Why choose us?

We understand the dilemma that you are currently in of whether or not to place your trust on us. Allow us to show you how we can offer you the best and cheap essay writing service and essay review service.

Innovation management in Safaricom and MTN


� Compare and contrast the innovation management of the two organisations from your first report.

Utilise appropriate models and frameworks from class material (e.g.
episodes from Tidd and Bessant�s innovation process model and

contextual elements).

� On the basis of your analysis, establish what the respective businesses can learn from one another in

terms of innovation

� Provide recommendations to improve the innovation management

in each of the businesses.


Abstract 3
Introduction 4
Safaricom 6
Safaricom’s Case 8
Top management (or its subset) as a group 11
Cross-functional, high-level steering group 12
MTN’S Case 13
Chief research officer (CRO) or Chief technology officer (CTO) as the ultimate champion of
innovation 13
The dedicated innovation manager 15
How Safaricom and MTN compare and contrast in terms of innovation management 16
What can the two companies learn from each other? 17
Recommendations 18
References 19




Innovation management basically entails effectively capturing and managing innovation within
an organization. This concept is imperative in bringing together social software and collaboration
with the aim of achieving optimal results in any organization. Thus, a culture of innovation and
sharing of knowledge is encouraged and developed when those with different expertise and skills
co-create by coming together. Most companies nowadays recognize that innovation is central in
driving the growth of business even as they seek to maintain competitive advantage. It is for this
reason that they have adopted organization-wide programs for managing innovation. This report
presents an examination of some of the programs (for managing innovation) of two of Africa’s
most successful telecommunication companies namely MTN and Safaricom. The construction
basically seeks to compare and contrast the key aspects of their innovation management



Successful innovation and subsequent development of new services and products are
considered pivotal in the overall success of any organization. More specifically, firms in the
telecommunications industry must ensure they are not left behind as far as this aspect of
development is concerned. They have to do their best and stay ahead of competitors, or at least
make sure they are close behind incase they are not leaders in the market. The fundamental
objective is to maintain competitive advantage. In this breath, it is appreciated that to design and
launch a new product is a risky venture, with much uncertainty as to what the effects of such a
development would be. Effective management of innovation and various processes involved in
the development of new products therefore involves identifying those ideas with the greatest
potential (of success) and adopting necessary measures to lower failure risks. Every company is
obliged to give room for best creative techniques in idea generation. Also, every effort must be
made to ensure the design of new products and services is done analytically and sales projection
and forecasting done accurately. It is imperative that the strategies and tactics employed in the
launch of new services and/or products are productive. Here, the strategies, approaches and
models applied by MTN and Safaricom in innovation management shall be examined. Before
further ado, it is important that some light be shed on the companies under focus. Afterwards,
more details shall be presented regarding their respective approaches in innovation management.
Relevant comparisons and contrasts shall then be drawn.
The ‘Mobile Telephone Networks’ (MTN) Group is a multinational company in the
telecommunications industry which operates in several countries cutting across Africa, Europe,
and the Middle East. It has its headquarters in Johannesburg, South Africa (Paul, 2000). The
company’s CEO has been RS Dabengwa as from 1 st April 2011. At different times it has

sponsored CAF Champions League and APOEL FC (winners of Cyproit First Division for four
consecutive years starting 2009 and UEFA Champions League participants for two consecutive
seasons five years ago. Also, its sponsorship deal with England’s Manchester United FC on 18 th
March 2010 was highly publicized.
The company is active in many countries, especially after its acquisition of Investcom.
The countries include Afghanistan, Benin, Botswana, Republic of Congo, Cameroon, Cyrus,
Ghana, Republic of Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Iran, Rwanda, Nigeria, Sudan, South
Africa, Zambia, Yemen, Swaziland, and Syria (Datamonitor (Firm), 2009) . As regards its
business operations, its main competitors are the telecommunications companies in the various
countries where it operates. For instance, in South Africa, it faces competition from Cell C,
Vodacom, Telkom Mobile, and Virgin Mobile (Ngoepe, 2008).
There were reports in 2008 about plans by Bharti Airtel, a telecommunications company
based in India, to buy the MTN Group. It was reported in the Financial Times that Bharti was
willing to offer US$19 billion to acquire 51% Of shareholding in MTN. It that were to happen,
Bharti would become the first Indian firm to hold such large stakes overseas. However, the
Indian company pulled out of the deal that had been proposed. A few days later, Reliance
Communications, another Indian firm reportedly entered talks with MTN for a possible merger
of their businesses, a development that would have made it possible for them to have over 116
million subscribers worldwide with a capital muscle of more than $70 billion. However, it was
announced on 8 TH July 2008 that the tow firms had decided to end any talks regarding the merger.
It has never been clear why they did this.

