cat scanner edited doc€¦ · title: microsoft word - cat scanner edited doc.docx created date:...

A how to guide and literature review of

CAT Scanner

Presented by: David Dwyer Padraig Morrissey Declan Kelly Maeve Murray Laura Mc Glynn Lorraine O’Connor

CAT Scanner 2

METHODOLOGY 4 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 6 APPLICATION OF THE SOFTWARE 7 FINDINGS 7 LIMITATIONS 10 RECOMMENDATIONS 11 CONCLUSION 11 BIBLIOGRAPHY 13 APPENDIX 14 APPENDIX 1 14 APPENDIX 2 15 APPENDIX 3 37

CAT Scanner 3

Introduction Through the analysis of both literature and practical experience we will create a how to guide of using

Computer Aided Text Analysis (CATA), in order to gain a further insight into applying CATA in an

organisation. The program we will use is Computer Aided Text Scanner that will be herein referred to as

CAT Scanner.

Computer Aided Text Analysis programmes such as CAT Scanner are regarded as being “useful in its

ability to measure constructs directly at the organisational level by analysing organisational texts such as

annual reports”(Short et al. 2010). Content analysis is a class of research methods for analysing texts

that has been growing in popularity in the field of organisational studies (Duriau, Reger and Pfarrer

2007). Computer aided analysis has proven particularly useful in its ability to measure constructs

directly at organisational level by analysing texts such as annual reports, or in this instance shareholder

letters. The benefit of the technique is that it can be applied to hundreds of documents of interest to

compare organisations with nearly perfect reliability (Duriau et al. 2007). CATA focuses on how

language is used to convey a message to an audience rather than assessing the content of the message

itself (Hart 2001). CATA has higher reliability than human coding with lower cost and greater speed

(Neuendorf, 2002). However it must be noted that little guidance exists to aid researchers for developing

specialised or custom dictionaries that are needed when using content analysis with individual words as

the unit of analysis, as is the case with this report.

CATA allows us to process and analyse large amounts of text in relation to key words or themes that

occur within the text (these are identified within dictionaries). For the purpose of this report we have we

have analysed and processed large amounts of text, in this instance we used the shareholder letters of

Berkshire Hathaway over a period of 36 years from 1977-2012. We tested this data through systematic

investigation of the Long Term Orientation (LTO) and Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) of the

organisation. Although entrepreneurial orientation scholars have called for the incorporation of content

analysis to measure EO (Lyon, Lumpkin, and Dess 2000), relatively few studies have used content

analysis to assess elements of this construct (Chen and Hambrick 1995). Given that content analysis may

be an especially useful tool for examining adolescent theories, it is believed that illustrating how

entrepreneurial orientation can be assessed through content analysis of shareholder letters is an

especially attractive approach that offers value to entrepreneurship scholars as well as to the broader

CAT Scanner 4

management field. EO refers to the processes, practices and decision making styles of firms that act

entrepreneurially (Lumpkin and Dess 1996).

The process of using the CAT Scanner software involves use of the aforementioned dictionaries, also

known as constructs. These dictionaries contain a set structured of words, known as sub-constructs that

are associated with the topics such as Long Term Orientation, Entrepreneurial Orientation, Market

Orientation as well as many others. However each one of these topics can contain several other

dictionaries within them (sub-constructs), take for example the EO dictionary contains 5 different sub-

constructs these being, autonomy, competitive aggressiveness, innovativeness, proactiveness and risk

taking. Each of these in turn have associated words, all relating back to EO, these are referred to as sub-

constructs and have approximately 100 variations each.

It is the frequency of the occurrence of certain words that are contained within the constructs and sub-

constructs that allows for a correlation between the dictionary and the series of texts under analysis. It is

more common to use individual words rather than phrases for the purpose of analysis through use of

CATA Software. These correlations can then be used to identify key trends for a particular theme and

allow the researchers to gain more insightful and holistic perspectives of the LTO and EO of the texts

under analysis at a given time. Some trends we identified and some possible outcomes will be discussed

throughout this report.

Methodology When completing this task, we determined that before any analysis could be undertaken on the text, we

would have to first develop the constructs through which the texts are analysed. These constructs are a

comprehensive list of words referred to as dictionaries that establish key words associated with the

subject of the construct itself. Once the construct has been decided an exhaustive list of keywords from

the formal definition to capture the entire construct of interest should be made.

For the purpose of this report and the analysis we used dictionaries which have been previously

predefined in the software. The reasons for doing this is that there is a significant amount of research

related to the words used in each dictionary that are outlined in detail in alternative journal articles.

Content analysis experts such as Krippendorf, noted that “most content analysis would benefit from a

CAT Scanner 5

construction of special purpose dictionaries, but developing a dictionary from scratch is a formidable

task. It is not surprising therefore, that content analysis usually try to build on available dictionaries

before they attempt to develop their own “ (2004, p.287). We will give a brief synopsis of how these

constructs are created below.

By means of researching academic articles we determined that there is a systematic approach of

procedures and steps which should be followed in order to generate the constructs in a correct manner

that produces the most valid and appropriate construct sets. In the article on Organisational Research

Methods (SMJ), McKenny (2012) encourages the use of the 5 step framework developed by Chen et al

(2010) to develop computer aided text analysis measures, these steps were also supported by Short et al

(2010) in their article entitled Construct Validity Using Computer Aided Text Analysis (CATA). This

framework is seen to be valuable because construct validity is considered on multi levels, whereas

previous frameworks have focused on the validation of constructs at a single level (Hinkin 1995).

5 phases involved with the recommended framework for elevating constructs using CATA.

1. Definition of construct and development of deductive word lists

2. Specification of the theoretical nature of the elevated construct

3. Selection of appropriate texts and finalisation of word lists

4. Assessment of psychometric properties

5. Examination of construct relationships

In the aforementioned framework the 5 phases are made up of 19 steps. Many of the steps are related to

the research involved with generating the constructs. However, due to the nature of the research we are

conducting for the purpose of this report, we have used the dictionaries which have been built into the

software. This meant that many of the stages were involved in the framework were not applicable for us

to complete.

From analysis of the SMJ article, if words appeared less than 10 times (this was considered rarely) and

they were excluded from analysis as they were believed to be part of any distinct lexicon.

