Strategies in Innovation Policies: a comparative study

Estrategias en Políticas de Innovación: un estudio comparativo

  • Elaine da Silva São Paulo State University; State University of Londrina
  • Alina Hassem University of São Paulo
  • Selma Letícia Capinzaiki Ottonicar São Paulo State University
  • Victor Silva Mallavazi São Paulo State University
Keywords: Open Innovation; science, technology and innovation; 2030 Agenda; Sustainable Development Goals; hackathon; bootcamp; crowdfunding

Abstract

Public policies are fundamental to innovation because they establish guidelines to encourage the development of a region and nation. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the differences and similarities between two policies of global development – the Goal 9' of Agenda 2030 and the Brazilian National Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy 2016-2022. We focused on the presence or the absence of incentives for open innovation, especially with the adoption of Hackathon, Bootcamp and Crowdfunding practices. The methodology involved a comparative study between Goal 9' of Agenda 2030 and the Brazilian National Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy 2016-2022. We used the Content Analysis method to evaluate both of those policies based on the Categorical Analysis technique. As a result, we found that both policies encourage open innovation practices, but Hackathon, Bootcamp and Crowdfunding strategies are not explicitly discussed in these policies.

 

Resumen

Las políticas públicas son fundamentales para la innovación porque establecen directrices para fomentar el desarrollo de una región y una nación. El propósito de este artículo es analizar las diferencias y similitudes entre dos políticas de desarrollo global: el Objetivo 9 de la Agenda 2030 y la Estrategia Nacional brasileña de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación 2016-2022. Para ello, nos centramos en la presencia o ausencia de incentivos para la innovación abierta, especialmente aquellos relacionados con la adopción de prácticas de Hackathon, Bootcamp y Crowdfunding. La metodología utilizada incluyó un estudio comparativo entre el Objetivo 9 de la Agenda 2030 y la Estrategia Nacional Brasileña de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación 2016-2022. Para evaluar ambas políticas, se utilizó el método de análisis de contenidos basado en la técnica de análisis categórico. Como resultado, se demostró que ambas políticas fomentan las prácticas de innovación abierta, pero las estrategias de Hackathon, Bootcamp y Crowdfunding no se incorporan explícitamente en estas políticas.

Palabras clave: innovación abierta; ciencia, tecnología e innovación; Agenda 2030; Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible; hackathon; bootcamp; crowdfunding.

 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31637/epsir.20-1.2

Author Biographies

Elaine da Silva, São Paulo State University; State University of Londrina

Post-doctoral Research at the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) in the area of Information Science. PhD in Information Science from São Paulo State University (Unesp) with a Sandwich PhD developed together with the Formación en la Sociedad del Conocimiento PhD Program, from Universidad de Salamanca (USAL) in Spain. Master in Information Science, Specialist in Business Management and Strategic Use of Information Technology. Graduated in Librarianship. Research topics such as: Knowledge Production; Information Management; Knowledge Management; Innovation Generation and Management, Public Innovation Policies and National Innovation Systems. Member of the research group Information, Knowledge and Organizational Intelligence, (Unesp/Marília). Teaching experience in undergraduate, postgraduate, technical and elementary education. Professional experience in library management and information management consulting. Substitute teacher in the Department of Information Science of the Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar) in 2018 and 2019. Currently a collaborating professor at the Department of Information Science of the State University of Londrina.

Alina Hassem, University of São Paulo

Bachelor of Business Administration and Management from  EAESP / FGV, Executive education from University of São Paulo, Master of Science, Technology and Society from Universidade de São Carlos (UFSCAR)  and PhD student in Controllership and Accounting from Universidade de São Paulo (FEA / USP).

Selma Letícia Capinzaiki Ottonicar, São Paulo State University

Ph.D. Candidate at Sao Paulo State University UNESP (Marilia campus) in the Information Science Postgraduate Program (PPGCI). Online Tutor at Brazilian Association of Information Science (ABECIN). She holds a Masters in Information Science from UNESP where she received a CAPES scholarship. She is a member of the Information, Knowledge and Organizational Intelligence research group at UNESP and a member of the IntelliLab research group at Université de Sherbrooke (UdeS), Canada. She is also a member of Information Literacy and Archiving Science at Federal University of Para (UFPA). She holds a Business Management Technologist degree from the Faculty of Technology (FATEC) where she did her scientific initiation. She was an English teaching assistant at FATEC because of her language skills, and she received a Certificate of Excellence for her transcript of records at FATEC. She has received eight awards which allowed her to improve her professional development. She was chosen among the 20 students who had the best grades in Sao Paulo State to study Spanish in Argentina in 2013. This scholarship was provided by the Government of Sao Paulo State and Centro Paula Souza. She received two Canadian scholarships to work as an intern at Université de Sherbrooke (UdeS), The Future Leaders of America Program (ELAP) from the Federal Government of Canada and the Funds de Recherche du Québec - Nature et Technologies (FRQNT) in 2nd place. Furthermore, her proposal was chosen by CAPES student exchange scholarship (Brazil) to collect data in Canada. She has experience with teaching and research, and she is interested in Information Literacy, Competitive Intelligence, Competitive Advantage, Small Businesses, Clusters, Information and Knowledge Management. Her focus is to develop interdisciplinary research between Information Science and Business Management. ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6330-3904 Scopus Author ID: 56500688700 My Research ID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/D-1217-2017 SCOPUS: Scopus Author ID: 56500688700 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/selma-leticia-capinzaiki-ottonicar-84308b107/.

