INNOVATION MANAGEMENT IN MICRO,
SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED COMPANIES: A STUDY IN A BRAZILIAN ELECTRO-ELECTRONIC
CLUSTER
Bruno Giovanni Mazzola
Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade
da Universidade de São Paulo (FEA-USP), Brazil
E-mail: bruno.mazzola@usp.br
Moacir de Miranda Oliveira Jr.
Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade
da Universidade de São Paulo (FEA-USP), Brazil
E-mail: mirandaoliveira@usp.br
Karen Esteves
Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade
da Universidade de São Paulo (FEA-USP), Brazil
E-mail: karenefp@gmail.com
Luis Fernando Britto Pereira de Mello Barreto
Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade
da Universidade de São Paulo (FEA-USP), Brazil
E-mail: lufebarreto@usp.br
Submission: 27/04/2018
Accept: 08/05/2018
ABSTRACT
Innovation is an important
way for corporations to increase their competitiveness. An analysis of the
literature on innovation shows that almost all studies in that field keep focus
on large companies. To overcome such gap, this paper focuses on the study of
the Innovation Management in micro, small and medium-sized enterprise. The
purpose of this study is to assess the most relevant factors related to
Innovation Management of companies that compose the Electronic Valley, a
cluster located in Brazil. The following dimensions regarding innovation will
be herein analyzed: Strategy, Internal Processes, External Environment,
Organization and Culture. Another indicator we considered is Innovative
Performance, which was investigated based on data provided by the companies we
analyzed. The quantitative research approached 41 corporations, approximately
28% of the general population. The regression analysis showed that the five
dimensions of Innovation Management are directly associated with Innovative
Performance; Culture is the most relevant variable.
Keywords: Micro,
Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Innovation Management, Innovative
Performance, Culture
1. INTRODUCTION
Innovation is considered the driving
force for organizations and nations to obtain and/or sustain competitive
advantage (JONASH; SOMMERLATTE, 2001). Innovation allows companies to
differentiate themselves from main competitors, while providing value to
customers and partners, gaining new markets and even creating completely new
ones (CHRISTENSEN, 1997).
According
to Papaconstantinou (1997), not only innovative companies, but also the whole society
benefits from innovation. As the developments achieved by innovation spreads,
they contribute for productivity increase, competitiveness, employment and
quality of life in the economy as a whole.
The
competitive advantage generated through innovation, however, soon gets back to
where it started, since one cannot stop competitors from imitating new
technologies, products, services and/or business models (TIDD et al., 2008).
There is, therefore, a constant need for organizations to renew themselves in
order to maintain the competitive advantage, as Schumpeter in the beginning of
the 20th century already emphasized.
According
to Schumpeter, innovation covers all the process that starts with an idea, the
subsequent development, the market reach and the impact on the economy. Two
paths can lead a company to remain on the market: one of them implies that a
company should improve things it already does, the other one suggests that
companies have to do things in a different way. The challenge is to make a
company follow both paths in a complementary way (TIDD et al., 2008).
In
the context of emerging countries, such recommendations are particularly
relevant when it comes to overcoming the gaps between different economies. One
way to leverage competitiveness internationally or nationally can be through
the creation of clusters, which refer to geographical concentrations of business
and interconnected institutions (PORTER, 1998).
According
to the author, this condition promotes competitiveness while enhancing
competitiveness among the cluster companies by stimulating the creation of new
correlated businesses and providing a guidance towards innovation.
To
turn the innovative process into an effective measure in individual firms, it
is necessary to connect innovation with the entire organization. The
integration of the different areas and the joint work are important factors
that might influence the success of a management oriented to the development of
innovation (CORAL et al., 2011). That way, if an adequate innovation is a
matter of management, it is possible to analyze innovation by using different
management dimensions in order to evaluate the effectiveness regarding this
issue.
When
it comes to small and medium sized enterprises, studies show they provide a
strong contribution to innovation and technological development, especially in
the context of innovation eco-systems such as the Silicon Valley (LOVE; ROPER,
2015) Still, there is a lot of controversy regarding the complex effect that
organizational size has in the innovation process as a whole (FORÉS; CAMISÓN,
2016).
According
to Berends et al. (2014), the literature on product innovation makes a mistake by prescribing large firm
best practices to small firms, as small
firms' innovation processes differ from those of large enterprises.