In a word, MTN’s operations cut across the globe and it is appreciated that the company
has been largely successful, save for a few court suits here and there. Of interest in this report is
what approaches in innovation management it has employed to remain relevant and successful in
its operations. Such shall be compared to and contrasted with those of Safaricom, a company
mainly operating in Kenya where it has its headquarters.
Safaricom Ltd is Kenya’s leading mobile network operator. It was founded in 1997 as a
subsidiary of Telkom Kenya, fully owned by the same company that time. In 2000, the United
Kingdom’s Vodafone Group successfully acquired the company’s management responsibility
coupled with a 40% stake. The company’s CEO is Bob Collymore who took over from Michael
Joseph towards the close 2010. Collymore has been able to handle his management duties due to
his experience in the telecommunications industry, having began his career at British
Telecommunications in a number of marketing, commercial and purchasing roles for a period
stretching over 15 years. There is uncertainty as to the precise ownership of the company (Africa
Center for Open Governance, 2011). Recent press reports indicate the government of Kenya,
through The Treasury, holds a 25% stake in the company. There have been claims only 35% is
owned by the UK’S Vodafone Plc. A further disputed 5 % is owned by a controversial small-
known firm registered as Mobitelea Ventures Limited. At some point this prompted the
summoning of the then CEO, Michael Joseph, to appear before the Public Investment
Committee. He categorically stated he did not have any knowledge about the said shareholder. It
is a known fact that Mobitela Ventures Limited completed purchasing 25% of shares owned by
Vodafone in 2002 after receiving a grant to do so. Interestingly, Vodafone parted with $10m in
2003 to regain half of the shares. On 31 st March 2009 (end of financial year), Vodafone
completed purchase of the rest of the 5% indirect equity stake, consequently restoring its initial

shareholding of 40%. The company claimed it had the will to disclose details of the ownership of
Mobitelea but could not do so as it was bound by a confidentiality agreement (Africa Center for
Open Governance, 2011). .
The company’s employees are in the figure of 1500, mainly stationed in Kenya’s capital;
Nairobi. The rest are spread over other main cities and towns in the country including Kisumu,
Mombasa, Eldoret, and Nakuru among others where its retail outlets are found. The company has
secured various dealerships across the country to ensure its services and products are accessed by
a majority of the population. The firm boasts of a customer base of more than 12 million
subscribers who are mostly found in the named cities and towns.
It has its headquarters at Safaricom House, located at Westlands’ Waiyaki way, Nairobi.
Other company main offices are found at the capital’s Central Business District, namely at
Shankardass House which is next to the Kenya Cinema complex on Moi Avenue, and I & M
building located on Kenyatta Avenue. It is imperative to note that the company is rapidly
engaged in corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. For instance, it has committed itself
to helping the less fortunate in society through an array of initiatives carried out by its Safaricom
Foundation. Its main rivals include Airtel Kenya (its greatest competitor), Orange Wireless, and
Essar’s Yu.
In order that a deeper comprehension of the phenomenon under focus be achieved, it is
deemed necessary to highlight some of the services and products offered by the company. It is
innovation and improvements in these services and products that one is interested to know how
they are managed. Briefly stated, the services and products include: electronic cash transfer,

flashback service, Kipokezi service (for email and live chat), internet connectivity, text
messaging, calls, and electronic gadgets like phones and laptops.
The company, having the largest value of market share in the telecommunication industry
in Kenya, has been able to maintain its lead in the sector, almost phasing out some of its rivals.
Competition wars have made headlines in the country, a development that made most of the
companies lower their tariffs in a bid to maintain their customer base and capture more
customers. Nevertheless, Safaricom still remains relatively more expensive as compared to its
rivals. Of more interest is the fact that it has still succeeded in remaining the most preferred
network provider (operator) in the country. To a great extent, this is owed to its innovation
management strategies, which consequently ensure it remains relevant and satisfies its
customers. This way, new products and services are developed, completing more the lives of its
clients. The approaches in innovation management as employed by Safaricom are presented
elsewhere in this report.

