Four BIs and one STIP were selected for the application of the AMIEM. The choice was made due the importance of these actors in Brazil. It was a nonstatistical sample. Environments with different characteristics were selected (created during the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s; BIs combined or not with a STIP; hosted by a public or private university).
Innovation environments
The Center for Technology Development in Universidade de Brasília (CDT/UnB) was created in 1986. Its mission is to promote and support entrepreneurship and technological development through interaction between UIG and society (
http://www.cdt.unb.br). CDT/UnB’s vision is to become a center to support innovation in technology management, technology transfer, and entrepreneurship. It aims to strengthen the economy and to support society in the region, through job and income creation, while participating in the dissemination and transfer of knowledge produced by the university to industry, both via consultancy and consolidation of ventures. It is responsible also for managing cooperative projects in education and research. It operates with a group of projects, from the multi-business incubator, with technological, social, and supportive incubators, also using art and culture; and with a STIP.
9
As an entity of Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, recognized as the leader in innovation and technology in Latin America, The coordination of graduate programs (COPPE) h andles 16 engineering courses, with a strong linkage with industry. In this context, the technological BI (ICOPPE) started in 1995 located at Cidade Universitária da Ilha do Fundão (
http://www.incubadora.coppe.ufrj.br).
10 It has two buildings that can house up to 30 companies. The 20 resident companies and the 48 graduated ones have revenues of R$222 million in 2014 (±US$110 million). The BI is part of the Technology Park of Rio de Janeiro, a STIP with 350,000 m
2 (Renault
2010).
The BIUFF, in Niterói, Rio de Janeiro state, has existed since 1999. In 2007, it was restructured when the INITIA Laboratory for Innovation and Entrepreneurship was created (Amaral and Silva Filho
2008). In 2010, there was a second restructuring and the INITIALab became a BI of the Instituto Vital Brasil, with a focus on biotechnology, while the technological BI remained at Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF) (
http://www.incubadora.uff.br), with the purpose of establishing a network of R&D and innovation activities. In 2015, it has four operational companies and ten entrepreneurial projects.
11
The Gênesis Institute of Pontíficie Universidade Católica of Rio de Janeiro (IG/PUC-Rio) includes the areas of business creation, entrepreneurial culture, and local development promotion. IG/PUC-Rio operates three incubators: culture, social, and technological (
www.genesis.puc-rio.br). Since its opening in 1997, the incubated and graduated companies have received nearly 50 awards, which makes IG/PUC-Rio probably the most successful BI in the country. In 2002, it started to work in the culture industry, creating the first cultural incubator in Latin America, after identifying demand for entrepreneurial projects in this area. In 2004, it launched the social community incubator, aiming to strengthen communities via entrepreneurial training programs.
12
The São José dos Campos Technology Park (PqTec-SJC) is part of the São Paulo System of Technology Parks, created in 2006 (
http://www.pqtec.org.br/). Its management is under the responsibility of an association that takes care of land and activities. Based on the TH approach, PqTec-SJC has the mission to promote interaction of UIG and promotional entities. It aims to generate technology innovation, by creating new technology-based companies, enhancing industrial competitiveness, revitalizing the regional economy, and creating jobs. Its vision is the convergence of the ideals of people working in government, with focus on notions of collective competitiveness as the target for innovation environments. A long-term vision is established, consisting of three phases: structuring (2–3 years), expansion (5–6 years), and consolidation (12–15 years). Currently, it has five centers for technology development, 25 operating companies, and an incubator called CECOMPI with 25 incubated companies.
Table
3 summarizes the basic information.