While smaller firms have advantages in terms of rapid decision-making,
willingness to take risks and flexibility in responding to new market
opportunities; larger firms have advantages linked to scale and the
availability of specialist resources. (LOVE; ROPER, 2015)
The
focus of this study is to analyze the influence of innovation management on
innovation performance in SME companies by proposing the following research
question: “How does Innovation Management aspects affect Innovation Performance
in micro, small and medium-sized enterprises?”.
We
intend to evaluate the ways in which efforts are complemented in order to
generate results. To fulfil this goal, we accomplished a research at a local
productive arrangement (LPA), known as Electronic Valley, located in a city
called Santa Rita do Sapucaí, a region that hosts several companies in the
electronics, information technology and telecommunication segments.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1.
Santa
Rita do Sapucaí’s LPA
In
the 1980s the LPA known as Electronic Valley was institutionalized; this name
is a reference to the Silicon Valley in the United States (DINIZ; LEMOS, 1998
apud BOTELHO; KAMASAKI, 2004). This LPA is constituted by over 140 companies
that employ around ten thousand people; the LPA’s revenue in 2009 was over R$
1.5 billion (DIAS, 2011).
The
city has around six hundred students in technological schools in the fields of
electronics and informatics and two thousand undergraduate students in the
areas of informatics, telecommunications, computer engineering and business
administration. It is important to emphasize that around 9% of the revenue is
invested in research, development and innovation (GOVERNO DE MINAS, 2007, p.
6).
The
Electronic Valley became a reference in Brazil as a technology center and it is
recognized by the development and production of electronics. To support the
constant development of this center, several research and educational
institutions, business incubators and associations offer support and contribute
to leverage success in the region (FIEMG; IEL MINAS; SINDIVEL, 2010).
2.2.
Innovation
management: theoretical frameworks
In
this study, we tried to bring back conceptual models that handle innovation
management as a process that involves the dimensions of the company in a
complementary way to enable innovation.
2.3.
Jonash
and Sommerlatte’s
Model
According
to Jonash and Sommerlatte (2001), the company must focus directly on innovation
to survive in an environment characterized by very strong competition. For
that, it is necessary to promote a full reorganization that includes
strategies, processes and resources. The authors analyze innovation in a
broader sense, involving the creation of new products, services and processes.
Innovation
management must be present in the company as a whole; in other words, it
contemplates every part of the value chain: suppliers, clients and strategical
partners. This model of innovation management is defined as a more advanced
generation or models of systems and networks (ROTHWELL, 1994).
This
model has two main principles: the first one is to conduct innovation in the
whole company in order to create value; the second is to leverage technologies
and competencies to stimulate sustainable innovation and to create competitive
advantage (JONASH; SOMMERLATTE, 2001). The purpose of model is to emphasize
that relevant innovation does not occur singly; it is the result of the
internal mobilization and of connected business networks. Figure 1 represents
such model, which is formed by five dimensions: strategy, processes, resources,
organization and learning.
Figure
1: Structure of high-performance innovation
Source: Adapted from JONASH; SOMMERLATTE, 2001
The
formulation of innovation strategies must be aligned with the corporative
strategy and it is adjusted according to the needs of innovation and technology
of the involved network. In order to make this formulation possible, it is
necessary to use the concept of platforms, which originally only handled common
structures that served as basis for the development of related products, giving
more efficiency and speed for the launch to the market, e.g. vehicle chassis
that can be used for different models.
The
concept of platforms was extended to cover technologies, competencies or key
abilities that can be useful in the development of products and services. When
platforms are not enough to leverage innovation, the company must seek for
partnerships with specialists (research institutes, consultants and even
competitors).
In
the center of Figure 1, one can see the path of the innovation process. In
opposition to the linear model of the first generation, in which innovation
would get started in the R&D department and would end up with launch of the
product, the authors referred to the process as a complex system of feedbacks
involving the creation of the idea, preparation of prototypes, detailed analysis
and the launch to the market.
To
reach the “most advanced generation” proposed, the company must: i) operate in
networks in order to perceive new technological horizons, while monitoring the
moves of the main competitors, ii) to integrate clients and suppliers in the
process; iii) to expand the entry of innovation systems, giving a larger
emphasis in initial phases as the creation of ideas and the development of
concepts and the consequent screening; and iv) to share platforms – the purpose
is to accelerate the speed of innovation.
