Culture of organizational learning
and innovation in business incubators: an analysis of the incubators associated
with the Ceará Network of Business Incubators (RIC)

Cultura de aprendizagem
organizacional e inovação em incubadoras de empresas: Uma análise das
incubadoras associadas à Rede de Incubadoras do Ceará (RIC)

Daniel Paiva Mendes

Mestre em Administração. Centro
Universitário Católica de Quixadá (UNICATÓLICA) – Brasil. [email-masked]

Elda Fontinele Tahim

Doutora em Ciências Econômicas.
Universidade Estadual do Ceará (UECE) – Brasil. [email-masked].

ABSTRACT

The
main objective of this study is to analyze the culture of learning and
innovation in the Ceará Network of
Business Incubators (RIC) incubation environment, which can contribute
to foster innovation in business incubators. To achieve this goal, seven
incubators were analyzed, in addition to the network itself. Qualitative
research of a descriptive and exploratory nature performed data collection via
semi-structured interviews with open questions, following a pre-set script.
After that, the interviews were analyzed with content analysis technique and
adaptations for Core Analysis of the Meaning. Regarding results, it was
possible to understand that the service portfolio offered to business incubators
is often through the Ceará Network of Incubators, with resources coming from development
lines, and the support of the incubators to incubated companies is not enough
to satisfy the demands that the incubation environment needs. Five of the
researched incubators are technology-based, and only four of those have
adequate laboratory infrastructure for R&D activities and partnerships with
researchers and stricto sensu
graduate programs, which favor the culture of learning and innovation.
We conclude, then, that the incubation environment does not often present proper
infrastructure for the culture of learning and innovation to happen.

Keywords:
Culture of Learning. Innovation. Network of Incubators. Incubation Environment.

RESUMO

O
objetivo deste trabalho é analisar a cultura do aprendizado e da inovação no
ambiente das incubadoras da Rede de Incubadoras do Ceará (RIC), que podem
contribuir para fomentar a inovação nas empresas incubadas. Buscando alcançar
o objetivo proposto, foram analisadas sete incubadoras associadas à RIC, além
da própria Rede. A pesquisa qualitativa de cunho descritiva e exploratória teve
como instrumento de coleta de dados entrevistas semiestruturadas com perguntas
abertas, por meio de um roteiro preestabelecido, que, posteriormente, foram
analisadas com a técnica de análise de conteúdo e com adaptações para Análise
de Núcleo de Sentidos (ANS). Dos resultados, foi possível perceber que o
portfólio de serviços ofertados às empresas incubadas quase sempre é através da
Rede de Incubadoras do Ceará (RIC), com recursos provenientes de linhas de
fomento, e que o apoio da mantenedora às incubadoras não é suficiente para
atender as demandas que o ambiente de incubação necessita. Das incubadoras
pesquisadas, cinco são de base tecnológica, e destas apenas quatro possuem uma
infraestrutura de laboratórios adequada para as atividades de P&D e
parcerias com pesquisadores e programas de pós-graduação strictu sensu, o que favorece a cultura de
aprendizado e inovação. Conclui-se, então, que nem sempre o ambiente das
incubadoras dispõe de uma infraestrutura adequada para que a cultura do
aprendizado e inovação aconteça.

Palavras-chave: Cultura do
Aprendizado. Inovação. Rede de Incubadoras. Ambiente de Incubação.

Recebido
em 14/07/2020.  Aprovado em 05/10/2020.
Avaliado pelo sistema double blind peer review. Publicado conforme
normas da APA.

http://dx.doi.org/10.22279/navus.2020.v10.p01-15.1352

1 INTRODUCTION

Learning and innovation are closely related processes
and are influenced by many variables, such as culture, organizational climate,
leadership, management practices, information acquisition, systems sharing and
organizational structures (Bates & Khasawneh, 2005). In this perspective,
the innovation process depends on a favorable environment, alongside an
innovation culture, which requires mechanisms of coordination, interaction
(with the market and its actors) and learning, involving exchanges of
information and knowledge and resources for research, among other aspects that
can create opportunities for companies (Verma, Singh & Rao, 2014).

In this sense, the incubation environment is conducive
to learning and innovation because it involves the exchange of knowledge
through the interaction between university companies. Business incubators have
continually grown in terms of quantities and new modes of operation (distance incubation
and even pre-incubators), especially in developing countries, and have
attracted more attention from the academia in recent years, which demonstrates
their relevance to economic and social development. They are seen as
interinstitutional arrangements capable of stimulating and facilitating the
interaction between the productive sector and universities. They are,
therefore, spaces for the dissemination of scientific knowledge generated in
the most diverse areas and of learning, favoring the innovation process in
incubated companies (Fang, Tsai, & Lin, 2010; Bessi, 2012; McAdam &
Marlow, 2007; Anprotec, 2017).

However, when it comes to the topic of organizational
learning and innovation culture, research about the incubation environment is
fragmented and hardly interconnected. Some incubators associate innovation with
diverse themes, such as absorptive capacity (Cassol, Zapalai & Cintra,
2017), the cooperation and interaction between company-university (Iacono &
Nagano, 2014) and organizational culture (Carletti & Ari Zilber, 2016 &
Bessi, 2012). Besides, such studies emphasized more the culture of
inter-organizational learning in the context of incubated enterprises than the
relation between learning and innovation (Fang, Tsai, & Lin, 2010).

Although the incubation environment becomes a space
that can provide key elements for the creation of an organizational culture
focused on innovation, Sakita (2015), Iacono & Nagano (2014, p. 296)
mention that “some roles and assignments of the incubator partially meet the
needs of the incubated companies”.

In order to identify whether, in fact, incubators
contribute to a change in the behavior of their companies regarding the culture
of learning and innovation, we have the following question: How does the
culture of organizational learning and innovation in the context of incubators
from the network of incubators in the State of Ceará work? Thus, the objective
of this work is to analyze the culture of learning and innovation in the
environment of the Ceará Network of Business Incubators - RIC, which can
contribute to foster innovation in incubated companies.

The paper is comprised of five sessions, including
this introduction. A review of the literature, which is divided into three
topics: culture of organizational learning; culture of innovation; and business
incubators as a source of learning and innovation, follows it. Then, we present
the methodological procedures used, the analysis of the results and the
conclusion.

2 CULTURE OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING

The term culture has been widely used in several
situations, with different meanings, in the social sciences. For Freitas (1991,
p. 74), the discussion about organizational culture follows concepts provided
by cultural anthropology, in which there are several theoretical currents that
privilege different aspects of the same phenomenon. For Schein (2010) and
Freitas (1991), organizational culture is seen as a model of the basic
assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered or developed and that
have worked well enough to be considered valid and taught to new members, such
as the correct way of perceiving, thinking and feeling in the learning process
to deal with problems of external adaptation and internal integration.

Regarding organizational learning (OL), this topic has
been researched from different perspectives. Cuffa & Steil (2019, p. 112) reviews
the literature on organizational learning in public organizations and
identifies that most studies describe OL "from the focus on organizational
changes and identify elements that inhibit or facilitate the organizational
learning process".

