New Organizational Forms in the Public Sector:
An Analysis of Government Innovation Laboratories from the Perspective of
Neo-Schumpeterian Theory

Novas Formas Organizacionais no Setor Público: os Laboratórios de
Inovação de Governo sob a Ótica da Teoria Neoschumpeteriana

Alessandro Carlos da Silva Junior

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3467-9093

Researcher at the Nucleus
for Administration and Public Policies (NAP2). Bachelor and master’s degree
student in Administration at the Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV) –
Brazil. [email-masked]

Magnus Luiz Emmendoerfer

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4264-8644

Professor
at the Graduate Program in Administration (PPGAdm), UFV. PhD in Human
Sciences: Sociology and Politics, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG),
Brazil. [email-masked]

Bruno Tavares

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5140-7359

Professor
at the Graduate Program in Administration (PPGAdm), UFV. PhD in
Administration, Federal University of Lavras (UFLA), Brazil. [email-masked]

Antônio Vagner Almeida Olavo

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9385-558X

Professor
at the Federal University of Amazonas and master's degree in Administration, UFV,
Brazil. [email-masked]

ABSTRACT

This essay aimed to present, from
the perspective of neo-Schumpeterian or evolutionary theory, government
innovation laboratories as new organizational forms that seek to modify the
dynamics of public organizations through the absorption of knowledge and
learning, the development of skills and abilities, and the dissemination of
innovations and new technologies to the public sector. Therefore, the aspects
of neo-Schumpeterian theory were presented related to the performance and
competitiveness of organizations in an increasingly dynamic environment,
needing to change their organizational routines through the absorption of
knowledge, learning, and innovation. The characteristics and objectives of
government innovation laboratories were also presented, justifying them as new
organizational forms within the public sector, which through dynamism,
co-creation, and experimentation seek to disseminate innovative solutions and
new technologies to public organizations. At the end, as contributions, we
sought to highlight the development of government efforts to make public
organizations more efficient in the provision of services, with innovation as
an important mechanism for systemic modifications, as well as presenting issues
related to the potential for theoretical/empirical analysis of the
neo-Schumpeterian theory and government innovation laboratories.

Keywords: Government Innovation Laboratories.
Neo-Schumpeterian Theory. Public
Sector.

RESUMO

Este ensaio
teve por objetivo apresentar, sob a ótica da teoria neoschumpeteriana ou
evolucionária, os laboratórios de inovação de governo como novas formas
organizacionais que procuram modificar a dinâmica das organizações públicas
através da absorção de conhecimento e da aprendizagem, do desenvolvimento de
competências e capacidades, e da disseminação de inovações e novas tecnologias
para o setor público. Diante disso, foram apresentados os aspectos da teoria
neoschumpeteriana relacionados à atuação e competitividade das organizações em
um ambiente cada vez mais dinâmico, necessitando alterar as suas rotinas
organizacionais por meio da absorção de conhecimento, da aprendizagem e da
inovação. Também foram apresentados as características e objetivos dos
laboratórios de inovação de governo, justificando-os como novas formas
organizacionais dentro do setor público que através do dinamismo, cocriação e
experimentação procuram disseminar soluções inovadoras e novas tecnologias para
as organizações públicas. Por fim, como contribuições, procurou-se destacar o
desenvolvimento de esforços governamentais para tornar as organizações públicas
mais eficiente na prestação de serviços, tendo a inovação como importante
mecanismo para modificações sistêmicas, bem como apresentar questões
relacionadas ao potencial de análise teórico/empírico da teoria
neoschumpeteriana e dos laboratórios de inovação de governos.

Palavras-chave: Laboratórios de
Inovação de Governo. Teoria Neoschumpeteriana. Setor Público.

Received
11/16/2020.  Evaluated by the double-blind peer review
system. Published under ABNT norms.

https://doi.org/10.22279/navus.2021.v11.p01-13.1470

1 INTRODUCTION

The reforms resulting from the New Public
Administration (NPA) model have stimulated public organizations to appropriate
and adopt instruments, techniques, and management alternatives used by the
private sector, highlighting entrepreneurship and innovation (RESENDE et al.,
2017; VALADARES et al., 2017). This has happened in response to the
economic, political, social, and technological changes brought about by the
globalized scenario, which have resulted in higher citizen expectations,
complex problems, and smaller public budgets (CAVALCANTE; CUNHA, 2017).

With the post-managerialist ideas of public
governance, new alternatives are being used in order to foster open,
collaborative, and experimental innovation in the public sector, oriented to
citizens (EMMENDOERFER, 2019). Within this idea, Innovation Labs in the Public
Sector stand out, especially Government Labs (ISIDRO, 2018; EMMENDOERFER,
2019). The laboratories emerge, among alternatives, as an innovation and an
environment that develops innovative solutions (ISIDRO-FILHO, 2017;
EMMENDOERFER, OLAVO, CARVALHO JÚNIOR, 2019; WERNECK et al., 2020). These
places are new organizational forms that develop alternatives to supply the
state system and its employees with tools and knowledge capable of confronting
complex issues of public administration, with the incorporation and better use
of information technology in management and systemic approaches that contribute
to cost reduction and more satisfactory performance while addressing solutions
to citizens' needs (GALHARDO, 2019; WERNECK
et al., 2020).