Companies
belonging to a more advanced stage are part of a system of dynamic learning
based on the knowledge and commitment with sustainable and constant innovation.
The system of knowledge management relates to the organization and availability
of information for everyone. Companies must be organized in a way that they can
be highly collaborative and connected to the network – when connecting
partners, personal interactions and mutual growth are encouraged, stimulating
innovation.
2.4.
Tidd,
Bessant and Pavitt’s
Model
Tidd
et al. (2008) propose a process of innovation that covers three phases. For the
company to survive and, ideally, to grow, innovation must be a fundamental
activity. The process of innovation comprehends essentially the phases of
search, selection and implementation, according to Figure 2. Over this cycle,
the authors also present the dimension ‘learning’, which allows a feedback that
makes the system more efficient.
Figure
2: Simplified representation of the innovation process
Source: TID et
al., 2008, p. 88
In the search phase, the company
appeals to the analysis of the internal and external scenario in order to look
for threats and opportunities. The chance may come along as technological
opportunities, conditions imposed by the market or, for instance, pressure from
the competition. In the selection phase, the company must decide which
opportunities will be prioritized taking into account the strategic vision.
The implementation phase regards the
transformation of the potential of the initial idea into a product or service
that can be launched or a process that can be adopted. Even though there are
still general patterns in the process of innovation, each company has to
identify what is effective and coherent in its own context.
These
three phases provide feedback due to the learning gained along the way. This
learning influences routines or behavior standards that, when effective, help
the company to deal with innovation challenges. For this innovation management
to be successful, it is not enough to handle with parts of the process; the
company must be effective at all dimensions. The authors present four
dimensions regarding innovation management: strategy, efficient external
relationships, implementation mechanisms and supportive organizational context,
according to Figure 3.
Figure
3: Behavior or routines for innovation
Source: TIDD et
al., 2008, p. 578
In
the field of strategy, one can find three essential ingredients. The first one
is the positioning of the company due to its products, processes, technologies
and the context in which it operates. The second ingredient regards the
technological trajectories that the company can follow, given the competencies
gathered by the company. The last one refers to processes that integrate
learning in all the sectors and levels of the company.
The
efficient external relationships are a result of the approximation with the
players involved in the company’s activities. These players can be the market,
strategic partners, suppliers, clients, and even competitors. The interaction
with the external environment is an opportunity to learn.
Through
the mechanisms of efficient implementation, ideas or opportunities are
transformed into reality. In a structure where decision-making follows clear
criteria, such mechanisms are useful to solve inevitable problems that might
come along the execution of innovation projects. They help the company when it
is necessary to focus on the development of a certain product or process, but
they are also useful to indicate when it is necessary to stop.
Finally,
the supportive organizational context is the one that allows ideas to be
created and transformed into innovation. It is very important for innovation
management that there is a culture geared towards creativity. The conditions
for creativity to occur are related with proper structures, work organization,
training and development, recognition and reward systems, and internal
communication.
2.5.
Hansen
and Birkinshaw’s
Model
Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007) propose
a model that sees innovation as a value chain, characterized by three main
phases: generation, conversion and diffusion of ideas. These three phases
comprehend six critical activities: internal and external collaboration (as well
as the collaboration among units); selection and development of ideas; and
diffusion of developed ideas. Innovation is understood as an integrated flow –
ideas act as inputs that can be implemented or adopted by the company,
according to Figure 4. This model proves a general overview regarding the use
of innovation efforts. That way, barriers can be overcome in this phase, which
makes the value chain of innovation even more strengthened.
Figure
4: Innovation value chain
Source: adapted from HANSEN; BIRKINSHAW, 2007, p. 4
The
approach that regards innovation as an integrated chain allows its links to be
evaluated as weak or strong. According to the authors, its capacity to innovate
is as good as the weakest link of its innovation value chain (HANSEN; BIRKINSHAW,
2007, p. 1). According to this evaluation, companies should provide the most
adequate solutions for their reality instead of using solutions that have been
developed for other organizations. In that case, there is the risk to adopt
generic innovation practices that are no longer adequate, which can damage the
performance through the innovation value chain.
The
phase regarding the generation of ideas covers three activities: internal
generation, generation among units and external generation. Initially, managers
seek for better ideas inside their department – sometimes they realize,
however, that great concepts can be generated by gathering pieces of ideas. In
that sense, activities regarding the generation of ideas among units and from
external sources can enrich ideas generated internally.
