Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Master - Thesis - Fernanda - Vilela1 MO Brazil PDF
Master - Thesis - Fernanda - Vilela1 MO Brazil PDF
Technology-based MSMEs
1
CONTENTS
2
2.4.1 Definition of market orientation ....................................................................... 42
3 Methodology............................................................................................... 48
3
5.4.4 Enabling factors for innovation management ................................................. 115
References....................................................................................................... 190
4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 6.1: Main differences found between VC backed and Non supported firms ... 176
LIST OF FIGURES
6
Figure 5.4.37: Staff attitudes towards innovation: Imaginative 79
Figure 5.4.38: Imaginative X Category of respondents 79
Figure 5.4.39: Staff attitudes towards innovation: reluctant to try out new methods 80
Figure 5.4.40: Reluctant to try out new methods X Category of respondents 80
Figure 5.4.41: Staff attitudes towards innovation: able to “sell” ideas internally 81
Figure 5.4.42: Able to “sell” ideas internally X Category of respondents 81
Figure 5.4.43: Staff attitudes towards innovation: Focusing on business impact 82
Figure 5.4.44: Focusing on business impact X Category of respondents 82
Figure 5.4.45: Capacity for innovation viewed by customers 83
Figure 5.4.46: Capacity for innovation viewed by customers X Category of
83
respondents
Figure 5.4.47: Capacity for innovation viewed by competitors 84
Figure 5.4.48: Capacity for innovation viewed by competitors X Category of
84
respondents
Figure 5.4.49: Capacity for innovation viewed by suppliers 85
Figure 5.4.50:Capacity for innovation viewed by suppliers X Category of
86
respondents
Figure 5.4.51: Capacity for innovation viewed by the entrepreneur 86
Figure 5.4.52:Capacity for innovation viewed by the entrepreneur X Category of
87
respondents
Figure 5.4.53: Degree of partnerships’ support and enhance: idea management
87
phase
Figure 5.4.54: Support to the idea management phase X Category of respondents 88
Figure 5.4.55: Degree of partnerships’ support and enhance: development phase 88
Figure 5.4.56: Support to the development phase X Category of respondents
89
Figure 5.4.57: Degree of partnerships’ support and enhance: launch phase
Figure 5.4.58: Support to the launch phase X Category of respondents 90
Figure 5.4.59: Number of external partners participating in innovation projects 90
Figure 5.4.60: Number of external partners participating in innovation projects X
91
Category of respondents
Figure 5.4.61: Number of external partners that have cooperated in the last 3 years 91
Figure 5.4.62: Number of external partners that have cooperated in the last 3 years X
92
Category of respondents
Figure 5.4.63: Number of people current working on innovation projects with
92
external partners
Figure 5.4.64: Number of people current working on innovation projects with
93
external partners X Category of respondents
Figure 5.4.65: Time for the most profitable from the development until
94
product/service on sale
Figure 5.4.66: Time for the most profitable from the development until
94
product/service on sale X Category of respondents
Figure 5.4.67: Time for the most profitable product/service from the project
95
authorization until the breakeven point
Figure 5.4.68: Time for the most profitable product/service from the project
95
authorization until the breakeven point
7
Figure 5.4.69: Number of incremental innovation projects started in the last 4 years 96
Figure 5.4.70: Number of incremental innovation projects started in the last 4 years
96
X Category of respondents
Figure 5.4.71: Number of incremental innovation projects that showed success within
97
the last 4 years
Figure 5.4.72: Number of incremental innovation projects that showed success within
97
the last 4 years X Category of respondents
Figure 5.4.73: Number of radical innovation projects started in the last 4 years 98
Figure 5.4.74: Number of radical innovation projects started in the last 4 years X
98
Category of respondents
Figure 5.4.75: Number of radical innovation projects that showed success within the
99
last 4 years
Figure 5.4.76: Number of radical innovation projects that showed success within the
99
last 4 years
Figure 5.4.77: Assessment of new ideas by an interdisciplinary team 100
Figure 5.4.78: Assessment of new ideas by an interdisciplinary team X Category of
100
respondents
Figure 5.4.79: Assessment of new ideas by a set of predefined criteria applied to all
101
innovation projects
Figure 5.4.80: Assessment of new ideas by a set of predefined criteria applied to all
101
innovation projects X Category of respondents
Figure 5.4.81: Assessment of new ideas by criteria tailored per project 102
Figure 5.4.82: Assessment of new ideas by criteria tailored per project X Category
102
of respondents
Figure 5.4.83: Assessment of new ideas by criteria derived from innovation strategy 103
Figure 5.4.84: Assessment of new ideas by criteria derived from innovation strategy
103
X Category of respondents
Figure 5.4.85: Provision of feedback to the suppliers 104
Figure 5.4.86: Provision of feedback to the suppliers X Category of respondents 104
Figure 5.4.87: Provision of feedback to the direct customers 105
Figure 5.4.88: Provision of feedback to the indirect customers 105
Figure 5.4.89: Provision of feedback to the indirect customers X Category of
106
respondents
Figure 5.4.90: Provision of feedback to marketing and sales personnel 106
Figure 5.4.91: Provision of feedback to product/service development personnel 107
Figure 5.4.92: Provision of feedback to research institutes and universities 107
Figure 5.4.93: Provision of feedback to research institutes and universities X
108
Category of respondents
Figure 5.4.94: Provision of feedback to experts on intellectual property rights 108
Figure 5.4.95: Provision of feedback to experts on intellectual property rights X
109
Category of respondents
Figure 5.4.96: Provision of feedback to network partners 109
Figure 5.4.97: Formal system for generating and assessing ideas 110
Figure 5.4.98: Formal system for generating and assessing ideas 110
Figure 5.4.99: Percentage of generated ideas taken to the development stage 111
8
Figure 5.4.100: Degree of formalization of development processes 111
Figure 5.4.101: Percentage of innovation projects with well defined targets 112
Figure 5.4.102: Percentage of innovation projects with well defined targets X
112
Category of respondents
Figure 5.4.103: Percentage of innovation projects that met launch-specific targets 113