For the evolutionary or neo-Schumpeterian
economy, innovation is the main factor responsible for the change and evolution
of organizations (TOREZANI, 2014). Thus, it can be considered as a determining
mechanism for the dynamic process of the economy and technical progress, and
they are dependent on the sector in which they are developed and the
institutional aspects that legitimize their development (VIEIRA, 2010). In
addition, they come from organizational learning processes, as a mechanism for
absorbing and transmitting knowledge, which develops individual and organizational
capabilities and competencies in the search for solutions to complex problems
(DATHEIN, 2003). In this way, government laboratories are pointed out as a
locus of learning and knowledge exchange from the experimentation of a solution
for a certain public problem (CAVALCANTE; CUNHA, 2017, FERRAREZI; LEMOS;
BRANDALISE, 2018; GALHARDO, 2019; CAVALCANTE; MENDONÇA; BRANDALISE, 2019;
WERNECK et al. 2020).

Understanding government innovation
laboratories as new organizational forms that act dynamically, absorbing
knowledge and learning for the development of innovative solutions and new
technologies that aim to change the environment in which they operate, the
following question arises: what are the contributions of evolutionary theory to
characterize the government innovation laboratories as organizational forms
that through dynamism, learning, cooperation, and innovation can change the
dynamics of the public sector?

2 RESEARCH METHOD

This paper aims to present from a
neo-Schumpeterian (evolutionary) theory perspective, government innovation
laboratories as new organizational forms that seek to change the dynamics of
public organizations through the absorption of knowledge and learning, the
development of skills and capabilities, and the dissemination of innovations
and new technologies to the public sector. This work is justified by the
important role that laboratories play in the innovation process in the public
sector, as they are spaces for experimentation and testing of alternatives,
co-creation, and generation and exchange of knowledge that will enable
innovative proposals that are more promising, assertive, and with greater
potential for replicability and usability for other organizations in the public
sector (FERNANDES, 2019).

It is noteworthy that the elaboration of this
theoretical essay started from the perceptions of Burgoon (2001) and Bertero
(2011), where they indicate the need for clarification regarding the procedures
adopted in this type of study. Thus, for this study, a bibliographical survey
was performed on the neo-Schumpeterian theory (evolutionary) and the innovation
laboratories in the public sector.

The theory was chosen for this analysis because
it allows an understanding of the contributions of innovations beyond the
construction of an artifact or a service, demonstrating that knowledge and
learning are fundamental to organizational and economic development, especially
from the formation of individual and organizational competencies and
capabilities, which can contribute to systemic changes in the public sector. Thus,
we sought to present the government innovation laboratories as a locus for the
development and dissemination of innovations and new technologies for the
public sector. In this study, the artifact is understood as the construction of
a good or a service that will facilitate the daily life of citizens by
providing higher quality services and improving organizational efficiency.

In this way, this essay is structured in three
topics besides the introduction, which present the contributions of the
evolutionary or neo-Schumpeterian theory and the understanding of government
innovation laboratories as new organizational forms in the public sector, from
a theoretical-conceptual model of the laboratories from the perspective of the
analyzed theory. Lastly, reflections and considerations on evolutionary or
neo-Schumpeterian theory and innovation laboratories in government are
presented, as well as the potential for analysis of the discussed theory and
suggestions for the development of future studies.

3 THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF EVOLUTIONARY OR
NEO-SCHUMPETERIAN THEORY

The neo-Schumpeterian (evolutionary) theory
seeks to revisit the ideas proposed by Schumpeter concerning innovation and
economic competitiveness. In the authors' view, the firm consists of an
organization that absorbs knowledge, learns, and is innovative. The different
flows and external links of knowledge and information of companies explain why
organizations are so heterogeneous today and add more realism and plausibility
to Schumpeter's economic theory, which was developed in the early twentieth
century, minimizing the risks of losing touch with contemporary reality
(RISSARDI JÚNIOR, 2005).

The neo-Schumpeterian analysis presents
technology as a dynamic principle that leads to the evolution of the entire
economic system, promoting revolutions that modify production and consumption
patterns. This happens through technological and organizational innovations
that require institutional changes as a way to enable the best use of the
generated modifications. The changes in the external environment directly
influence the dynamics of organizations, which need to modify their routines
and capabilities through innovations to remain competitive in the market (CERLEIAL,
2011).

According to Tigre (1998), three basic
principles help to understand evolutionary theories. The first is that economic
dynamics is based on innovations in products, processes, and organizational
forms. The second is that organizations are made up of distinct individuals
with their own cognitive characteristics who act based on a procedural
rationality that results from the learning process during the interactions
among individuals, with the market, and with new technologies. And the third is
related to the firm's capacity for self-organization as a result of the
fluctuations of the environment and the fluctuations of individual agents with
distinct routines and capabilities.

In general, evolutionary individuals recognize
that organizations are inserted in a dynamic environment and are composed of
knowledge flows, the main input for the development of innovative processes
(ORSI; NEUBERGER; CARIO, 2019). In this sense, organizations must also be
dynamic and provide the necessary tools for knowledge, incorporated into the
experiences of individuals, to be converted into competencies. The way they
will be used within each organization is important to explain the innovations
developed and their efficient use (DATHEIN, 2003; ORSI; NEUBERGER; CARIO,
2019).