The
second phase of the innovation chain comprehends the processes of evaluation
and selection of ideas and financing mechanisms of projects. If these processes
are no longer adequate, there might be an interruption or a surplus of ideas.
Regarding interruption, the consequence is the loss of opportunities to create
innovation, besides discouragement. The surplus, on the other hand, can cause
the waste of resources, focus and strategic alignment. The third phase consists
of the diffusion and propagation of innovation. Besides the challenge of the
diffusion of innovation to channels and clients, there are several times
barriers inside the own organizations.
The
research approach proposed by Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007) is useful because it
understands that the capacity of a company to innovate is as good as the
weakest link in the innovation value chain. Once that the barrier in the
innovation flow is identified, the company must use its resources and efforts
to solve problems. Once it is done, a new barrier might come along and, one
more time, the company has to redirect its attention towards the new identified
weak link. In a cumulative way, the process of generation, conversion and
diffusion will become more effective.
2.6.
Theoretical
synthesis: Innovation
integrated management
From the 1980s on, innovation stops
being treated as a process essentially linear and compartmentalized. The
consolidation of this process occurred in the next decade, in the 1990s, with
the integration of organizations through networks and clients. The authors
Neely and Hii (1998) emphasize the importance of networking and the
geographical localization issue for innovative activities within the company.
In
this period, studies have also been published regarding integrated models of
innovation management. The studies accomplished by Jonash and Sommerlatte
(2001) and Tidd et al. (2001) are references when it comes to the systemic
approach of the innovation process. The study accomplished by Hansen and
Birkinshaw (2007) strengthens the systematic character of innovation in
organizations. Table 1 synthetizes the main characteristics of each one of the
models in order to outline the dimensions explored in the field survey.
Table 1:
Characteristics of innovation management models
|
Model |
Authors |
Characteristics |
Dimensions, processes, phases |
|
Most
advanced generation |
Jonash; |
The model is based on two
principles: innovation has to be conducted in the whole organization
(systemic approach); it has to leverage competencies and technologies (by
means of platforms). It has four dimensions from which innovation may occur –
there is also a fifth dimension, the capacity of the organization to learn. |
Innovation strategy; innovation process; innovation
resources; innovation organization; learning |
|
Innovation
Process Model |
Tidd;
Bessant; Pavitt |
Innovation is a generic process
(common for every company), associated with survival and growth and composed
of three phases. An effective innovation management supposes a good
performance towards four behaviors. |
Innovation process: search, selection and
implementation (permeated by learning); strategy; supportive organizational
context; implementation mechanisms; external relationship |
|
Innovation
value chain |
Hansen; |
Innovation as an integrated flow,
which covers the generation of ideas towards the market. This approach allows
companies to identify the barriers of the innovation process. |
Innovation process: generation of ideas, conversion
and diffusion |
Source: Authors, 2016
From
the theoretical framework presented herein, we can affirm that the models “most
advanced generation” and “innovation process model” are very similar because
they describe the context in which innovation management is expressed. In other
words, both models regard dimensions (‘groups of behaviors’ according to TIDD et
al. 2008 or ‘fundamental areas’ according to JONASH; SOMMERLATTE, 2001) that
must occur in a harmonic way so that innovation happens.
Despite
each model presents its own classification regarding dimensions and even though
their limits are not the same, in a general way the dimensions overlap or
complement one another: innovation strategy and strategy; process of innovation
and implementation mechanisms; resources and organization of innovation with a
supportive organizational context and external relationship; learning and
supportive organizational context. In short, these two models have a systemic
approach towards innovation.
The
similarities between the ‘innovation process model’ and the ‘innovation value
chain’ are in the procedural focus. Each approach agrees that the challenge to
innovate is different in each company, even when they operate in the same
sectors (HANSEN; BIRKINSHAW, 2007, p. 2; TIDD et al., 2008, p.89). However, they also agree that there is an
underlying sequence: search for or generation of ideas; selection or
conversion; implementation or diffusion. In short, these two models understand
that the company has to develop innovation in a systematic way.
Even
though there is successful innovation occasionally created (which is not
sustainable over time), it is possible to affirm that the company manages
innovation only when the results reached are the results of a systematic and
systemic process. That way, the interest of this study is to evaluate the level
of maturity of the management and the relationship with the obtained results.
