepreneurial firms may no longer be valid, if, in fact, it ever was. Despite the critiques of organizational life cycle models, strategic management and entrepreneurship research has demonstrated life cycle theory to be one of the most powerful tools for understanding and predicting venture performance. According to Greiner (1972; 1998), for example, a firms failure to adapt to a series of crises caused by growth is one of the principal causes of firm failure. Growth strategies Several growth strategies related to business management approaches have been presented in the literature. Managing growth is a major strategic issue for a growing firm (see e.g. Arbaugh Camp, 2000). Strategy is the most important determinant of firm growth (Weinzimmer, 2000). Among high-growth firms, Dsouza (1990) identified three primary strategic clusters: (1) build strategy, i.e. emphasis on vertical integration; (2) expand strategy, i.e. emphasis on resource allocation and product differentiation; and (3) maintain strategy, i.e. emphasis on market dominance and/or efficiency. Thompson (2001: 563-565) presents four growth strategies: (1) organic growth; (2) acquisition; (3) strategic alliance; and (4) joint venture. On the other hand, when looking at the product/market strategy, four options can be seen: (1) market penetration; (2) new product development; (3) new market development; and (4) moving into new markets with new products (Burns, 1989: 47). However, there is a lack of agreement in empirical findings concerning product- and market-based strategies. While Sandberg and Hofer (1987) argue that product-based strategies work better than focused strategies, Cooper (1993) claim that focused strategies outperform differentiated product strategies (Pistrui et al., 1997). Perry (1986/87) investigated growth strategies for an established small firm, and concluded that the most appropriate growth strategies are niche strategies, i.e. market development and product development strategies, in that order. However, it seems that most empirical studies focus on new venture strategies. Studies of competitive strategies related to firm growth have been carried out in the new venture context by McDougall and Robinson (1990), McDougall et al. (1992), Carter et al. (1994), and Ostgaard and Birley (1995), among others. As opposed to the organic growth strategy, acquisitions are regarded rather as a large company growth strategy which can be either synergistic or nonsynergistic (Anslinger Copeland, 1996). Forward or backward vertical integration means that the acquired firm is located at a different level of the value-addition chain, i.e. the acquired firm is a customer or supplier of the firm. In contrast, horizontal integration refers to a firm which is at the same level of value-addition, i.e. it is a competitor. Lateral integrations refer to unrelated businesses which represent a diversification strategy. In addition to becoming bigger and thus acquiring greater market power, there might be several other reasons for acquisitions, e.g. acquiring synergies, industry restructuring, reduction of business risk, acquiring new knowledge and other necessary resources, overcoming barriers to entry, and entering new markets quickly (see Vermeulen Barkema, 2001; Empson, 2000; Birkinshaw, 1999; Tetenbaum, 1999; Chatterjee, 1992). Despite the fact that growth through acquisitions is more typical of larger firms than smaller ones (see e.g. Davidsson Delmar, 1998), it is one option for the growth of an SME. However, it seems that few studies focus on acquisitions made by small firms. Also, one often neglected way of growing is by setting up new firms. Studies using a firm as the unit of analysis have not been able to identify growth through a portfolio of firms as one way of growing (see Scott Rosa, 1996). However, it has been found that portfolio entrepreneurship appears to be more common than suspected, and that it is characteristic of entrepreneurs who own and manage growth firms (Pasanen, 2003b). Wiklund (1998: 239) concluded that growth through portfolios of firms does not seem to be an alternative to growing a single firm, but entrepreneurs leading rapidly growing firms tend more often to start subsidiaries and independent new firms and to grow these firms. Small business growth through geographic expansion is a challenging growth strategy, as during the course of opening a new geographical site an entrepreneur will be confronted with the task of managing an existing business and a start-up at the same time (Barringer Greening, 1998). Penrose (1959) proposed already in the late fifties that firm growth is constrained by the availability and quality of managerial resources. Many studies draw attention to the important role of an entrepreneurial team for firm growth (see Birley Stockley, 2000). Also, in their study of