Figure 5.4.104: Percentage of innovation projects that met launch-specific targets X
113
Category of respondents
Figure 5.4.105: Frequency of customer data and feedback analysis 114
Figure 5.4.106: Frequency of customer data and feedback analysis X Category of
114
respondents
Figure 5.4.107: Definition of indicators to measure innovation activities 115
Figure 5.4.108: Definition of indicators to measure innovation activities X Category
115
of respondents
Figure 5.4.109: Incentives to stimulate innovation: extra money 116
Figure 5.4.110: Incentives to stimulate innovation: extra money X Category of
116
respondents
Figure 5.4.111: Incentives to stimulate innovation: direct recognition 117
Figure 5.4.112: Incentives to stimulate innovation: direct recognition X Category of
117
respondents
Figure 5.4.113: Incentives to stimulate innovation: innovation award 117
Figure 5.4.114: Incentives to stimulate innovation: permission to use company´s
118
facilities for free to test own ideas
9
Figure 5.4.128: Human research policy to stimulate staff qualification 125
Figure 5.4.129: Human research policy to stimulate staff qualification X Category
125
of respondents
Figure 5.5.1: Meeting with customers to find out future needs 126
Figure 5.5.2: Meeting with customers to find out future needs X Category of
126
respondents
Figure 5.5.3: In-house market research 127
Figure 5.5.4: In-house market research X Category of respondents 127
Figure 5.5.5: Detection of changes in customers’ preferences 128
Figure 5.5.6: Detection of changes in customers’ preferences X Category of
128
respondents
Figure 5.5.7: Poll of end users to assess the quality of products and services 129
Figure 5.5.8: Poll of end users to assess the quality of products and services X
129
Category of respondents
Figure 5.5.9: Detection of fundamental shifts in the industry 130
Figure 5.5.10: Detection of fundamental shifts in the industry X Category of
130
respondents
Figure 5.5.11: Review of the likely effect of changes in business environment on
131
customers
Figure 5.5.12: Review of the likely effect of changes in business environment on
131
customers X Category of respondents
Figure 5.5.13: Interdepartmental meetings to discuss marketing trends and
132
development
Figure 5.5.14: Interdepartmental meetings to discuss marketing trends and
132
development X Category of respondents
Figure 5.5.15: Discussion of customers’ future needs between marketing personnel
133
and other departments
Figure 5.5.16: Discussion of customers’ future needs between marketing personnel
133
and other departments X Category of respondents
Figure 5.5.17: Dissemination of information about important events with customers 134
Figure 5.5.18: Dissemination of information about important events with customers
134
X Category of respondents
Figure 5.5.19: Sharing of data on customer satisfaction at all levels in the firm 135
Figure 5.5.20: Sharing of data on customer satisfaction at all levels in the firm X
135
Category of respondents
Figure 5.5.21: Dissemination of information about competitors 136
Figure 5.5.22: Dissemination of information about competitors X Category of
136
respondents
Figure 5.5.23: Time to respond to competitor’s price changes 137
Figure 5.5.24: Time to respond to competitor’s price changes X Category of
137
respondents
Figure 5.5.25: Tendency to ignore changes in customers’ product/service needs 138
Figure 5.5.26: Tendency to ignore changes in customers’ product/service needs X
138
Category of respondents
Figure 5.5.27: Review of product development efforts to be in line with what 139
10
customers’ want
Figure 5.5.28: Review of product development efforts to be in line with what
139
customers’ want X Category of respondents
Figure 5.5.29: Periodical meetings to plan a response to changes in business
140
environment
Figure 5.5.30: Periodical meetings to plan a response to changes in business
140
environment X Category of respondents
Figure 5.5.31: Speed of response to competitor’s intensive campaign 141
Figure 5.5.32: Speed of response to competitor’s intensive campaign X Category of
141
respondents
Figure 5.5.33: Coordination between the different departments 142
Figure 5.5.34: Coordination between the different departments X Category of
142
respondents
Figure 5.5.35: Attention to customer complaints 143
Figure 5.5.36: Attention to customer complaints X Category of respondents 143
Figure 5.5.37: Ability to implement a marketing plan in a timely fashion 144
Figure 5.5.38: Ability to implement a marketing plan in a timely fashion X
144
Category of respondents
Figure 5.5.39: Efforts to make changes in products/services 145
Figure 5.5.40:Efforts to make changes in products/services X Category of
145
respondents
Figure 5.6.1: Income data for 2009 146
Figure 5.6.2: Income data for 2009 X Category of respondents 146
Figure 5.6.3: Income data for 2010 147
Figure 5.6.4: Income data for 2010 X Category of respondents 147
Figure 5.6.5: Contribution of public research grants to total income 148
Figure 5.6.6: Contribution of public research grants to total income X Category of
148
respondents
Figure 5.6.7: Contribution of exports to gross income 149
Figure 5.6.8: Contribution of exports to gross income X Category of respondents 149
Figure 5.6.9: Percentage of total income from innovations not older than 3 years 150
Figure 5.6.10: Percentage of total income from innovations not older than 3 years X
150
Category of respondents
Figure 5.6.11: Company’s expenditures on innovation over the last 2 years 151
Figure 5.6.12: Company’s expenditures on innovation over the last 2 years X
151
Category of respondents
Figure 5.6.13: Company’s operational profit data over the last 2 years 152
Figure 5.6.14: Company’s operational profit data over the last 2 years X Category
152
of respondents
Figure 5.6.15: Company’s operational profit data generated from innovation 153
Figure 5.6.16: Type of innovation with more impact in the operational profits 153
Figure 5.6.17: Type of innovation with more impact in the operational profits X
154
Category of respondents
Figure 5.6.18: Reduction in operational costs attributed to process innovation 154
11
Figure 5.6.19: Reduction in operational costs attributed to process innovation X
155
Category of respondents
Figure 5.6.20:Growth driver with highest impact on profit growth over the last 4
155
years
Figure 5.6.21: Growth driver with highest impact on profit growth over the last 4
156
years X Category of respondents
Figure 5.6.22: Number of people employed over the last 4 years 156
Figure 5.6.23: Number of people employed over the last 4 years X Category of
157
respondents
Figure 5.6.24: Current impact of innovation management on business success 157