It is understood that five dimensions should be analyzed in the context
regarding the LPA of the Electronic Valley according to Table 2.
Table
2: Dimensions of innovation management
|
Dimension |
Characteristics |
|
Strategy |
Analyzes
the company from the technological point of view and the alignment with the
strategy of the business. Innovation has to be aligned with the strategy of
the company. |
|
Internal processes |
Activities
used to guide internal operations are configured. Innovation can be reached
through the review of routines, in order to seek for greater efficiency,
better productivity, greater quality in its products and less response time
to the environment. |
|
External environment |
To
deal with an environment in constant transformation, it is necessary to have
a constant monitoring to identify opportunities and threats. The most
innovative companies adopt a proactive posture regarding the environment in
which they operate, they also operate in networks and have stablished
partnerships with other agents. |
|
Organization |
To understand the way in which
the company is organized. That includes an organizational structure
(represented by the company’s organization chart), but also approaches more
subjective aspects, such as organizational climate and internal
communication. |
|
Culture |
The creation of a culture focused
on innovation, in smaller companies, is subject to the approval of the
leader, founders or people related to them. The issue regarding knowledge,
responsibility and autonomy of employees is approach, and also incentives for
creativity and innovation. |
Source: Authors, 2016
3. METHODOLOGY
The
purpose of this study is to identify the relationship between six constructs
analyzed in the framework. According to Vergara (2011), this research is
classified as a field study, since it handles a survey accomplished where the
phenomenon occurs through the application of questionnaires (primary data).
Based
on the obtained data, we intend to verify which are the associations among the
dimensions of innovation management and the innovative performance of
companies. That way, we can define this research as a quantitative study. The
conceptual model of Figure 5 synthesizes the theoretical review presented in
the previous section.
Figure
5: Conceptual model
Source: Authors, 2016
The
data collection for the research occurred through the application of surveys,
which were later transcribed into a database. Before applying the survey, we
accomplished two pre-tests, carried out with specialists from these APL and with other companies that had
characteristics similar to the research population (HAIR; BABIN; MONEY;
SAMOUEL, 2005). The purpose of this stage was to increase the reliability of
the search by ensuring that the questionnaire could measure what it stands for
(MARTINS; THEÓPHILO, 2009).
The
first analysis comprehends the descriptive statistics, which served as a first
guide because it provides information about the quality of data and indicate
tendencies, if they exist (BOTTER et al.,
1996). Next, we accomplished a linear regression analysis (HAIR et al., 2005).
The
use of such statistics technique is very relevant because the theory regarding
innovation assumes that there is an association between innovative performance
and innovation management. Besides, we only work with one dependent variable.
The regression analysis can be used when one wants to create models that
explain the impact produced by a group of variables regarding the behavior of
another variable (FÁVERO, 2009; HAIR et
al., 2006).
The
operationalization of this research measures six variables. To measure each
variable, we used scales of multiple items. According to Hair et al. (2005), a
scale of multiple items consists of individual affirmations (items or
indicators) strictly related whose answers are combined in a composite score
used to measure a concept. Each dimension of innovation management and
innovative performance was composed by four to six variables to measure the
construct, each of them measure in a five point Likert scale.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The
final size of the sample embraces 41companies and it was not necessary to
exclude any questionnaire. The universe of the research, according to SINDVEL,
corresponds to 142 companies. In agreement with the criteria of company size
provided by the Brazilian Development Bank, 70.7% of them are microenterprises,
17.1% are small enterprises and 12.2% are medium-sized enterprises. The annual
average revenue was R$ 5.11 million; since there are several microenterprises
involved, it is important to highlight the median measure of R$ 1.24 million.
The companies analyzed exist on an average of 11 years; 63.4% of them are less
than ten years old. The main sector of activity is electronics, followed by
security, factory automation and telecommunication (Figure 6).
Figure
6. Sector of activities
Source: Authors, 2016
Regarding
products launched by the companies three years before the accomplishment of the
research, 51.2% of them affirmed that they launched new products in the
national market; these products, however, already existed in the international
market. Such occurrence indicates a strategy based on benchmarking of foreign
markets to launch products in the domestic market. That way, the company can
reach the status of innovative in Brazil (BOTELHO; KAMASAKI, 2004).
We
conducted interviews with 160 employees representing the 41 companies.
