Recebido em 04/09/2017.
Aprovado em 03/12/2017. Avaliado pelo sistema double blind peer review. Publicado conforme normas da ABNT.

Diagnosis of innovative organizations: a study in the
Center of the Industries of the State of São Paulo

Marcos
Augusto de Vasconcellos

Doutor em Administração. Fundação Getúlio Vargas
(FGV) – Brasil. [email-masked]

Luiz
Carlos Di Serio

(FGV) – Brasil. [email-masked]

José
Carlos Barbieri

(FGV) – Brasil. [email-masked]

ABSTRACT

The article was aimed
to diagnose the competencies of innovative organizations at Centro das
Indústrias do Estado de São Paulo (CIESP). This is a quantitative, descriptive study. The research method adopted
was the survey, and a structured questionnaire was applied to 62 companies
affiliated to CIESP. Data were analyzed using Excel software. We used the
descriptive statistics to analyze them. As a result, the companies demonstrate
good leadership skills management and strategic intent, innovative medium and
people, but have slightly lower scores when it comes to the process of
innovation and results.

Keywords: Innovation.
Competencies. Innovative Organizations.

Diagnóstico das
organizações inovadoras: um estudo no Centro das Indústrias do Estado de São
Paulo

RESUMO

O artigo tem
como objetivo realizar um diagnóstico das competências das organizações
inovadoras no Centro das Indústrias do Estado de São Paulo (CIESP). Trata-se de
um estudo quantitativo, de caráter descritivo. O método de pesquisa adotado foi
o survey, sendo aplicado questionário
estruturado em 62 empresas filiadas ao CIESP. Os dados foram analisados com
auxílio do software Excel. Foi
utilizada estatística descritiva. Como resultados, as empresas demonstram boa
gestão das competências liderança e intenção estratégica, meio inovador e
pessoas, mas possuem pontuações um pouco mais baixas quando se trata do
processo de inovação e resultados.

Palavras-chave: Inovação. Competências.
Organizações Inovadoras.

1 INTRODUCTION

In this
context, innovation organizations are organizations that innovate in a
systematic way, meaning they are able to continuously innovate and maintain an
innovation process (CROSSAN; APAYDIN, 2009; SMITH et al., 2008). These
organizations value the ideas (MARKIDES, 1997) and the potential that the
different types of innovations have for the company's competitiveness (CROSSAN;
APAYDIN, 2009). As a result, they maintain a greater interaction with the
internal and external environment and are able to capture market needs better,
turning them into innovation (ANDERSON; POTOČNIK; ZHOU, 2014; GEORGE; MCGAHAN;
PRABHU, 2012; OLIVEIRA; ALVES, 2014).

An
innovative organization also has some key competencies, meaning some factors
that contribute to the long-term prosperity and success of the business in
terms of innovation (CHRISTENSEN, 1997; HAMEL; PRAHALAD, 1994). These skills
are essential because they enable organizations to innovate, especially in the
current competitive scenario, full of technological and environmental
discontinuities and uncertainties (HALL; BACHOR; MATOS, 2014; HEAVEY; SIMSEK,
2013).

Among the
models that deal with innovation competencies or key innovation factors, we can
mention: Tang (1998), which has six innovation constructs - information and
communication, behavior and integration, knowledge and skills, abstraction and
elaboration of projects, orientation and support, and external environment; or
Smith et al. (2008), which consider nine factors - management style and
leadership, resources, organizational structure, corporate strategy,
technology, knowledge management, employees, and innovation processes - Crossan
and Apaydin (2009), which bring five main perspectives - innovation as a
process, innovation as a result, management processes, management levels, and
leadership; and the Fundação Getúlio Vargas Innovation Forum (2014), which
considers five core competencies - leadership and strategic intent, innovative
internal environment, people, innovation processes and results.

In this article,
the model proposed by the Fundação Getúlio Vargas Innovation Forum (2014) will
be used, with the objective of making a diagnosis of the competencies of
innovative organizations in the Centro das Indústrias do Estado de São Paulo
(CIESP). The choice for the model is due to the integrated view of the
organization of the model and the ability to adjust to any type of
organization, regardless of the size and sector of activity (FUNDAÇÃO GETÚLIO
VARGAS INNOVATION FORUM, 2014). The article is divided in five sections, being:
introduction, theoretical reference, methodological procedures, presentation
and discussion of results and final considerations.