Competencies are defined as the individual
and/or collective knowledge, attitudes, and skills, but also as the ability to
combine, mix, and integrate resources into products and services, so that the
combination of an organization's various competencies will enable it to design,
produce, and distribute products and services (FLEURY; FLEURY, 2001). The stock
of knowledge and competencies of an organization are absorbed and developed
through the learning process, which occurs from the interactions between
individuals and groups internal to the organizations, but also between
organizations, institutions, and economic agents (DATHEIN, 2003; CERLEIAL,
2011).

In the economic literature, learning
"[...] is associated with a cumulative process through which firms expand
their knowledge, refine their search procedures, and refine their skills in
developing, producing, and marketing goods and services." (RISSARDI
JÚNIOR; SHIKIDA; DAHMER, 2009, p. 121). These mechanisms, as presented by Bittencourt (2004), would be a response to the changes
faced by organizations, in which continuous learning, through organizational
experiences and the translation of knowledge into practice, will contribute to
develop innovative solutions and, consequently, improve performance and make
organizations more competitive.

Organizational learning combines the reading
and absorption of knowledge of the environment in which the organizations are
inserted, their internal resources, and the possibilities offered by the
networks formed in the systems in which the organizations are immersed (AMORIM;
FISCHER, 2013). An organization's stock of knowledge is a function of its
absorptive capacity, which is a type of learning that is related to the
routines and processes of the organizations, with which it obtains knowledge
from the environment and applies it according to the organizational goals
(ZAHRA; GEORGE, 2002).

For Zahra and George (2002), absorptive
capacity develops from four processes: knowledge acquisition, assimilation,
transformation, and explotation. Acquisition consists
of an organization's ability to identify and acquire external knowledge that is
important for organizational objectives; assimilation refers to the routines
and processes of analysis, understanding, and incorporation of the acquired
knowledge; transformation is the assimilation stage between the acquired
knowledge and the knowledge already existing in the organization; and explotation relates to the efficient and effective use of
this knowledge for the objectives and for innovation.

Organizational learning is cumulative and
collective and results from the organization's internal and external
relationships. For Figueiredo (2004), this process
divides into two subprocesses: knowledge acquisition (individual level) and
knowledge conversion (organizational level). The knowledge acquisition process
can be internal, in which knowledge is developed from activities and routines
within the organization, and external, in which knowledge is acquired outside
the organization. The knowledge conversion process, in turn, develops by means
of socialization and codification. Socialization occurs from the sharing of the
tacit knowledge of individuals, and codification occurs when tacit knowledge is
converted into explicit knowledge, facilitating the process of replication and
understanding (FIGUEIREDO, 2004).

Considering that the organizational learning
processes develop from individual knowledge, which will help build a stock of
competencies for the organizations, it is also important to understand what the
types of learning are and how they occur. According to Orsi,
Neuberger, and Cario (2019), there are three main
types of organizational learning: learning by doing, learning by using, and
learning by interacting. The first, is related to the internal knowledge of
organizations and occurs in practical situations, being discovered during the
production of a good or a service. The second occurs in the process of using
the good or service, taking place through users' feedbacks. Finally, the third
is a combination of the first two, in which learning arises from the exchange
of qualitative information between users and internal and external
stakeholders, who are immersed in the organizations' networks (ORSI; NEUBERGER;
CARIO, 2019).

The forms of learning are related to the notion
of dynamic capabilities of organizations. These capabilities are defined by
Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997) as the ability of an
organization to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external
organizational competencies to respond to rapid environmental change. Dynamic
capability refers to the notion of routines, which from the neo-Schumpeterian
perspective are considered the rules (regular and predictable behavior patterns
of organizations), which define the basic characteristics and ways
organizations operate and are built from experience (NELSON; WINTER, 2005). For
the authors, the firms that have their routines more adaptable to the
contingencies of the external environment will be the ones most prone to growth
and development. In this way, innovation arises from the moment it is necessary
to modify routines in response to new technological paradigms that emerge and
to environmental changes.

Given the above, the aim was to understand,
from aspects of the Neo-Schumpeterian theory, that organizations need to be
able to learn and self-organize in response to environmental changes and the
increasingly complex demands of individuals, in order to remain competitive in
the market. New knowledge and dynamic capability are important for
organizations to innovate and develop new technologies to become more
efficient.

Thus, in the following, we will try to reflect
on the implementation of innovation laboratories within the public sector as
new organizational forms that resemble the organizations described by
evolutionary persons for having the ability to learn and self-organize in
response to environmental changes and the complexity of individual demands. In
addition, the role of laboratories as proposers of innovative solutions and
developers of new technologies is highlighted, based on organizational learning
alternatives and on the network relationship with different actors and
organizations that are considered drivers for the dissemination of an
innovative culture within the public sector and changing the way governments
act.

4 NEW ORGANIZATIONAL FORMS IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR: GOVERNMENT INNOVATION
LABS

The challenge of innovation in public
administration occurs in two main ways. On the one hand, the State needs to be
the inducer of this process, creating conditions for the advancement of the
knowledge economy, focused on innovation. On the other hand, for innovative
economies to thrive, the state also needs to be able to develop its own
innovative drive, in order to deal with the numerous challenges that emerge
from the relationship with society and other stakeholders (CAVALCANTE; CUNHA,
2017). On another hand, innovating in the public sector is not so simple,
because innovation must be the result of a balance between maintaining the
stability of regulations, acting in accordance with norms, and maintaining a
certain degree of predictability for private actors, by using taxpayer
resources, or developing new ways to solve society's increasingly complex and
changing problems (ACEVEDO; DASSEN, 2016).