Table 3
Basic information on the five BI/STIP cases
Year of creation | 1986 | 1997 | 2006 | 1994 | 1997 |
City | Brasilia-DF | Rio de Janeiro-RJ | São José dos Campos-SP | Rio de Janeiro-RJ | Niterói-RJ |
No. of incubated companies | 23 (1) | 22 (1) | 25 (2) | 20 (1) | 4 |
No. of graduated companies | 18 (1) | 60 (1) | 0 | 48 (1) | 0 |
Incubation period (years) | 2-3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | N/A |
Revenue of companies | N/A | R$853 M/(US$244 M) | N/A | R$222 M/US$110 M | 0 |
Built area (m2) | 500 | 400 | 36,000 | 1900 | 200 |
Qualitative analysis
Regarding the time to reach maturity, the BIs/STIPs had different experiences. It took PqTec-SJC only 2-3 years to collect the initial results while CDT/UnB took 8 years. It took 5-7 years for ICOPPE/UFRJ to reach maturity and 7 years for IG/PUC-Rio. BIUFF had diverse cycles, the current of which (past 4 years) has not led to a higher level of maturity (no companies graduated).
Government support is present in the case of PqTec-SJC and CDT/UnB. The other three examined organizations receive occasional aid. In the case of ICOPPE/UFRJ and IG/PUC-Rio, both are located in the city of Rio de Janeiro and they compete for local government support. Moreover, there is another BI/STIP in the state of Rio de Janeiro, which may explain the inexistence of a more continuous supporting action from the state government. BIUFF was created with funding coming from the Niterói city government, but the support did not continue, partly explaining its cycles and low maturity.
The participation of the local community and networking competencies are limited. In the case of IG/PUC-Rio, associated with a private and religious institution, the incubation is restricted to internal students and researchers. Nevertheless, the BI is well known and networked. The main linkage is with former companies and former students. As an example, some businesspeople organized a group of angel investors called Gavea Angels. In the case of ICOPPE and CDT/UnB, the incubation process is open to any person, regardless of the relationship with the university. Nevertheless, most applications come from students and researchers. They are much more recognized by government and external organizations through media than by internal community. Between 2007 and 2010, BIUFF received external ventures, but this was the subject of criticism from the internal community, due to the lack of physical space. In the current configuration, academic spin-offs from the internal community are the focus, but part of the community does not accept this university rule. In the case of PqTec-SJC, the linkages are stronger with big local companies and state government. Anyone can look to the BI to host a venture. Entities like FIRJAN, SENAI, SEBRAE, and various trade associations are involved, but civil society organizations and media companies, in general, do not take part in the BI/STIP movement.
The development of linkages with university and research institutes is a fact in all cases. However, IG/PUC-Rio is exclusively related to PUC-Rio. In the cases of BIUFF, ICOPPE/UFRJ, and CDT/UnB, they are linked to the host university and with other surrounding institutions (like Vital Brazil in the case of BIUFF). ICOPPE/UFRJ is also related to foreign universities. Only PqTec-SJC has major difficulties, because it is not hosted inside a campus. However, it has been working to rectify this situation by forging ties with universities and research centers, such as state and federal universities in São Paulo (Unesp and UNIFESP).
In terms of the support coming from funding and promotional agencies, IG/PUC-Rio does not have monthly contributors and only counts with the support coming from contributors. Thus, it has to look for projects with SEBRAE and FINEP to financially support itself. PqTec-SJC has support from companies, such as Embraer, besides the traditional research funding actors, like the São Paulo State Research Support Foundation (FAPESP). CDT/UnB counts on support from FINEP, SEBRAE, and the National Bank for Economic and Social Development (BNDES). BIUFF receives support from the university itself and projects with SEBRAE, FINEP and Petrobras. In ICOPPE/UFRJ, there is support via projects funded by FINEP, CNPq, FAPERJ, SEBRAE, and firms like the oil company OGPar, among others. Some BIs, as ICOPPE/UFRJ, receive a monthly contribution, in case a company wants to access the development technologies. In the case of PqTec-SJC, there is a similar contribution through purchasing research and project results.