2 THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK

Innovation
can be conceptualized as a process of "creative destruction," where old
elements give way to new ones (SCHUMPETER, 1982). It can also be considered as
a complicated process of applying new ideas for a financial purpose, which is
the interest of many companies (TANG, 1998). However, many factors affect both
its development and the results of innovation (HALL; BACHOR; MATOS, 2014;
HEAVEY; SIMSEK, 2013; TANG, 1998). This complexity becomes even greater when
considering the different perspectives, types and factors of innovation,
innovation is measured in different ways in the literature and that there are
several definitions of innovation (CROSSAN; APAYDIN, 2009).

The
innovation literature says that organizations can become competitive with
innovation management, but does not say how, and there is a need to identify
the factors that allow good management of innovation (SMITH et al., 2008). At
the same time, few attempts have been made to gather all the knowledge one has
of innovation in a compact model, since to be effective, the model has to be
based on several fields of knowledge (CROSSAN; APAYDIN, 2009; TANG, 1998).

Although
few, such attempts can be observed in the studies of Crossan and Apaydin
(2009), Smith et al. (2008) and Tang (1998), which deal specifically with
models of innovative organizations, and in the studies of Herley and Hult
(1998), Lawson and Samson (2001) and Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997) which deal
with innovation capabilities.

Tang
(1998) identified three perspectives that have the potential to make
organizations innovative: creativity, dynamics and organization. These
perspectives would influence the six innovation constructs that, according to
the author, form the model of innovative organization: information and
communication; behavior and integration; knowledge and skills; capturing and
designing projects; guidance and support; and external environment. Smith et
al. (2008), identified nine determinant factors for the innovative organization
model: management style and leadership; resources; organizational structure;
corporate strategy; technology; knowledge management; employees; innovation
processes. The importance of the work of Smith et al. (2008) do not lie in
identifying the factors but in understanding the relations between the factors,
since these function in a holistic way.

The model
presented by Crossan and Apaydin (2009) considers two perspectives, one focused
on the determinants of innovation (leadership, managerial levels and business
processes) and another on the dimensions of innovation (innovation as a process
and as a result), both interrelated. The model directly relates innovation to
competitiveness (CROSSAN; APAYDIN, 2009).

Regarding
the capacity of organizations to innovate Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997)
emphasize the role of dynamic innovation capabilities - production factors,
resources, dynamic capabilities, products, organizational resources and
competencies, core competencies - and the trajectory of dependency, which
causes some choices to determine the organization's future performance. Herley
and Hult (1998) highlight the organizational characteristics - structural and
process characteristics and cultural characteristics - and the outputs of
innovation - capacity for innovation and advantage and competitive performance
- as a process that drives and affects innovation in the organization.

Lawson and
Samson (2001) consider innovation management as an organizational capacity, so
that their model puts more emphasis on the knowledge that is generated within
the organization and the mechanisms that are developed to support that
knowledge, including leadership, culture, Vision and strategy.

By
comparing the factors recommended in the models of innovative organizations and
innovation capacity, as well as the temporal distance in which the work was
developed, it is noticed that everyone places the organizational culture, even
though Tang (1998) does not use the term in the model, as vital for the
creation of an innovation model that best explains and directs innovation in
organizations. In addition, there is a strong emphasis on aspects such as
leadership, creativity, strategic vision and other attributes that place
greater emphasis on what the company does rather than on what the company has,
although resources are considered an important factor in all models. This
allows us to understand the role of the people in the organization and the
complexity of each factor of the models.

Based on
these models and applied research, the Fundação Getúlio Vargas Innovation Forum
(2014) developed the Innovative Organization Diagnostic Model, composed of five
main competencies: leadership and strategic intent; Innovative internal
environment; people; innovation processes; and results (Table 1).

Table 1– Innovative Organization Diagnostic Model

Innovative Competencies

Innovation Dimensions

Leadership and Strategic Intention

Leadership and strategic intent define the
course and provide an environment conducive to creativity and innovation
(CROSSAN; APAYDIN, 2009; TANG, 1998). This competency has two basic and
complementary functions: the one of direction, which allows the definition of
directions, and the exchange of information with the environment, which
allows the organization to capture the external elements that affect it (FGV
/ EAESP, Forum of Innovation 2014).