technology-based ventures, Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven (1990) found an association between a strong management team and firm growth (see also Weinzimmer, 1997). In addition to the importance of favourable firm-internal conditions, the strategies should be in harmony with the environmental conditions. Different growth environments may require different business strategies for SMEs. For instance, Chaganti (1987) found that for small manufacturing firms, different growth environments required distinctly different strategies. Interestingly, this was contrary to the findings concerning large companies. It was concluded that strategic flexibility is a critical requirement for small firms (Chaganti, 1987). Growth barriers Sectoral and broader market-led approaches focus largely on the identification of growth constraints and opportunities. It has been found, for instance, that economic fluctuations strongly affect the growth probability of small firms (Kangasharju, 2000). Also, for firm growth, it seems that aiming at growing market niches is more important than taking market shares from competitors (Wiklund, 1998). However, growth can happen only if there are no growth barriers. Such barriers can be related to firm-internal and firm-external factors (see e.g. Barber et al., 1989; Smallbone North, 1993a; Vaessen Keeble, 1995; Jones-Evans, 1996; Vesper, 1990: 174-175; Hay Kamshad, 1994). The growth barriers characteristic of small firms in peripheral locations have been presented by Birley and Westhead (1990: 538). In the study carried out by the Cambridge Small Business Research Centre (1992), the most common growth barriers were related to factors on the macro level. The most important growth barriers were related to difficulties in obtaining finance and the price of money, the level of and decrease in demand (also Perren, 2000), and tightening competition (also Hay Kamshad, 1994). Other growth barriers were caused by restrictions determined by authorities, problems in obtaining a skilled workforce, and the small number or lack of potential cooperation partners in the area. The firm-internal factors affecting unwillingness to grow include the entrepreneurs fear of losing her or his autonomy, difficulties in fitting together personal and the firms goals, and weak managerial or marketing skills (see also MacNabb, 1995; Perren, 2000). These issues are particularly ty pical when an entrepreneur transfers from the role of entrepreneur to that of manager, or when the firm hires a new manager. DATA AND METHODS This paper is based on data from a larger exploratory study of the factors affecting SME performance (Pasanen, 2003a). Empirical data were collected from 111 growing SMEs in Eastern Finland. The sample was split into quartiles, based on firm age. Lower and upper quartiles of firms were chosen for the final samples, in order to compare the firms in these quartiles with each other. The lower quartile consisted of 32 SMEs aged eight years or less (young firms), whereas the upper quartile consisted of 33 SMEs aged twenty years or more (long-lived firms). A growth firm was defined as a firm with actual growth in turnover during the past five years. Growth was measured as a change in turnover between two time points ignoring the regularity or irregularity of growth over time (see Delmar et al., 2003; Weinzimmer et al., 1998; Delmar, 1997). A mail questionnaire was directed to the CEOs of SMEs operating in the sectors of manufacturing, business services, and tourism. The response rate was 5 3.7 %. Firms in the samples shared the following features: (1) size: SMEs, i.e. they employed fewer than 250 persons; (2) performance: growth firms, i.e. they had grown in terms of turnover during past years; (3) location: peripheral, i.e. outside major cities and not in core areas; (4) ownership: independent firms, not subsidiaries of other companies; and (5) industry sector: operated in the sectors of manufacturing, business services, and tourism. The age of young firms ranged from 2 to 8 years, the average being 5.5 years with standard deviation of 1.7 years. The age of long-lived firms ranged from 20 to 120 years, the average being 40.4 years with standard deviation of 24.9 years. Half of the long-lived firms were less than 35 years old. A comparison of the two groups of SMEs was based on data referring to the characteristics of entrepreneurs and enterprises, their life cycles, the strategic choices made, the success factors of SMEs, and the nature of their environment (see Pasanen, 2003a). Several factors in these areas are associated with firm performance. The characteristics of entrepreneurs consist of variables relating to entrepreneurs education, experience and other demographic factors. Variables related to the characteristics of SMEs and their life cycles include the