Private innovation ecosystems: an organizational perspective

• Ano de defesa: 2018
• Autor(a) principal: Sartori, Rodrigo Vinícius
• Orientador(a): Cunha, João Carlos da
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Positivo
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração
• Departamento: Pós-Graduação
• País: Brasil
• Palavras-chave em Português: Administration; Technological innovations; Organizational change; Strategic planning
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::ADMINISTRACAO
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.cruzeirodosul.edu.br/handle/123456789/2228

This is an exploratory study of both qualitative and quantitative nature about innovation ecosystems, with the premise that innovation ecosystems are not accidental arrays where companies do not have any influence power; but, on the contrary, the innovation ecosystem configuration seems to be related to individual organizational strategies. The research problem is: how “private” innovation ecosystems are developed? The answer for that starts by assuming the neologism “private innovation ecosystem” to name the phenomenon of traditional companies (private or public ones) trying to play a leading role on the innovation ecosystem. The development level of private innovation ecosystems (the degree of prominence of a given company in an innovation ecosystem) is assumed in 4 levels: 0 - refusing to participate, 1 - simply joining a pre-existent one, 2 - reinventing and/or accelerating one, and 4 - building an own innovation ecosystem. In the qualitative stage, it was performed an interview with the VP of Digital & Strategy of Telefónica Vivo. In the quantitative stage, a survey was performed aimed to the 150 most innovative companies in Brazil (N = 150 and n = 49). Four original hypotheses of this survey were rejected. They are: there is correlation between the development level of private innovation ecosystems and... H1 (...balance level in organizational and technological innovation); H3 (...disruptive innovation level); H4 (...organizational exponential level); and H5 (...the development level of platform strategies). By the other hand, one original hypothesis was retained: H2 (there is correlation between the development level of private innovation ecosystems and corporative ambidexterity level). By achieving the main goal to analyze the development process of private innovation ecosystems, the main finding of this study is that to dominate an innovation ecosystem as the central organization of it is clearly important, though it does not deliver so different outcomes as simply actively participate of an innovation ecosystem, in its diverse ways to do it. Among the list of several suggestions to future research, the first main one is the need to reproduce this study with a wider population and sample, including the possibility of more interviews with other companies in the qualitative stage. The other main suggestion is to deepen studies in the factors that revealed themselves be correlated to the development level of innovation private innovation ecosystems: influence power of other innovation ecosystem’s participants and improvements in the work routine, in the team’s motivation, in the partnership with international tech-allies and in the corporate venture policies.