Internal Innovative Environment

Barbieri and Álvares (2002) coined the term
internal innovative approach, adopted by the Fundação Getúlio Vargas
Innovation Forum (2014), to designate the context that provides the internal
synergies necessary to the continued generation of innovations in a given organization.
The determining factors of the innovative internal environment are the
mobilizing leadership, the formal relations and the sociocultural relations (FUNDAÇÃO
GETÚLIO VARGAS INNOVATION FORUM, 2014).

People

This competence deals with the specific
characteristics of each person and is essential to effectively fulfill their
role as an agent of innovation and change (FUNDAÇÃO GETÚLIO VARGAS INNOVATION
FORUM). Such aspects are qualification and learning and motivation.

Innovation Processes

This competence is related to the realization
of innovations and includes: management of innovation processes, obtaining
resources for innovation and stages of innovation processes (FUNDAÇÃO GETÚLIO
VARGAS INNOVATION FORUM, 2014).

Results

The generation of innovation results is a
challenge for organizations (QUANDT et al., 2014; RAMOS; ZILBER, 2015). The
results can be analyzed from three complementary prisms: immediate results of
innovations, impacts of innovations and fulfillment of objectives and
innovation plans (FUNDAÇÃO GETÚLIO VARGAS INNOVATION FORUM, 2014).

Source: Fundação
Getúlio Vargas Innovation Forum (2014)

Depending
on how these elements interrelate in the organization, different outputs of
innovation will be generated, ranging from not generating innovation to
generating new products, processes, business models, among others. It is worth
observing that the model also considers the role that learning plays in the
organization, making it create conditions or not to maintain a process of
innovation.

The model
is, therefore, an attempt to provide subsidies to organizations so that they
can guide their innovation practices towards better innovation results and the
search for better performance and lasting competitive advantages. It should be
noted that each organization has specific characteristics, so each factor gains
more or less emphasis, as well as being related, among the other factors, in a
different way, depending on these characteristics and the strategic intentions
of each organization. Thus, the model is dynamic and has the objective of
attending to the organizations as a whole and not a sector or specific type of
organization, being its adaptation at the discretion of the decision maker.

3 METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES

The
research was aimed to diagnose the competencies of innovative organizations at
Centro das Indústrias do Estado de São Paulo (CIESP). For this, a quantitative
study was carried out (SAUNDERS; LEWIS; THORNILL, 2007). The research method
adopted was the survey, adequate because it allows reaching a larger number of
respondents (BABBIE, 2001; SAUNDERS; LEWIS; THORNILL, 2007).

The
companies linked to the Centro das Indústrias do Estado de São Paulo were
chosen as object of study because Ciesp is the largest representative entity of
the industrial sector in Latin America and, therefore, congregates companies with a strong
economic impact.

As a
research tool, a questionnaire was developed based on the methodology of the Fundação
Getúlio Vargas Innovation Forum (2014). The questions were developed on a
five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 for Totally Disagree to 5 for Totally
Agree. A total of 35 questions were prepared, distributed in: (a) 13 questions
on the organization's profile; (b) 04 questions on Leadership and Strategic
Intention competence; (c) 05 questions on the Internal Innovative Environment;
(d) 02 questions on People competence; (e) 07 questions on Processes of
Innovation competence; and (f) 04 questions on the Results competence. Table 2
presents the competencies and dimensions that guided the research and
construction of the questionnaire.

Table 2 – Categories, Dimensions and
Indicators

Innovative Competencies

Innovation Dimensions

Innovation Indicators

Leadership and Strategic Intention

Direction

• Corporative Principles

• Strategic Intent for innovation

Interchange with the environment

• Institutional action

• Prospecting and interpretation
of signals

Internal Innovative Environment

Leadership

• Mobilizing Leadership

Formal relations

• Management model

• Work life quality

Informal relations

• Culture and innovation

• Informal internal networks

People

People

• Qualification and learning

• Motivation

Innovation Processes

Innovation management

• Management of innovation
processes

Innovation resources

• Capital for innovation

• Knowledge for innovation

• Strategic alliances for
innovation

Stages of innovation processes

• Generating of ideas for
innovation

• Prioritization and development
of projects

• Implementation

Results

Innovation results

• Economic and financial results

• Fulfillment of innovation
objectives

• Innovation process results

• Innovations impacts

Source: Fundação Getúlio Vargas Innovation
Forum (2014)

From the
development of the questionnaire, the following stages were accomplished: (1)
elaboration of the communication process and stimulus material for the research
respondents; (2) inclusion of the questionnaire in the SurveyMonkey platform.
The questionnaire remained available between November 2016 and February 2017.
At the end, 62 valid questionnaires were obtained. Finally, the data collected
on the SurveyMonkey platform were exported to Microsoft Excel, where
descriptive statistics were applied.