Governments and public organizations have
sought to develop new capabilities, mainly external to classic State-owned
structures through collaborative and networked forms, with citizen
participation, and to get closer to citizens' needs. Thus, a new conception of
public innovation emerges based on three pillars: open innovation, co-creation,
and collective intelligence (RODRÍGUEZ; GRANDINETTI, 2018). For the author, an
ideal space to combine these three characteristics would be innovation
laboratories in the public sector.

Although the dissemination of laboratories is
associated with the contemporary context, there is evidence that they emerged
in school environments in the 19th century (MULGAN, 2014). However, Williamson
(2015) points out that the movements of innovation labs stem from the Think
Tank culture that is used in Anglo-American politics. Thus, Tõnurist, Kattel,
and Lember (2017) point out that the main difference of current laboratories to
the old ones is the citizen-oriented logic, which according to Cavalcante and
Cunha (2017), encourages the idea of experimental government.

The implementation of these experimentation
spaces is a response from the public sector to foster its own innovative
process and as an alternative for the change process in public organizations,
influencing the system as a whole, promoting structural and systemic changes
(SCHUURMAN; TÕNURIST, 2016; SANO, 2020). Implementing laboratories in government
units is also a reaction to technological, economic, and social
transformations. Besides, there are internal and external pressures for the
State to serve the population in a more efficient way, given a certain
insufficiency of the traditional ways of management in solving complex
problems. Thus, laboratories seek to propose assertive solutions, through a
collaborative process that involves other public organizations, citizens,
social organizations, and companies (CAVALCANTE; CUNHA, 2017; FERRAREZI; LEMOS;
BRANDALISE, 2018; EMMENDOERFER, OLAVO, CARVALHO JÚNIOR, 2019).

As the risks of innovating in the public sector
are high and the consequences of potential failure must be considered,
government innovation labs have positioned themselves as units capable of
internalizing the inherent risk of innovations and promoting new practices in
public management (ACEVEDO; DASSEN, 2016). Innovation occurs through a creative
and collaborative environment, in which new knowledge and ideas can be shared
and executed, being called creative collaboration, and aims to bring government
spaces closer to end users such as businesses and citizens, with receptivity of
new ideas by the State-owned entity (GALHARDO, 2019; SILVA JUNIOR, 2019).

In general, labs can be defined as "[...]
collaborative environments that seek to foster creativity, experimentation, and
innovation through the adoption of active methodologies and co-creation in
problem solving" (SANO, 2020, p. 18). The main objectives of the
laboratories are: 1) foster an innovative environment in public administration;
2) develop specific innovations; 3) introduce new technologies in public
administration; 4) act in the modernization of public administration processes;
5) elaborate new mechanisms of citizen participation; 6) introduce new
communication methods in public administration; 7) open up public
administration data (ACEVEDO; DASSEN, 2016). Based on the objectives, it is
possible to observe aspects of these organizations that resemble the
organizations described by the neo-Schumpeterian theory, as receptacles of
knowledge and developers of new alternatives (innovations and technologies) for
the public organizations on which they depend, as well as for the entire public
sector, changing the environment in which they operate.

The development of innovation projects within
the framework of government laboratories, according to Mulgan
(2014), takes place from seven phases, which are evidenced in the figure below:

Figure 1 - Innovation Project Development Phases

Source: Mulgan (2014, p. 4)

According to Sano (2020), in the first stage,
public organizations are concerned with understanding the challenges of the
sector in which they operate and understand what the demands are to identify
opportunities for action. In the second stage, innovative ideas are generated
to solve the problems identified based on the understanding of the environment
in which it operates. In the third stage, called prototyping, alternatives are
developed and tested as to their applicability in public organizations, as well
as on their reach of results, in order to identify the prototype's potential.

In the fourth stage, a case that would be a
project that has achieved satisfactory results during the testing process is
established from the observations and testing of the prototype. In the fifth
stage, this prototype is implemented in an organization, in order to understand
its results in practice, since until then it had been tested in a controlled
environment. In the sixth stage, after an analysis of the results in the
organization, there is a gain in scale, in which it starts to be implemented in
other organizations. Finally, in the seventh stage, if there are good results
in the organizations, this prototype is disseminated throughout the system, with
the aim of generating change (SANO, 2020).

The stages in the development of innovative
projects permeate the absorption of knowledge, learning, use of creativity, and
above all, the combination of skills in order to develop solutions that can be
assertive for governments and public sector organizations, as well as to use
these alternatives to promote systemic changes and transform the way public
organizations operate.

Government laboratories have the function of
taking risks and stimulating dynamism, becoming agents of change in the public
sector, operating with great autonomy in the definition of goals and working
methods (ACEVEDO; DASSEN, 2016). The dynamic features of the laboratories are
motivating factors for their creation and can incite transformation processes
in the public sphere, based on the freedom and autonomy to raise external
resources, experimentation, and the insertion of innovative solutions in the
public sector (TÕNURIST; KATTEL; LEMBER, 2017; EMMENDOERFER; OLAVO; CARVALHO JÚNIOR,
2019). Thus, they try to modify the routines of public organizations, adapting
them to the contingencies of the external environment, which is in constant
transformation, through organizational learning and knowledge absorption
methodologies, among which co-creation and experimentation stand out.