Figure 5.6.25: Current impact of innovation management on business success X
158
Category of respondents
Figure 5.6.26: Future impact of innovation management on business success 158
Figure 5.6.27: Future impact of innovation management on business success X
159
Category of respondents
Figure 5.6.28: Degree of current innovation management performance improvement 159
Figure 5.6.29: Degree of current innovation management performance improvement
160
X Category of respondents
Figure 5.6.30: Firm´s market share growth in primary market 160
Figure 5.6.31: Firm´s market share growth in primary market X Category of
161
respondents
Figure 5.6.32: Firm´s sales growth 161
Figure 5.6.33: Firm´s sales growth X Category of respondents 162
Figure 5.6.34: Firm´s success in achieving customer satisfaction 162
Figure 5.6.35: Firm´s success in achieving customer satisfaction X Category of
163
respondents
Figure 5.6.36: Firm´s success in retaining current customers 163
Figure 5.6.37: Firm´s success in retaining current customers X Category of
164
respondents
Figure 5.6.38: Firm´s success in attracting new customers 164
Figure 5.6.39: Firm´s success in attracting new customers X Category of respondents 165
Figure 5.6.40: Firm´s success in building a positive image 165
Figure 5.6.41: Firm´s success in building a positive image X Category of respondents 166
Figure 5.6.42: Time to market 166
Figure 5.6.43: Time to market X Category of respondents 167
12
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
VC - Venture Capital
13
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I give my heartfelt thanks to my supervisor Prof. Utz Dornberger, who gave me great
support to do this thesis.
I am grateful to the Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst – German Academic
Exchange Service (DAAD) for granting me the scholarship to take part in this master
course.
I also confirm the support of the Center for Studies and Research in Entrepreneurship,
Innovation and Venture Capital from the Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (NEP
Genesis). I am particularly grateful to Prof. Jose Antonio Pimenta Bueno for the
assistance, useful information and contacts available to complete my thesis.
I would like to thank all the people, firms, and other organizations, who have assisted
me in their own capacities in during the different phases of this research.
I also would like to thank my classmates and friends, in special Javier Changoluisa who
has always supported and encouraged me during my time in Germany.
My special thanks to my husband and my family. Their love, support, and
encouragement are the most precious things for me.
14
ABSTRACT
This work aims to contribute with the understanding about the level of Innovation
Management and Market Orientation in Brazilian technology-based MSMEs. In order to
reach the levels of usage of both Innovation Management and Market Orientation
practiced by Brazilian technology-based firms and the performance levels attained by
such firms, a field research was carried out in Brazil to collect primary data through
structured interviews. For doing this, survey instruments were used as the basis for
structured interviews structured interviews personally conducted with the entrepreneurs
form the target firms. More specifically, the IMP rove Assessment tool, developed by
A.T. Kearney and supported by the European Commission under the Europe INNOVA
Initiative, was the basis to gauge Innovation Management practices of firms. The
MARKOR scale was the basis applied to gauge Market Orientation information.
Personal background information and company information were also included. At the
end, an overview about the behavior of the Brazilian technology-based firms with
respect to each dimension of Innovation Management and Market Orientation was
available. It was also possible to highlight the main differences presented between VC-
backed firms and Non-supported firms, emphasizing those differences that were
profound or classified through chi-squares tests as statistically significant. As
conclusions, the research results have revealed that, in general, Brazilian technology-
based MSMEs are practicing each dimension of Innovation Management to a different
level, with the “Enabling factors for innovation management” practiced at the highest
level among all. Market Orientation has been practiced slightly well by these firms, with
de component “Responsiveness” effectuated as the best. The main weaknesses showed
by Brazilian technology-based firms can be addressed to activities related to:
implementation and idea management and launch phases, regarding to Innovation
Management; and dissemination and marketing issues, regarding to Marketing
Orientation. Comparing the two groups of firms, Non-supported firms are performing
better the dimensions Innovation strategy, Enabling factors and Responsiveness, while
VC-backed firms Innovation Life Cycle Management, Intelligence generation and
Intelligence dissemination. The results presented in the performance of the two groups
of firms reflect these differences.
15
1 Introduction
1.1 Context
Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) have been for a long time the
subject of attention from economic analysts because of their potential for income
generation and employment (La Rovere, 2001) and, more recently, for their role in the
reduction of regional inequalities.
Statistics about the importance of industrial MSMEs in Brazil, according to data from
2005 of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE)1, show that they
account for 99% of the total number of companies in Brazil and are responsible for 56%
of formal employment, generating around 24% of the gross value of the industrial
production.
A study hold by the Institute of Applied Economic Research (IPEA) (De Negri and
Salerno, 2005), involving 72,000 industrial enterprises which account for about 95% of
Brazilian industrial production, showed that companies that innovate and differentiate
products generate higher quality jobs, employing better skilled workforce, better paid
and more stable employment. Innovate and differentiate products allow companies to
export more value-added products, obtaining price premium on its exports.
In this new economy, a private group of companies has been increasing due to its
important contribution to economic growth and job creation – the technology-based
MSMEs. In fact, the sector where the company operates has an important role in the
process of technological innovation: in the higher technological content sectors there are
more opportunities for individual and collective innovations, while in those with a low
content these opportunities have been more restricted (IBGE, 2007).