4 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

This
section discusses the results found in the 62 sources of this study based on
the five competencies - Leadership and Strategy, Innovative Environment,
People, Innovation Processes, Results. Graphic 1 gives an overview of the
results obtained in each innovation competency.

Graphic 1 -Outcome of
innovation competencies

Source: Field Research
(2017)

The
organizations studied present better results in the skills Leadership and
Strategic Intention, Innovative Internal Environment and People and worse
results in the competences Processes of Innovation and results. Although the
last two competencies do not have such low scores, the disproportion between
competencies indicates that the organizations studied have difficulty
transforming previous competences into innovation results. Competencies are the
basis of innovation and have a joint role in maintaining an innovative
organization, so that difficulties in a competency affect the overall result of
innovation (CHRISTENSEN, 1997; HALL; BACHOR; MATOS, 2014; HAMEL; PRAHALAD,
1994; HEAVEY; SIMSEK, 2013).

4.1 Leadership and strategic intention

The
Leadership and Strategic Intention competence is related to the dimensions of
direction and interchange with the environment (FUNDAÇÃO GETÚLIO VARGAS INNOVATION FORUM, 2014). Of the 62 companies, 56 assessed
themselves positively. This competence indicates the ability of the company to
understand the signs of change from its external environment and to create
protection mechanisms. The CIESP companies that participated in the study
perceive themselves as capable of transforming their strategic principles into
actions that lead to innovation. As a result, these firms are more likely to
align innovation practices with business (OLIVEIRA; ALVES, 2014) and generate
innovation opportunities (ROBERTSON; CASALI; JACOBSON, 2012).

The positive
self-assessment in this competence also indicates that the companies studied
perceive themselves as companies that build an environment conducive to the
self-realization of their employees, helping them to find meaning in their work
and sharing power. This has a positive impact on creativity and innovation
(CROSSAN; APAYDIN, 2009; TANG, 1998).

4.2 Internal innovative environment

The Internal
Innovative Environment competence is related to the dimensions of leadership,
formal relations and informal relations (FUNDAÇÃO GETÚLIO VARGAS INNOVATION
FORUM, 2014). Of the 62 companies, 52 assessed themselves positively. This
competence concerns the creation of an internal cohesion environment that
connects a mobilizing leadership to a management model that allows the
construction of an innovative culture. The companies that composed the study do
not show, therefore, difficulty in mobilizing people to fulfill the
organization's strategic attempts (CROSSAN; APAYDIN, 2009) and for the
generation of internal ideas and potentials (ÁLVARES, 2001), which allows the
organization to generate innovations continuously (BARBIERI; ÁLVARES, 2002).

The
positive self-assessment in this competence also indicates that the companies
studied perceive themselves as companies that stimulate initiatives such as:
participatory management, valuing people and continuing learning, lack of
punishment for errors due to good intentions, and a climate of trust with
freedom to express opinions. Initiatives for innovation arise when people live
in a good and reliable environment, which feeds commitment and motivation,
favoring the emergence of ideas for innovation.

4.3 People

The
Leadership and Strategic Intention competence is related to the dimensions of
people (FUNDAÇÃO GETÚLIO VARGAS INNOVATION FORUM, 2014). Of the 62 companies,
53 assessed themselves positively. This competence refers to the learning
processes, the improvement of the professional qualification and the motivation
of the people involved. The result obtained in this competence indicates that
the companies that participated in this study do not present difficulties in
qualifying and keeping people motivated, which in turn positively influences
companies' capacity to innovate (VASCONCELLOS, 1997). An innovation
infrastructure that stimulates learning mechanisms and promotes higher
qualification helps companies to realize established innovation practices and
foster innovation opportunities (CROSSAN; APACHDIN, 2009; ZACHER; ROSING, 2015).

The
positive self-assessment in this competence also indicates that the companies
studied perceive themselves as companies that see people as knowledge holders
and, therefore, effective agents of change and innovation. It is the people who
lead - make it happen - the process of innovation. They must therefore be heard
when analyzing the innovative capacity of any organization.