Leading companies are also present in all of them, except for BIUFF. In ICOPPE/UFRJ, there are anchor companies such as Petrobras, on the campus of UFRJ. PqTec-SJC, IG/PUC-Rio, and CDT/UnB are also supported by companies. IG/PUC-Rio and CDT/UnB are involved with local development, incubating companies that can later act in the region. Since Brasilia is not an industrial city, the organization interacts with a limited number of companies. However, the collaboration with the local government is good and has formed a good network of relationships. Some graduated companies are also leading companies in their sectors, like PipeWay (IG/PUC-Rio), specialized in pipeline inspection and management, and Pam-Membranas (ICOPPE/UFRJ), a maker of filtration membranes. These companies depend on the maintenance of the linkages via projects and installing laboratories, besides coaching. In the case of PqTec-SJC, there is an emphasis on attracting regional companies, like aircraft company Embraer, in order to promote regional development.
All environments are potential users of technologies developed by incubated/graduated companies, besides promoting them. ICOPPE/UFRJ implemented management software created by another incubator. IG/PUC-Rio uses content management and website tools created by graduated companies (Fábrica Digital and Lumis).
Regarding internal variables, such as physical space, amenities, and location, BIUFF and IG/PUC-Rio have limitations and no forecast for expansion. PqTec-SJC has a large expanding structure available, as does ICOPPE/UFRJ, through its STIP. CDT/UnB is also expanding, to enable it to provide space for new ventures.
Regarding governance, operational management, and leadership, most of the organizations count on management teams that are regularly renewed. In the case of PqTec-SJC, there is a 4-year term with one reappointment. ICOPPE/UFRJ has a fixed governance, coming from the university and executives from outside COPPE. PqTec-SJC, CDT/UnB, and IG/PUC-Rio have more horizontal structures, with low hierarchy and some autonomy. An informal environment is established, allowing the staff to contribute ideas and to develop personal projects. Every organization counts on people involved with innovation, idea generation, and entrepreneurial attitudes, despite the low levels of formal training in the area. CDT/UnB, IG/PUC-Rio, and ICOPPE/UFRJ adopt CERNE as a management tool. The self-evaluation puts CDT/UnB at level 4 and the other two at level 1.
In terms of publicity/promotion/advertisement, all of them offer courses, lectures, and workshops for the local community. However, there is little publicity of the activities. ICOPPE/UFRJ is working to change this situation, while IG/PUC-Rio has a unit that handles communication/marketing. Lastly, PqTec-SJC is also taking actions to promote better communication.
Regarding the working environment, all the organizations have creative environments that are open to innovation, with freedom, flexibility, and, simultaneously, pressure and constant challenges. In the case of BIUFF, the university’s red tape slows down the activities, which produces frustration. This has an impact on the quality of life in the workplace. In terms of the physical environment itself, the most pleasant environment is CDT/UnB. However, only PqTec-SJC reported that special attention had been paid to the architectural design of the business park. The environmental sustainability is part of managers’ discourse, but except for waste recycling, no effective actions were found.
Table
4 summarizes the field research information.