Safaricom’s Case

Safaricom is given credit for being a leader in innovation. It is widely recognized for
deploying the industry’s best technologies in its bid to remain relevant in the market, thus
retaining competitive advantage. It has continually worked towards delivering the best customer
experience in the region and industry. Why is innovation so important to the company? Why is it
even more important to manage it effectively? What approaches or models does it employ to
gain optimal results as far as innovation is concerned?
Within Safaricom, it is widely appreciated that Africa stands out as one of the best
regions to conduct telecommunications business. In fact, it is the world’s fastest growing market

for mobile telecommunications, having enjoyed annual subscription rise of more than 20% over
the past half a decade. Indeed, the continent’s mobile operators are presented with tremendous
business opportunities and potential. The mobile network (telephone) sector is indeed driven by
innovation in many aspects of business growth. Referring to innovation, it is noted that
Safaricom stands out as the best example among firms that have succeeded greatly. For instance,
its innovation management strategies were central in the pioneering of its popular M-PESA
service (Galpine, 2011). This mobile money transfer system has become the best mobile money
payment system in the world. The company’s Chief Technology Officer, Thibaud Rerolle,
observed that of all mobile money transactions across the world, half are conducted through M-
PESA. In an interview Rerolle pointed out that innovation is one of the most notable
differentiating characteristics of the country’s mobile market. More importantly, it is expected to
remain eve more relevant and helpful in the future considering that more than 40% of the
country’s population is not more than 16 years old. An interesting observation that makes it even
more imperative for the company to do more in terms of innovation is the annual increase in
connectivity and mobile data usage. The two stand at between 200% and 300%. These have
continually gone up with the firm’s periodical offers on entry-level electronic gadgets like
smartphones and tablets. A call for effective innovation management is prompted by the need to
make these devices relevant in many aspects of the customers’ lives. In addition, the firm’s entry
into the enterprise segment makes the case for innovative management stronger.
Safaricom finds the need to innovate and constantly focus on the resulting customer
experience for maximum optimization of business opportunities. As such, the company risks
being perceived as incumbent if it does not pay the necessary attention to innovation. The result
would be a loss of the market share it enjoys in the Kenyan mobile market. After all, being the

largest operator in East Africa, it needs to do all it can to attract, retain and find the most out of a
wide pool of talent that eventually become its influential workforce. How does it handle
innovation processes?
The firm has been keen to apply various models / approaches of innovation management
in its operations. The larger management appreciates the need for addressing and sustaining
innovation, a very important corporate company objective. The models are crafted by default out
of a number of important questions as regards innovation management. They are centered on the
objective and mission of innovation, its focus, intensity, funding, and climate. Such would also
shed light on any partnerships, alliances, and leadership as well as other processes that are
involved in innovation. It is in this regard that R & D processes gain relevance and are
conveniently addressed (Sattler, 2011). As it were, the innovation governance model would
describe how Safaricom‘s management team allocates its innovation responsibilities, in general
or in part within its various departments. Traditionally, a choice can be made to officially entrust
a specific person with the mission to oversee and promote innovation. Optionally, a choice can
be made to allocate the same responsibility to a particular group of managers who are drawn
from different sections within the company. Oftentimes it may not be mentioned that a particular
innovation governance model is being employed within an organization but senior managers are
at all times better-positioned to give a description of such a model.
The firm under focus has not restricted itself to a single innovation governance model. It
is imperatively noted that the model settled upon determines the type and even number of bearers
of the responsibility of innovation. Also, the level of management (and resulting involvement) as
well as reporting and working relationships of the various sectional and sub-sectional heads are
dictated by the type of model being used. Safaricom employs the following:


Top management (or its subset) as a group
Safaricom has it that the overall responsibility of innovation rests with the overall
management or a subset of it. This model is the most widely applied and Safaricom has not been
left behind in applying it. The firm’s management is of the view that much can be achieved as far
as innovation is concerned since it (innovation) happens to be a multi-disciplinary and cross-
functional activity which has to be steered at the top and each team member given a chance to
offer their input as may be dictated by their specific competencies. Safaricom has followed in the
footsteps of companies like Lego, IBM, Nestle Waters, and Corning.
It is noted that in Safaricom, membership to dedicated innovation groups is limited to
senior leaders who are most of the time directly involved in innovation activities. Typically, the
company has it that innovation groups comprise of commercial and technical or business leaders.
Usually, senior staff functions like chief financial officers and those in human resource are not
part of innovation teams. The company is very big and usually very busy. It is for this reason that
senior officials who may be part of innovation teams deem it necessary to delegate their duties
and responsibilities to other colleagues drawn from the top management team. This model has
been able to bear fruit since the management usually allocates innovation alongside other items
in its regular meetings. Conveniently, a chance is provided for addressing innovation issues
whence group heads given a chance to share among themselves their oversight responsibilities
for various projects (Afuah, 2008). Such responsibilities are usually those with a high
reward/risk profile.
In a word, this approach as employed by Safaricom places more emphasis on the contents
of innovation, as opposed to details of the specific processes involved .This is owed to the fact
that people at the top ( management) are involved, and a preference is made over new ventures

and projects rather than over the particular processes involved (Trauffler, & Tschirky, 2007). .
Imperatively, other issues of improvement are delegated to other supporting models which shall
be presented below.
Cross-functional, high-level steering group
To compliment its innovation management, Safaricom has applied this model to steer
innovation, particularly as a group. In a general sense, it appoints several managers from across
different hierarchal levels and functions. These then form an innovation committee that oversees
the various processes involved in innovation. This main difference between this model and the
one discussed before it is that not all of its members are part of the top management team. Most
of the time, the chair or leader of such a group is a member of the executive committee. Within
Safaricom, it is not common to see the Chief Research Officer or Chief Technology Officer
occupying the position of the chair or leader of the innovation committee.
For one to be a member of the innovation committee, they must qualify on grounds of
functional responsibilities as well as display sufficient personal commitment and interest. The
company is keen to avoid failure and encourage innovation by avoiding the appointment of
skeptics to innovation groups, no matter what their functional responsibilities may be. Most
notably, Safaricom assigns such duties to most of its young entrepreneurial innovative managers,
mostly on a periodical/rotational basis. It does it even if the implication remains that the
managers continue staying low in the hierarchical level. Away from Safaricom, one notes that
other big companies like Royal Dutch Shell, Philips, Eli-Lilly, and Tetra Pak have successfully
employed this model.

MTN’S Case

As is in any other company, most innovation management aspects have remained a
responsibility handled within the hierarchy line of mainstream management. The fruits of such
effective management can be seen at MTN in many of the countries it operates in. For instance,
in the Republic of South Africa, MTN SA was awarded the highly-regarded Global Telecoms
Business award for the best innovation in wireless network infrastructure (Datamonitor (Firm),
2009). More specifically, this award was given after the company successfully implemented the
Revenue Assurance solution of cVidya’s MoneyMap. In fact, after its deployment in 2010, the
program made cVidya the leading provider of analytics solutions of revenue for the country’s
digital and communications service providers.
MTA SA’s head of Revenue Assurance Quintus de Beer is on record for admitting that
the advanced solution for cVidya has enabled MTN to move beyond basic revenue assurance to
adopt a cautious risk management approach which has consequently impacted positively on
billing accuracy and the company’s overall customer experience, further boosting EBITDA and
revenue. In a word, there has been significant improvement in operational efficiency and the way
business is conducted generally. MTN SA has gone the extra mile to expand cVidya’s operations
in analytics domains for revenue intelligence like risk management and the forging of new
business lines. Illustration of this award is given in admittance and recognition of the company’s
efforts in managing a very pivotal aspect of business: innovation. What model is widely applied
by MTN?
Chief research officer (CRO) or Chief technology officer (CTO) as the ultimate champion
of innovation
The CRO or CTO approach is recognized as one of the most widely used traditional
models of innovation management. It is usually the preferred approach by most engineering-,
technology-, and science-based companies (Trott, 2008). MTN applies this model by allocating