In the SMJ article they had a benchmark of 3 that if the correlation exceed this it was strategic

management, and if it was less than 3 it wasn’t strategic. We were successful in discovering a

CAT Scanner 6

benchmark for EO but research on a suitable benchmark for the LTO construct is inconclusive

(McKinney 2013). If the correlation result is above 1%, a positive trend is identified and relationship

between the frequency of the word and that particular year. This means that if the benchmark is met the

words associated with the dictionaries are directly correlated to LTO or EO depending on which

construct is currently being accessed.

See Appendix 1 for the 19 step framework and its application in our analysis.

Review of the literature Through research of academic papers and journals we found that there were different options for the

company to take when choosing what text to actually analyse when and that this selection process of the

appropriate text was very important. Krippendorf (2004) states that it must be a valuable organisational

text that is used for the analysis in order to ensure that there is valuable information contained within the

selected text. There is also literature that suggests that CEO shareholder letters may contain information

that is influenced by PR personnel, legal staff, and top management teams. This therefore allows for a

broader perspective to be shown rather than that just of the CEO. These letters are also used to

communicate with shareholders on behalf of the organization; they accurately represent organisational

phenomena (Michalisin 2001). However due to the likelihood that lower level employees won’t actually

see the shareholder letter before its publication this leads to the possibility that management may not

accurately portray the organisation in these documents. Barr, Stimpert and Huff (1992) also highlight

that shareholder letters may be contributed to by multiple individuals within the company.

Mission statements could be used as documents for CATA however the outcomes would be more likely

to be valuable for assessing stable organisational differences, due to the mission statement of an

organisation not changing too frequently.

Another option when it comes to choosing the text to be analysed would be the content of the corporate

website. However there are many issues associated with this. Some argue that it is not a valuable enough

document to the organisation or too public to be considered for analysis. A similar scenario could arise

for press releases if they were to be considered for CATA.

CAT Scanner 7

Application of the software For the purpose of this research we analysed 36 shareholder letters from the Berkshire Hathaway

organisation from 1977 to 2012. The overall constructs under investigation are Long Term Orientation

(LTO) and Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) – the five words built into the dictionary provided are

known as sub constructs.

At the beginning of the research project we received the shareholder letters from Berkshire Hathaway

that were to be inputted into the system. These were obtained in one complete document which we then

had to break up to individual letters using the software. Once this was done the software saved each

letter as a separate individual word document. The next step involved having to input the documents

through the software to remove all full stops, commas, and any spaces which may hinder the reliability

and validity of the results.

The documents were then fed through the system. Due to the systems capabilities all documents could

be entered into the system at the same time. As each document feeds through the software, the system

generates the data for that particular year in the form of an excel file. Each individual year is listed along

the left hand columns with the number of times the construct occurs within the overall construct

displayed to the right (See Appendix).

Each of the constructs being assessed have approximately the same amount of variations, usually around

100. For example proactive and innovative would each have 100 variations. The system works by means

of Boolean retrieval whereby if the word shows up within the document, the number increments by 1. In

terms of using Boolean retrieval as a method of measurement some advantages include the following:

Can be very efficiently implemented

Predictable and easy to explain

Findings Long Term Orientation (LTO)

The LTO dictionary incorporates three different constructs’; Continuity, Futurity and Perseverance.

These constructs include a large number of keywords which the CAT scanner was able to call on after

the dictionary was manually installed. It is also important to note that the number of keywords in each

CAT Scanner 8

construct is similar with the exception of maybe one or two. For example the keywords in continuity is

80 and in futurity is 88.

The CAT scanner results allowed us to calculate the occurrence of the constructs keywords as a

percentage of the total word count. As there were large variations in the total word count of the files

each year, we established a constant by dividing the occurrence of the words into the total amount of

words in the file. To allow for easier interpretation of how frequent these words occur, averages were

calculated on a five and ten year basis. With the files dating back to 1977 it meant that the results could

be viewed in blocks rather than each individual year. Great comparisons can be made from decade to

decade.

Firstly, we looked at the results of the continuity keywords. From the graph provided in the excel results,

the occurrence of continuity keywords can be seen to be steadily increasing year on year, in relation to

the percentage of related words in the files. The graph shows slight increases and decreases in continuity

but the notable decrease can fall seen in 1994, which could be related to a number of things including;

the introduction of a new practice or way of doing business.

Futurity has a slightly larger percentage of related words than that of continuity but seems to be on

somewhat of a decline. Since 1977 it has dropped from just below 0.60% to just below 0.30% in 2012.

However, there was one large move, which saw a surge from 0.45% in 1979 and to 0.77% in 1980.

Finally, there is the perseverance construct which is relatively small when compared to the other

constructs. For example in 1979 no keywords in the perseverance constructs were located, whilst in the

futurity construct 40 words were discovered. The graph does show one or two large fluctuations but

these are quite minor when compared to the other constructs. The zero word count in 1979 is followed

by a word count of 5 in 1980. This move looks quite dramatic in the graph provided, whilst in reality it

is minor. The low percentages found in perseverance can be linked back to its keyword count of 63

which is significantly lower than the other two constructs mentioned above.

Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO)

In Lumpkin and Dess’s formulation of EO (1996), an entrepreneurial firm is defined as one which

exhibits three behaviors; Innovativeness, Proactiveness, Risk Taking. The excel data results and graphs

CAT Scanner 9

of these constructs can be compared to the benchmark of the S&P 500 shareholder letters from 2001-

2005. Some keyword results may be a lot higher than others but this needs to be compared to the

industry standard also.

The CAT scanner system had the dictionary pre-installed and was able to call on each individual

keyword in each of the constructs. From this we calculated a number of important results similar to the

LTO dictionary. Stacks of five and ten year averages were calculated for each of the constructs. Similar

to the LTO dictionary, we calculated the occurrence of the constructs keywords as a percentage of the

total word count. One helpful difference when compared to the LTO results was the fact we had a

benchmark to compare each of the constructs in the EO. We established a constant similar to the LTO

dictionary results, as again there were large variations in the total word count of the files each year.

Innovativeness keywords had the highest percentage of words in each year’s files, out of the three

constructs. From the graph provided we can see that the trend line of the construct is the most constant

out of the three. However, it is in decline but at a slower rate than that of proactiveness. Although this

constructs keyword count seems high when compared with the other two constructs, it is a lot lower the

industry average benchmark. For example the percentage of words in 2001 was a minor 0.25% when

compared to the industry benchmark average of 0.727%. There is a number of important moves in the

percentage word count, one noticeable change occurring between 2010 and 2011, which saw the

percentage drop below 0.10%, which it hadn’t done since early 1980.