Regarding the functions that the employees have in their respective companies,
most of them operate in Research, Development and Engineering (28.75%),
followed by departments related to Administration (23.75%). Regarding the
positions the employees have in the company, 40% of them are
operators/analysts, 37.5% are managers/superintendents, 20% are the
entrepreneurs themselves.
4.1.
Regression
analysis
The independent variables that
compose the model presented a positive correlation placed between medium and
high (HAIR et al., 2005), which
indicates a multicollinearity problem when accomplishing the linear multiple
regression. This is the reason why we accomplished additionally a bivariate
regression analysis for each pair of independent-dependent variables. The
outcomes are presented in Table 3. The independent variable referring to each
analysis was placed in the file “Model”.
Table 3: Coefficients of the bivariate analysis
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
|
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
|||
|
Strat |
1,113 |
0,045 |
0,973 |
24,582 |
0,000 |
|
Int
Proc |
1,266 |
0,055 |
0,969 |
22,928 |
0,000 |
|
Ext
Env |
1,128 |
0,048 |
0,970 |
23,416 |
0,000 |
|
Org |
1,115 |
0,046 |
0,973 |
24,450 |
0,000 |
|
Cult |
1,184 |
0,047 |
0,974 |
24,952 |
0,000 |
Source: Authors, 2016
The
results indicate that the five dimensions that compose the model of Integrated
Innovation Management (Strategy, Internal Processes, External Environment,
Organization and Culture), singly, have a positive linear relationship with
Innovative Performance.
The
intention to accomplish the bivariate analysis while pulling off the multiple
regression is due to the multicollinearity problem, where variables covariate.
In other words, variables would basically work as a proxy of one another. For
that reason, we had to recur to the structure provided by bivariate
relationships.
In
the linear multiple regression, when all independent variables are present, we
used the forward method as a selection criterion. The tolerance rate
complements the interpretation because it suits for the multicollinearity
effect: the smaller its value, the more the variable can be predicted by the
other ones. The coefficients of the multiple regression analysis can be seen in
Table 4.
Table
4. Multiple regression coefficients
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
|
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
|||
|
Cult |
1,184 |
0,047 |
0,974 |
24,952 |
0,000 |
Source:
Authors, 2016
Due
to the high correlation among independent variables, one could expect that only
a small amount of them would be enough to explain the model. That way, the
results indicate that only the dimension “Culture” contributes significantly to
explain the integrated model of Innovation Management.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study was to
identify how Innovation Management dimensions (Strategy, Internal Processes,
External Environment, Organization and Culture) associate to affect the
Innovative Performance and which are the predominant ones in the context of
micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. The result of the model surprised us
when showing that all constructs have a high correlation among themselves,
since we expected the five dimensions to have a different behavior.
This is the reason why we had to
deal with the multicollinearity problem, which led us to see that only one
dimension of Innovation Management was enough to explain the Mode of Figure 5:
culture for innovation. When analyzing them separately, however, we could
determine that all five dimensions have a strong positive relationship with
Innovative Performance.
The descriptive analysis of the
dimensions indicated that the scores were around 3.8 (amplitude 1-5). As the
companies of the sample belong to high added-value sectors, they face a very
strong competition. In order to remain competitive in the market, it is necessary
that they constantly launch new products while improving management practices.
That way, the high scores in the five dimensions of innovation management
support the commitment towards innovation.
The dimension Culture presented a
medium score (3.82). Despite this fact, Culture is the only variable that was
accepted in the multiple regression model, presenting a R² = 0.948, the highest
among the five variables. In fact, Tidd (2008) emphasizes the commitment with
the development of people as one of the key-characteristics of innovative
organizations. The author also mentions the adequate atmosphere for creativity
and learning as core issues.
It
was possible to conclude that there is a linear and direct relationship between
the five dimensions of the Innovation Management Model and Innovative
Performance, when the variables are analyzed separately. On the other hand, we
could also conclude that when the five dimensions are analyzed together, the
variable Culture is the only one necessary to explain the completely integrated
model.
In
accordance with Joanash and Sommerlatte (2001), Tidd at al. (2001), and Hansen
and Birkinshaw (2007), however, to manage efficiently innovation is not about
having success in one or two aspects, but in every area and levels within an
organization, and also the interaction between the organization and the
environment surrounding it. As further researches, we suggest to reduce the
focus to each one of the dimensions while analyzing a new one, related to the
learning process of organizations.