firms demographic characteristics and growth behavior indicators. For the strategic choices made by the firm, the focus was on innovativeness, internationalization, specialization and networking. These strategic choices include three important elements affecting SME performance: markets, products, and the way of doing business (Normann, 1976). Innovativeness refers to the products of the firm, internationalization to its markets, and specializatio n and networking to the way of doing business. The environment was approached by studying the characteristics of the customer, industry and location. The success factors of SMEs were presented as statements describing their importance in the firms competitive advantage. In identifying the differences between young and long-lived SMEs, approximately 150 variables were tested using appropriate statistical tests, depending on the variable: the t test, non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test, or chi-square test. These tests were conducted to test the differences between the two groups for each of the individual variables. In some analyses, the U test was used instead of the t test due to the skewness of the data. RESULTS A number of differences in characteristics of the owner-managers and firms and their success factors were found between young and long-lived growth SMEs. Three variables related to the characteristics of the owner-managers showed statistically significant differences between the two groups of SMEs (Table 1). Almost all young firms were led by the founder(s) of the firm, whereas this was the case for only half of the long-lived SMEs. Among young SMEs, owner-managers had less experience and were younger than their counterparts in long-lived SMEs. TABLE 1 Differences in characteristics of owner-managers between young and long-lived SMEs (p Variables Test p value Founder  Ã‚ £2 = 6.705 (df = 1) p = .010 Total length of experience as owner-manager U test (z = -2.546) p = .011 Age U test (z = -2.459) p = .014 Fourteen variables characterizing the SMEs showed statistically significant differences between young and long-lived SMEs (Table 2). Young firms had had more founders (means 3.3 vs. 2.1) and had more founders still involved in the firm at the time of the survey than long-lived SMEs had (means 2.9 vs. 1.1). Almost all young firms were founded by a team of owners, whereas half of the long-lived SMEs were founded by a single owner. Being a family firm was more typical of long-lived SMEs (58%) than of young firms (19%). Long-lived SMEs were bigger in size than their younger counterparts: the average full-time personnel was 84 employees in long-lived SMEs and 21 in young firms. Moreover, the number of establishments was bigger in long-lived SMEs than in young firms, averaging 3.5 and 1.7, respectively. Acquisitions or mergers were more typical of long-lived SMEs (39%) than of young SMEs (13%). Owner-managers in long-lived SMEs were more satisfied with their firms success than those in young firms. On a scale of 1 (fully satisfied) to 4 (not at all satisfied), owner-managers in the long-lived SMEs had an average satisfaction of 1.7, whereas among young firms the average was 2.1. During their life cycle, more than half of the long-lived SMEs (55%) had at least once faced a situation where the firms existence, i.e. survival, had been threatened, while only one fifth of the young SMEs (22%) reported that their existence had been threatened. Managerial know-how was considered to be higher in long-lived SMEs than in young firms. In long-lived SMEs, principles and practices of management had changed more than in young firms. Among young SMEs, almost all firms (91%) had stayed close to their original business, whereas among long-lived SMEs seven out of ten firms (70%) had stayed close to their original business. There were also differences in products and customer structures between young and long-lived SMEs. The proportion of products with declining volume was higher in long-lived SMEs (6% of their products), whereas such products accounted for 2% of the young firms products. Among young firms, the cumulative proportion of turnover due to the five biggest customers was 59% of the firms total turnover, whereas in long-lived SMEs it was clearly lower, 41%. TABLE 2 Differences in characteristics of firms between young

English Literature Essay