The proactiveness trend line shows a strong decline since 1977, however, there were a number of

significant jumps in the percentage of words related to the construct. For example in 1981 the

percentage of words related to proactiveness was 0.17% and by the next year this had jumped to 0.38%.

Proactive behavior of employees could have caused this large jump. The highest percentage of related

words to the construct came in 1984 with 0.45%. This percentage is quite significant when compared

with the average benchmark results of the S&P 500 shareholder letters from 2001-2005, which ranged

from 0.148% to 0.178%. It seems proactiveness has declined hugely over the years. The 2001

percentage of 0.08% is also somewhat lower than the industry benchmark of 0.148%.

CAT Scanner 10

Finally risk taking in these documents is above the industry benchmark average and is also on the

increase. For example in 2001 the percentage of words related to risk taking in the total word count was

0.10% compared to the lower benchmark average of 0.071%. If we compare the 5 year average stack

from 2002-2006 to 2007-2012 we can see there is a rise of 0.02%, which quite significant when

compared to industry averages. There is one major surge in the percentage of related words, which

occurs in 1993. This jump from 0.04% to 0.25% may have been caused by a large venture investment or

the introduction of a new strategy. Its shows the company is capable of taking large risks.

Limitations Some of the limitations of using CATA include:

! Choosing the correct text is one of the limitations we encountered. As outlined in the

methodology it is very important to choose carefully, as different texts may project different

results depending on their focus. According to Mc Kenny (2013) they have assessed that

shareholder letters are written by top management on behalf of the organisation (78% of a

whole).

! Different texts may be able to measure organisational phenomena differently and therefore

produce different results.

! Potential presence of impression management - This is why CEO letters are good to use as the

document of analysis, they limit this impression management from occurring, due to the fact

that managers are incentivised to convey accurate information in these letters because of auditor

and SEC oversight (Short and Palmer 2008). However these letters still provide information

while all the while persuading stakeholders of the virtues of the organisation which leads to

impression management.

! Biases of impression management in surveys, interviews and participant observation. The

“Organizational Research Methods” paper by Mc Kenny states that “the benefit of using these

documents represents an acceptable trade-off given the ability to assemble a multiple year

database with a relatively large sample size.

! Attempting to generalise findings from analyses at one level of analysis at another, which can

lead to specification errors that threaten the validity of the research (Kozlowski and Klein 2000,

Payne, Moore, Griffis and Autry 2011). aggregating individual level data to the organisational

CAT Scanner 11

level and then using these to test hypotheses at the individual level, this can result in “fallacy of

the wrong level” (Glick 1985 p602)

! Organisational level research may be difficult to come by for reasons

! Unable to capture contextual cues that might be interpreted differently by a human coder (could

actually pick up the phrase “we are not optimistic” and interpret this as optimism)

Recommendations From examining the literature, we have established a number of key recommendations that should be

adhered to when using CATA. Firstly, it is of vital importance that the correct text is chosen for

analysis. Depending on their focus, different texts will produce different results. Shareholder letters are

usually written on behalf of the organisation so would it would be beneficial to choose this text for

analysis.

Secondly, appropriate word lists must also be created. As mentioned previously, a certain word may

have up to 100 variances. In the case of this report, built in dictionaries were used however; this must be

taken into account if developing a word list in order to produce the most accurate results. In addition,

Short et al suggest that word lists should be validated and later accessed, ideally by a judge or panel of

experts who are knowledgeable in the specific topic. This is reflective of the Nag et al (2007) paper in

which a large panel of experts were asked to identify words relating to strategic management.

Conclusion In conclusion, this report has examined literature and used practical experience to provide a user guide

to assist when using CATA software. As previously stated CATA allows the processing and analysing

of large amounts of text in relation to key words or themes that occur within the text. These keywords

are separated into different dictionaries relating to different topics, for example innovation. These

dictionaries are crucial when using CATA and can identify the most common themes contained

throughout a number of texts.

Therefore, this report has aimed to use CAT scanner software to identify the themes contained within

Berkshire Hathaway’s shareholder documents for a period of 36 years. The documents were tested using

a variety of pre-made dictionaries. A thorough analysis of the findings was then identified to assess the

CAT Scanner 12

variances and differences in the organisation over the 36 year period. The text was analysed in terms of

Long Term Orientation and Entrepreneurial Orientation that were further broken down into sub

headings. This aided in identifying how the company has changed over the determined time period.

CAT scanner is therefore very useful for organisations when looking to identify key trends and

developments.

CAT Scanner 13

Bibliography Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J.L. and Huff, A.S. 1992. Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 13, pp. 15-36. Chen, G., Mathieu, J. E. and Bliese, P.D. 2004. A framework for conducting multi-level construct validation. Research in multilevel issues: Multilevel issues in organizational behavior and processes, 3, pp. 273-303. Chen, M. J. and Hambrick, D. C. 1995. Speed, Stealth and selective attack: How small firms differ from large firms in competitive behaviour. Academy of Management Journal, 38, pp. 453-482. Duriau, V.J., Reger, R.K., and Pfarrer, M.D. 2007. A content analysis of the content analysis literature in the organization studies: Research themes, data sources and methodological refinements. Organizational Research Methods, 10, pp. 5-34. Glick, W.H. 1985. Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10, pp.601-616. Hart, R. P. 2001. Redeveloping DICTION: Theoretical considerations. Progress in communication sciences, pp.43-60. Hinkin, T. R. 1995. A review of scale development practicesin the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21, pp.967-988. Kozlowski, S. W. and Klein, K. J. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal and emergent processes. Krippendorff, K. 2004. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lumpkin, G. T. and Dess, G. G. 1996. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21, pp.135-172. Lyon, D. W., Lumpkin, G. T. and Dess, G. G. 2000. Enhancing entre-preneurial orientation research: Operationalizing and measuring a key strategic decision making process. Journal of Management, 26. pp.1055-1085. McKenny. A, Short. J, and Payne. G.T, 2012. Using Computer-Aided Text Analysis to Elevate Constructs : An Illustration Using Psychological Capital. Organisational Research Methods, 16(1), pp. 152-184. Michalisin, M.D. 2001. Validity of annual report assertions about innovativeness: An emperical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 53, pp. 151-161. Nag. R, Hambrick. D, and Chen. M, 2007. What is Strategic Management Really? Inductive Derivation of a Consensus Definition of the Field. Strategic Management Journal. 28(1), pp. 935-955.