In the area of ​​business
administration, the concept of organizational learning has spread both in
research and in practice, and branched out to insights from psychology,
sociology, computer science, and economics (Antonello & Godoy, 2010).
Frizzo & Gomes (2017, p. 38) “seek to understand the means by which
organizations learn and how this knowledge is retained, perpetuated and
understood by organizational agents.” Weick & Westley (2004, p. 362) argue
that OL lies in three cultural subsystems; “language, artifacts, and routines
of action.” As the central cultural system of any social organization, language
is vital to learning and organization. For authors, a company must develop a
strong and good learning culture that creates, acquires and transfers
knowledge, as well as modifies people’s behavior and perceptions in order to
reflect on new knowledge.

A learning organization is one that constantly learns
and transforms, for learning is a continuous process, strategically used,
integrated and running parallel to work (Weick & Westley, 2004). This is
because the identification of the learning culture in organizations needs tools
that can diagnose the learning behaviors that are present in them.

Marsick & Watkins (2003) developed, as seen in Table
1, the seven
dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire (DLOQ), which aims to
identify how favorable a culture is for the development of organizational
learning. Leal,
Palácios & Nazareth (2020) use the DLOQ-A instrument, an abbreviated
form, aiming to analyze the organizational learning culture of a higher
education institution.

Dimension

Definition

Create
continuous learning opportunities

“Learning is designed into work so that people
can learn on the job; opportunities are provided for ongoing education and growth”
(Marsick
& Watkins, 2003, p.139).

Promote
inquiry and dialogue

“People gain productive reasoning skills to
express their views and the capacity to listen and inquire into the views of
others; the culture is changed to support questioning, feedback, and
experimentation” (Marsick
& Watkins, 2003, p.139).

Encourage collaboration and team learning

“Work is designed to use groups to access
different modes of thinking; groups are expected to learn together and work
together; collaboration is valued by the culture and rewarded” (Marsick & Watkins, 2003, p.139).

Create systems to capture and share learning

“Both high- and low-technology systems to share
learning are created and integrated with work; access is provided; systems
are maintained” (Marsick
& Watkins, 2003, p.139).

Empower people toward a collective vision

“People are involved in setting, owning, and
implementing a joint vision; responsibility is distributed close to decision
making so that people are motivated to lean toward what they are held
accountable to do” (Marsick
& Watkins, 2003, p.139).

Connect the organization to its environment

“People are helped to see the effect of their
work on the entire enterprise; people scan the environment and use the
information to adjust work practices; the organization is linked to its
communities” (Marsick
& Watkins, 2003, p.139).

Provide strategic leadership for learning

“Leaders model, champion, and support learning;
leadership use learning strategically for business results” (Marsick & Watkins, 2003, p.139).

Table 1. Definitions of Constructs
for the Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire

Source:
Adapted from Carletti & Ari Zilber (2016), Marsick & Watkins (2003)

Jiménez-Jiménez & Sanz-Valle (2011) suggest that
organizational learning favors innovation. In this case, the organization which
hopes to improve business performance through innovation should improve its
organizational learning processes. This conclusion seems to be especially
important for smaller and younger firms operating in turbulent environments.

2.1
Culture of Innovation

The organizational culture that favors the development
of innovation processes is known in the literature as a culture of innovation
(Godoy, 2009). A culture of innovation involves behaviors that value
creativity, risk tolerance, freedom, teamwork, trust, communication, and the
pursuit of values ​​and solutions geared toward quick decision-making
(Dobni, 2008).

Melo,
Santa Rita, Junior, Tonholo & Oliveira Sá (2020) studies the culture of innovation in industries based
on four variables, namely: the planning of change, the encouragement of
self-confidence, the encouragement of new ideas and the taking of risk. The
results show that the studied industries indicate low levels of execution in
the variables of planning change, stimulating self-confidence and stimulating
new ideas. Only the risk taking variable has an intermediate level.

A culture of innovation facilitates the development of
an innovation process when shared values, beliefs, and assumptions by its
members occur (Sanches, 2015). For Machado, Gomes, Trentin & Silva (2013),
values, beliefs, and assumptions are predictors of a culture focused on
innovation, which forms and solidifies the organization’s culture and manifests
itself in the context of innovation. Still, according to the authors, these
predictive elements have correlations with other predicted elements of culture,
such as rites, rituals and ceremonies, artifacts and symbols, stories and
myths, and communication.

Machado, Carvalho & Heinzmann (2012) investigated
the favorable environment for the development of an innovation and
organizational culture in the textile industries of Blumenau and its
surrounding region and concluded that they should withdraw the focus of
innovation as a process and the emphasis on the innovation environment. In this
perspective, the analysis of the innovation environment should not only focus
on the process but also go beyond, evaluating the stages before and after the
generation of ideas, the “relations between the individuals involved in
innovation, and an environment conducive to it” (Machado, Carvalho &
Heinzmann, 2012, p.716).

Bruno-Faria & Fonseca (2015, p. 59-60), based on a
review of the literature on organizational culture constructs and culture of
innovation, propose a theoretical model identified as Evaluation of the Culture
of Innovation, comprised of five dimensions, namely: “(i) the innovation
strategy; (ii) the content of the culture; (iii) the conditions of the internal
context of the organization; (iv) the relationship with the external context of
the organization and results; and (v) the perception of the effectiveness of
innovations.” This model was conceived from basic assumptions holding that, to
create and maintain an innovative culture, organizations need to define “which
beliefs and values they want people to share in that work context,” since “the
content of culture is part of the innovation strategy” (Bruno-Faria &
Fonseca, 2015, p.59).

Bruno-Faria & Fonseca (2014, p.14a) affirm that
evaluating the culture of innovation in organizations constitutes a high and
relevant demand due to a current environment of great changes in technology,
business and values, in addition to the permanent need of people to define new
ways of analyzing their work environment, in light of a new perspective to manage
great tensions between their "capacity for innovation and the increasing
demands" they present.

Given this scenario, business incubators appear as
innovation promoters in small and medium-sized enterprises, with the capacity
to develop better technologies, knowledge, capital, talent and competitive
differentials (Beuren & Raupp, 2010).

2.2 Incubators of Companies as a Space for Learning
and Innovation

In the last decades, the organizational model of
business incubators has been expanding rapidly, especially in Brazil. These
structures have emerge in universities that seek an interaction with the
productive sector and are also spaces for the dissemination of scientific
knowledge generated in universities by researchers of the most different areas
(Bessi, 2012). Pedrinho, Carvalho, Teixeira & Lezana (2020, p. 19) highlights
the "commercialization of scientific knowledge beyond the limits of the
university", such as the role of the entrepreneurial university, "in
the creation of spin offs, startups, incubators and accelerators (...)",
aiming at an adequate atmosphere so that the “University community can explore,
evaluate and enhance knowledge”. They are considered by several scholars as
support mechanisms for entrepreneurship and innovation (Beuren & Raupp,
2010, McAdam & Marlow, 2007, Vedovello & Figueiredo, 2005).

Beuren & Raupp (2010, p. 206) hold that incubators
“provide knowledge sharing” and management practices aimed at learning with the
environment and the network of alliances in which they are inserted, becoming a
propitious environment for the flow of pro-innovation information. The studies
by Welchen, Mukendi, & Larentis (2020, p. 9) with companies graduated in a
technological incubator reveal that partnerships with entities such as SENAI
and SEBRAE, related to the sharing of knowledge are facilitated “when the work
integrates teams, including when manage to aggregate knowledge with other
external agents such as the incubator ”.