â€Å"Yet I seek not a fellow feeling in my misery. No sympathy may I ever find. When I first sought it, it was the love of virtue, the feelings of happiness and affection with which my whole being overflowed, that I wished to be participated. But now that virtue has become to me a shadow, and that happiness and affection are turned into bitter and loathing despair, in what should I seek for sympathy? I am content to suffer alone while my sufferings shall endure; when I die, I am well satisfied that abhorrence and opprobrium should load my memory. Once my fancy was soothed with dreams of virtue, of fame, and of enjoyment. Once I falsely hoped to meet with beings who, pardoning my outward form, would love me for the excellent qualities which I was capable of unfolding. I was nourished with high thoughts of honour and devotion. But now crime has degraded me beneath the meanest animal. No guilt, no mischief, no malignity, no misery, can be found comparable to mine. When I run over the frightful catalogue of my sins, I cannot believe that I am the same creature whose thoughts were once filled with sublime and transcendent visions of the beauty and the majesty of goodness. But it is even so; the fallen angel becomes a malignant devil. Yet even that enemy of God and man had friends and associates in his desolation; I am alone.† [Text from Mary Shelley, Frankenstein 2nd Ed (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996), pg. 159 -160.] In the above passage Mary Shelley uses the monster of Frankenstein view of himself to depict some of the major themes in the novel such as monstrosity and abandonment. The themes of monstrosity and abandonment both appear repeatedly throughout the novel and can also be seen in the above quote. Monstrosity is one of the more prevalent themes in Frankenstein as the central character of the novel is a monster. Frankenstein’s creation is rejected by society because his unnatural physical appearance leads people to characterize him as a monster. Victor’s first reaction when he sees the monster is telling: â€Å"I beheld the wretch — the miserable monster whom I had created† (Shelley, 36). This further compounds the established idea that Frankenstein created a monster and as such he is treated as one. Upon entering the cottage in search of a place to rest, the monster encounters the children of the cottage. The children’s reaction when they first see the monster further demonstrates that people categorize Frankenstein’s creation as a monster because of the creatures’ physical appearance. In the text, the monster describes the children’s  reaction saying: â€Å"(†¦) their horror and consternation on beholding me. Agatha fainted; and Safie, (†¦) rushed out of the cottage. Felix darted forward, and with supernatural force tore me from his father (†¦), he dashed me to the ground, and struck me violently with a stick.† (Shelley, 94). The monster refuses to harm Felix even though he was violently attacked by him. This is shown in the following passage: â€Å"I could have torn him limb for limb, (†¦). But my heart sunk within me as with bitter sickness, and I refrained.† (Shelley, 94-95). Therefore, one can see that the perception of Frankenstein’s creation as a monster is based solely on his appearance as the characterization of the creature as a monster in complete contrast to the monster’s response, when refuses to harm the person who attacked him though he could have easily done so. Monstrosity is also demonstrated by the following quote â€Å"crime has degraded me beneath the meanest animal. No guilt, no mischief, no malignity, no misery, can be found comparable to mine. When I run over the frightful catalogue of my sins (†¦) the fallen angel becomes a malignant devil† (Shelley, 160). The author uses the language of the fallen angel and the devil as a symbol. This particular symbolism is presented as a contrast between â€Å"good† and â€Å"evil.† The monster believed himself to be an angel because of his internal characteristics though his physical appearance causes people to see him as a monster and therefore treats him as a monster. He is deeply affected by this; he fells isolated and alone and this feeling is intensified when Frankenstein refuses to create a female companion for the monster. The monster was very hurt by this and therefore he starts killing. This explains the imagery created by the author who uses the monster’s words when he states that â€Å"the fallen angel becomes a malignant devil.† The monster sins and truly becomes a monster and a devil after he begins to kill. An act that the monster w as, arguably, forced to commit because of his isolation which deeply impacted him. The abandonment of Frankenstein monster is also a recurring theme throughout the novel. The monster is abandoned by his creator and when he tries to integrate himself into society, he is shunned by the people solely because of his physical attributes which are beyond his control. He is rejected only because of his physique, an aspect of his persona that overshadows his, at first, gentle and kind nature and prevents society from seeing the good in him. This is made clear when Victor says, â€Å"When I thought of him, I gnashed my teeth, my  eyes became inflamed, and I ardently wished to extinguish that life which I had so thoughtlessly bestowed.