1
All the acronyms used in this work are referent to the names in Portuguese, excepted by MSMEs.
16
A comparative analysis of the innovation rates between the Brazilian technology-based
MSMEs and the universe of Brazilian industrial companies shows that the rates of
innovation displayed by the technology-based MSMEs are almost twice (7.2% and
9.9% respectively in the periods 2001-2003 and 2003-2005) of that displayed by the
universe of Brazilian industrial companies (Vilela, 2009).
But besides financial support many Brazilian technology-based start-ups face different
problems such as entering in the market, expanding the market, sales difficulties, among
others.
1.2 Justification
17
from MSMEs in general when it comes to efforts to innovate (Fernandes and Cortes,
1999; Fernandes, Cortes and Oishi, 2000, Fernandes et al., 2000).
Despite the different efforts started so far Brazilian technology-based MSMEs face
difficulties of implementation. These difficulties can be approached by the fact that,
traditionally, technological innovation appears to have been largely bypassed in
defining the management structures of high-technology companies. Most companies
build their structures around the traditional functions of finance, marketing, production,
human resources and R&D (Pavitt et al., 2005).
In fact, technology-based MSMEs are very particular companies that need to encompass
all the activities which contribute to the commercially successful outcome of the
innovation process (Martin, 1994). This includes innovation management and market
orientation.
A study developed by A.T. Kearney (Engel et al, 2007) shows that “companies that
have begun to approach innovation management in a more systematic way have
achieved significantly higher success rates in terms of transforming ideas into
marketable products and realizing successful innovation commercialization”.
But innovation management is difficult and risky: the majority of new technologies is
not enough to make up products and services, and most new products and services is not
a commercial success (Pavitt et al, 2005). Because of this, research on innovation has
long stressed the importance of understanding user needs when developing new
products (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1993).
18
To these factors that motivated the choice of research topic can be added the fact that
available studies on Brazilian technology-based MSMEs focus on topics such as
technology-transfer, intellectual property, cooperation with universities, local
productive arrangements and funding sources for innovation. There is a lack of
empirical studies related to the Innovation Management and Market Orientation in
technology-based MSMEs in Brazil.
1.3 Objectives
The main objective of this research is to gain further understanding about the level of
Innovation Management and Market Orientation in Brazilian technology-based
MSMEs.
As secondary objectives, this research aims to investigate whether there are: (1)
differences in the level of such practices between firms supported and not supported by
Venture Capital and (2) distinction in firm performance between companies with
different levels of such practices.
In order to reach a target is important to know the way to go. In this case, high levels of
innovation management and market orientation can be achieved by isolating problems
and addressing these deficiencies in future intervention efforts. For doing this is
essential to know from where to start: to establish a base line level of innovation
management and market orientation.
So, “To what level is Innovation Management and Market Orientation practiced by
Brazilian technology-based MSMEs?’ is a question that should be answered.
In order to get data for answering the major research question, more specific questions
are formulated:
19
Q1 – To what level is “Innovation Management” practiced by the firms?
Q 1.3 – To what level is “Innovation Life Cycle Management” practiced by the firms?
Q 2.1 - To what level is “Intelligence generation” practiced by the firms?
Q 3.1 - How is the “Innovation Management performance” of these firms?
Q 3.2 - How is the “Market Orientation performance” of these firms?
Secondary research questions are formulated based on the secondary objectives oh this
research:
Q5 - Are there differences in the level of Market Orientation between VC-backed and
Non-supported firms?
20
1.5 Relevance of the study
Because of limited time and financial resource, this research only focuses on 30
technology-based companies located in 5 different Brazilian states. So, the limitation of
this study is geographical location and small scale of the sample. From that point, the
result of this study can not give an overall picture of the level of innovation
management and market orientation in Brazilian technology-based MSMEs. But it does
not prevent fulfilling the objective of this research, which is “gain further understanding
about the level of Innovation Management and Market Orientation in Brazilian
technology-based MSMEs.”
21
2. Theoretical Framework
Different criteria are therefore used in Brazil to establish the classification of MSMEs.
For example, the simplified system of taxation (SIMPLES) adopts the criterion of gross
revenue as required under the Act 11307/0622, which provides that micro enterprise is
one whose annual revenue is less than or equal to R$ 240 thousand 3 and small enterprise
is one whose annual revenue is between R$ 240 thousand and R$ 2.4 million.
The Brazilian Service to Support Micro and Small Enterprises (Sebrae) and the National
Bank of Economic and Social Development (BNDES) adopt different concepts for the
classification of micro and small enterprises for the purpose of promotion. The first
follows the criteria of the Statute of Micro and Small Companies, based on the number
of employees and annual sales, while the second is based on gross operating revenues,
as shown in Table 2.1.
Sebrae BNDES
- Up to 19 employees
Micro - Annual revenue up to BRL 244 - Gross operating revenue (annual or
thousand annualized) up to BRL 1.2 million
- Up to 99 employees
- Gross operating revenue (annual or
Small - Annual revenue up to BRL 1.2
annualized) over BRL 1.2 million and
million
less than BRL 10.5 million
In addition to the definition used for purposes of promotion, Sebrae adopted for
study and research (eg: surveys on the presence of micro and small enterprises in the
Brazilian economy) the concept of "employed persons"5 in business, in accordance with
the IBGE criterion, as shown below:
The concept of MSMEs proposed by IBGE/Sebrae serve the purposes of this research
given that: (i) ranks the medium enterprise without the need to consider the annual
revenue, (ii) is used by the IBGE in order to produce Nationwide statistical studies, (iii)
is used by Sebrae to operationalize its interventions at the micro and small enterprises
and to accomplish its studies, and (iv) uses the number of employed persons, which
tends to be an easier information to access (available on the RAIS in the Ministry of
Labor and Employment 6) than the revenue.