the responsibility of innovation to these talented individuals who then oversee almost every
development as far as new products or services are concerned. Within MTN’s management
structure, these individuals are viewed as promoters of new technology as regards the
development of new services and products which are meant to positively impact upon customer
experience and ultimately increase business volumes through more and more sales.
MTN, operating in more than 10 countries across the globe, has found this model to be
most workable in those with strong engineering or technological tradition and sectors. This
approach strikes one as being in use when titles like Research President, Chief Engineer, Chief
Information Officer, and Senior Vice President R & D and Technology are mentioned.
Whatever title is given to these officers, they are the ones the senior management looks up to for
guidance as regards innovative developments. Owed to the wide-ranging responsibilities they
have, it is not uncommon to find them exercising innovation management with the help of
support mechanisms (Mellor, 2006). Within MTN, the officers have their own sectional offices
staffed with experts on process and content. The main role of these officers, in collaboration with
their heads and other colleagues within MTN is to provide guidance and do whatever that needs
to be done for success in the road-mapping of tasks and the assessment of new business
opportunities connected with integration of specific new skills and wider adoption of emerging
The officers are naturally tasked with handling innovation content. This would usually
entail the technology as it is applied in the development of specific new products and services
(Huizenga, 2006). They mainly focus on the new ventures of business creation that are
technology-based. They concentrate on issues of processes and the way such affect the
company’s effectiveness in terms of technology and R & D (Le Corre, 2005). In their role, they

may set up knowledge and ideation management processes but they usually do not usually
interfere in operations of the company that are non-technical. In fact, they may foster a mindset
change in R & D which would for instance support cross-sectional and /or inter-disciplinary
collaboration within the company, but they do not consider it their responsibility to propagate the
effort to the rest of the organization. They may also not feel it is upon them to supervise
innovation processes, hence the need for supporting mechanism as mentioned earlier.
The dedicated innovation manager
MTN applies this model of innovation management in a number of countries as may be
conveniently decided by respective top managements. Here, it is stressed that the overall
innovation responsibility can be the prerogative of one dedicated manager, in opposition to the
CTO and CRO who perform specific operational roles (Burns, & Stalker, 2001). Conveniently,
where MTN applies this model, it tends to choose the innovation managers from highly
motivated upper- or middle-class executives with various functional specializations, usually R &
D or typically marketing. Oftentimes, they operate by themselves and report to seniors of the top
management team. Occasionally, they have a couple of assisting staff. Their main roles include
tracking and conveniently measuring innovation efforts and outcomes (Brem & Viardot, 2013).
The innovation managers identify and share best practices. For MTN they are
responsible for supporting innovation initiatives as may be championed by the company. It is
imperative to note that they usually deal with side innovation processes as opposed to the content
of innovation. More often than not, they are also responsible for MTN’s innovation acceleration
How Safaricom and MTN compare and contrast in terms of innovation management

Before any comparison or contrast is pointed out, it is imperative to note that there are
many aspects of the two companies’ innovation management which can not all be entirely
exhaustively discussed, let alone be mentioned, within the scope of this report. What is presented
here is what is deemed important for overall glimpse and comprehension of the two firms’
innovation management strategies.
Most notable of the differences is as to who is given which responsibility about which
content or process. In Safaricom’s case, it is observed that there is a tendency of whole teams
focusing collectively on innovation content and processes. There is greater emphasis on content
by innovation teams. The responsibility of innovation remains a duty to each and every member
of the said team, and anyone within the organization is free to bring forth ideas as to what they
may think regarding new technologies that yield new services and products (Holt, 2008). Most
importantly, there is a higher degree of management by the top management in the various
innovation processes. On the other hand, MTN’s designated innovation officers (depending on
the model applied) tend to focus more on the process aspect of innovation, as opposed to content.
The top management is not concerned with most R & D processes, since such fall under the
duties of innovation officers. However, this is not to say they do not play their supervisory or
oversight roles.
As for similarities, most can be drawn on the basis of the fact that the two firms may
from time to time apply various models of innovation governance. In one way or the other,
different models are applied either as the dominant models or supportively. Whichever the case
may be, it is appreciated that general management of technology within the two companies is
prioritized and focus is placed upon R & D opportunities and processes which it is believed shall


impact positively on corporate revenue, now and in the future. This is the innovation
embodiment of the two companies.
The two firms have put in place measures that have facilitated the success of tools for
management of product lifecycle and more specifically those applied in the management of
technology and R & D processes. They have achieved great success in R & D management while
at the same time maintaining the link between product development and the broader objective of
integrating R & D knowledge in service and product development. It can not be denied that both
firms, in a bid to achieve optimal innovation management, focus greatly on aspects of data
management, project management, and workflow management and collaboration.
What can the two companies learn from each other?
Focusing on the various ways and measures of the company’s success, one admits there
is much they can learn from each other. For instance, given that Safaricom places emphasis upon
teamwork in the various innovation processes, MTN can learn from this that consideration of
diversity in all levels and processes of innovation is advantageous in that a wide pool of talent
can be harnessed. With more people getting involved, including the top management, a variety of
skills is readily available since different people are differently gifted (Christiansen, 2006). In
regard to this, MTN should consider broadening the involvement of staff and groups in R & D
processes, just as Safaricom has done.
On the other hand, Safaricom can learn from MTN that there are great benefits that can
be reaped when R & D management is assigned to specific talented individuals. Perhaps success
in this respect can be attributed to the fact that in such a scenario, decision making is easier.
Also, consistency that is achieved in many management aspects due to lack of interference is
indeed beneficial. In MTN’s scenario, it can be argued that the task of identifying relevant talent

