Click here to download the latest business survey in its entirety (PDF format!)



Introduction

Survey Method

Data Analysis

Summary of Findings

Table A

  Table B
Table 1

  Figure 1

 Figure 2

 Figure 3

 Figure 4

 Figure 5

 

Data Analysis

(Jump to: Data analysis page 1 | Data analysis page 2)

In April and May of 1999 the data from completed questionnaires and telephone interviews were keypunched into spreadsheets. Information describing the principal products, services or mission of the company or organization was entered into a word processing document. General information about the company together with a description of its products, services, or mission will be used in the 1999 Hawaii High Technology Business Directory. Confidential company profile information from the survey is only published in aggregate form for industry categories, and is the basis for the estimates of Hawaii high technology employment and revenue provided in this report.

A total of 435 firms and organizations provided information for the survey. The following describes how survey estimates and projections of numbers, employment, and total revenue of the high tech firms and organizations surveyed, featured in Table 1 and Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, in this report, were produced.

Classification of Firms and Organizations

The industry definitions for the survey data analysis were as follows. The code numbers refer to industry categories and subcategories used in the mail questionnaire and the follow-up telephone survey. While some of these codes do correspond to current Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) designations, others do not, so the designation SIC should not be applied.

  • manufacturing = codes 28-38

  • communications = code 48

  • energy = codes 49-52

  • computer & software services = code 73

  • science, research & development = code 85

  • engineering = code 87 [1]

  • administration of economic programs and public-funded technology projects = code 96

Each organization was unambiguously assigned to only one category. If an organization fell into more than one classification, its single classification was resolved through the following methods:

  1. which one was the priority code

  2. if no priority given, which code appeared to have the overwhelming number of checked subcategories

  3. in a few cases firms without priorities checked were contacted by phone

Of the 435 organizations in the keypunched, unduplicated data file, 78 firms were exclusively engineering companies that were only checked in the survey or “other” subcategory.

< PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE >


[1] If the code for an engineering firm was 87 only and subcategories consisted only of 131 or 133, the firm was not included in the sample of high-tech organizations to be analyzed.

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE

Copyrightă 1999 by HTDC.  All rights reserved.  No part of this publication may be used or reproduced  in any form or by any means, graphic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or stored in information storage or retrieval systems without prior written permission of the publisher.

Questions?  E-mail webmaster@htdc.org