CAT Scanner 14

Neuendorf, K. A. 2002. The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage. Payne, G.T., Moore, C.B., Griffis, S. and Autry, C. 2011. Multilevel challenges and opportunities in social capital research. Journal of Management, 37, pp. 395-403. Short. J, Payne. G, Brigham. K, Lumpkin. G, and Broberg. J, 2009. Family Firms and Entrepreneurial Orientation in Publicly Traded Firms: A comparative analysis of the S&P 500. Family Business Review. 22(1) pp. 9-24. Short. J, Broberg. J, Cogliser. C, and Brigham. K, 2010. Construct Validation Using Computer-Aided Text Analysis (CATA). Organisational Research Methods, 13(2), pp. 320-347.

Appendix

Appendix 1 The 19 steps in the framework as adapted from Chen, Mathieu and Bliese are as follows: (2004 p.278) Steps Was it used in our analysis 1. Ground individual-level construct definition in extant theory

Not applicable

2. Develop organisational-level construct definition based on individual level construct

Not applicable

3. Identify dimensionality of constructs Not applicable 4. Develop deductive word lists based on construct definition

Not applicable

5. Provide a theoretical explanation for the existence of the elevated construct

Not applicable

6. Identify whether the elevated construct is isomorphic or a fuzzy composition

Not applicable

7. Select the appropriate measurement model for the construct

Not applicable

8. Select an appropriate text to analyse We were given a section of shareholder letters from Berkshire Hathaway spanning over the years 1977-2012. We deliberated over what form of text to use due to the limitations and how selecting the correct texts is a critical factor in CATA analysis. We chose a sample spanning over 36 years because we would have a wide range of trends and data to analyse.

9. Collect a sample of the selected texts We were given the sample spanning 36

CAT Scanner 15

years in one document. We subsequently separated these into separate documents so as they could be run through the software effectively.

10. Develop inductive word lists based on sample

Not applicable

11. Solicit additional words from judges Not applicable

12. Measure elevated construct in sample texts and prepare for data analysis

In order to prepare the data for analysis we ran the documents through the software which removed any unnecessary characters from the text, e.g. characters such as , . ? !

13. Assess the factor structure Not applicable

14. Address reliability Not applicable

15. Assess the extent of change over time Not applicable

16. Assess concurrent validity Not applicable

17. Assess predictive validity Not applicable

18. Assess discriminant validity Not applicable

19. Assess convergent validity Not applicable

Appendix 2 BH Letters LTO Results Modified with stacks BH Letters Results

CAT Scanner 16

Filename((Year) Total_Words Total_Characters Continuity Futurity Perseverance1977 3052 16704 11 18 11978 4360 23478 7 18 11979 6651 34442 19 40 01980 7475 39643 22 34 51981 6605 36098 17 51 777+81 28143 150365 76 161 141982 7839 42051 16 30 41983 11446 59092 26 45 81984 12602 65962 35 57 51985 13589 69983 30 51 81986 13672 70402 46 64 482+86 59148 307490 153 247 2977+86 87291 457855 229 408 431987 12482 63726 33 61 71988 11666 59914 27 53 31989 14414 72548 38 46 51990 16015 78919 38 59 31991 9126 46569 32 29 687+91 63703 321676 168 248 241992 11198 57117 32 52 41993 11027 55880 27 36 51994 9592 48423 17 42 51995 11909 58596 30 44 71996 11598 59457 36 41 292+96 55324 279473 142 215 2387+96 119027 601149 310 463 471997 11796 57528 43 50 51998 12023 57554 30 46 51999 12342 62448 37 36 52000 13298 65778 46 55 52001 12306 61113 35 46 392+96 61765 304421 191 233 232002 14449 76690 43 40 52003 13072 72486 35 43 52004 14577 80583 56 41 82005 13136 71461 35 49 12006 14245 76218 48 53 2

2002+06 69479 377438 217 226 2197+06 131244 681859 408 459 442007 12094 64994 46 36 32008 13170 71027 43 47 22009 11360 60799 33 44 02010 15078 80956 39 64 12011 13904 74148 46 61 82012 14016 74496 39 41 4

2007+12 79622 426420 246 293 18

CAT Scanner 17

BH Letters LTO Results Modified with stacks Individual Years

Filename((Year) Total_Words Total_Characters Continuity Futurity Perseverance1977 3052 16704 11 18 11978 4360 23478 7 18 11979 6651 34442 19 40 01980 7475 39643 22 34 51981 6605 36098 17 51 777+81 28143 150365 76 161 141982 7839 42051 16 30 41983 11446 59092 26 45 81984 12602 65962 35 57 51985 13589 69983 30 51 81986 13672 70402 46 64 482+86 59148 307490 153 247 2977+86 87291 457855 229 408 431987 12482 63726 33 61 71988 11666 59914 27 53 31989 14414 72548 38 46 51990 16015 78919 38 59 31991 9126 46569 32 29 687+91 63703 321676 168 248 241992 11198 57117 32 52 41993 11027 55880 27 36 51994 9592 48423 17 42 51995 11909 58596 30 44 71996 11598 59457 36 41 292+96 55324 279473 142 215 2387+96 119027 601149 310 463 471997 11796 57528 43 50 51998 12023 57554 30 46 51999 12342 62448 37 36 52000 13298 65778 46 55 52001 12306 61113 35 46 392+96 61765 304421 191 233 232002 14449 76690 43 40 52003 13072 72486 35 43 52004 14577 80583 56 41 82005 13136 71461 35 49 12006 14245 76218 48 53 2

2002+06 69479 377438 217 226 2197+06 131244 681859 408 459 442007 12094 64994 46 36 32008 13170 71027 43 47 22009 11360 60799 33 44 02010 15078 80956 39 64 12011 13904 74148 46 61 82012 14016 74496 39 41 4