and skills is easier since the assigned managers have all the time to concentrate. If Safaricom
integrated MTN’s model into its approaches, R & D can get more interesting and fruitful.
In view of how MTN and Safaricom continue to manage innovation it important that they
do more to integrate R & D with service and product development. If they gained more visibility
into consequential R & D efforts, they would be better-positioned to effectively identify the
current and future business/market needs do the necessary alignment as regards resident
technology. That way it would be easier to know what is and what is not relevant in terms of
innovation content (and processes). Gaps and situations that need to be worked upon would
easily be identified, and decisions made regarding the viability of certain technologies. The
ultimate outcome would be high customer satisfaction, an objective that drives almost all
enterprises the world over.
Where teamwork has not been taken seriously or underestimated, it is recommended that
affirmative steps be taken. This is because working together is imperative as regards R & D and
wider product development since individuals are diversely talented. It would only be fruitful if
these talents are pooled together for optimized innovation. That way, optimal approaches to
acquisition of new technology, either developed internally or acquired externally could be
adopted, new technology expansion opportunities identified, and avenues of use beyond the
current business boundaries identified.


Africa centre for open governance. (2011). Deliberate loopholes: transparency lessons from the
privatisation of Telkom and Safaricom. Nairobi, Kenya, AfriCOG.
Afuah, A. (2008). Innovation management: strategies, implementation and profits. New York,
Oxford University Press.
Brem, A., & Viardot, E. (2013). Evolution of innovation management: trends in an international
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (2001). The management of innovation. [London], Tavistock
Christiansen, J. A. (2007). Competitive innovation management: techniques to improve
innovation performance. New York, St. Martin’s Press.
Datamonitor (FIRM). (2000). MTN Group Limited. New York, NY, Datamonitor.
Galpin, E. (2011). Will there be another M-PESA?: the future for M-banking and payments in
emerging markets. London, Searching Finance Ltd.
Holt, K. (2008). Product innovation management: a workbook for management in industry.
London, Butterworths.
Huizenga, E. (2004). Innovation management in the ICT sector: how frontrunners stay ahead.
Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar.
Le Corre, A. (2005). The innovation game a new approach to innovation management and R &
D. New York, NY, Springer. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10228873.


Mellor, R. B. (2006). Innovation management. Nærum, Globe.
Ngoepe, M. M. (2008). Quality of service comparison amongst SA’s mobile telecoms industry
leaders on value added services (VAS) and service delivery: Cell-C, MTN and Vodacom.
Thesis (B.Tech. (Quality and Operations Management))–University of Johannesburg,
Paul, D. (2000). The Best companies to work for in South Africa. Cape Town, Zebra Press.
Sattler, M. (2011). Excellence in innovation management a meta-analytic review on the
predictors of innovation performance. Wiesbaden, Gabler.
Trauffler, G., & Tschirky, H. (2007). Sustained innovation management: assimilating radical
and incremental innovation management. Basingstoke [England], Palgrave Macmillan in
association with the European Institute for Technology and Innovation Management.
Trott, P. (2008). Innovation management and new product development. Harlow, England,
Financial Times/Prentice

All Rights Reserved, scholarpapers.com
Disclaimer: You will use the product (paper) for legal purposes only and you are not authorized to plagiarize. In addition, neither our website nor any of its affiliates and/or partners shall be liable for any unethical, inappropriate, illegal, or otherwise wrongful use of the Products and/or other written material received from the Website. This includes plagiarism, lawsuits, poor grading, expulsion, academic probation, loss of scholarships / awards / grants/ prizes / titles / positions, failure, suspension, or any other disciplinary or legal actions. Purchasers of Products from the Website are solely responsible for any and all disciplinary actions arising from the improper, unethical, and/or illegal use of such Products.