Similarly, Fang, Tsai and Lin (2010), Allahar &
Brathwaite (2016) and Caiazza (2014) emphasize that incubation programs can be
seen as learning networks for incubators and incubated companies, so that this
relationship favors inter-organizational learning and the dissemination of
innovation, since, in the vast majority of cases, companies are incubated when
they set up in the incubator for a certain period, receive basic
infrastructure, administrative and managerial support, consultants specialized
in marketing plans, lectures, among other types of support.

Business incubators are important agents in the
diffusion of innovation while providing to incubated companies the necessary
support for the development of their business, both in terms of structure and
management. This would be facilitated by the exchange of knowledge and
interaction between incubators and the educational institutions that maintain
them and between the companies themselves, in the spaces of common use
(Azevedo, Gaspar & Teixeira, 2016; Tumelero, Santos & Kuniyoshi, 2016;
Tondolo, Borges, Pereira & Silva, 2016, Rauen, 2016, Storopoli, Binder
& Maccari, 2013, Fiates, Martins, Fiates, Martignago & Santos, 2013 and
Bessi, 2012).

Sá & Lee (2012) and Engelman & Fracasso
(2013) understand that incubator managers can encourage the creation of
cooperative networks that offer incubated companies interactive activities such
as workshops, training, conferences, marketing and events to promote networking
between incubated enterprises, favoring learning, transfer of knowledge and
experiences. The authors believe that both internal and external networks help
incubated companies to have important access to information exchange and gain
know-how, which directly or indirectly helps them in the development of
technologies, as well as in reducing the time and costs involved in market
access. For Bergek & Norrman (2008), incubators can also provide their
companies with synergies created through strategic support of technological and
commercial partnerships between incubated enterprises and partner networks.

In Ceará, as in other Brazilian states, incubators are
assembled in a non-profit private legal entity associated with administrative
and financial autonomy, called the Ceará Network of Business Incubators - RIC.
RIC aims to promote an integrated development between companies with innovative
potential, through incubation programs and technological parks that work for
the social and economic development of the State of Ceará (RIC, 2016).

3
METHODS

The present study, of a descriptive and exploratory
nature and with a qualitative approach (Flick, 2004; Motta-Roth, 2003), had as
a locus the Ceará Network of Business Incubators - RIC, which currently
congregates 08 (eight) incubators of technology-based and mixed companies.
Qualitative research performed data collection via semi-structured interviews
with open questions, following a pre-set script, adapted from Marsick &
Watkins (2003), Bruno-Faria & Fonseca (2015).

Regarding the
means of investigation, the field work was carried out with the president of
RIC, six coordinators (a) of the incubators of associates and a financial
superintendent of the incubator designated by the coordination. The interviews
were carried out at the headquarters of the incubators from November 2017 to
January 2018. Only one incubator belonging to the network was not researched by
the incubator at the beginning of the field incubation and saturation program.
Field saturation was identified as similar cases of learning culture and
innovation culture were experienced in incubation environments, whose authors
were identified in the theoretical framework (Pires, 2008; Godoi & Mattos,
2006).

For methodological reasons, the interviewees’ names
were omitted and identified by letters and numbers; EA1, EA2, EA3, EA4, EA5,
EA6, EA7, and EA8. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and later
categorized, using Bardin’s (1977) categorical technique of content analysis
and with adaptations of the original technique for the analysis of nuclei of
meaning, which “consist of discovering the nuclei of meaning that make up a
communication whose presence or frequency means something to the analytical
objective” (Minayo, 2004, p.209). For Mendes (2007, p.72), the analysis of
nuclei of meaning is the “unfolding of the text in units, in cores of meanings
formed from investigations of the preponderant themes in the discourse”.

For this process of categorization, the steps proposed
by Bardin (1977), Minayo (2013) & Mendes (2007) were followed, and the
procedures suggested by Gomes (2013) & Mendes (2007) were adopted: (i)
comprehensive reading of the material collected (interviews); (ii) exploration
of the material (search for nuclei of meaning) in the categorization table; and
(iii) interpretation of the nuclei of meaning in three stages. In the first
stage, we performed a comprehensive reading of the excerpts selected from the interviews,
with the objective of apprehending the particularities of these verbalizations.
In the second stage, we set up, using Excel®, a structure for organizing the
interview excerpts by themes and dimensions/categories a priori from Marsick & Watkins (2003), Bruno-Faria &
Fonseca (2015) and emerging. The third step was comprised of articulations
between the objective of the work with the theoretical basis and the empirical
data of the research.

4
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

In this section, the results obtained in the fieldwork
are analyzed and discussed based on the literature. Initially, we analyzed the
portfolio and characteristics of RIC’s incubation system; then, the constructs
of the learning culture proposed by Marsick & Watkins (2003) and Carletti & Ari Zilber (2016); finally, the
dimensions of the innovation culture of Bruno-Faria & Fonseca (2015).

4.1
The Portfolio of Services and Characteristics of the
Incubation System

This section analyzes the emerging categories related
to the portfolio and characteristics of RIC’s incubation system, namely: the
types of incubators, the period of incubation, the incubated and graduated
projects and companies, the infrastructure of the incubators, the portfolio of
services offered by the incubators, the funding of incubation programs and the
role of the incubator network.

We identified that, out of the seven incubators
researched, five are technology-based and two are mixed. Two technology-based
incubators are linked to universities and both have partnerships with their
maintainer’s stricto sensu graduate
programs and access to their research laboratories and, consequently, to the
knowledge generated in the universities. Another sector-based technology
incubator is maintained by the Institute of Information and Communication
Technology (ITIC). There is also an incubator belonging to the Nucleus of
Industrial Technology Foundation of Ceará, NUTEC, which has been active in
research and technological development in the areas of food, automation and
robotics, renewable energy, biofuels, among others. And lastly, PADETEC, a
technology-based incubator, is the only one among the incubators surveyed that
has its own legal entity, acting mainly in the areas of chemistry,
pharmaceuticals, physiotherapies, and food.

All incubators share the knowledge generated in this
environment with incubated companies. Even the incubator that has its own legal
entity maintains a close relationship with the universities and researchers as
a way to enable its research activities, since it does not have a team of
researchers working on the basis of an employment bond. For Azevedo, Gaspar and
Teixeira (2016, p.79), the research process is very present in the incubation
environment, from the “contribution between university and company it is possible
to achieve development with greater efficiency and excellence”; so that R&D
is mainly developed in universities (or other research institutions), where
incubators usually have headquarters.

The incubators associated to RIC comprise a number of
39 incubated enterprises today, and the period of incubation their programs
varies from two to five years, depending on the type of product. The incubators
congregate from three to six companies in their incubation programs, which is a
small number. Only one incubator has a larger number of incubations, a total of
thirteen companies. Over the years, more than 170 companies graduated from RIC
incubators. The incubator with the largest number of incubated projects has
been in the market for almost 28 years. Such incubators host enterprises which
can be pre-incubated, incubated residents and non-residents, associates and
associate graduates. The most common form of entry into incubation programs
linked to the Network is by means of a continuous flow notice.