2007+12 79622 426420 246 293 18

CAT Scanner 18

Row$LabelsAverage$of$%$of$words$related$to$continuity

Average$of$%$of$words$related$to$futurity

1977 0.36% 0.59%1978 0.16% 0.41%1979 0.29% 0.60%1980 0.29% 0.45%1981 0.26% 0.77%1982 0.20% 0.38%1983 0.23% 0.39%1984 0.28% 0.45%1985 0.22% 0.38%1986 0.34% 0.47%1987 0.26% 0.49%1988 0.23% 0.45%1989 0.26% 0.32%1990 0.24% 0.37%1991 0.35% 0.32%1992 0.29% 0.46%1993 0.24% 0.33%1994 0.18% 0.44%1995 0.25% 0.37%1996 0.31% 0.35%1997 0.36% 0.42%1998 0.25% 0.38%1999 0.30% 0.29%2000 0.35% 0.41%2001 0.28% 0.37%2002 0.30% 0.28%2003 0.27% 0.33%2004 0.38% 0.28%2005 0.27% 0.37%2006 0.34% 0.37%2007 0.38% 0.30%2008 0.33% 0.36%2009 0.29% 0.39%2010 0.26% 0.42%2011 0.33% 0.44%2012 0.28% 0.29%Grand$Total 0.28% 0.40%

CAT Scanner 19



1977 0.36% 0.59%1978 0.16% 0.41%1979 0.29% 0.60%1980 0.29% 0.45%1981 0.26% 0.77%1982 0.20% 0.38%1983 0.23% 0.39%1984 0.28% 0.45%1985 0.22% 0.38%1986 0.34% 0.47%1987 0.26% 0.49%1988 0.23% 0.45%1989 0.26% 0.32%1990 0.24% 0.37%1991 0.35% 0.32%1992 0.29% 0.46%1993 0.24% 0.33%1994 0.18% 0.44%1995 0.25% 0.37%1996 0.31% 0.35%1997 0.36% 0.42%1998 0.25% 0.38%1999 0.30% 0.29%2000 0.35% 0.41%2001 0.28% 0.37%2002 0.30% 0.28%2003 0.27% 0.33%2004 0.38% 0.28%2005 0.27% 0.37%2006 0.34% 0.37%2007 0.38% 0.30%2008 0.33% 0.36%2009 0.29% 0.39%2010 0.26% 0.42%2011 0.33% 0.44%2012 0.28% 0.29%Grand$Total 0.28% 0.40%

CAT Scanner 20



1977 0.36% 0.59%1978 0.16% 0.41%1979 0.29% 0.60%1980 0.29% 0.45%1981 0.26% 0.77%1982 0.20% 0.38%1983 0.23% 0.39%1984 0.28% 0.45%1985 0.22% 0.38%1986 0.34% 0.47%1987 0.26% 0.49%1988 0.23% 0.45%1989 0.26% 0.32%1990 0.24% 0.37%1991 0.35% 0.32%1992 0.29% 0.46%1993 0.24% 0.33%1994 0.18% 0.44%1995 0.25% 0.37%1996 0.31% 0.35%1997 0.36% 0.42%1998 0.25% 0.38%1999 0.30% 0.29%2000 0.35% 0.41%2001 0.28% 0.37%2002 0.30% 0.28%2003 0.27% 0.33%2004 0.38% 0.28%2005 0.27% 0.37%2006 0.34% 0.37%2007 0.38% 0.30%2008 0.33% 0.36%2009 0.29% 0.39%2010 0.26% 0.42%2011 0.33% 0.44%2012 0.28% 0.29%Grand$Total 0.28% 0.40%

CAT Scanner 21

BH Letters LTO Results Modified with stacks 10 yr - All three.pdf

BH Letters LTO Results Modified with stacks Futurity

0.00%$

0.05%$

0.10%$

0.15%$

0.20%$

0.25%$

0.30%$

0.35%$

0.40%$

0.45%$

0.50%$

77+86$ 87+96$ 97+06$ 2007+12$

Average$of$%$of$words$related$to$con>nuity$

Average$of$%$of$words$related$to$futurity$

Average$of$%$of$words$related$to$perseverance$

0.00%$

0.10%$

0.20%$

0.30%$

0.40%$

0.50%$

0.60%$

0.70%$

0.80%$

0.90%$

%"of"w

ords"re

lated"to"Futurity

"

Year"

CAT Scanner 22

BH Letters LTO Results Modified with stacks Perseverance

BH Letters LTO Results Modified with stacks 5 year stacks

0.00%$

0.02%$

0.04%$

0.06%$

0.08%$

0.10%$

0.12%$

%"of"w

ords"re

lated"to"perseverance"

Year"

0.00%$

0.10%$

0.20%$

0.30%$

0.40%$

0.50%$

0.60%$

77,81$ 82,86$ 87,91$ 92,96$ 2002,06$ 2007,12$




CAT Scanner 23

BH Letters LTO Results Modified with stacks 5 year stacks.pdf

BH Letters LTO Results Modified with stacks 5 yr - All three

Values

Row*Labels

Average*of*%*of*words*related*to*continuity

Average*of*%*of*words*related*to*futurity

Average*of*%*of*words*related*to*perseverance

77"81 0.27% 0.57% 0.05%82"86 0.25% 0.41% 0.05%87"91 0.27% 0.39% 0.04%92"96 0.28% 0.38% 0.04%2002"06 0.31% 0.33% 0.03%2007"12 0.31% 0.37% 0.02%Average 0.28% 0.40% 0.04%

0.00%$

0.10%$

0.20%$

0.30%$

0.40%$

0.50%$

0.60%$

77,81$ 82,86$ 87,91$ 92,96$ 2002,06$ 2007,12$




CAT Scanner 24

BH Letters LTO Results Modified with stacks 10 year stacks

BH Letters LTO Results Modified with stacks Compare All 3

Values

Row*Labels

Average*of*%*of*words*related*to*continuity

Average*of*%*of*words*related*to*futurity

Average*of*%*of*words*related*to*perseverance

77"86 0.26% 0.44% 0.05%87"96 0.26% 0.39% 0.04%97"06 0.31% 0.33% 0.03%2007"12 0.31% 0.37% 0.02%Average 0.28% 0.38% 0.04%