Table 4
AMIEM application
Time frame | Created in 1986; 8 years until reaching maturity. | Created in 1997; 7 years to achieve current maturity level. | Created in 2006; 2-3 years to achieve current maturity level | Created in 1995, 5-7 to achieve current maturity | Created in 1999; some cycles |
Governmental support | Yes, local government | Yes, on a project-by-project basis | Yes, from the state and local government | Yes, on a project-by-project basis | No support from local government; only on a project-by-project basis |
Participation of the local community/networking | Yes, different courses and events realized | A relationship with PUC-Rio is necessary to be eligible for incubation | Focus on companies | Researchers/students | Internal conflicts |
Involvement of universities and research centers | Mainly from UnB | Exclusively with PUC-Rio | Yes, such as Unesp, ITA, Unifesp, among others | COPPE/UFRJ and research centers in Brazil and abroad | UFF and Vital Brasil |
Support from funding and promotional agencies | UnB, FINEP, SEBRAE, BNDES | PUC-Rio, FINEP, SEBRAE | FAPESP, Embraer | UFRJ, SEBRAE, FINEP, FAPERJ, CNPq, OGPar, Petrobras. | UFF, FINEP, SEBRAE, Petrobras. |
Presence of leading companies and institutions | No | Graduated companies | Yes, Embraer | Petrobras | No |
Physical space and location | Recent expansion. 500 m2
| Not enough. Area ±300 m2. | Adequate and expanding. | It is being expanded, but not enough. | Not enough. Area ±200 m2
|
Governance and operational management | Some autonomy from UnB. Four key management positions and horizontal structure. | PUC-Rio’s unit with some autonomy. Divided into areas with specialized management team | Management team changes every 4 years. Contracted staff members. | COPPE/UFRJ’s unit, but with a permanent team and some autonomy | Part of the Innovation Agency of UFF, without autonomy |
Leadership | The same group of managers from the beginning | One general director and three managers of key areas | Not identified | One director and managers by area | One director and project leaders |
Publicity/promotion/advertisement | Advertisements in communities surrounding Brasilia; large-scale publicity; various events | There is an area devoted to publicity. Support from PUC-Rio | Both from the park fees and local government’s part and also through events | Fairs, events, student integration programs | Through events and seminars; little known in and outside UFF |
Life quality and work environment | Encouraging, challenging, good quality of life | Excellent. There is freedom, flexibility, little competition, opportunities to share opinions and to develop personal projects | Adequate, encouraging, challenging | It is going through some growth crises | Tiring, given the excessive red tape at UFF |
This analysis shows success in a diversity of experiences, with success being defined as the presence of UIG actors and several mutual links. The general pattern is the greater the number of links, the greater the degree of innovation maturity and success. Success has come only slowly to ICOPPE/UFRJ and CDT/UnB, probably because the innovation framework in Brazil took almost two decades to evolve. PqTec-SJC reached success quickly due to the policy and investment from the São Paulo state government. Only BIUFF has not achieved success.
Quantitative analysis
The quantification of AMIEM should in general present similar results as the qualitative analysis. However, the translation of words into numbers revealed additional opinions/positions. For instance, the quantitative approach identifies more relevant factors that need to be more closely considered to overcome possible barriers. The assessment also depends on other success indicators, such as the number of ventures, the companies’ revenue, the ability to win competitive projects and attract resources, the number of jobs, and companies created.
Table
5 shows how each organization was assessed. There are evident differences in how each of them is perceived, both from the viewpoint of each member and from the organizations themselves. In the case of ICOPPE/UFRJ and IG/PUC-Rio, the questionnaire was answered by the main managers, while in the case of BIUFF, it was answered by the director at the time (2011) and then reviewed by the current director (2013). In the other cases, the questionnaire was answered by the people responsible for each area. There are clearly different perspectives, views, and levels of self-criticism. It might have been better to implement the assessment with several managers from each of the environments. However, this could make the assessment/examination and data treatment more complex (there is no happy medium). Besides that, aspects like the available time to complete the research and the seriousness with which it was conducted should be considered.
Time frame | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
Governmental support | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
Participation of the local community/networking | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
Involvement of universities and research centers | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
Support from financial and promotional agencies | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
Presence of leading companies and institutions | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
Physical space and location | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
Governance and operational management | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
Leadership | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
Publicity/promotion/advertisement | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
Life quality and work environment | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 |
Sum = ∑ (importance x score) | 78 | 76 | 100 | 57 | 40 |
From the self-assessment, it is possible to confirm the high relevance of university involvement to all BIs/STIPs, followed by “Leadership” and “Presence of leading industries and institutions.” The less relevant aspects to BIs/STIPs assessed are “Publicity/promotion/advertisement” and “Time frame.”