Victor Silva Mallavazi, São Paulo State University

Internationalist graduated at São Paulo State University, Marilia Campus. Worked as a voluntary researcher in Salamanca University (Spain) in the subject of commerce and cooperation between Brazil and Africa. Operates in the private sector as International Trade Analyst.

References

Abreu, V. (2018). O que é Bootcamp? Entenda treinamento e significado do termo. Brasil: Techtudo. Available at: https://www.techtudo.com.br/noticias/2018/10/o-que-e-bootcamp-entenda-treinamento-e-significado-do-termo-esports.ghtml

Adner, R. & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31 (3), 306-333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.821

Altamiro-Santiago, M. & Martinez-Mendonza, A. (2011). El método comparado y el neo-institucionalismo como marco metodológico para la investigación en las Ciencias Sociales. Mundo Siglo XXI, 7(25), 55-63.

Anthony, S. D., Gilbert, C. G. & Johnson, M. W. (2017). Dual Transformation: How to Reposition Today's Business While Creating the Future. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

Bardin, L. (2009). Análise de conteúdo. : Lisboa: Edições 70.

Blondel, J. (1999). Then and now: comparative politics. Political Studies, 47(1), 152-160.

Calvillo Cisneros, J. (2017). La relevancia de la agenda de desarrollo en la negociación del tratado de libre comercio entre Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea. Política y Sociedad, 54(3), 825-845. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5209/POSO.52853

Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Chesbrough, H. (2012). Modelos de negócios abertos: como prosperar no novo cenário da inovação. Porto Alegre: Bookman.

Chesbrough, H. & Schwartz, K. (2007). Innovation business models with co-development partnerships. Research Technology Management, 50(1), 55-59.

Christensen, C. M., Anthony, S. D., Berstell, G. & Nitterhouse, D. (2007). Finding the Right Job For Your Product. MIT Sloan: Management Review, 48(3).

Granstrand, O. & Holgersson, M. (2020). Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation, 90-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2019.102098.

Fernandes, A. S. (2007). Políticas públicas: definição, evolução e o caso brasileiro na política social. Introdução à política brasileira. São Paulo: Paulus.

Freeman, C. & Soete, L. (2008). A economia da inovação industrial. São Paulo: UNICAMP.

Lundvall, B. A. & Borrás, S. (1997). The Globalising Learning Economy: Implications for Innovation Polity. DG XII, Commission of the European Union.

Ministério da Cidadania. (2015). Transformando nosso mundo: a Agenda 2030 para o desenvolvimento sustentável. Brasilia: Governo do Brasil. Available at: www.agenda2030.com.br

Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações e Comunicações. (2017). Estratégia Nacional de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação 2016/2022. Brasília: Governo do Brasil. Available at: http://www.finep.gov.br/images/a-finep/Politica/16_03_2018_Estrategia_Nacional_de_Ciencia_Tecnologia_e_Inovacao_2016_2022.pdf

Mocker, V., Bielli, S. & Haley, C. (2015). Winning Together: A Guide to Successful Corporate-Stratup Collaborations. London: Nesta.

Moore, G. A. (2014). Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling Disruptive Products to Mainstream Customers. New York: Harper Business.

Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71, 75-86.

Mollick, E. (2013). The dynamics of crowdfunding: an exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1).

Organização das Nações Unidas. (2018). Agenda 2030. Objetivos de desenvolvimento sustentável. Brasil: ONU Brasil. Available at: https://nacoesunidas.org/

Organização das Nações Unidas. 2020). Hackathon virtual reúne 82 propostas de transformação social diante da pandemia. Brasil: ONU Brasil. Available at: https://nacoesunidas.org/hackathon-virtual-reune-82-propostas-de-transformacao-social-diante-da-pandemia

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1997). National Innovation Systems. Paris: OECD.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Oslo Manual: guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Paris: OECD.

Öberg, C. & Alexander, A. (2019). The openness of open innovation in ecosystems – Integrating innovation and management literature on knowledge linkages. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 4(4), 211-218.

Radziwon, A. & Bogers, M. (2019). Open innovation in SMEs: Exploring inter-organizational relationships in an ecosystem. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 573-587.

Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup: How Today's Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses. Redfern: Currency Press.

Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas. (2019). Bootcamp - Empreendedorismo em Ação. Available at: https://m.sebrae.com.br/sites/PortalSebrae/ufs/pe/sebraeaz/bootcamp-empreendedorismo-em-acao,85d1e4188bb7d510VgnVCM1000004c00210aRCRD

Silva, E. (2018). O conhecimento científico no contexto de sistemas nacionais de inovação: análise de políticas públicas e indicadores de inovação. Tese (Doutorado) – Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência da Informação, Faculdade de Filosofia e Ciências, Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp), Marília.

United Nations Development Group. (2018). Guia e políticas do UNSDG sobre a Agenda 2030. Available at: https://undg.org/2030-agenda.

Teixeira, T. & Piechota, G. (2019). Unlocking the Customer Value Chain: How Decoupling Drives Consumer Disruption. Redfern: Currency Press.

Xie, X. & Wang, H. (2020). How can open innovation ecosystem modes push product innovation forward? An fsQCA analysis. Journal of Business Research, 108, 29-41.

Published
2020-07-31
How to Cite
Silva, E. da, Hassem, A., Capinzaiki Ottonicar, S. L., & Mallavazi, V. S. (2020). Strategies in Innovation Policies: a comparative study. European Public & Social Innovation Review, 5(1), 10-21. Retrieved from https://pub.sinnergiak.org/esir/article/view/126
Section
Research articles