0.00%$

0.10%$

0.20%$

0.30%$

0.40%$

0.50%$

0.60%$

0.70%$

0.80%$

0.90%$

1977$

1978$

1979$

1980$

1981$

1982$

1983$

1984$

1985$

1986$

1987$

1988$

1989$

1990$

1991$

1992$

1993$

1994$

1995$

1996$

1997$

1998$

1999$

2000$

2001$

2002$

2003$

2004$

2005$

2006$

2007$

2008$

2009$

2010$

2011$

2012$

Average$of$%$of$words$related$to$con=nuity$



CAT Scanner 25

BH Letters LTO Results Modified with stacks Continuity

0.00%$

0.05%$

0.10%$

0.15%$

0.20%$

0.25%$

0.30%$

0.35%$

0.40%$

0.45%$

%"of"w

ords"re

lated"to"Con

/nuity"

Year"

CAT Scanner 26

BH Letters EO Results Modified with stacks BH Letters EO ResultsFilename((Years) Total_Words

Total_(Characters EOInnov EOProact EORiskTkg

1977 3052 16704 8 5 11978 4360 23478 8 3 21979 6651 34442 16 12 11980 7475 39643 7 9 11981 6605 36098 14 11 377+81 28143 150365 53 40 81982 7839 42051 16 30 41983 11446 59092 26 45 81984 12602 65962 35 57 51985 13589 69983 30 51 81986 13672 70402 46 64 482+86 59148 307490 153 247 2977+86 87291 457855 206 287 371987 12482 63726 31 13 81988 11666 59914 37 13 101989 14414 72548 49 8 111990 16015 78919 46 16 101991 9126 46569 21 5 887+91 63703 321676 184 55 471992 11198 57117 32 10 51993 11027 55880 26 10 281994 9592 48423 15 8 61995 11909 58596 26 14 61996 11598 59457 39 8 692+96 55324 279473 138 50 5187+96 119027 601149 322 105 981997 11796 57528 27 12 101998 12023 57554 27 9 31999 12342 62448 26 7 62000 13298 65778 33 14 122001 12306 61113 31 10 1297+01 61765 304421 144 52 432002 14449 76690 30 8 202003 13072 72486 17 7 52004 14577 80583 40 8 102005 13136 71461 45 10 122006 14245 76218 29 4 16

2002+06 116999 605641 161 37 6397+06 129305 666754 305 89 1062007 12094 64994 22 6 72008 13170 71027 39 5 192009 11360 60799 20 14 122010 15078 80956 14 10 152011 13904 74148 36 8 172012 14016 74496 26 11 8

2007+12 67528 361426 135 48 71

CAT Scanner 27

Filename((Years) Total_Words

Total_(Characters EOInnov EOProact EORiskTkg

1977 3052 16704 8 5 11978 4360 23478 8 3 21979 6651 34442 16 12 11980 7475 39643 7 9 11981 6605 36098 14 11 377+81 28143 150365 53 40 81982 7839 42051 16 30 41983 11446 59092 26 45 81984 12602 65962 35 57 51985 13589 69983 30 51 81986 13672 70402 46 64 482+86 59148 307490 153 247 2977+86 87291 457855 206 287 371987 12482 63726 31 13 81988 11666 59914 37 13 101989 14414 72548 49 8 111990 16015 78919 46 16 101991 9126 46569 21 5 887+91 63703 321676 184 55 471992 11198 57117 32 10 51993 11027 55880 26 10 281994 9592 48423 15 8 61995 11909 58596 26 14 61996 11598 59457 39 8 692+96 55324 279473 138 50 5187+96 119027 601149 322 105 981997 11796 57528 27 12 101998 12023 57554 27 9 31999 12342 62448 26 7 62000 13298 65778 33 14 122001 12306 61113 31 10 1297+01 61765 304421 144 52 432002 14449 76690 30 8 202003 13072 72486 17 7 52004 14577 80583 40 8 102005 13136 71461 45 10 122006 14245 76218 29 4 16

2002+06 116999 605641 161 37 6397+06 129305 666754 305 89 1062007 12094 64994 22 6 72008 13170 71027 39 5 192009 11360 60799 20 14 122010 15078 80956 14 10 152011 13904 74148 36 8 172012 14016 74496 26 11 8

2007+12 67528 361426 135 48 71

CAT Scanner 28

PDF BH Letters EO Results Modified with stacks 5 year stacked

BH Letters EO Results Modified with stacks 5 yr - All three

Values

Row*LabelsAverage*of*%*of*words*related*to*Innovativeness

Average*of*%*of*words*related*to*Proactiveness

Average*of*%*of*words*related*to*Risk*Taking

77"81 0.20% 0.14% 0.03%82"86 0.25% 0.41% 0.05%87"91 0.28% 0.09% 0.08%92"96 0.25% 0.09% 0.09%97"01 0.23% 0.08% 0.07%2002"06 0.23% 0.05% 0.09%2007"12 0.20% 0.07% 0.11%Grand*Total 0.24% 0.13% 0.07%

0.00%$

0.05%$

0.10%$

0.15%$

0.20%$

0.25%$

0.30%$

0.35%$

0.40%$

0.45%$

77+81$ 82+86$ 87+91$ 92+96$ 97+01$ 2002+06$ 2007+12$

Average$of$%$of$words$related$to$Innova>veness$

Average$of$%$of$words$related$to$Proac>veness$

Average$of$%$of$words$related$to$Risk$Taking$

CAT Scanner 29

BH Letters EO Results Modified with stacks 10 year stacked

BH Letters EO Results Modified with stacks Innovativeness

Values



77"86 0.25% 0.38%87"96 0.25% 0.09%97"06 0.23% 0.06%2007"12 0.20% 0.07%Grand*Total 0.23% 0.15%

Values



77"86 0.25% 0.38%87"96 0.25% 0.09%97"06 0.23% 0.06%2007"12 0.20% 0.07%Grand*Total 0.23% 0.15%

0.00%$

0.05%$

0.10%$

0.15%$

0.20%$

0.25%$

0.30%$

0.35%$

0.40%$

%"of"w

ords"re

lated"to"In

nova0v

eness"

Year"

