Search results

This paper investigates which innovation capabilities are more important for driving technological and non-technological innovations and which of the two innovation types has the greatest impact on the financial performance of manufacturing companies.

Based on a theoretical model of four innovation capabilities – two technological: Technology Development Capability and Operations Capability, and two non-technological: Management Capability and Transaction Capability – a database of 1,331 Brazilian manufacturing companies was analyzed through partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM).

The results indicate that technological capabilities (Technology Development and Operations) have a greater impact on technological innovation. However, both technological capabilities also affect non-technological innovation, with the Technology Development Capability being the most influential in this relationship. Results also indicate that non-technological capabilities (Management and Transaction) have a greater impact on non-technological innovation. Nevertheless, both non-technological capabilities also impact technological innovation, especially the Transaction Capability, which is the most influential in this relationship. Furthermore, it was identified that non-technological innovation has a more significant impact on financial performance than technological innovation, presenting a novel finding to the field of innovation in manufacturing.

This manuscript refutes prior discussions and opens new possibilities for the interconnection of dynamic and ordinary innovation capabilities in two different arrangements, each aimed at improving a specific type of innovation. A theoretical framework is proposed to highlight that, depending on the innovation type focused on, ordinary innovation capabilities can be more relevant than dynamic ones for innovation in the manufacturing sector. From these theoretical advancements, practitioners can understand that investments in non-technological resources, skills and routines can also boost technological innovation, as well as sales, profit and market share growth.

Over time, technological intensity has been used as a proxy for innovation capability of firms in an industrial sector. However, not only firms belonging to the stratum of high technological intensity are able to innovate. Therefore, this study aims to explore a potential association between technological intensity and innovation capability in firms from different industrial sectors, using the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)’s classification and the components of innovation capability proposed by Zawislak et al. (2012, 2013).

The authors conducted an exploratory research with four case studies focusing on the innovation capability of Brazilian firms.

The results show that the four firms, each belonging to one stratum of technological intensity, have innovation capability, and the differences regarding this feature can be explained by the balance and development of all firms’ capabilities (technological, operational, managerial and transactional).

In the literature, studies that relate technological intensity and innovation capability are scarce. Therefore, the originality of this research is to relate these two concepts. The most important is that firms can be innovative regardless of their stratum of technological intensity, which shows the importance of other capabilities to ensure the innovation’s success.

This paper aims to identify the winning combination of innovation capabilities for selected Brazilian agribusiness firms along different value chain links.

Adopting a quantitative approach, the authors analyzed the relationship between innovation capabilities and innovative performance of 300 agribusiness firms through a multi-regression technique.

The results showed that transaction, management and development capabilities can improve agribusiness firms’ performance in underdeveloped value chains.

For future research, the authors recommend analyzing further links such as traders and retailers to find the innovation capability for the entire agribusiness value chain.

Upstream firms should adopt new management techniques and tools, efficiently using their resources, while downstream firms should absorb and transform new technologies into products and processes.

The authors suggest formulating public policies that propose the recombination of innovation capabilities to organize agribusiness firms and avoid commodity-oriented market dependence.

The literature on agribusiness explains innovation at the chain level, based primarily on scientific advancements rather than on innovation at the firm level. In this sense, this study provides empirical evidence that can help boost innovation in agribusiness firms.

The purpose of this paper is to present eight papers selected from ALTEC 2015 that provide an overview of innovation in Latin America.

This editorial seeks to define innovation by examining its conceptual foundations. It considers innovation beyond firms and technology to address other forms, such as social and institutional innovations. Thereafter, it discusses innovation in the context of Latin America and suggests means by which to stimulate it in the region. Finally, the authors present the eight papers included in this “special edition.”

The major findings of the paper are that it considers non-technological innovation within firms, innovation beyond the firm and innovation beyond technology. Moreover, it helps to better understand a core issue of innovation in Latin America, which is the focus on macroeconomic policy instead of microeconomic stimuli.

A broader understanding of the concept of innovation is of notable importance. Innovation implies the recognition of issues related to the market (firm), but also to the community (society) and to humanly devised constraints (institutions). Technology is only one part of it. For this special issue, the selected articles highlight the efforts made by different authors to contribute to innovation studies in the editors’ region.

Este número presenta ocho manuscritos seleccionados del ALTEC 2015, que ofrecen un panorama de la innovación en América Latina.