For interviewee EA6, the associate graduate company is
needed in order for research to continue, since the incubation contract of five
years is in its final phase and the incubated company still depends on ANVISA’s
license for the manufacture and commercialization of patented products.
Interviewee EA6 also said that the incubator maintains partnerships with the
graduate companies, especially when it needs a service or technology on which
the graduate has expertise. Interviewee AE4 understands that “[...] non-residents
[...]” see in the incubator an opportunity for “[...] access to funding...”.
This opportunity to access public bidding processes, with the help of the
incubator, especially in the elaboration of the project, is also the object of
the incubated resident, associated and pre-incubated companies. Tumelero,
Santos & Kuniyoshi (2016) argued that post-incubated technology-based
companies need to continuously create and develop products and services through
R&D investments to offer them to customers.

In relation to support from the network incubator
maintainer, it is almost always not enough. Of the seven incubators surveyed,
only one has its own legal entity and does not depend directly on a maintainer
for its funding, despite using university space. The interviewee EA2 uses a
metaphor to describe the support of the maintainer: “... keepers do not treat
incubators as a child, but as a stepchild...”, so they do not give many
conditions for incubators to grow. We note that the support of the maintainer
is restricted to basic infrastructure, employees and some services, such as
legal advice and training. The working staff that is dedicated to the incubator
is insufficient to meet the demands: “[...] we are undergoing restructuring, at
the moment I am alone”, said interviewee EA8. “[...] There will be a need to
increase the team, we now have only three members", said EA7. "[...]
Here we have a reduced number of employees, I am often the coordinator and
director”, EA4 stated. Incubators, because they have insufficient staff, hire
scholarship holders to work on certain projects.

When the project is finished and the scholarships are
over, these qualified staff leaves and the incubator is left without the
expertise of these collaborators. This process of discontinuity in the
incubation environment impairs the learning process, the transfer of technology
and, consequently, the consolidation of the culture of innovation. The results
of this research resembles what Tondolo et
al. (2016: 312) mean when they emphasize that universities are often not
providing an adequate structure for the operation of incubators, showing that
financial resources, physical space, and human resources are generally lacking.

Business incubators offer a portfolio of services to
incubated companies, such as consulting, courses, lectures, training, marketing
advice, among others. Welchen,
Mukendi, & Larentis (2020, p. 13) point out that “companies that
participate in an incubation process can enjoy the entire structure of the
incubator, including the partnerships and relationships that it enjoys even
after graduation”. Therefore, in
the incubators associated with the Network, a good part of these services are
offered by RIC itself, financed with funding from the Cearense Foundation for
Scientific and Technological Development Support, Brazilian Service of Support
to Micro and Small Enterprises, and the Funding Authority for Studies and
Projects - Finep, for example. Only one out of the seven incubators surveyed
has another source of funding systematized in the provision of consulting
services. It is clear, therefore, that the services offered by the incubators
are not systematic and continuous. In part, the results resemble the research
by Tondolo et al. (2016), that
incubators survive, in most cases, only the resources they collect from
development agencies.

One of the important services offered by the
incubators associated to RIC is the confirmation of projects for the companies
to seek resources via open calls for research, as we identified in the interviewees'
statements; “we do the projects for incubated and associated companies, which
is what makes our public very loyal”, said EA4. The “incubator assists in the
confirmation of the grant project”, said EA5. According to EA5, the “incubator
does not have a portfolio of services” for incubated companies, rather “some
training services are offered, such as consultancies and training, but they
depend on the financing of the development projects”.

For interviewee EA3, “the incubated companies have
access to training, courses, and consultancies”, and EA6 stated that “we bring
professionals from abroad to give lectures and training”. On the other hand,
even if the services are offered, it is observed that some incubated companies
do not show interest in participating according to EA3 “the great difficulty is
the attendance/participation of incubated companies”, they “are more interested
in consulting than even training,” said EA8. Entrepreneurs’ reluctance to
participate in trainings calls for the coordinators of the incubators and the
president of RIC to reflect on the current management model.

Some coordinators have already questioned this model,
“today there is the idea of changing the consulting model, because of a cost
issue”, to fit the needs of the entrepreneur, said EA7. “There are paid
trainings [...], but the incubated ones want to participate because they see it
as an important requirement for the market”, said EA4. It is worth noting that
the incubation contract implies an obligation to participate in the courses and
trainings offered by the incubators, with clauses that state the
discontinuation of the program if the company fails to do so. For Storopoli,
Binder & Maccari (2013, p. 49), the role of incubators can be improved, and
their impact “increased through more effective management of the services
offered.”

For the president of RIC, the Network's primary role
is to support associated incubators, to make them more competitive and to
insert them in the market, and to foster the creation and affiliation of new
incubators for regional development. For the coordinators interviewed, RIC
plays an important role, but also needs to develop new strategies. The
interviewee EA2 understands that “...RIC is doing what it can... we should have
more (associated) incubators ...we stop at a certain level...”. According to
him, the number of associated incubators is around eight or nine, without
effective growth in the number of affiliates and projects served.

Despite some limitations, the Network plays a
prominent role among its members: “... RIC is an interesting place to exchange
experiences among managers and provoke a certain synergy ...”, claimed EA5;
“... RIC is essential for the development of projects...”, said EA7; "…we
had a very large gain with RIC in supporting incubators...” said EA8. These
results confirm the findings of Sá & Lee (2012) and Bergek & Norrman
(2008) on the importance of an incubator network for the relationship between
incubators and the sharing of resources and information among them. The studies by Welchen, Mukendi, & Larentis (2020, p. 8) with
companies graduated in a technological incubator reveal that “cooperation
between various agents in their environment, such as internally employees,
externally customers, suppliers, institutions such as the incubator and
entities such as SENAI and SEBRAE ”, contribute to product development and to
the graduate's results.

4.2
Learning Culture

This section analyzes the
results of the interviews from seven a
priori dimensions of the learning culture proposed by Marsick & Watkins
(2003), Carletti & Ari Zilber (2016), namely: (i) opportunity for
continuous learning; (ii) questioning and dialogue; (iii) collaboration and
team learning; (iv) systems for capturing and sharing learning; (v) delegation
of power and responsibility; (vi) development of the systemic vision of the
organization; (vii) stimulating strategic leadership for learning.

The nuclei of meaning of the respondents’ speeches
point to several situations in which there are opportunities for continuous
learning. Four RIC incubators are directly linked to stricto sensu graduate programs and university laboratories.
Interviewee EA6 said that it is in the “incubator regiment itself that any
incubated company is attached to some research laboratory for graduate
programs”. He needs the entrepreneur to have a vision of continuous learning,
because the changes are very constant, especially for those who do research. A
common situation in another incubator, “... the projects are linked to the
graduate programs”, claimed EA5. The very formation of the incubator network
that fosters the sharing of resources and services, such as consultancy,
training, and courses, usual activities in the programs, are good opportunities
for continuous learning, as well as the incubation environment by which
companies see an opportunity of coexistence and exchange of experiences between
them. The results of this first dimension of the learning culture resembled the
results of studies by Carletti & Ari Zilber (2016), mainly regarding the
consultancies and capacities in the management areas.