CAT Scanner 30

BH Letters EO Results Modified with stacks Individual Years

Row$LabelsAverage$of$%$of$words$related$to$Innovativeness

Average$of$%$of$words$related$to$Proactiveness

1977 0.26% 0.16%1978 0.18% 0.07%1979 0.24% 0.18%1980 0.09% 0.12%1981 0.21% 0.17%1982 0.20% 0.38%1983 0.23% 0.39%1984 0.28% 0.45%1985 0.22% 0.38%1986 0.34% 0.47%1987 0.25% 0.10%1988 0.32% 0.11%1989 0.34% 0.06%1990 0.29% 0.10%1991 0.23% 0.05%1992 0.29% 0.09%1993 0.24% 0.09%1994 0.16% 0.08%1995 0.22% 0.12%1996 0.34% 0.07%1997 0.23% 0.10%1998 0.22% 0.07%1999 0.21% 0.06%2000 0.25% 0.11%2001 0.25% 0.08%2002 0.21% 0.06%2003 0.13% 0.05%2004 0.27% 0.05%2005 0.34% 0.08%2006 0.20% 0.03%2007 0.18% 0.05%2008 0.30% 0.04%2009 0.18% 0.12%2010 0.09% 0.07%2011 0.26% 0.06%2012 0.19% 0.08%Average 0.23% 0.001318969

CAT Scanner 31



1977 0.26% 0.16%1978 0.18% 0.07%1979 0.24% 0.18%1980 0.09% 0.12%1981 0.21% 0.17%1982 0.20% 0.38%1983 0.23% 0.39%1984 0.28% 0.45%1985 0.22% 0.38%1986 0.34% 0.47%1987 0.25% 0.10%1988 0.32% 0.11%1989 0.34% 0.06%1990 0.29% 0.10%1991 0.23% 0.05%1992 0.29% 0.09%1993 0.24% 0.09%1994 0.16% 0.08%1995 0.22% 0.12%1996 0.34% 0.07%1997 0.23% 0.10%1998 0.22% 0.07%1999 0.21% 0.06%2000 0.25% 0.11%2001 0.25% 0.08%2002 0.21% 0.06%2003 0.13% 0.05%2004 0.27% 0.05%2005 0.34% 0.08%2006 0.20% 0.03%2007 0.18% 0.05%2008 0.30% 0.04%2009 0.18% 0.12%2010 0.09% 0.07%2011 0.26% 0.06%2012 0.19% 0.08%Average 0.23% 0.001318969

CAT Scanner 32



1977 0.26% 0.16%1978 0.18% 0.07%1979 0.24% 0.18%1980 0.09% 0.12%1981 0.21% 0.17%1982 0.20% 0.38%1983 0.23% 0.39%1984 0.28% 0.45%1985 0.22% 0.38%1986 0.34% 0.47%1987 0.25% 0.10%1988 0.32% 0.11%1989 0.34% 0.06%1990 0.29% 0.10%1991 0.23% 0.05%1992 0.29% 0.09%1993 0.24% 0.09%1994 0.16% 0.08%1995 0.22% 0.12%1996 0.34% 0.07%1997 0.23% 0.10%1998 0.22% 0.07%1999 0.21% 0.06%2000 0.25% 0.11%2001 0.25% 0.08%2002 0.21% 0.06%2003 0.13% 0.05%2004 0.27% 0.05%2005 0.34% 0.08%2006 0.20% 0.03%2007 0.18% 0.05%2008 0.30% 0.04%2009 0.18% 0.12%2010 0.09% 0.07%2011 0.26% 0.06%2012 0.19% 0.08%Average 0.23% 0.001318969

CAT Scanner 33

BH Letters EO Results Modified with stacks Compare All three

BH Letters EO Results Modified with stacks 10 yr - All three

0.00%$

0.05%$

0.10%$

0.15%$

0.20%$

0.25%$

0.30%$

0.35%$

0.40%$

0.45%$

0.50%$

1977$

1978$

1979$

1980$

1981$

1982$

1983$

1984$

1985$

1986$

1987$

1988$

1989$

1990$

1991$

1992$

1993$

1994$

1995$

1996$

1997$

1998$

1999$

2000$

2001$

2002$

2003$

2004$

2005$

2006$

2007$

2008$

2009$

2010$

2011$

2012$

Average$of$%$of$words$related$to$Innova=veness$

Average$of$%$of$words$related$to$Proac=veness$


0.00%$

0.05%$

0.10%$

0.15%$

0.20%$

0.25%$

0.30%$

0.35%$

0.40%$

77+86$ 87+96$ 97+06$ 2007+12$

Average$of$%$of$words$related$to$Innova>veness$

Average$of$%$of$words$related$to$Proac>veness$


CAT Scanner 34

BH Letters EO Results Modified with stacks Proactiveness

BH Letters EO Results Modified with stacks Risk Taking

0.00%$

0.05%$

0.10%$

0.15%$

0.20%$

0.25%$

0.30%$

0.35%$

0.40%$

0.45%$

0.50%$

%"of"w

ords"re

lated"to"Proac/v

eness"

Year"

0.00%$

0.05%$

0.10%$

0.15%$

0.20%$

0.25%$

0.30%$

%"of"w

ords"re

lated"to"Risk"Taking"

Year"