† (Shelley, 62). Frankenstein shares similar feelings; he does not believe that he is worthy and he also feels that he should be abandoned. This is shown when he states â€Å"I, the miserable and the abandoned, am an abortion, to be spurned at, and kicked, and trampled on.† (Shelley, 160). This shows the protest against the monster’s existence as the monster does not feel he is worthy and even his creator wi shes that he had not created him. The theme of abandonment is also present in the novel through the following quote â€Å"the fallen angel becomes a malignant devil. Yet even that enemy of God and man had friends and associates in his desolation; I am alone† and â€Å"I am content to suffer alone while my sufferings shall endure† (Shelley, 160). This quote is significant because when the monster speaks his tone evokes a reaction of sympathy from the audience. The sadness and loneliness in the monster’s speech can be felt by the audience and becomes intensified when he states â€Å"even that enemy of God and man had friends and associates in his desolation; I am alone† (Shelley, 160) the monster is communicating how alone and abandoned he feels and when he states that even people who have committed worst acts than he has, the enemies of God, have friends and he does not the audience cannot help but feel a sense of sympathy and compassion for the monster based on the tone in his language despite his physical appearance. Society’s treatment of the monster also shaped his view of himself. The monster views himself as an angel who is made into a monster â€Å"I cannot believe that I am the same creature whose thoughts were once filled with sublime and transcendent visions of the beauty and the majesty of goo dness. But it is even so; the fallen angel becomes a malignant devil.† (Shelley, 160). Frankenstein once viewed himself as a beautiful creature who was inherently good, which is demonstrated when he helped the peasants and saved the girl from drowning (Shelley, 77). However, society continually shunned and rejected the monster and he was therefore forced into solitude and this is what caused him to start committing evil acts. This is demonstrated when Frankenstein murders Victor’s younger brother, Victor’s best friend, and Victor’s wife after Victor aborts the creation of a female monster which the monster demanded so that he would no longer be in solitude. The following quote also reflects some of the sentiments that the monster experiences throughout the novel: No sympathy may I ever find. When I first sought it, it was the love of virtue, the feelings of happiness and affection with which my whole being overflowed (†¦) But now that virtue has become to me a shadow, and that happiness and affection are turned into bitter and loathing despair, in what should I seek for sympathy? This quote summarizes the emotions that the monster feels throughout the novel. One can sense the despair in his voice and that he has lost all faith that he will ever be loved and accepted by others. He has accepted that he will always be abandoned and will forever remain alone. In conclusion, the chosen passage is representative of the entire text of Frankenstein as it demonstrates some of the most prevalent themes in the novel such as monstrosity and abandonment. The text demonstrates the monster’s loneliness and other people’s belief that he is a savage. These are recurring themes throughout the novel as the monster has to constantly deal with the consequences of people’s judgment of him. These themes are also important for the body of work in general as it drives the monster and has significant influence on his actions.

Using opnet, investigation of qos in ip over atm and ip over mpls networks

1. Current SituationMajor advancement has been made to suggest webs with the installation to guarantee the QoS for the existent clip informations. As there are job like, end-to-end hold and hold jitter are typically introduces due to random line uping in the web routers. During the current old ages existent clip applications for case, picture cyclosis, synergistic games and voice over IP have turn out to be progressively well-liked among computing machine users. These applications are normally delay responsive and typically requires superior interventions in order to satisfy a needful degree of Quality of Services ( QoS ) bounds.Literature Reappraisal:[ 1 ] Due to its detonation into concern, there is better every bit good as extra imperative demand for ISPs ( Internet Service Providers ) industry to be capable to offer and every bit good keep QoS. Equally far as ATM is concerned it gives a enriched set of QoS means with a extended scope of service classs. However, QoS form which pre sents a really good control over the traffic parametric quantities demanded and managed. In add-on, most of the ISPs are already utilizing