Esta editorial busca definir la innovación mediante la examinación de sus fundamentos conceptuales. Esto considera que la innovación va más allá de las firmas y la tecnología para abordar otros tipos, tales como innovación social e institucional. Posteriormente, se analiza la innovación en el contexto de América Latina y se sugieren medios para su estimulo en la región. Finalmente, presentamos los ocho artículos incluidos en esta Edición Especial.

Las principales conclusiones de esta editorial son que se considera la innovación no tecnológica dentro de las firmas, la innovación más allá de la firma y la innovación más allá de la tecnología. Además, esto ayuda a comprehender mejor una cuestión central de la innovación en América Latina, que es el enfoque en política macroeconómica en lugar de los estímulos microeconómicos.

Un mayor entendimiento del concepto de innovación es de gran importancia. La innovación implica el reconocimiento de las cuestiones relacionadas con el mercado (firma), pero también con la comunidad (sociedad) y con las restricciones humanamente concebidas (instituciones). La tecnología es solo una parte de esta. Para esta Edición Especial, los artículos seleccionados destacan los esfuerzos realizados por diferentes autores para contribuir a los estudios de innovación en nuestra región.

Challenges related to sustainability have increasingly become pivotal in the realm of business strategy and innovation. Nevertheless, the incorporation of sustainability principles into business strategies and innovative practices remains a subject of ongoing scholarly debate. This paper aims to undertake a thematic literature review on this theme.

Data were gathered from the Scopus, Web of Science and Science Direct databases. The final sample comprised 85 papers. For analytical purposes, this study adopted topic modeling using Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) methodology.

The authors identified five dominant topics concerning the relationship between sustainability, innovation and business strategy. Through a cross-analysis of these topics, the authors theorize that a sustainable innovation strategy encompasses three complementary and interdependent dimensions: capabilities, management and firm. Building on this analysis, the authors outline a research agenda aimed at further exploration and advancement of this theme.

This review enhances the synthesis of research on the theme, prompting reflections on how companies can initiate innovative sustainable actions that align with their business strategy. Additionally, the authors identify specific elements that require improvement to enhance each of the three dimensions of sustainable innovation strategies, such as eco-efficiency, circular economy and the adoption of innovative business models oriented toward services/servitization.

By interweaving sustainability with innovation and business strategy, this study underscores the critical topics that companies and public policymakers should address to support sustainable development at the national level.

While previous literature reviews have focused on the dyadic relationships between sustainability and strategy, or sustainability and innovation, this study extends the boundaries of knowledge by integrating these three concepts into a hybrid theoretical stream.

This paper aims to identify and compare the arrangements of innovation capabilities and their correlation with the socio-environmental responsibility of two groups: companies with less socio-environmental concern (Group Gray) and companies with greater socio-environmental concern (Group Green).

Descriptive and quantitative research with 1,322 Brazilian manufacturing companies was conducted. We analyzed (1) the actual arrangement of capabilities and (2) the ideal arrangement of capabilities with the greatest impact on innovation.

Results suggest that there is a difference in the arrangement of capabilities between the two groups. Also, there is a difference between the capabilities that effectively receive the companies' attention and the capabilities that should be valued and developed. Green companies must focus their efforts on Transaction capability, followed respectively by Management, Development and Operation capabilities. Gray companies must focus on Development capability, followed by Management, Transaction and Operation capabilities.

By identifying the ideal capability arrangement, this research provides important information that can guide managers in planning internal strategies for investments, prioritizing management efforts and rearranging capabilities to boost innovation for sustainability.

This paper aims to discuss the dynamic interactions among knowledge management, strategic foresight and emerging technologies, resulting in a framework that can help companies to shape these interactions for achieving positive outcomes.

This conceptual paper is based on prior literature streams, which were interrelated through an abductive research process. This iterative conceptualization approach led to the formation of testable propositions that advance the understanding on the interactions among knowledge management, strategic foresight and emerging technologies.

The framework demonstrates the existence of an actions cycle between strategic foresight and knowledge management through a constructivist perspective, where one can improve the other. These interactions can be useful both for the development of emerging technologies and for identifying these innovations in market that can be applied in companies. Hence, all these dynamic interactions do not point to a hegemonic relationship of one construct over the others, but for the value equality among them.

Although current literature points to the existence of relationships among knowledge management, strategic foresight and emerging technologies, the dynamism inherent in these interactions as well as their positive effects for companies’ results are not properly discussed. This paper fills such a gap and proposes directions for future research.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a new typology to leverage the different knowledge gaps existing between universities and industries. This new typology classifies interactions into training-oriented, diffusion-oriented, service-oriented, development-oriented, and research-oriented.