4
Available at http://www.sebrae.com.br and http://www.bndes.gov.br
5
The concept of "employed persons" does not include only employees but also the owners. This
concept does not differentiate the links between people working and businesses.
6
RAIS - Annual Social Information, available at http://www.mte.gov.br/rais/default.asp
23
2.1.1 Brazilian technology-based MSMEs
According to scholars (Rickne et al., 1999), a definition for NBTFs would be "a
company whose strength and competitive advantage derived from the expertise of its
members in the natural sciences, engineering or medicine, and the subsequent
transformation of this know-how into products or services to a market". NTBFs are said
to operate in innovative and technology-intensive industries such as electronic
engineering, computer science, physics engineering, industrial economics, chemical
engineering, mechanical engineering, civil engineering and medicine. These industries
are relatively homogeneous in terms of rapid technological changes, innovation of
product, entrepreneurship, environmental uncertainty and high levels of competition
(Karagozoglu et al, 1998, Preece et al, 1998).
Brazilian studies (Carvalho et al, 1998) identified as “EBT” (acronym in Portuguese for
technology-based companies) the enterprises “engaged in the design, development and
production of new products or processes, also characterized by the systematic
application of technical and scientific knowledge (applied science and engineering)”.
24
companies that "have the rare or unique expertise in terms of products or processes that
are commercially viable, that incorporate high level of scientific knowledge". Stefanuto
(1993), in turn, proposes to consider EBT those national companies that, in each
country, are among the technological frontier of its sector.
For these authors, this assumption necessarily requires the translation of the
understanding of the concept of “technology-based company” used in developed
countries for the specific conditions of a developing country. Thus, Fernandes et al
(2004) suggest that there should be a differentiation between modernized and
technology-based companies. According to these scholars, "the strategically critical
character that technology has for this group of companies indicates that their innovative
effort should be guided not exactly to the technological modernization of the production
process, but essentially to the product characteristics: technology-based company
introduces new products that reflect new technologies developed by the company,
whether or not in partnership with other companies or research centers" (Fernandes et
al, 2004). Moreover, the authors add that this product must be in the market and be
economically viable, or is it just an invention, an applied scientific knowledge.
25
2.2 Support for technology-based MSMEs
Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises find many difficulties to leverage due to
lack of financial resources. When these organizations turn to banks, they face
difficulties due to poor billing history and the low liquidity of its assets that normally
are pledged as security (Pavani, 2003).
In this case, technology-based MSMEs need to find other sources of capital. The types
of capital are aimed at businesses with different stages of development and degree of
risk. The higher the business risk, the greater the potential for growth and enhanced
financial returns required by investors. The investment funds seeking opportunities in
startups and early-stage companies are the seed capital and venture capital.
Seed Capital and Venture Capital (VC) are presented as a viable alternative for
technology-based SMEs because the investor bet in these companies believing on the
growth potential of these organizations, sharing the risk with the entrepreneur, seeing
gains with good pay, tied to distribution of profits, dividends from the company and the
effective return of capital (Pavani, 2003).
Venture capital promotes funding for small company in exchange for part of the
organization through the acquisition, aiming thus the rapid rise and high profitability.
Venture capital sees high returns with big returns in excess of other assets available in
the market (Soledade et al, 1997).
In the process of traditional venture capital, the three main entities involved are: i)
institutional investors such as pension funds, individual capitalists, corporations and
26
insurance companies, ii) the entrepreneur it receives and makes use of resources, and iii)
agents or agencies intermediary, the venture capital firms, which usually identify, select,
monitor and operationalize investment, and raise additional funds to companies
(Brophy, 1996).
The main idea is that venture capitalists appear because they develop specialized skills
in selecting and monitoring projects. They are financial intermediaries with a
comparative advantage in environments where there is information asymmetry. Based
on this approach, Amit et alli (1998) suggest that venture capitalists act in environments
in which their relative efficiency in selecting and monitoring investment give them a
comparative advantage over other investors.
Due to its peculiarities, venture capital has great synergy with small technology-based
companies. There is evidence that support through venture capital means that young
companies grow faster, create more value and generate more employment than other
firms (Gorgulho, 1996). According to empirical researches (Keuschnigg, 2004),
companies backed by venture capital pursue more radical innovations and more
aggressive marketing strategies.
A limited number of prior studies have analyzed the relationship between VC backing
and firm growth, providing mixed evidence. Hellmann and Puri (2000) examined a
stratified random sample of 149 VC and non-VC backed firms in Silicon Valley during
the period 1994–1997 and found that VC backed firms, especially innovators, had a
faster time to market. Manigart and Van Hyfte (1999) find that VC backed firms have
higher asset growth than non-VC backed firms in Belgium. Engel and Keilbach (2007)
use propensity score matching to identify a control sample of non-VC backed firms in
Germany and find that VC backed firms generate faster employment growth. In
contrast, Burgel et al. (2000) find that VC backing has no impact on the growth of firms
in Germany and the UK. Other studies of the growth of VC and non-VC backed firms
that went to IPO also show mixed results, with Jain and Kini (1995) and Audretsch and
27
Lehmann (2004) finding positive effects of VC on growth, while Bottazzi and Da Rin
(2002) find no effect.
Important problems with these studies include their often cross-sectional nature and a
typical failure to address the issue of endogeneity in VC backing. Bertoni et al. (2008)
using a 10 year panel study of 550 Italian high-tech start-ups show that VC backing,
especially by financial VCs rather than corporate VCs, strongly spurs employment and
sales revenue growth. A Spanish study of firms by Alemany and Marti (2005) using
panel data analysis of VC-backed start-ups shows that both VC backing and its amount
are associated with higher performance. Davila et al. (2003) show that VC backed firms
have faster employment growth.