Co-creation is an important methodology for the
construction and success of innovative solutions because it allows the
transaction of resources, knowledge, and skills between partners and actors
involved in the innovation process (ISIDRO-FILHO, 2017). This process can be
characterized as a form of learning by interacting, given that it results from
the exchange of information between laboratories and other members immersed in
the networks of action of these public organizations (ORSI; NEUBERGER; CARIO,
2019). Moreover, it can also be an important form of knowledge absorption and
acquisition, due to the collaborative nature of this action, in which
information exchanges can also help in individual and collective empowerment.

Experimentation, on the other hand, basically
consists of testing alternatives in reality. This process is predominant in
laboratories, as it is an alternative to minimize the risks and costs of
failure and to propose more assertive solutions, since innovation processes
demand hypothesis testing, verifying in practice if the idea produces results
(FERRAREZI; LEMOS; BRANDALISE, 2018). For the authors, the very work of the
government laboratory in building the experiment constitutes a form of learning,
because the generation of new knowledge on the ways of dealing with each type
of challenge, choosing the appropriate methodology and tools, resulted in the
development of competencies of the members of GNova
(Innovation Laboratory in the Brazilian Federal Government) and of the partner
members of the projects. Thus, experimentation is close to learning by using
because it stems from the process of using the innovative solution in practice
and from feedbacks from users and beneficiaries (ORSI; NEUBERGER; CARIO, 2019).

Regarding innovation lab teams, they are formed
from the initiative of political leaders, with the expectation of overcoming
the barriers to innovation in the public sector, such as normative rigidity,
lack of a culture focused on experimentation and change, inflexible budgets,
among others (PUTTICK; BAECK; COLLIGAN, 2014). The team members, as presented
by Feitoza (2018), are heterogeneous researchers, designers, and change agents
interested in identifying and analyzing the problems involving the public
sector from different angles, besides acting in the development, testing, and
improvement of solution prototypes, aiming at their insertion and application
in public organizations. The heterogeneity of the team shows the junction of
different individual and/or collective competencies based on the idea of open
innovation in which government innovation laboratories operate, and
demonstrates an interrelation between internal and external knowledge, aiming
to absorb the necessary knowledge for developing innovations and organizational
competencies (SILVA; SILVA, 2015).

According to the neo-Schumpeterian perspective,
individual competencies play an important role in the development of
innovations, originating from the learning process in organizations or from the
experiences and social relations of individuals. Among the competencies focused
on innovation, we highlight the entrepreneurial competencies that are the sets
of knowledge, skills, characteristics, and attitudes that, in different ways, can
contribute to the effective thought or action of the business or organization,
allowing an individual to imprint actions, strategies, and his vision in the
creation of value for society (ZAMPIER; TAKAHASHI, 2011). For the authors,
these are competencies related to personal relationships, the abilities to
assess risk situations, efficient resource allocation, strategy implementation,
and commitment.

The junction between individual and
organizational competencies are considered a competitive advantage for
organizations that aim to provide higher quality and more efficient public
services, such as governments and other public sector organizations, as well as
for private organizations that aim to survive in an increasingly dynamic and
changing global market (BASTOS et al., 2019).

In
the context of the pandemic, innovation laboratories in the public sector can
be seen as a locus of democratic solidarity, through the actions that were
carried out after the moment in which the World Health Organization (WHO)
declared a state of pandemic (EMMENDOERFER, 2020). The author points out that
these actions aim at serving citizens and professionals in the public sector.
Thus, it is assumed that learning and knowledge absorbed in the pandemic
context through the processes of co-creation, co-production, and
experimentation can help prevent public problems.

In view of the concepts and theoretical aspects
discussed in figure 2, a conceptual-analytical scheme is proposed, in which the
aspects that characterize the innovation laboratories of governments are
presented as new organizational forms in the public sector from the theoretical
aspects proposed by the neo-Schumpeterian theory:

Figure 2 - Theoretical and conceptual model of the Innovation Labs in
Government from the perspective of the Neo-Schumpeterian theory

Source: Prepared by the authors, based on the theoretical aspects
presented (2020).

It is believed that the
transformations of the dynamic and increasingly complex environment offer new
challenges to public and private sector organizations on a daily basis. In this
way, government innovation labs present themselves as a space within the public
sector that acts to internalize risks and develop innovative solutions for the
public sector based on knowledge and creativity to solve a public problem. Permeating
these aspects, they use organizational learning tools, especially those related
to the absorptive capacity and the co-creation and experimentation of
alternatives, in order to develop solutions to problems and transmit internal
and external knowledge to the organizations.

The learning processes allow the
adaptation and development of new competencies to transform organizational
routines and generate innovations, which will contribute to bring about organizational
and systemic changes, and above all, generate public value from the improvement
of public services and organizational efficiency. Therefore, it is believed
that the contributions of the Neo-Schumpeterian theory used to understand the
dynamics of the market can also bring contributions to the public sector,
especially from new organizational forms that seek to change the way public
organizations act, distancing themselves from the bureaucratic and inefficient
aspects, recurrently associated with the public sector in general.