4.4 Innovation processes

The
competence of innovation processes is related to the dimensions of innovation
management, resources for innovation and stages of innovation processes (FUNDAÇÃO
GETÚLIO VARGAS INNOVATION FORUM, 2014). Of the 62 companies, 40 assessed
themselves positively. This competence is responsible for allowing the
organization to maintain an ongoing process of innovation. Compared to the
previous competences, the organizations that are the sources of this study
demonstrate greater difficulty in managing the innovation process. This may
compromise the innovative capacity of these companies and the appropriateness
between daily innovation practices and market requirements (JOHNSON;
CHRISTENSEN; KAGERMANN, 2008; TIDD; BESSANT; PAVITT, 2008).

Innovation
processes lead to the realization of innovations, promoting a structured way to
identify ideas for innovation, to obtain diverse resources necessary for the
implementation of innovation and monitoring of its result. The greater
difficulty in this competence indicates, therefore, difficulty in transforming
previous competences into innovation.

4.5 Results

The
Results competence is related to the dimensions of innovation results (FUNDAÇÃO
GETÚLIO VARGAS INNOVATION FORUM, 2014). Of the 62 companies, 40 assessed
themselves positively. This competency represents how much the company can
reverse the inputs of innovation in innovation outputs that contribute to the
strengthening and business growth. Just as in the competence processes of
innovation, the companies demonstrated certain difficulty in the competence
results. This is a reflection of the difficulty in maintaining an innovation
process that transforms previous competences into innovation outputs (QUANDT et
al., 2014, RAMOS; ZILBER, 2015).

Such
problems can mean poor strategies, loss of competitiveness and difficulty in
aligning the business with the market, so that organizations must not only
create mechanisms that allow them to innovate but also align their actions with
the expected results. By representing the need to measure the impact of innovations
on an organization, the Results competence is a challenge for the companies
studied.

5 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

The aim of
this article was to perform a diagnostic of the competencies of innovative
organizations in the Centro das Indústrias do Estado de São Paulo (CIESP),
according to the methodology of the Fundação Getúlio Vargas Innovation Forum,
which is based on five competencies of the innovative organization: leadership
and strategic intent; internal innovative environment; people; innovation
processes; and results. The research method adopted was a survey.

The
companies demonstrate good leadership skills management and strategic intent,
innovative medium and people, but have slightly lower scores when it comes to
the process of innovation and results. This is due to the fact that the
innovation process is responsible for linking previous competences within an
innovation strategy coherent with the business and the market (BARBIERI, 2003).
In this sense, although they have innovative inputs that lead to the generation
of results, the process itself is still challenging for these organizations.

Such notes
suggest that organizations should focus on building mechanisms that leverage
previous competencies into a dynamic innovation system, represented by a strong
innovation process that leverages previous competencies. In addition, companies
must take care for their competencies maintain synergy between them, thus
avoiding an innovation process that proves to be ineffective in the long term (FUNDAÇÃO
GETÚLIO VARGAS INNOVATION FORUM, 2014).

These
results reinforce the need for companies to think of innovation as a result of
idea, action and results and make efforts to maximize their innovative capacity
for business continuity. A company that is unable to innovate or cannot keep up
with the current market demands can quickly lose its competitive position and
be replaced by others that better understand market dynamics.

As
practical contributions, the article draws attention to the difficulty of
organizations managing the innovation process and achieving results. Such
insight allows companies to understand the need to link innovation competencies
to a dynamic and interactive process that will deliver long-term results. As a
theoretical contribution, the article presents as a proposal the diagnostic
model of the innovative organization proposed by the Fundação Getúlio Vargas
Innovation Forum (2014), which has been conceptually developed by the Forum
over the last 15 years, culminating in five competencies responsible for
generating innovation.

REFERENCES

ÁLVARES, A. C. T. The 3M way to innovation:
balancing people and profit. Revista de
Administração de Empresas, v. 41, n. 3, p. 94-95, 2001.

ANDERSON, N.; POTOČNIK, K.; ZHOU, J. Innovation
and creativity in organizations a state-of-the-science review, prospective
commentary, and guiding framework. Journal
of Management, v. 40, n. 5, p. 1297-1333, 2014.

BABBIE, E. Métodos de pesquisas de survey. Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG, 2001.

BARBIERI, J. C.;
ÁLVARES, A. C. T. Meio inovador empresarial: conceitos, modelos e casos. Revista IMES Administração, v. 56, p.
34-43, set./dez, 2002.