28
2.2.2 Venture Capital in Brazil
In Brazil, the activities of venture capital were institutionalized in the late '90s, after the
stabilization of the currency. Brazilian Venture Capital industry is “an enormously
dynamic industry, whose committed capital grew 50% per year between 2005 and 2008,
which invested USD 11 billion, maintains 482 portfolio companies, and doubled its
participation in GDP over this period 7. In addition, 71% of the VC organizations expect
to raise funds in the next years totalizing USD 20.9 billion. There is a considerable
volume of business in Venture Capital with the greatest emphasis on the Early Stage
(17%). This denotes an important concentration on the initial and intermediate stages of
entrepreneurial development guaranteeing the consolidation of the links that permit
sustained industry growth over the long term.
In 2007, BNDES launched a program to support seed capital called CRIATEC. Born
from the BNDES initiative with a budget of BRL 80 million and managed by a
consortium formed between Antera Gestão de Recursos S.A. e Instituto Inovação S.A.,
Criatec is a seed capital fund destinated to innovative startup companies. With
investments of up to BRL 1.5 million, Criatec makes the allocation of resources in the
company in exchange for equity participation. Besides investment, Criatec actively
participates in the management of companies, providing strategic and managerial
support to entrepreneurs, helping in the selection and training of staff, setting targets
and track results8.
7
Overview of the Brazilian Private Equity and Venture Capital Industry, Research Report December
2008.
8
Information available at: www.fundocriatec.com.br
29
2.3 Innovation Management
Nowadays, it would be difficult to find someone willing to argue against the view that
innovation is important and tends to be increasingly important in coming years. But
there are still questions about the possibility to manage the complex and fraught with
uncertainty innovation process.
The answers to such questions may be based in the fact that despite the apparently
random and uncertain nature of the innovation process it is possible to find a basic
pattern of success. Not every process fails, and even in case of failure, some companies
seem to have learned how to treat it and manage it in order to take advantage in favor of
an effective innovation process. (Pavitt et al, 2005). In this sense, the term management
is not used in this work towards the creation and implementation of complex and
predictable mechanisms, but to create conditions within a company to facilitate the
effective resolution of multiple challenges in high indices of uncertainty.
30
development of new sources providers of raw materials and other inputs, (v)
establishment of a new industrial organization, either by creating a monopoly or by
fragmentation of a monopoly.
The concept of "technological innovation" by the Oslo Manual, in its third edition, is
"the implementation of a product (or service) new or significantly improved, or a
process or a new marketing method, or a new organizational method in business
practices, the organization of the workplace or external relations" (OECD, 2004, p.55).
Regarding to this concept, there are four types of innovation: product, process,
marketing and organizational. This classification has the highest possible degree of
continuity with the previous definition of product and process innovation used in the
second edition of the Oslo Manual: "technological product or process (TPP -
Technological Product and Process) will cover deployments of products or processes
technologically new and substantial technological improvements in products and
processes" (OECD, 1997). In order to consider a TPP innovation implemented it is
necessary that this have entered the market (product innovation) or used in the
production process (process innovation).
The general concept of innovation used in the second edition of the Oslo Manual refers
to product or process that is new or substantially improved for the company, not
necessarily new to the market or industry in which it operates. Within a more rigorous
analytical perspective, Schumpeterian, should not be considered as such innovations the
products and processes that are only new for the companies in which they were
introduced. These products and processes should be classified as technological diffusion
and absorption of innovations.
Having as a research object the technology-based MSMEs, this work adopts the more
stringent concept of innovation: “the product (or service) technologically new or
significantly improved for the domestic market and/or processes that are technologically
new or significantly improved for a particular industry". When compared to the generic
concept, this definition has a higher meaning in their impact in terms of gains in
competitiveness and accumulation of technological capabilities for technology-based
MSMEs that introduced them.
31
2.3.2 Innovation process
This changed a lot over time. Early models viewed innovation as a linear sequence of
activities. The linear model, which emerged from the end of the second world war,
dominated the thinking about innovation in C & T for about three decades (Bush, 1945,
apud Earl and Araújo-Jorge, 2003). In this model, development, production and
commercialization of new technologies are seen as a sequence of well defined steps: (i)
scientific research that could lead to processes of invention, (ii) applied research, (iii)
experimental development, (iv) production, (v) introduction of marketable products and
processes (OECD, 1992). This could be because new opportunities arising as the result
of research has resulted in applications and refinements that eventually find their way
into the market (technology push), or because the market signaled needs of something
new that was originated through new solutions to the old problem (market pull).
The linear innovation approaches rely on two theoretical frameworks: (i) the classical
theories, which treat innovation mechanistically from endogenous variables to
businesses and as a product of their internal processes, (ii) the neoclassical theories,
which try to incorporate the external forces and assign technical change to external
factors (Ebner, 2000; Jackson, 1999 apud Conde and Araujo-Jorge, 2003).
The limitations of the linear model were perceived by the finding that investments in
R&D does not automatically lead to technological development, nor to the economic
success of technology use. The limitations of this approach are clear: in practice
innovation is a combinatorial process in which interaction is the critical element
(Coombs et al, 1985; Von Hippel, 1988; Freeman, 1997). This perception reinforced the
emergence of non-linear or interactive approaches.
From the 1980s, the interactive model (chain-link model) proposed by Kline and
Rosenberg (1986) became the model that was opposed to the linear model. Its design
combines the interactions in the internal environment of business and those between
32
individual enterprises and the system of science and technology more widely in which
they operate.
In recent decades, the analysis of interactions between the different actors of innovation
processes has become the focal point of many theoretical and empirical studies in the
field of economics of innovation (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Dosi, 1988; Lundvall,
1988). These approaches (evolutionary or neo-Schumpeterian) recognize the importance
of R&D in the innovation process and emphasize the central position occupied by
companies in developing new technologies.
Nelson & Winter (1982) consider the innovation as a process through which knowledge
and technology are developed based on the interaction between various actors and
factors. According to these authors, the market demand and marketing opportunities
have an influence in the products to be developed and the technologies that will be
successful (Meirelles, 2008).