ATM in their backend webs. But there are certain jobs which I will further discourse in interim study. The purpose of this thesis is to do a comparing and to happen out which web is better sing QoS mechanisms to ease the proposed for IP. Battaglia and Kiilat [ 2 ] However, MPLS is chiefly known as Multiprotocol Label shift every bit good as it is basically a strategy that work outs to send on packages professionally and accordingly quickly. With the transition of clip, to better the quality of MPLS a heading is to the full dedicated to work between the layer2 and layer3 heading is formulated. MPLS competent routers instantly look at this heading in doing to send on the determination. MPLS is able to back up spheres, hierarchal routing and be capable to be used for burrowing intent. Domain restrictions are described by bounds of a router which inserts the suited label onto a stack, which is eliminated with the aid of boundary router. A path can be peculiarly specified by a router. During burrowing the entree of Label Switched Router describes the whole Label Switched Path all the manner through the tunnel. Gnauck IP and ATM are considered as complimentary someway competitory. IP has increased prevailing credence and is here to remain as a hereafter engineering. On the other manus, its unworldly structural design that allowed in accomplishing its irrefutable point is the major defects that there are research groups are seeking to turn to this issue. As a affair of fact, QoS is one such important failing of IP. Nonetheless, ATM boasts of a structural design which has relatively complicated techniques of supplying QoS. Conversely, another of import fact is cost, inactiveness and trouble, ATM did non carry through its touted aeriform place. Chris At the same clip as ATM claims to supply QoS confidences, it yet can non make anything above bed 2. This portrays that every bed 3 flows as a consequence, have been combined jointly can non be distinguished by ATM, and as a consequence they all end up disputing each other and an extra for the similar resources. Therefore, there is desirable a manner to set into pattern that helps in commanding traffic control, every bit good as this is most magnificently ended in the bed Myungsik QoS tremendously in the Internet is issue that has been reasonably acquiring some critical concentration from the networking community every bit good companies. The most well-liked 1s heading for dependability at the present are DiffServ and InterServ which assures to give QoS, possibly end-to-end in IP. Despite the fact that, prosecuting in the effort to even out the proficient demands are in a province of fluctuation and developing. Alternatively, of networking field ATM is puting up for itself a place, in the ISP anchors in add-on to these parts the web applied scientists are troubled with the interoperability of IP over ATM. Whereas, this has been complete reasonably much done, the confronts recline in doing successful usage of the intrinsic potency of QoS mechanisms in ATM in a status every bit shortly as running IP on top. This type of steps steps, entirely Intserv and DiffServ and MPLS-DiffServ sing ATM must be good thought-out beside with the aid of interoperation pr ocedure of signaling protocol RSVP. Problems that have been addressed and topen issues are discussed in this literature reappraisal.2. Problem AreasIP out ATM is now extensively deployed and successfully work outing the job of cyberspace working, interoperability and aid in cut downing end-to-end hold job. Now, I am seeking to screen out all the issues and jobs presently in QoS in IP over ATM and IP over MPLS Networks. For case,How to cut down end-to-end holds? How to efficaciously better the multimedia traffics? To look into which 1 is better attack QOS in IP over ATM and IP over MPLS webs? To look into the hereafter secure web? Comparison between QOS in IP over ATM and IP over MPLS webs? Which technique is better for multimedia traffic? In existent state of affairss in the field country there are diverse obstructions to ease the consequence of transmittal of signal. I am besides analyzing about how to prove the impact of obstructions in OPNET.3. Key Work during the Following Time periodI will finish my first three aims before to subject interim study. I will besides plan a MANET scenario to prove the public presentation of routing protocols when mobility addition and lessening.To happen out major differences between QOS in IP over ATM and IP over MPLS websPreliminary background of major jobs in both websTheoretical analysis, contrast and classification of the techniques used by both websAs a consequence, to happen out most first-class simulation techniques and rules involved in transporting out patterning. To happen out which web is better. To see simulation tools used in proving stage.