5 CONCLUSION

In view of the
above, the central idea of this essay is the innovation laboratories as new
organizational forms and agents of change within the public sector. Their
characteristics and dynamism in the way they act, and the use of knowledge
absorption procedures, learning, and cooperation with society and other
organizations allow government laboratories to adapt to environmental changes. In
addition, the ability to innovate and develop new technologies that can be used
by other organizations and modify the dynamics of the public sector stands out,
as proposed by the neo-Schumpeterians when presenting innovation and technology
as engines to modify the dynamics of capitalist markets.

Thus, in response to
the research question, the Neo-Schumpeterian theory has a basis for
understanding innovation laboratories in the public sector, as it seeks to
promote a dynamic through the process of experimentation, co-production, and
co-creation, which results in learning and knowledge, as well as new products
and/or public services. Thus, this study contributes to the understanding of
new dynamics in the public sector through the spaces for experimentation that
allow us to recognize and disseminate these laboratories as environments for
building knowledge and developing individual, collective, and organizational
competencies.

As limitations, we
highlight the difficulty in understanding certain aspects of the
Neo-Schumpeterian theory, considering that it corresponds to a broad theory
with several ramifications, which ends up making it complex. It is also noted
the scarcity of works in the literature that deal with innovation labs and
especially their results in the public sector, considering that it is a recent
subject that still needs further theoretical study.

However, the scarcity
of studies is an opportunity for new work to be developed, especially work that
presents the results of these laboratories, as well as the methods used to
absorb knowledge, learn, and develop the innovative projects. Furthermore,
identifying the training mechanisms for public servants used in innovation labs
for developing entrepreneurial skills can inspire other organizations in the
public sector to implement the labs, as well as disseminate a culture focused
on innovation, since, as presented by Sano (2020), the number of innovation
labs in the public sector in Brazil and worldwide has been growing, proving to
be an interesting alternative.

Another limitation
is that the model corresponds only to a theoretical study, requiring a
theoretical-empirical research for its validation in the field, which becomes
an opportunity for researchers seeking to understand the effectiveness of
innovation laboratories in the public sector.

Despite this, it
should be noted that this work sought to contribute to the field of Public
Administration by addressing that efforts have been made in order to make
public organizations more innovative, efficient, less bureaucratic in some
aspects, and oriented to the needs of citizens through open, participative, and
experimental innovation methodologies. In this sense, this essay provoked the
emergence of new theoretical and empirical questions for future discussions and
studies on the topic: What is the empirical scope of the neo-Schumpeterian
(evolutionary) theory? How would the congruences and peculiarities about
organizational forms in the context of innovation laboratories in government
present themselves in a comparative perspective between municipalities and
countries? What are the instruments used for knowledge absorption and
competence development within government innovation laboratories? What are the
scope and results of organizational and technological innovations for the
public sector? What is the potential reach of government innovation labs to transform
organizational routines in the public sector?

Finally, innovation
laboratories can be considered an important instrument to change the way public
organizations act using new methodologies and technologies. Thus, we tried to
demonstrate that governmental efforts are being made to transform the routine
of public organizations, demonstrating a concern to transform the public sector
and make it more efficient in providing public services, in order to generate
more value to citizens.

REFERENCES

ACEVEDO,
Sebastián; DASSEN, Nicolás. Innovando para una mejor gestión: la
contribución de los laboratorios de innovación pública. USA: IADB, 2016.

AMORIM, Wilson Aparecido Costa de; FISCHER, André
Luiz. A aprendizagem organizacional e suas bases econômicas. Nova Economia,
v. 23, n. 2, p. 329-366, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-63512013000200004

BASTOS, Fernando Clemente Cunha; BORGES,
Felipe; MELLO NETO, Altir Webber de; SAINZ, Aretuza Balardin; MELLO, Larisa Hemkemeier Weber de. Gestão por competência: uma análise
das competências sob a perspectiva dos servidores do IBAMA de Santa Catarina.
NAVUS, v. 9, n. 1, p. 74-86, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22279/navus.2019.v9n1.p74-86.778.

BERGUE, Sandro Trescastro. Gestão de
pessoas: liderança e competências para o setor público. ENAP: Brasília,
2019. Disponível em: http://repositorio.enap.gov.br/handle/1/4283. Acesso
em: 14 nov. 2020.

BERTERO, Carlos O. Réplica 2 - “O Que é um
Ensaio Teórico?” Réplica a Francis Kanashiro Meneghetti. Revista de Administração
Contemporânea, v. 15, n. 2, art. 2, p. 338-342, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552011000200012.

BURGOON, Judee K. The Challenge of Writing the
Theoretical Essay. In: ALEXANDER, Alison; POTTER, W. James (org.) How
to Publish Your Communication Research. London: Sage,
2001. p. 47-56.

BITTENCOURT, Cláudia Cristina. A gestão de competências
gerenciais e a contribuição da aprendizagem organizacional. RAE-Revista de
Administração e Estratégia, v. 44, n. 1, p. 58-69, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-75902004000100004.

CAVALCANTE, Pedro; CUNHA, Bruno Queiroz. É
preciso inovar no governo, mas por quê? In: CAVALCANTE et al. (org).
Inovação no setor público: teoria, tendências e casos no Brasil.
Brasília: Enap: Ipea, 2017, p. 15-32. Disponível em: https://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31178.
Acesso em: 16 nov. 2020.