In the “questioning and
dialogue” dimension, people develop productive reasoning skills to express
their opinions and ability to listen and express their points of view and of
others. It was identified in the interviewees’ statements that not all the
incubators surveyed maintain a frequent dialogue with the incubators. A
specific incubator does not maintain a systematized channel of evaluation with
incubated companies to receive suggestions for improvements. For the
interviewee EA5, “[...] we do not have a frequent evaluation channel”. In other
cases, the dialogue was mainly used as a channel for suggestions and evaluation
of the incubator. As reinforced by two of the interviewees, "businessmen
are encouraged to give suggestions, we have regular meetings and in these
meetings they participate" (AI1); “The ideal is that the incubated companies
participate, give suggestions. This question of dialogue here is very open
[...] it is our biggest customer (incubated companies), we have to listen to
their demands and difficulties” (EA8). This environment, permeated by and open
to dialogue, resembles the findings of Carletti & Ari Zilber (2016).

Collaboration and team learning are commonplace in the
incubation environment, even though this collaboration often needs to be
triggered. In some cases, the incubator organizes events and involves different
companies in the same project, so that they share complementary skills and
abilities. The incubator network plays a decisive role in the interaction and
synergy between incubated companies. Often, a company has mastered a technology
that can be the solution of another company belonging to the Network; then it
is up to the management of the incubator to foster this interaction. Regardless
of the fact that many companies share the incubator’s facilities, “... everyone
is focused on their business ...”, said EA5. One of the fears among incubators,
especially in the area of ​​technology, is a possible appropriation of business
ideas. The results show that collaboration and learning are present in the
incubation environment, both in relation to incubation and incubator/incubated,
which is similar to results in Carletti & Ari Zilber (2016).

The core meaning of respondents’ speeches show that
there is no uniform system for capturing and sharing learning. Some
interviewees said that they have adopted or tried to adopt, without much
success, the Reference Center for Support to New Enterprises - CERNE, a
methodology from ANPROTEC (the Brazilian Association of Science Parks and
Business Incubators). Its effectiveness was questioned by interviewees, highlighting
a lack of resources and even the model’s sustainability “between what it
requires and what it delivers” (EA5). Only one of the seven incubators surveyed
adopted the CERNE model as suggested by ANPROTEC, but the effectiveness of this
methodology in capturing and sharing learning in the incubated companies’
perception was not analyzed. These results resemble, in parts, the studies of
Carletti & Ari Zilber (2016).

The dimension of delegation of power and
responsibility does not seem to be ideal to evaluate the incubator
relationship. According to excerpts of the interview with EA4, “there is no
hierarchy between incubator and incubated”, what exists is a leadership action
of the incubator managers that guide the entrepreneurs who maintain a bond with
the incubator to participate in trainings and qualifying courses, with the
purpose of fostering the development of new skills and abilities for these
individuals. The incubator “has no management”, said EA5 about the activities
of incubated companies. In some cases, there is a delegation of responsibility,
but it is not uniform among the incubators, as is the case of the incubator
that requires that the business plan is carried out by the entrepreneur, under
the guidance of the consultants who provide services to the incubated. In
parts, these results are similar to those of Carletti & Ari Zilber (2016),
where this dimension was not evidenced in the incubators researched by the
authors, nor in the incubator/incubated relationship.

The dimension of “development of a systemic view” is
encouraged in the incubation environment, mainly because the success of the
incubated companies reflects positively in the incubators. According to the
interviewees’ speech, “we all want the company to be successful, ...when the entrepreneur
keeps us informed, ... look, I am on the television, I am an entrepreneurial
success”, is a reason for recognition for the incubator. Consulting and
mentoring are also considered important for entrepreneurs to develop a systemic
view of their business, even if they are part of a process to be improved.

For the interviewee EA5, with the creation of the
technology park, incubated companies were offered “rounds of mutual
introductions” among them, in order to develop and improve synergy and systemic
vision. The same is true of other incubators, whether it is the promotion of
“coffee with business” or even the support of specialized consultants.
According to Carletti & Ari Zilber (2016), the development of a systemic
vision of the organization is perceived in several aspects, such as cooperation
and interaction among entrepreneurs, with entities and research institutions.
The incubator network itself favors the development of a systemic vision in
this incubation environment since the sharing of resources and competencies
enables individuals to acquire new skills to operate in an increasingly
competitive market.

Stimulating leadership is something that must be
shared in the incubation environment. The leadership actions of the incubator
coordinators can be identified in the meaning nuclei of the interviewees: “we
identified the weaknesses and strengths of the project and we propose
improvements” (EA5); “... the incubator organizes a coffee shop with businesses
(with the companies incubated) every three months, we spend the whole morning
together, and we bring a speaker to the event”, (EA6). Leadership is observed
in the promotion of the proximity between incubated companies, such as “coffee
with business”, which aims to promote networking among them. Results similar to
those of Carletti & Ari Zilber (2016), where the stimulus to leadership was
observed not only in the relation between incubators and incubated companies
but also in the internal relations of the incubator. As for the relationship
with RIC, we perceive an act of leadership that agglutinates the then
president, when he says that “[...] the great role (of RIC) is to support the
incubated ... to make them more competitive and insert them on the market”
(EA1).

4.3
Culture of Innovation

For the innovation culture construct in the incubation
environment, we use the Innovation Culture Assessment model proposed by
Bruno-Faria & Fonseca (2015), with adaptations. This model is divided into
four main dimensions: (i) the innovation strategy; (ii) conditions of the
internal context for innovation; (iii) relations with the context external to
innovation; and (iv) the results and perceptions of the effectiveness of
innovations.

The "innovation strategy" dimension includes
two important categories, culture content and internal, interpersonal and
institutional communication systems. Analyzing the meaning nuclei of the
interviewees’ speeches, we noticed that business incubators have a very open
communication channel with companies; mainly in the dissemination of the
acceleration programs and public bids, which are sources of funding for
innovation in Brazil. As far as culture content is concerned, learning and
attempts to generate innovation are highly valued. Culture content represents
the values and beliefs associated with innovation that must be shared
(Bruno-Faria & Fonseca, 2015, p. 67) In this sense, incubators appear to
play a minor role. For three interviewees, the role of the incubator is to
assist in the management of incubated companies, not in the generation of the
innovation itself.

The attempt to generate innovation is more conditioned
to the activities of the entrepreneurs themselves. This is clear in the nuclei
of meaning of the interviewees’ statements: “... we do not have a clear
innovation policy” (EA8); “... it is not really the role of the incubator to
encourage companies in attempts to generate innovation, ...innovation is
already part of them” (EA3). It can be seen in these statements that, some
incubators from RIC are against what the authors say Allahar & Brathwaite
(2016), Caiazza (2014), Fang, Tsai & Lin (2010), incubators play a decisive
role in encouraging and developing new technologies, as the incubators’
performance helps to reduce uncertainties in the development of a non-trivial
technology, increasing the chances of a spin-off company surviving in a
competitive market (Caiazza, 2014). Therefore, it is perceived that the
managers of the incubators do not have a clear vision of the real role of the
incubator in the development of innovation. It is not enough for the incubator
to select projects with innovative potential, it needs to subsidize the
necessary conditions for innovation to happen. However, for such, it is
necessary that before and after the generation of the idea there is the
involvement of the individuals with the actions of innovation, creating an
environment conducive to it (Machado, Carvalho & Heinzmann, 2012).

The conditions of the internal context for generating
innovation involve the characteristics and actions of leadership, the
involvement of individuals with the activity of innovation, the infrastructure
for innovation and the regulations and flexible rules. These leadership actions
of the incubator coordinators are identified in the promotion and incentive in
the participation of events, workshops, and business presentation rounds, whose
purpose is to promote networking among the companies that coexist in the
incubation environment. For Bruno-Faria & Fonseca (2014b), the role of
leaders exerts a great influence in the selection and implementation of new
ideas, in setting challenging goals that favor creativity and innovation among
those involved.