Based on the evolutionary approach, the following simplified model illustrates the
Innovation process:
33
Fig 2.1 - Phases of the innovation process
Fig 2.1 shows that the innovation process can be simplified in the following phases:
The task of making innovation happen - evolving from a simple idea to create
successful products, services and processes - is essentially tied to a gradual process of
reducing the uncertainty, going from the phases of search and selection to the
implementation (Pavitt et al, 2005).
Implement - The implementation phase can be seen as the phase that gradually
combines different forms of knowledge composing with it an innovation. In the initial
stages there is a high degree of uncertainty - details on technological feasibility, market
demand, competitive conduct, legislation and other influences are scarce. But during
this stage the uncertainties are replaced by the knowledge acquired in several attempts
and a growing cost. This phase can be explored in greater detail by considering three
34
key elements: (1) knowledge acquisition; (2) project execution; (3) launch and
innovation support.
The knowledge acquisition involves the combination of new and existing knowledge
(available within and outside the organization). It can also involve both the generation
of technological knowledge and the technology transfer. It represents a first draft of the
solution. The result of this stage in the process may be either progress to the next stage
of development or retroactive to the conceptual stage.
The project execution is the core of the innovation process. A clear strategic concept
and ideas to achieve it compose the initial data of this stage. The results in this stage
provide a developed innovation and a ready market (internal or external) for the
innovation launch.
Over the past 80 years, many studies on the innovation process, analyzing it from
different angles, has been developed. Different innovations, different sectors, companies
of different sizes and types operating in different countries etc. has been analyzed in
many different ways. The following table gives some examples of these studies.
35
Table 2.3 - Examples of innovation studies
Name of the
Central focus Reference
study
Rothwell
SAPPHO Project Success and failure factors in matched pairs of companies
(1977)
Wealth among Case studies of successful companies - all award winners Langrish
the knowledge “Queen’s Award for Innovation” (1972)
Stanford Maidique
Case studies of product innovation with emphasis on
Innovation and Zirger
learning
Project (1985)
36
Extensive literature review of success factors in product Ernst
Ernst
innovation (2002)
From this database of information is possible to find consensus on two key factors:
Innovation can increase competitiveness, but it requires a skill set and knowledge
management different from those commonly used in commercial management (Pavitt et
al, 2005). Companies have to have the capabilities to manage their process of
innovation, from their innovation strategy to original idea to final product. Only then
companies will know with which products, services, processes or business models they
will generate their revenues and profits in the near future.
Innovation is a management issue as there are choices to be made about resources and
their provision and coordination. Innovation management is not just a means in itself,
but is about developing and organising capabilities within companies and translating
them into competitive advantages and profits. Some actions concerning the management
of the innovation process are showed in the Fig.2.2.
37
Fig 2.2 – Actions concerning the Innovation Management
As showed in Fig 2.2, the actions concerning the innovation management should cover
the entire innovation process. Examples of these actions are:
Direct the actions of innovation ensuring alignment with the innovation strategy;
Equip the company through the development of internal skills and external
partnerships;
Support the initiatives of innovation with resources and support from top management;
Learn from the experiences at all stages of the innovation process and make necessary
adjustments.
The effective management of innovation is largely the result of design and effective
routines to increase and facilitate its emergence within the enterprise (Pavitt, 2005).
9
Available at: http://www.institutoinovacao.com.br/internas/servicos_gestao/idioma/1
38
According to Pavitt (2005), is possible to mount checklists and even simple schemes for
the effective management of innovation from many studies on success and failure in
innovation.
In fact, a large number of models for auditing innovation was developed, models that
provide a framework from which is possible to evaluate the performance of innovation
management (Johne and Snelson, 1988; Chiesa et al, 1996; Francis, 2001). Some
models are simple listings, others deal with structures, some with very specific sub-
processes.
A study developed by A.T. Kearney (Engel et al., 2007) shows that “best practice
innovation management begins with innovation strategy and continues through
innovation development to management of the entire innovation life cycle”. It covers all
dimensions of Innovation Management including: Innovation strategy, Innovation
organization and culture, Innovation Management processes, as well as enabling factors
for Innovation Management.
Based on this holistic approach to innovation management, A.T. Kearney developed the
‘House of Innovation” (Fig. 2.3). With this, SMEs, intermediaries, financial actors,
policy makers and academia dispose of a framework that links innovation management
with business impact.
39
As summarized by Fig.2.3, A.T. Kearney’s House of Innovation addresses all relevant
innovation management dimensions (IMP3rove, 2007):
Based on this holistic approach, the European Commission under the Europe INNOVA
supports an initiative, called IMP rove, to improve the innovation success in the
European SMEs.
The proof of the IMP3rove concept is provided by more than 3,500 European SMEs that
have been introduced to the IMP3rove approach since the launch in 2007 (Fig. 2.4).
More than 400 innovation management support service providers across Europe have
been trained in the IMP3rove approach. They now constitute an international network.
40
Fig. 2.4 – Status of SMEs on IMP3rove Platform
Because of this, this study takes the IMP3rove Assessment tool as the basis to gauge
information about the level of innovation management in Brazilian technology-based
MSMEs.
Small firms are noted for their more cohesive cultures and simpler organization
structures, thus diminishing the coordinating benefits of a strong market orientation
culture. Small firms are also noted for their fewer numbers of product lines and
customers, reducing the need for formal activities designed to gather and process market
information for marketing decision making. On the other hand, these characteristics of
small businesses may enhance the firms' ability to fully exploit a market-oriented
culture.