CAVALCANTE, Pedro; MENDONÇA, Letícia;
BRANDALISE, Isabella. Políticas Públicas e Design Thinking: Interações para
enfrentar desafios contemporâneos. In: CAVALCANTE, Pedro. (org.).
Inovação e políticas públicas: superando o mito da ideia. Brasília: Enap: Ipea,
2019, p. 29-52. Disponível em: http://repositorio.ipea.gov.br/handle/11058/9383. Acesso
em: 14 nov. 2020.

CERLEIAL, Liana. A contribuição Neoschumpeteriana
e o desenvolvimento regional. In: CRUZ, Bruno de Oliveira et al. (org).
Economia regional e urbana: teorias e métodos com ênfase no Brasil.
Brasília: Ipea, 2011, p. 113-141.

DATHEIN, Ricardo (org.) Teoria Neoschumpeteriana
e desenvolvimento econômico. In: Desenvolvimentismo: o conceito,
as bases teóricas e as políticas [online]. Porto Alegre: Editora da UFRGS,
2003. Estudos e pesquisas IEPE series, p. 193-222.

EMMENDOERFER, Magnus Luiz. Inovação e
empreendedorismo no setor público. Brasília: ENAP, 2019. Disponível em: http://repositorio.enap.gov.br/handle/1/4282. Acesso
em: 14 nov. 2020.

EMMENDOERFER,
Magnus Luiz. Movimento de laboratórios para inovação como lócus de
solidariedade democrática e de enfrentamento à pandemia COVID-19. NAU Social,
v. 11, n. 21, p. 413-426, 2020. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.9771/ns.v11i21.38500.

EMMENDOERFER, Magnus Luiz; OLAVO, Antônio Vagner
Almeida; CARVALHO JÚNIOR, José Roberto A. Laboratórios de Inovação e a questão
de sua introdução em organizações públicas. In: ENCONTRO DA ASSOCIAÇÃO
NACIONAL DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO E PESQUISA EM ADMINISTRAÇÃO (ANPAD), 48., 2019, São
Paulo. Anais do XLIII Encontro da ANPAD – EnANPAD, São Paulo: ANPAD,
2019.

FEITOZA, Márcio Amorim. Laboratório de
Inovação: proposição de um modelo para a gestão central da Fundação Oswaldo
Cruz (FIOCRUZ). 2018. 124 f. Dissertação (Mestrado Profissional em
Administração Pública), Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro, 2018.

FERNANDES, Suelen Aparecida de Souza. Inovação
no Setor Público: uma análise da inovação no âmbito da Administração
Pública Federal sob o enfoque da co-criação.132f. Dissertação (Mestrado
Profissional em Administração Pública) - Universidade Federal de Lavras, Lavras,
2019.

FERRAREZI, Elisabete; LEMOS, Joselene; BRANDALISE, Isabella. Experimentação e novas possibilidades
em Governo: aprendizados de um Laboratório de Inovação, Brasília: Enap,
2018. Disponível em: http://repositorio.enap.gov.br/handle/1/3691. Acesso
em: 14 nov. 2020.

FIGUEIREDO, Paulo N. Aprendizagem tecnológica
e inovação industrial em economias emergentes: uma breve contribuição para o
desenho e implementação de estudos empíricos e estratégias no brasil. Revista
Brasileira de Inovação, v. 3, n. 2, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20396/rbi.v3i2.8648901.

FLEURY; Maria Tereza Leme; FLEURY, Afonso
Carlos Correia. Construindo o conceito de competências. RAC, Edição
Especial, p. 183-196, 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552001000500010.

GALHARDO, Cassiano. Laboratório de Inovação
no Setor Público: um estudo sobre o MobLAB da
cidade de São Paulo. 2019. 165 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Cidades
Inteligentes), Universidade Nove de Julho – UNINOVE, São Paulo, 2019.

GRANOVETTER, Mark. Ação econômica e estrutura
social: o problema da imersão. RAE eletrônica, v. 6, n. 1, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-56482007000100006.

ISIDRO, Antônio. Gestão Pública Inovadora:
um guia para a inovação no setor público. Curitiba: CRV, 2018.

ISIDRO-FILHO, Antônio. Inovação no setor público:
evidências da gestão pública federal brasileira no período de 1999-2014. In:
CAVALCANTE, Pedro et al. (org). Inovação no setor público:
teoria, tendências e casos no Brasil. Brasília: Enap: Ipea, 2017, p. 165-178.
Disponível em: https://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31178. Acesso em: 16 nov. 2020.

MULGAN, Geoff. The radical’s dilemma: an overview of the practice
and prospects of Social and Public Labs – Version 1. UK: Nesta, 2014.
Disponível em: https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/social_and_public_labs_-_and_the_radicals_dilemma.pdf.
Acesso em: 15 dez. 2020.

NELSON, Richard R.; WINTER, Sidney G. Uma
teoria evolucionária da mudança econômica. Campinas: Editora
da Unicamp, 2005.

PUTTICK, Ruth; BAECK, Peter; COLLIGAN, Philip. I-teams: the teams
and funds making innovation happen in governments around the world. UK:
Bloomberg, 2014.

ORSI, Carolini Eccel; NEUBERGER, Daniela; CARIO, Silvio A. F.
Características dos processos inovativos do setor industrial do Brasil e da região
Sul 2006-2014: análise sob a perspectiva teórica neoschumpeteriana. Rev. Text. Econ., v. 22, n. 1, p. 32-58, 2019. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8085.2019v22n1p32.