Regarding the involvement of individuals with
innovation activities, we noticed that in at least four technology-based incubators
there is a synergy between researchers, incubator coordinators, and
entrepreneurs. According to Bessi (2012), the interaction between individuals
(entrepreneurs and collaborators) allows the practices of cooperation and
knowledge sharing to be established and to enable innovation to be consolidated
as a routine. In a specific incubator, all entrepreneurs who have incubated
businesses are university researchers, although in some cases they have already
obtained outside investors. This situation is very similar in another
incubator, about which EA5 said that “it is often the researcher or group of
researchers that has the initiative to undertake and incubate”. Other
incubators, two of the mixed type and one technology-based, appear to play a
more discreet role in encouraging research and development - technological
R&D. This may be explained by the low number of researchers directly linked
to incubation programs, or even by the incubator’s own culture of supporting
projects that do not have this R&D propensity. According to the Oslo
Manual, cooperation between companies, universities and research institutions
is important for the development of technological innovation (OCDE, 2005).

Infrastructure for incubator innovation is offered by
the incubator or partner institutions of the incubation program. Two incubators
of the mixed type do not have adequate infrastructure for innovation to happen.
In these two incubators, we did not observe a greater intensity in the
involvement of personnel with R&D activity, nor with innovation itself.
Regarding personnel dedicated to innovation activities, the other incubators
were also not satisfactory. Typically, researchers linked to incubators are
fellows, with the exception of incubators that have partnerships with stricto sensu graduate programs.
Bruno-Faria & Fonseca (2015, 2014a) and Dobni (2008) had already pointed
out that infrastructure for innovation involves the use of material and
financial resources, time, information and people needed to implement and
support innovation activities. In at least four out of the seven incubators
surveyed, the incubated companies have access to the laboratories of the stricto sensu graduate programs and
university researchers. According to interviewee EA5, “graduate programs are of
great importance in supporting incubators, especially when companies need to
develop a product or services associated with non-trivial technology.

In turn, flexibility of rules and regulations is
common in the incubation environment. For the interviewee EA6, they do not
“flexibilize what the law does not allow”, only. Likewise, interviewee EA4
states that: “we are flexible, we have a formal contract with companies that
there are some pre-established rules, but nothing that prevents the incubator
from having a conversation to make it more flexible. However, this
flexibilization does not seem to be specifically directed towards a culture of
innovation. Machado, Lehmann & Araújo (2008) understand that, in a culture
of innovation, written rules are intended to direct people’s behavior towards
innovation. In this sense, no written rules have been identified in the
incubation environment that direct the behavior of those involved
(coordinators, entrepreneurs and collaborators) to innovation itself.

The relationship with the external context of
innovation involves the relationship with customers, suppliers, and other
organizations, with the competitive market, legal incentives, technology and
the demographic environment. The relationship between clients and partner organizations
seems to be a common practice in the incubation environment. In the nuclei of
meaning of the interviewees’ statements, the importance of fostering this
relationship between incubated companies is almost unanimous. For incubator
coordinators, this relationship with the external environment fosters a culture
of learning and innovation among the incubated companies, as they interact with
each other and with the consumer market. An experimental project spawned out of
the incubation environment, in the area of renewable energies, as a result of a
partnership between an incubator, an associated company and the postgraduate
program in applied physical sciences.

Some services offered by incubators, such as lectures,
consultancy, workshops, and networking, enhance market knowledge and favor
incubated companies in a competitive market. Engelman & Fracasso
(2013) emphasize that the courses, training, and consultancy offered by
incubators influence the internationalization of companies, as well as the
relationship networks of the incubators themselves. This relationship with the
market is something valued among incubators. Some incubated enterprises are
already gaining international market, which is an important indicator of
competitiveness. For Fiates et al.
(2013), the incubator environment favors the formation of relationship networks
that stimulate innovation and interaction with other authors that can foster
the internationalization process. Regarding this demographic environment, a
direct influence on the incubator environment was not perceived.

The laws of incentives to innovation in our country
affect business incubators in different ways. The incubators linked to the
State University and the Federal Institute of Education see the new legal
framework of innovation (Law nº 13.243/2016) with more optimism regarding the
benefits they can bring to the incubators. But for the respondent EA4, “laws to
encourage innovation need to have more impact,” they are still shy about the
complexity of generating innovation in that country. Rauen (2016) understands
that even with advances in reducing legal uncertainty, science and technology
institutions still face constant questions, such as researchers’ dedication to
innovative activities and the way they receive counterparts.

Regarding the perception of innovation results in the
incubation environment, predicted by Bruno-Faria & Fonseca (2015), we
identify intellectual property (software, trademark and patent registration) as
an important indicator. In some incubators, intellectual property registration
practices are more common. Other incubators, which have characteristics of the
mixed or sectoral type, in the area of ​​information
and communication technology, records occur, but less frequently. According to
the Oslo Manual, statistics on the registration of intellectual property, more
specifically patent registration, are increasingly used as innovation measures
from research activities, which may reflect on the technological dynamism of
organizations (OCDE, 2005). The intellectual property registries are carried
out in the partner of the incubators associated to RIC with the Network of
Technological Innovation Centers of Ceará - REDENIT. This partnership is
responsible for the registration of patents developed in the incubators
researched.

5
CONCLUSION

In the seven incubators surveyed, and in the Network itself,
it was observed that the portfolio of services offered by the incubators
associated with RIC is very similar, and they are offered and financed by RIC
with funding. The study indicates that the sponsoring institutions do not
invest enough resources to maintain the activities of the incubators and do not
provide sufficient staff to support them; also, the team is largely made up of
fellows/trainees, which hampers the learning process and technology transfer.
With regard to the learning culture in the incubation environment, five out of
the seven dimensions proposed by Marsick & Watkins (2003) are present in
the incubators. With the exception of the “system to capture and share
learning” dimension, no uniform methodology for this purpose has been identified,
as well as in the “delegation of power and responsibility”, which does not
appear to be adequate to evaluate the incubator/incubated by the very
characteristic of interdependence between the parties.

For the dimensions “opportunity for continuous learning”
and “collaboration and team learning”, the incubation environment was favorable
for both, mainly because of the synergy that the environment provides for
incubated companies in the exchange of experiences and networking, as well as
the opportunity to be linked to researchers and stricto sensu graduate programs. The dimension of “questioning and
dialogue” in the incubation environment is common. In general, incubators have
very open communication with incubated companies, which favors the exchange of
experiences and suggestions for improvements, even if, in some cases, the need
for such a suggestion is recognized and cannot be met. For the dimension
“developing a systemic view of the organization” is also something valued in
incubators. Incubators promote skills, events and networking opportunities that
encourage entrepreneurs to develop a more holistic view of their business.
Incubator managers play the role of “stimulating strategic leadership for
learning,” as they demonstrate some leadership traits in fostering multiple
collaborative events among incubated companies.