REFERENCES
BERENDS,
H. et al. (2014) Product Innovation Processes in Small Firms: Combining
Entrepreneurial Effectuation and Managerial Causation. Journal
of Product Innovation Management, v. 31, n. 3, p. 616–635.
BOTELHO, M. R. A.; KAMASAKI, G. Y. (2004)
O arranjo produtivo local de eletrônica
e telecomunicações em Santa Rita do Sapucaí/MG. SEBRAE, UFSC, NEITEC,
FEPESEI.
BOTTER, D. A. et al. (1996) Noções de estatística. São Paulo:
Instituto de Matemática e Estatística – USP.
CHRISTENSEN, C. M. (2012) O Dilema da inovação: quando as novas
tecnologias levam empresas ao fracasso. São
Paulo: M. Books do Brasil.
CORAL, E.; OLIGARI, A.; ABREU, A. F.
(Orgs.). (2011) Gestão integrada da
inovação. São Paulo: Editora
Atlas.
DIAS, C. (2011) Do café com leite à era
eletrônica: histórias como a de Santa Rita do Sapucaí, uma cidadezinha do sul
de Minas, mostram a importância de se investir em educação para o
desenvolvimento. Desafios do
Desenvolvimento. Brasília, ano 8,
n. 64, p. 78-80.
DINIZ, C. C. (2013) Estudo da
Competitividade da Indústria Brasileira: competitividade e desenvolvimento
regional no Brasil. Nota Técnica Extra – Blocos Temáticos.
Convênio IE/UNICAMP, IEI/UFRJ, FDC, FUNCEX. Campinas.
DINIZ, C. C.; LEMOS, M. B. (1998) Sistemas Regionais de Inovação: o caso
de Minas Gerais. Nota Técnica 06/98.
Projeto MCT/OEA, IE/UFRJ. Rio de Janeiro.
FÁVERO, L. P.; et al. (2009) Análise de dados: modelagem
multivariada para tomada de decisões. São
Paulo: Editora Elsevier Campus.
FORÉS, B.;
CAMISÓN, C. (2016) Does incremental and radical innovation performance depend
on different types of knowledge accumulation capabilities and organizational
size? Journal of Business Research,
v. 69, n. 2, p. 831–848.
GOVERNO
DE MINAS (2007) Plano de Desenvolvimento do Arranjo
Produtivo Eletroeletrônico de Santa Rita do Sapucaí. SINDVEL, SEBRAE, IEL FIEMG.
Belo Horizonte.
HAIR JR, J. F.; et al. (2005) Fundamentos de métodos de pesquisa em
administração. Porto Alegre:
Bookman.
HANSEN,
M. T.; BIRKINSHAW, J. (2007) The Innovation Value Chain. Harvard Business Review,
June, p. 121-130.
FIEMG; IEL MINAS; SINDVEL. (2010) Perfil da indústria do Vale da Eletrônica: Santa Rita do Sapucaí – MG. Belo Horizonte.
JONASH, R. S.; SOMMERLATTE, T. (2001) O valor da inovação: como as empresas
mais avançadas atingem alto desempenho e lucratividade. Rio
de Janeiro: Campus.
LOVE,
J. H.; ROPER, S. (2015) SME innovation, exporting and growth: A review of
existing evidence. International Small Business Journal, v. 33, n. 1, p. 28–48.
MARTINS, G. A.; THEÓPHILO, C. R. (2009) Metodologia da investigação científica para
ciências sociais aplicadas. 2.
ed. São Paulo: Atlas.
NEELY,
A.; HII, J. (2008) Innovation and
business performance: a literature review. Government Office of the Eastern
Region. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
PAPACONSTANTINOU,
G. (1997) Technology and Industrial Performance. The OECD Observer, n.
204, feb-mar.
PORTER,
M. E. (1998) Cluster and the New Economics of Competition. Harvard Business Review, November/December.
ROTHWELL,
R. (1994) Towards the Fifth-generation Innovation Process. International Marketing Review,
v. 11, n. 1, p. 7-31.
TIDD, J.; BESSANT, J.; PAVITT, K. (2008)
Gestão da Inovação. 3 ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
VERGARA, S. C. (2009) Projetos e relatórios de pesquisa em
administração. 10. ed. São Paulo:
Atlas.