For CDT/UnB, the self-assessment was not efficient. The small level of self-criticism avoided any deep analysis. ICOPPE/UFRJ had a conservative assessment and an excessive standard for self-criticism. Due to its companies’ revenue and number of graduated ventures, an external observer could give higher scores. In the case of BIUFF, the organizational and management changes perhaps slowed the evolution of UIG linkages. The current manager of UFF’s Innovation Agency is trying to unlock the BI potential, but this effort is suffering from the low technological culture and low involvement of the faculty (Wegermann
2010; Carvalho
2009).
Confronting two perspectives
In the search for general characteristics and identification/assessment of behavior patterns, the AMIEM made it possible to understand the environments better. For example, ICOPPE/UFRJ has the basic configuration of a technology incubator, as described in the literature, with a sectorial focus, and provides infrastructure and support services. It is a BI coming from a top-level R&D academic institution, with a TH3 configuration with strong UI relationship. BIUFF has tried to follow the same strategy, but has not succeeded, perhaps due to the poor culture of innovation and the low UIG articulation.
Regarding the maturity assessment measures, IG/PUC-Rio and PqTec-SJC have similar performance. PqTec-SJC showed the highest level of UIG linkages: the companies involved behave effectively, and both local and state governments provide assistance and have representation on the board. Therefore, PqTec-SJC could be classified in the configuration as TH3. In the case of PUC-Rio, there is a strong entrepreneurial environment and an effective university-industry linkage that allows the rapid growth of new companies. An example is that of angel investors organized in an association called Gavea Angels.
The results of both analyses indicate that ICOPPE/UFRJ is close to IG/PUC-Rio and perhaps PqTec-SJC is not so developed. PqTec-SJC is a STIP without a university at the time of its creation, but it has evolved given the suitably structured UIG link, “leveraged” by the government. TH3 configuration is a target (it is part of PqTec-SJC’s mission), but the university is not there to lead. This can introduce a new theoretical discussion to the TH idea. IG/PUC-Rio and CDT/UnB stand out as complex environments, with three incubators, each with different performances. They can be categorized with the TH expanded model while each is shaped by a different set of UIG linkages.
In every BIs/STIPs examined, there was a noticeable effort to place them as an entity of consensus within the UIG framework, according to the TH proposed. We identified tripartite/blended councils, collaborative innovation projects, and formal and informal activities to promote integration, among other aspects. However, some drawbacks were also found, like:
1.
Lack of BI/STIP management competencies is a common problem. The analysis identified a lack of experience in dealing with participants’ diversity, in the case of management staff, which causes a lack of measures to keep environment evolution on track. CERNE is an attempt to fill this gap.
2.
Universities need to improve their ability to deal with innovation mechanisms. Innovation activities are different from teaching/research/outreach. This is the reason because organizational and cultural changes to make universities more entrepreneurial are necessary, as argued in the TH approach. The autonomy level of the BIs/STIPs from their institutional host is a key aspect. Comparison between PqTec-SJC and BIUFF reinforces this argument. Technology transfer office seems passive in the management of industrial property rights and assets.
3.
The government’s participation, mainly the local one, needs to be active, for wherever government is not present, maturity levels are low. However, in general, local governments do not have the ability to deal with an innovation environment, because political aspects overlap technical ones. Leadership and networking are essential to overcome this challenge.
4.
The industry needs to get closer. The level of firm R&D&I investment in Brazil is low, and the industrial system works apart from the innovation system (Silva
2011). The Brazilian economy is huge, but centered in big national and foreign companies. The PINTEC
13 evidences (just 1.66 % of GDP in R&D&I effort, 55 % done by the government) reinforce the idea that the innovation system is apart from the production system. As a characteristic of least industrialized countries, the gross of Brazilian companies’ investment in innovation is the acquisition of foreign machinery (MCTI
2013). Entities like ANPOTEC and SEBRAE are crucial to create consensus spaces.