CAT Scanner 35

EO & LTO Results Modified with stacks

Filename((Years) Continuity Futurity Perseverance EOInnov EOProact EORiskTkg1977 0.36% 0.59% 0.03% 0.26% 0.16% 0.03%1978 0.16% 0.41% 0.02% 0.18% 0.07% 0.05%1979 0.29% 0.60% 0.00% 0.24% 0.18% 0.02%1980 0.29% 0.45% 0.07% 0.09% 0.12% 0.01%1981 0.26% 0.77% 0.11% 0.21% 0.17% 0.05%77-81 0.27% 0.57% 0.05% 0.20% 0.14% 0.03%1982 0.20% 0.38% 0.05% 0.20% 0.06% 0.04%1983 0.23% 0.39% 0.07% 0.23% 0.10% 0.02%1984 0.28% 0.45% 0.04% 0.18% 0.10% 0.13%1985 0.22% 0.38% 0.06% 0.18% 0.07% 0.10%1986 0.34% 0.47% 0.03% 0.42% 0.07% 0.05%82-86 0.25% 0.41% 0.05% 0.24% 0.08% 0.07%77-86 0.26% 0.49% 0.05% 0.22% 0.11% 0.05%1987 0.26% 0.49% 0.06% 0.25% 0.10% 0.06%1988 0.23% 0.45% 0.03% 0.32% 0.11% 0.09%1989 0.26% 0.32% 0.03% 0.34% 0.06% 0.08%1990 0.24% 0.37% 0.02% 0.29% 0.10% 0.06%1991 0.35% 0.32% 0.07% 0.23% 0.05% 0.09%87-91 0.27% 0.39% 0.04% 0.28% 0.09% 0.08%1992 0.29% 0.46% 0.04% 0.29% 0.09% 0.04%1993 0.24% 0.33% 0.05% 0.24% 0.09% 0.25%1994 0.18% 0.44% 0.05% 0.16% 0.08% 0.06%1995 0.25% 0.37% 0.06% 0.22% 0.12% 0.05%1996 0.31% 0.35% 0.02% 0.34% 0.07% 0.05%92-96 0.25% 0.39% 0.04% 0.25% 0.09% 0.09%87-96 0.26% 0.39% 0.04% 0.27% 0.09% 0.08%1997 0.36% 0.42% 0.04% 0.23% 0.10% 0.08%1998 0.25% 0.38% 0.04% 0.22% 0.07% 0.02%1999 0.30% 0.29% 0.04% 0.21% 0.06% 0.05%2000 0.35% 0.41% 0.04% 0.25% 0.11% 0.09%2001 0.28% 0.37% 0.02% 0.25% 0.08% 0.10%97-01 0.31% 0.38% 0.04% 0.23% 0.08% 0.07%2002 0.30% 0.28% 0.03% 0.21% 0.06% 0.14%2003 0.27% 0.33% 0.04% 0.13% 0.05% 0.04%2004 0.38% 0.28% 0.05% 0.27% 0.05% 0.07%2005 0.27% 0.37% 0.01% 0.34% 0.08% 0.09%2006 0.34% 0.37% 0.01% 0.20% 0.03% 0.11%

2002-06 0.31% 0.33% 0.03% 0.23% 0.05% 0.09%97-06 0.31% 0.35% 0.03% 0.23% 0.07% 0.08%2007 0.38% 0.30% 0.02% 0.18% 0.05% 0.06%2008 0.33% 0.36% 0.02% 0.30% 0.04% 0.14%2009 0.29% 0.39% 0.00% 0.18% 0.12% 0.11%2010 0.26% 0.42% 0.01% 0.09% 0.07% 0.10%2011 0.33% 0.44% 0.06% 0.26% 0.06% 0.12%2012 0.28% 0.29% 0.03% 0.19% 0.08% 0.06%

2007-12 0.30% 0.38% 0.02% 0.20% 0.07% 0.11%

LTO EO

CAT Scanner 36

Filename((Years) Continuity Futurity Perseverance EOInnov EOProact EORiskTkg1977 0.36% 0.59% 0.03% 0.26% 0.16% 0.03%1978 0.16% 0.41% 0.02% 0.18% 0.07% 0.05%1979 0.29% 0.60% 0.00% 0.24% 0.18% 0.02%1980 0.29% 0.45% 0.07% 0.09% 0.12% 0.01%1981 0.26% 0.77% 0.11% 0.21% 0.17% 0.05%77-81 0.27% 0.57% 0.05% 0.20% 0.14% 0.03%1982 0.20% 0.38% 0.05% 0.20% 0.06% 0.04%1983 0.23% 0.39% 0.07% 0.23% 0.10% 0.02%1984 0.28% 0.45% 0.04% 0.18% 0.10% 0.13%1985 0.22% 0.38% 0.06% 0.18% 0.07% 0.10%1986 0.34% 0.47% 0.03% 0.42% 0.07% 0.05%82-86 0.25% 0.41% 0.05% 0.24% 0.08% 0.07%77-86 0.26% 0.49% 0.05% 0.22% 0.11% 0.05%1987 0.26% 0.49% 0.06% 0.25% 0.10% 0.06%1988 0.23% 0.45% 0.03% 0.32% 0.11% 0.09%1989 0.26% 0.32% 0.03% 0.34% 0.06% 0.08%1990 0.24% 0.37% 0.02% 0.29% 0.10% 0.06%1991 0.35% 0.32% 0.07% 0.23% 0.05% 0.09%87-91 0.27% 0.39% 0.04% 0.28% 0.09% 0.08%1992 0.29% 0.46% 0.04% 0.29% 0.09% 0.04%1993 0.24% 0.33% 0.05% 0.24% 0.09% 0.25%1994 0.18% 0.44% 0.05% 0.16% 0.08% 0.06%1995 0.25% 0.37% 0.06% 0.22% 0.12% 0.05%1996 0.31% 0.35% 0.02% 0.34% 0.07% 0.05%92-96 0.25% 0.39% 0.04% 0.25% 0.09% 0.09%87-96 0.26% 0.39% 0.04% 0.27% 0.09% 0.08%1997 0.36% 0.42% 0.04% 0.23% 0.10% 0.08%1998 0.25% 0.38% 0.04% 0.22% 0.07% 0.02%1999 0.30% 0.29% 0.04% 0.21% 0.06% 0.05%2000 0.35% 0.41% 0.04% 0.25% 0.11% 0.09%2001 0.28% 0.37% 0.02% 0.25% 0.08% 0.10%97-01 0.31% 0.38% 0.04% 0.23% 0.08% 0.07%2002 0.30% 0.28% 0.03% 0.21% 0.06% 0.14%2003 0.27% 0.33% 0.04% 0.13% 0.05% 0.04%2004 0.38% 0.28% 0.05% 0.27% 0.05% 0.07%2005 0.27% 0.37% 0.01% 0.34% 0.08% 0.09%2006 0.34% 0.37% 0.01% 0.20% 0.03% 0.11%

2002-06 0.31% 0.33% 0.03% 0.23% 0.05% 0.09%97-06 0.31% 0.35% 0.03% 0.23% 0.07% 0.08%2007 0.38% 0.30% 0.02% 0.18% 0.05% 0.06%2008 0.33% 0.36% 0.02% 0.30% 0.04% 0.14%2009 0.29% 0.39% 0.00% 0.18% 0.12% 0.11%2010 0.26% 0.42% 0.01% 0.09% 0.07% 0.10%2011 0.33% 0.44% 0.06% 0.26% 0.06% 0.12%2012 0.28% 0.29% 0.03% 0.19% 0.08% 0.06%

2007-12 0.30% 0.38% 0.02% 0.20% 0.07% 0.11%

LTO EO

CAT Scanner 37

Appendix 3

cat scanner edited doc€¦ · title: microsoft word - cat scanner edited doc.docx created date:...

Documents