RESENDE, Tamiris Cristhina; EMMENDOERFER,
Magnus Luiz; VALADARES, Josiel Lopes; LIMA, Afonso Augusto Teixeira de Freitas
de Carvalho. Atuação de empreendedores públicos na formulação de um programa de
apoio ao desenvolvimento juvenil. Rev. Adm. UFSM, v. 10 n. 2, p.
318-337, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5902/1983465910251.

RISSARDI JÚNIOR, Darcy Jacob. A
agroindústria canavieira do Paraná pós-desregulamentação: uma abordagem
neoschumpeteriana. 2005. 136 p. Dissertação (Mestrado em Desenvolvimento
Regional e Agronegócio), UNIOESTE, Toledo, 2005.

RISSARDI JÚNIOR, Darci Jacobi; SHIKIDA, Pery Francisco Assi; DAHMER, Vanessa de Souza Inovação, tecnologia
e concorrência: uma revisita ao pensamento neoschumpeteriano.
Economia & Tecnologia, v. 16, p. 117-130, 2009. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5380/ret.v5i1.27308.

RODRÍGUEZ,
Exequiel; GRANDINETTI, Rita. Laboratorios de Gobierno para la Innovación
Pública: un estudio comparado de las experiencias americanas y europeas; RedInnolabs: Rosario, Argentina, 2018.

SANO, Hironobu. Laboratórios de Inovação no
setor público: mapeamento e diagnósticos de experiências nacionais.
Cadernos Enap. Brasília: Enap, 2020. Disponível em: https://repositorio.enap.gov.br/handle/1/5112. Acesso em: 16 nov. 2020.

SCHUURMAN, Dimitri; TÕNURIST, Piret.
Innovation in the public sector: exploring the characteristics and potential of
living labs and innovation labs. Technology Innovation Management
Review, v. 7, n. 1, p. 7-14, 2016.

SILVA, Glessia;
SILVA, Débora Eleonora Pereira da. Inovação aberta em serviços e o papel do
cliente no ambiente de negócios: uma análise com estudantes universitários. NAVUS,
v. 5, n. 3, p. 74-87, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22279/navus.2015.v5n3.p74-87.242.

SILVA JUNIOR, Adelson Felizardo da. Laboratórios
de Inovação no setor público: diretrizes e possibilidades para a
Universidade de Brasília. 2019. 91f. Dissertação (Mestrado Profissional em
Gestão Pública), Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, 2019.

TEECE, David J.; PISANO, Gary; SHUEN, Amy. Dynamic capabilities and
strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, v. 18, n. 7, p.
509–34. 1997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z.

TIGRE, Paulo Bastos. Inovação e teorias da
firma em três paradigmas. Revista de Economia Contemporânea, v. 2, n. 1,
p. 67-111, 1998.

TÕNURIST, Piret;
KATTEL, Rainer; LEMBER, Veiko. Descobrindo
Laboratórios de Inovação no setor público. In: CAVALCANTE, Pedro et
al. (org). Inovação no setor público: teoria, tendências e casos no
Brasil. Brasília: Enap: Ipea, 2017, p. 179-204. Disponível em: https://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31178.
Acesso em: 16 nov. 2020.

TOREZANI, Tomás Amaral. Desenvolvimento econômico,
instituições e inovação: a interação entre as abordagens institucionalista e
evolucionária. Perspectiva Econômica, v. 10, n. 2, p. 67-79, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4013/pe.2014.102.01.

VALADARES,
Josiel Lopes; ALCÂNTARA, Valderí
de Castro; BOAS, Ana Alice Vilas; EMMENDOERFER, Magnus Luiz. Os discursos do
empreendedorismo na administração pública brasileira: análise crítica de uma
experiência contemporânea. Revista
de Administração da UFSM, v. 10, n. 6, p. 990-1008, 2017. DOI: 10.5902/19834659 13412.

VIEIRA, Rosele Marques.
Teoria da firma e inovação: um enfoque neoschumpeteriano.
Cadernos de Economia, v. 14, n. 27, p. 36-49, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46699/rce.v14i27.1180.

WERNECK, Caio; FERRAREZI, Elisabete; BRANDALISE,
Isabella; VAQUEIRO, Lucas; BONDUKI, Manuel. Ciclos de vida de laboratórios
de inovação pública, ENAP: Brasília, 2020. Disponível em: http://repositorio.enap.gov.br/handle/1/5000. Acesso
em: 14 nov. 2020.

WILLIAMSON, Ben. Testing governance: the laboratory lives and
methods of policy innovation labs. Stirling: University of Stirling, 2015.

ZAHRA, Shaker A.; GEORGE, Gerard. Absorptive Capacity: a review,
reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, v. 27,
n. 2, p. 185-203, 2002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.6587995.

ZAMPIER, Marcia Aparecida; TAKAHASHI, Adriana
Roseli Wünsch. Competências empreendedoras e
processos de aprendizagem empreendedora: modelo conceitual de pesquisa. Cadernos
EBAPE.BR, v. 9, edição especial, p. 564-585, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-39512011000600007.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

"We thank the National Council for Scientific
and Technological Development of Brazil (CNPq - Projects 408437 / 2016-1;
309363 / 2019-5), the Research Foundation of Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG -
PPM-00049-18), and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher-Level
Personnel (CAPES - funding 001)."