The Brazilian 2010 Census data available from the CNPq Research Group Directory were used to test the typology.

It was found that, among the five types of interactions proposed, the most frequent were the development-oriented (39 per cent), diffusion-oriented (23 per cent), and research-oriented (16 per cent) ones. These findings indicate that it is likely that university-industry (U-I) interactions have improved in terms of quality in an attempt to attain a joint higher technological development.

The paper provides the U-I interaction debate with a new perspective about the kinds of interactions that could effectively bridge the knowledge gaps between universities and industries, especially in a developing country context.

Este artigo propõe uma nova metodologia para reduzir as diferentes lacunas em termos de conhecimento existentes entre universidades e empresas. Esta nova tipologia classifica as interações em formadora, difusora, financiadora, desenvolvedora e pesquisadora.

O Censo de 2010 disponibilizado pelo Diretório de Grupos de Pesquisa do CNPq foi utilizado para testar a tipologia proposta.

Verificou-se que, entre os cinco tipos de interação propostos, os mais frequentes foram as tipologias desenvolvedora (39%), difusora (23%) e pesquisadora (16%). Esses resultados indicam uma provável qualificação das interações universidade-empresa justamente com o objetivo de alcançar um desenvolvimento tecnológico conjunto superior.

O artigo contribui com o debate sobre interação universidade-empresa, propondo uma nova perspectiva sobre os tipos de interação que efetivamente podem preencher as lacunas em termos de conhecimento existente entre universidades e empresas, especialmente no contexto dos países em desenvolvimento.

The purpose of this paper is to examine different types of organization of the firm considering the innovation capabilities of manufacturing firms.

The authors carried out an innovation survey with Brazilian manufacturing firms. A sample of 1,156 firms was analyzed in this paper. Collected data were analyzed using multivariate data analysis techniques. From an innovation capabilities approach, it was possible to identify different types of organization of the firm.

Results show four different types of organization of the firm: advanced, intermediate and basic stability-oriented and change-oriented. Each type presents a different innovation capabilities arrangement. The successful strategies toward innovation are related to change-oriented organization of the firm and advanced stability-oriented organization of the firm.

This study contributes to the literature by presenting a different view on the organization of the firm, encompassing the capabilities approach and thus a higher level on the perception of firms' heterogeneity. This study contributes to narrow the literature gap on how firms internally coordinate its different capabilities into a coherent organization to sustain an innovative behavior.

These straightforward findings can serve as a guideline so that managers can conduct changes within their companies toward more innovation. Managers can reconsider its organization as a way to foment innovation, once it is identified as a key strategy for competitiveness.

This study may help managers understand that focusing on stability-driven capabilities is riskier if change-driven capabilities are not present in an adequate and aligned level of development. The outcome may be the growth of the cost structure greater than the potential return. Conversely, managers should also understand that once change-driven capabilities are in a glance, they need do follow up with stability-driven capabilities. Here, the risk is not having an adequate structure to sustain the upcoming growth, arising from innovation. In short, not only “cost and value” should be taken together, but they must be arranged following the specific situation of the company. Every company should manage costs either to sustain new added value or to allow the addition of new value.

The study is based on a unique dataset that traces a large set of companies, being able to check different types of firm organization and associate it with innovation capabilities. The study relates to an emerging economy, which has not received adequate attention until now, largely because of the lack of micro-level data. The study is based on a robust theoretical model of innovation capabilities, which is being tested through such data. Finally, results elucidate ways to improve innovation performance of firms.

The paper presents a framework – the Dynamic Chain of Innovation – to analyze the dynamics of innovation in agribusiness.

The authors adopt a theoretical review in developing the theoretical framework.

The boundedness of economic agents will not simply be complemented by acquiring any missing asset or resource on the market. In a more complex way, complementarity occurs through collaborative relationships, aimed at developing specific solutions, joint development, special orders, interaction with research institutions, among others.

Given the theoretical nature of the study, it requires further development with empirical data that support the propositions made as future studies.

The dynamic chain of innovation framework starts from the very existence of incomplete economic agents. However, the authors sustain that the incompleteness is the result of bounded innovation capabilities in individual agents. Innovation, rather than emerging from simple market relations, ought to happen from relations established among bounded capabilities of incomplete agents along the chain or within the micro-links as a puzzle. The dynamics of innovation is thus based both on the boundedness and the complementarity of firms.