BARBIERI, J. C. Organizações inovadoras: estudos e
casos brasileiros. Rio de Janeiro: Editora da FGV,
2003.

CHRISTENSEN, C. M. The innovator’s dilemma: When
New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1997.

CROSSAN, M. M.; APAYDIN, M. A multi‐dimensional framework of
organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, v. 47,
n. 6, p. 1154-1191, 2009.

FUNDAÇÃO GETÚLIO VARGAS INNOVATION FORUM. Caderno
14. [2014]. Disponível em:
<https://inovforum.fgv.br/antigo/caderno-14-maior-de-2014/>. Acesso em: 2 mar. 2018.

GEORGE, G.; MCGAHAN, A. M.; PRABHU, J.
Innovation for inclusive growth: Towards a theoretical framework and a research
agenda. Journal of Management Studies, v. 49, n. 4, p. 661-683, 2012.

HAMEL, G.; PRAHALAD, C. K. Competing for the
Future. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press, 1994.

HALL, J.; BACHOR, V.; MATOS, S. The impact of
stakeholder heterogeneity on risk perceptions in technological innovation. Technovation, v. 34, n. 8, p. 410-419,
2014.

HEAVEY, C.; SIMSEK, Z. Top management
compositional effects on corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating role of
perceived technological uncertainty. Journal
of Product Innovation Management, v. 30, n. 5, p. 837-855, 2013.

HERLEY, R. F.; HULT, G. Tomas M. Innovation,
Market Orientation, and Organizational Learning: An Integration and Empirical
Examination. Journal of Marketing, v. 62, p. 42-54, 1998.

JOHNSON, M. W.; CHRISTENSEN, C. M.; KAGERMANN,
H. Reinventing your business model. Harvard
Business Review, v. 86, n. 12, p. 57-68, 2008.

LAWSON, B.; SAMSON, D. Developing Innovation
Capability in Organizations: a Dynamic Capabilities Approach. International Journal of Innovation
Management, v. 18, n. 3, p.
377-400, 2001.

MARKIDES, C. Strategic innovation. Sloan Management Review, v. 38, p. 9-24, 1997.

OLIVEIRA, S. M.;
ALVES, J. L. Influência das práticas de inovação aberta na prospecção de
conhecimentos para a criação de valor em ambientes de alta complexidade sob
condições de incerteza e imprevisibilidade. Revista de Administração e Inovação, v. 11, n. 1, p. 295-318, 2014.

QUANDT, C. O. et al.
Programas de gestão de ideias e inovação: as práticas das grandes empresas na
região sul do Brasil. Revista de
Administração e Inovação, v. 11, n. 3, p. 176-199, 2014.

RAMOS, A.; ZILBER,
S. N. O impacto do investimento na capacidade inovadora da empresa. Revista de Administração e Inovação, v. 12, n. 1, p. 303-325, 2015.

ROBERTSON, P. L.; CASALI, G. L.; JACOBSON, D. Managing
open incremental process innovation: absorptive capacity and distributed learning.
Research Policy, v. 41, n. 5, p.
822-832, 2012.

SAUNDERS, M.; LEWIS, P.; THORNILL, A. Research Methods for Business Students. 2. ed. Harlow, England: Pearson
Education, 2007.

SCHUMPETER, J. A Teoria do Desenvolvimento Econômico:
uma investigação sobre lucros, capital, crédito, juro e o ciclo Econômico. São
Paulo: Ed. Abril S.A. Cultural e Industrial, 1982.

SMITH, M. et al. Factors influencing an organisation's ability to manage innovation: a
structured literature review and conceptual model. International Journal of Innovation Management, v. 12, n. 4, p. 655-676, 2008.

TANG, H. K. An Integrative model of innovation
in Organizations. Technovation, v. 18, n. 5, p. 297-309, 1998.

TEECE, D. J.; PISANO, G.; SHUEN, A. Dynamic
capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,
v. 18, n. 7, p. 509-533, 1997.

TIDD, J.; BESSANT,
J.; PAVITT, K. Gestão da inovação.
3. ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2008.

VASCONCELLOS, M. A. Excelência e Humanização da Produção. 1997.
Monografia (Obtenção do nível de professor titular) – Fundação Getúlio Vargas –
Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo, São Paulo, 1997.

ZACHER, H.; ROSING, K. Ambidextrous leadership
and team innovation. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, v. 36, n. 1, p. 54-68, 2015.