For the culture of innovation proposed by Bruno-Faria
& Fonseca (2015), the incubation environment meets, in part, the proposed
dimensions. The “innovation strategy” dimension is partially met in the study.
Some incubators, even those labeled as technology-based, do not have a clear
innovation policy. The role of the incubator seems secondary in the development
of innovation itself. The focus of the incubators associated with the Network
is more in support of the management of the incubated enterprises. This
position on the part of some incubator managers contradicts the literature
since incubators play a decisive role in stimulating and developing new
technologies and help reduce uncertainties in the development of non-trivial
technology.

For the “internal context conditions for innovation”
dimension, the actions of the leadership of incubator managers are not
specifically for innovation activities. They are more focused on developing the
skills and abilities of entrepreneurs to manage their business. Only four out
of the seven incubators surveyed, linked to
stricto sensu graduate programs, have an infrastructure that is more
focused on research and development of products and services. The dimension
“relationship with the context external to innovation” is partially met in
incubators associated with the Network. It has been identified that there is an
approximation between the associated incubators, even if, in some moments, this
synergy must be provoked. The legal incentives for incubators and,
consequently, for companies, according to the interviewees, are still very
timid and need to be more effective. Finally, there is the dimension
“perception of the effectiveness of innovation”. In this dimension, four out of
the seven incubators show more effective results.

It is understood that the study presents
theoretical-empirical contributions that are relevant to the culture of
learning and culture of innovation in business incubators, especially for
researchers studying this phenomenon, as well as incubator managers and
entrepreneurs interested in participating in incubation programs.

Despite the empirical evidence of this research, there
are limitations. Therefore, we suggest the extension of this study to incubator
networks in other regions of the country and the companies participating in
incubation programs as incubated companies and graduation programs in order to
analyze the effectiveness of the culture of organizational learning and innovation
in the incubation environment.

REFERENCES

Allahar,
H., & Brathwaite, C. (2016). Business Incubation as an Instrument of
Innovation: The Experience of South America and the Caribbean. International Journal of Innovation (IJI
Journal), 4(2), 71-85. doi:dx.doi.org/10.5585/iji.v4i2.107.

Antonello,
C. S., & Godoy, A. S. (2010). A encruzilhada da aprendizagem
organizacional: uma visão multiparadigmática. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 14(2), 310-332.

Associação
Nacional de Entidades Promotoras de Empreendimentos Inovadores – ANPROTEC
(2017). Perguntas e Respostas.
Disponível em http://www.anprotec.org.br/infoe/publicacao.php?idpublicacao=117.

Azevedo, I. S. C., Gaspar, J. V.,
& Teixeira, C. S. (2017). Análise característica das Incubadoras de Base
Tecnológica. REAVI-Revista Eletrônica do
Alto Vale do Itajaí, 5(8), 72-81. doi: 10.5965/2316419005082016072.

Bardin, L. (1977). Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70.

Bates,
R., & Khasawneh, S. (2005). Organizational learning culture, learning
transfer climate and perceived innovation in Jordanian organizations. International journal of training and
development, 9(2), 96-109.

Beuren,
I. M., & Raupp, F. M. (2010). Gestão do conhecimento em
incubadoras Brasileiras. Future Studies Research Journal: Trends and Strategy, 2(2), 186-211.

Bergek,
A., & Norrman, C. (2008). Incubator best practice: A framework. Technovation,
28, 20-28. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2007.07.008.

Bessi, V. G. (2012). Inovação e
cultura organizacional em incubadoras de empresas: uma reflexão teórica. Gestão Contemporânea, (1).

Bruno-Faria, M. F, & Fonseca,
M. V. A. (2015). Medida da cultura de inovação: uma abordagem sistêmica e
estratégica com foco na efetividade da inovação. RAI-Revista de Administração e Inovação, 12(3), 56-81.

Bruno-Faria, M. F, & Fonseca,
M. V. A. (2014a). Medidas de cultura de inovação e de cultura organizacional
para análise da associação com inovação. RAI-Revista
de Administração e Inovação, 11(3), 30-55.

Bruno-Faria, M. F, & Fonseca,
M. V. A.. (2014b). Cultura de inovação: conceitos e modelos teóricos. RAC-Revista de Administração Contemporânea,18(4),372-396.
doi:dx.doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac20141025.

Caiazza,
R. (2014). Benchmarking of business incubators. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 21(6),
1062-1069. doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-01-2013-0011.

Carletti,
R. M., Ari Zilber. M. (2016). A cultura de
aprendizagem em incubadoras e startups. XIII
Congresso Online - Administração: Empreendedorismo e Inovação.

Cassol, A., Zapalai, J., &
Cintra, R. F. (2017). Capacidade absortiva como propulsora da inovação em
empresas incubadas de Santa Catarina. Revista
Ciências Administrativas, 23(1), 9-41. doi: dx.doi.org/10.5020/2318-0722.23.1.9-41.

Cuffa, D., & Steil, A. V. (2019). Organizational
learning in public organizations: an integrative review. Navus-Revista de Gestão
e Tecnologia, 9(3), 112-123. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.22279/navus.2019.v9n3.p112-123.875 .

Dobni,
C. B. (2008). Measuring innovation culture in organizations: The development of
a generalized innovation culture construct using exploratory factor analysis. European Journal of Innovation
Management, 11(4), 539-559. doi.org/10.1108/14601060810911156.

Engelman, R.; Fracasso, E. M. (2013) Contribuição das incubadoras
tecnológicas na internacionalização das empresas incubadas. Revista
de Administração, 48 (1), 165-178. doi: dx.doi.org/10.5700/rausp1080.

Fang, S. C., Tsai, F. S., &
Lin, J. L. (2010). Leveraging
tenant-incubator social capital for organizational learning and performance in
incubation programme. International Small
Business Journal, 28(1), 90-113. doi: doi.org/10.1177/0266242609350853.

Fiates, G. G. S., Martins,
C., Fiates, J. E. A., Martignago, G., & dos Santos, N. (2013). Análise do papel da
incubadora na internacionalização de empresas de base tecnológica, incubadas e
graduadas. Revista Eletrônica de Estratégia & Negócios, 6(1),
252-274.

Flick, U. (2004). Introdução à Pesquisa em Administração.
Porto Alegre: Bookman.

Freitas, M. E. D. (1991). Cultura
organizacional grandes temas em debate. Revista
de Administração de empresas, 31(3), 73-82. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-75901991000300007 .

Frizzo, P., & Gomes, G. (2017).
Influência da aprendizagem organizacional e da inovação no desempenho
organizacional de empresas do setor vinícola. Revista Ibero Americana de Estratégia, 16(2), 35-50. doi:10.5585/riae.v16i2.2429.

Leal, E. S. P., Palácios, F. A. C., & Nazareth, P. H. M.
(2020). Cultura de Aprendizagem Organizacional e Adoção de Novas Tecnologias
Educacionais em uma Instituição de Ensino Superior em Castanhal-Pará,
Brasil. Navus-Revista de Gestão e Tecnologia, 10,
01-18. DOI: doi.org/10.22279/navus.2020.v10.p01-18.1281
.

Godoi, C. K., & Mattos, P. L.
C. L. (2006). Entrevista qualitativa: Instrumento de pesquisa e evento diálogo.
In. Godoi, C.K., Melo, R.B. & Silva, A.B. (org.). Pesquisa Qualitativa em Estudos Organizacionais – Paradigmas,
Estratégias e Métodos. São Paulo: Saraiva. pp.301-323,

Godoy, R., S., P. (2009). Relações entre cultura organizacional e
processos de inovação em empresas de base tecnológica. 202 f. Dissertação
(mestrado em Engenharia de Produção) - Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos.
Universidade de São Paulo.