How to write an essay †short manual for students

How to Write an Essay Learning how to write a good essay can seem difficult, but it does not have to be. Its important to remember that your paper will have the same basic structure no matter what kind of essay you are writing expository, narrative, descriptive or argumentative. Follow these simple steps, practice, and you will get a perfect essay in no time! And if you have run out of time or want to find out how a perfect paper should look like, order one at WriteMyPapers.org now! Quick Steps: Decide on your topic. Prepare an outline or diagram of your ideas. Write your thesis statement. Write the body. Write the main points. Write the subpoints. Develop the subpoints. Write the conclusion. Write the introduction. Add the finishing touches. Choose a Topic If the topic of your essay has been assigned, all you need to do is to read the assignment carefully and proceed to the next step. If you are free to choose your topic, here is what you can do: Think about your purpose. Do you want to write an analysis? Are you required to tell a story, describe something or argue for a point? Choose one and proceed further. Brainstorm. Write the first thoughts that come to your mind. Think about subjects that you are passionate about or simply look around. Write as many thoughts as you can without evaluating them just yet. Pick a topic. Evaluate each topic, think about the number of ideas you have about it. How do you feel about writing on that particular subject? Narrow the topic down if is too general. Match the topic with your purpose. Now that you know what you want to write about, think about the form you would like to choose for your paper – whether you want to investigate an idea, tell a story, describe something or argue for something in particular. Organize Your Ideas Organize your ideas on a piece of paper or in a computer program if you prefer. A brain map is one of the most effective ways of doing that. 1. Draw a circle or a horizontal line or any other shape in the center of the page. 2. Write your topic inside the circle or in the shape. 3. From the center, draw several lines in different directions. 4. Along each line, write the main ideas that you have about your topic, or the main points that you want to make. Write your best arguments or the steps that should be followed. Remember about Beginning, Middle, and End. 5. From each of your main ideas, draw three or four lines out into the page. 6. Along each of these lines write the information and facts that support your main idea. This is your basic structure. Heres a mind map of how to draw a mind map: Write a Thesis Statement The thesis informs the reader what your essay will be about, and what point you will be making. Look at your brain map and think about the point you want to get across. Your thesis statement will usually have two parts. The first part (1) states the topic, while the second part (2) is about the essays point. For example, Writing a good essay (1) takes time and patience (2). Write the Body Paragraphs Describe the topic in the body of your essay. You expand each main idea into a paragraph. Each main idea that you wrote down in your brain map will become one of the body paragraphs: 1. Write down one of your main ideas. 2. Next, write down supporting points for that idea. 3. Expand the supporting points by further describing, explaining or discussing. The Introduction and Conclusion There are just two more things you need for your essay: the conclusion and the introduction. These paragraphs serve as an entry point to your essay and a point of exit from your paper. Introduction Write the introduction in such a way so that it attracts the readers attention and gives him an idea of what you are going to write in your essay. 1. Its a good idea to start with an attention grabber, which can be: A piece of startling information. It could be an interesting fact that illustrates your point or casts a new light on an old perspective. Anecdote. It is a story that describes your point. An anecdote is an effective opener if it is short. Remember that it must also be relevant to your topic. Summary. Explain your topic from a general point of view and lead the reader to your thesis. 2. Lead the reader from your opening to the thesis statement. 3. End the introduction with your thesis. Conclusion The conclusion should sum up your main points or provide a final look on what you have to say. The conclusion consists of several strong sentences (usually 3 or 4). You can review your main points (and be careful at the same time not to formulate them the same way) or describe what you feel about the subject matter. Add the Finishing Touches Play with the order of your paragraphs. Have a look at your text. Start with the strongest paragraph, put the weakest in the middle, and end your text with the second strongest paragraph in the middle. Whatever order you choose, its important that the order of your paragraphs makes sense. Review the assignment instructions. Follow all the instructions you have been given: Include the information that is missing (for example, name, date, etc.) Are your lines double-spaced? Check your paper Revise your paper and improve weak points. Take time to reread the paper. You can also leave your essay for some time and come back later to see if it is still logical. Add some words and phrases to connect the sentences if they do not flow smoothly. Use the so-called transition words, such as therefore or however,. Additionally, you can refer to a thought in the previous sentence, especially when moving from one paragraph to another. Use the spell checker to find any misprints. Once your work is revised and the formatting is perfected, your essay is ready. Congratulations! Remember! If you are having difficulty with your paper, have no time for it or your are not sure how it should look like, order your essay at WriteMyPapers.org! You can download manual  «How to write an essay » here.