Gomes, R. (2013). Análise e
interpretação de dados de pesquisa qualitativa. In M. C. S. Minayo, S. F. Deslandes, & R. Gomes
(orgs.). Pesquisa
social: teoria, método e criatividade. 33. ed.
Petrópolis, RJ: Editora Vozes. pp.79-108.

Iacono, A., & Nagano, M. S.
(2014). Gestão da inovação em empresas nascentes de base tecnológica:
evidências em uma incubadora de empresas no Brasil. Interciencia, 39(5), 296-306.

Jiménez-Jiménez,
D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and
performance. Journal of business research,
64(4), 408-417. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.09.010.

Machado,
D. D. P. N., Gomes, G., Trentin, G. N. S., & Silva, A. (2013). Cultura
de inovação: elementos da cultura que facilitam a criação de um ambiente
inovador. RAI Revista de Administração e
Inovação, 10(4), 164-182.

Machado, D. D. P. N., Carvalho, L.
& Heinzmann, L. M. (2012). Ambiente favorável ao desenvolvimento de
inovações e cultura organizacional: integração de duas perspectivas de análise.
Revista de Administração-RAUSP,
47(4), 715-729. doi: doi.org/10.5700/rausp1069.

Machado, D. D. P. N., de Araújo,
B., & Lehmann, C. A. (2008). Organização e cultura de inovação: elementos
concretos e fatores percebidos. Revista Alcance, 15(2), 152-168.

Marsick,
V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organization's
learning culture: the dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in developing human resources,
5(2), 132-151. doi.org/10.1177/1523422303005002002 .

McAdam,
M., & Marlow, S. (2007). Building futures or stealing secrets?
Entrepreneurial cooperation and conflict within business incubators. International Small Business Journal,
25(4), 361-382. doi.org/10.1177/0266242607078563.

Melo, D. F., Santa Rita, L. P., Junior, R. R. F., Tonholo,
J., & de Oliveira Sá, E. M. (2020). Políticas públicas para inovação: um
estudo da metodologia de gestão da inovação na indústria em Alagoas. Navus-Revista
de Gestão e Tecnologia, 10, 01-20. DOI: doi.org/10.22279/navus.2020.v10.p01-20.1152
.

Mendes, A. M. (2007). Pesquisa em psicodinâmica: a clínica do
trabalho. In A. M. Mendes
(org). Psicodinâmica do trabalho: Teoria,
método e pesquisas (pp.65-87). São Paulo: Casa do Psicólogo.

Minayo, M. C. S. (2013) Análise e
interpretação de dados de pesquisa qualitativa. In: M. C. S. Minayo, S. F.  Deslandes, & R. Gomes (org.). Pesquisa social: teoria, método e
criatividade. 33. ed. (pp. 08-28), Petrópolis,
RJ; Editora Vozes.

MInayo, M. C. S. (2004). O desafio do conhecimento: pesquisa
qualitativa em saúde. 8. ed. São Paulo: Hucitec.

Motta-Roth, D. (2003). Redação acadêmica: princípios básicos.
Santa Maria, RS: Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Imprensa Universitária.

Organização para Cooperação e
Desenvolvimento Econômico - OCDE. (2005). Manual
de Oslo: Diretrizes para coleta e interpretação de dados sobre inovação. 3.
ed. São Paulo: FINEP.

Pires, A. P. (2008). Amostragem e
pesquisa qualitativa: ensaio teórico e metodológico. Poupart, J,. Deslauriers J. P,. Groulx, L. H,.
Lapemère A,. Mayer R,. & Pires A. P, (org). A pesquisa qualitativa: enfoques
epistemológicos e metodológicos (pp.154-211). Petrópolis: Editora Vozes.

Pedrinho, G. C., de Carvalho, D. N., Teixeira, C. S., &
Lezana, Á. G. R. (2020). Universidade e o ecossistema de inovação: revisão
estruturada de literatura. Navus-Revista de Gestão e Tecnologia, 10,
01-23. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.22279/navus.2020.v10.p01-23.955
.

Rauen, C. V. (2016). O Novo Marco
Legal da Inovação no Brasil: o que muda na relação ICT - empresa? Radar: tecnologia, produção e comércio
exterior. 43(1), 21-35.

Rede de Incubadoras de Empresas do
Ceará – RIC. (2016). Estatuto Social.
Disponível em http://rededeincubadoras.wixsite.com/rede

Sá,
C., & Lee, H. (2012). Science, business, and innovation: understanding
networks in technology‐based incubators. R&D Management,
42(3), 243-253.  doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2012.00681.x
.

Sakita, D. Z. (2015). Inovação em serviços e desempenho
organizacional: estudo de empresas graduadas pela Incubadora de Base
Tecnológica da Universidade de Brasília. Dissertação (Mestrado - Mestrado Profissional
em Administração) - Universidade de Brasília.

Sanches, D. C. M. (2015). Cultura
de Inovação e sua influência na Ecoinovação: um estudo em empresas
da indústria têxtil. 2015. 122f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Administração) –
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração da Universidade de Blumenau – FURB,
Blumenau, 2015.

Schein,
E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and
leadership. San
Francisco, USA: Jessey.

Storopoli,
J. E., Binder, M. P., & Maccari, E. A. (2013). Incubadoras
de empresas e o desenvolvimento de capacidades em empresas incubadas. Revista de Ciências da Administração,
15(35), 36-51. doi.org/10.5007/2175-8077.2013v15n35p36.

Tondolo, L. P., Borges, C.,
Pereira, B. A., & Silva, R. P., (2016). Incubadoras de empresas: Muitos
investimentos públicos, muito barulho. E os resultados?  Gestão
& Planejamento-G&P, 17(2). 299-314.
doi:10.21714/2178-8030gep.v17i1.4448.

Tumelero, C., dos Santos, S. A.,
& Kuniyoshi, M. S. (2016). Sobrevivência de empresas de base tecnológica
pós‐incubadas: estudo sobre a ação empreendedora na mobilização e uso de
recursos. REGE-Revista de Gestão,
23(1), 31-40. doi.org/10.1016/j.rege.2014.11.001.

Vedovello, C., & Figueiredo, P.
N. (2005). Incubadora de inovação: que nova espécie é essa?. RAE-eletrônica, 4(1), 01-18. dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1676-56482005000100006.

Verma, P., Singh, B., & Rao, M.
K. (2014). Developing
innovation capability: The Role of organizational learning culture and task
motivation. Global Journal of Finance and
Management, 6(6), 575-582.

Weick,
K. E., & Westley, F. (2004). Aprendizagem organizacional:
confirmando um oxímoro. In. Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., & Nord, W. R. Handbook de estudos organizacionais: ação e
análise organizacionais (pp. 361-388). São Paulo: Atlas.

Welchen, V., Mukendi, J. T., & Larentis, F. (2020).
Compartilhamento de conhecimento como fator de inovatividade em empresas
graduadas de uma incubadora tecnológica. Navus-Revista de Gestão e
Tecnologia, 10, 01-19. DOI: doi.org/10.22279/navus.2020.v10.p01-19.1256
.