10
Available at: www.improve-innovatio.eu
41
It could also be argued that other internal firm variables and external variables have
such a significant effect on small-firm performance that the impact of market orientation
is negligible. For instance, undercapitalization and lack of planning have commonly
been cited by small-business researchers as the most significant influences on success or
failure (Robinson and Pearce, 1984). Internal small-firm structure aspects such as
formalization, coordination, and control systems may be such important determinants of
small-firm success as to render insignificant the impact of market orientation. On the
other hand, because small firms have been characterized as lacking systematic decision
making, strategic thinking (Robinson, 1982; Sexton and Van Auken, 1982), and a long-
term orientation (Gilmore, 1971), market orientation could be a highly significant
determinant of performance. A market orientation culture could provide small firms,
noted for their ad hoc and short-term decision-making patterns, with a much needed
firmwide focus for objectives, decisions, and actions.
Although there are some discrepancies in the way of using “marketing” and “market”
orientation, it generally consists of orientation to both customers and competitors, and
integration the whole company’s efforts to achieve company’s goals through satisfying
customers’ needs.
According to scholars (Kohli and Jaworski I990; Narver and Slater 1990), market
orientation is defined as the process of generating and disseminating market intelligence
for the purpose of creating superior buyer value.
These authors divided market orientation into three principal components, those are: (1)
Customer orientation, that means the understanding of a firm about their target market
to create products/services fit to their customers’ need or desire;; (2) Competitor
orientation, means to understand about their current and potential competitors’
capabilities and strategies; and (3) Inter-functional coordination, that is coordinating all
the company’s resources of every individual function to create products/services for
target customers as their need or desire.
42
Narver and Slater (1990) also suggested two decision criteria. The first criterion is a
long-term focus, which includes suitable tactics and investments to prevent the ability of
overcoming the firm’s competitive advantage of competitors. Of course, this focus is
implicit in a marketing orientation. The second is short-term focus, which is seen as
both a component of market orientation and a consequence of it.
Consistent with Narver and Slater’s view of market orientation, Day (1990) argued that:
Market orientation represents superior skills in understanding and satisfying customers
as well as understanding competitors. Day and Nedunggadi (1994) found that a firm
operates according to market driven, balancing these two orientations, will achieve
better performance than emphasis on only one orientation.
Although Narver and Slater (1990) and Kohli and Jaworski (1990) used distinct
theoretical bases to explain the market orientation concept, both groups agreed that the
market orientation is conceded to create great customer satisfaction and organizational
commitment of employees (Kohli and Jaworski, 1993). These two groups also have
some commonalities with respect to customers, competitors, functional integration and
market opportunities.
After Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater (1990), many other marketing
scholars all over the world adopt their conceptual basic to develop the theory of market
orientation, such as Greenley, 1995; Pelham, 1996; Chan and Ellis, 1998; Baker and
Sinkula, 1999; Farrell, 2000;; Shoham and Rose, 2001;; Hult et al, 2003;; Ellis, 2005…
This creates fulfill literature reviews in terms of market orientation.
43
2.4.2 Measuring market orientation
Since market orientation has been one of the most important concepts of marketing
theory, many empirical researches have been carried out to measure it. Table 2.4
summarizes some studies over the last ten years that measure market orientation.
44
From table, four types of market orientation measures can be identified: Categorical,
Thurstone-type, Likert and Thurstone. Each type has its own advantages and
disadvantages. In order to assess the level of market orientation in Brazilian technology-
based companies, this research uses Likert scale.
Among many studies, the two most famous examples of using Likert scale are MKTOR
and MARKOR.
The first scale, MKTOR, with 21-item measure of market orientation, is given by
Narver and Slater (1990). According to their literature review of market orientation,
Narver and Slater operationalized market orientation as the comprising of three
behavioral dimensions (customer orientation, competitor orientation and inter-
functional coordination) and two decision-making criteria (long-term and short term
focus). However, the measures of the two decision criteria exhibited very low levels of
Cronbach's Alpha, so Narver and Slater (1990) deleted these sub-constructs.
Based on earlier studies by Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Jaworski and Kohli (1993),
Kohli, Jaworski and Kumar (1993) developed the MARKOR scale (market orientation)
with the purpose of creating as an instrument to measure the degree of market
orientation of companies. They defined the MARKOR scale and the process of
measuring as: The market orientation scale (MARKOR) assesses the degree to which a
firm (1) engages in multi-department market intelligence generation activities, (2)
disseminates this intelligence vertically and horizontally through both formal and
informal channels, and (3) develops and implements marketing programs on the basis of
the intelligence generated.
Intelligence generation: refers to the collection and assessment of both customer needs
and the forces (task and macro environments) that influence the development and
refinement of those needs. Importantly, multiple departments should take part in this
activity because each department has a unique market point of view (Kohli and
45
Jaworski, 1993). To give a supplemental suggestion, Narver and Slater (1994) said that
market orientation is a corporate culture that differentiates one business from another in
its tendency to always give superior value to its customers. A business with careful
market information collection and processing capabilities can predict more precisely
and make rapid changes in the market place and know what the superior value to
customers is (Pelham, 1996). Understanding the customer needs is critical. Failure to
define current and future customer needs will result in creating products and services
that do not satisfy customers.
From MKTOR and MARKOR scale, other researchers developed their measures of
market orientation, such as Pelham (1996). Although their initial idea is to develop a
46
“better” scale to measure market orientation, but in fact very little advance has been
made. So MKTOR and MARKOR are still considered as the best scales of measuring
market orientation.
It has been argued that Narver and Slater’ conceptualization is too broad, with measures
that do not tap specific behaviors that represent a market orientation (Kohli and
Jaworski, 1993). Furthermore, Kohli, Jaworski and Kumar (1993) argued that Narver
and Slater’s scale gives great emphasis on the role of customers and competition,
skipping to care about additional factors that drive customer needs and expectations.
Narver and Slater’s scale also does not tap the speed with which market intelligence is
generated and disseminated within an organization, and it includes a number of items
that do not tap specific activities and behaviors that represent a market orientation
(Kohli and Jaworski, 1993).
For those reasons, this study applies MARKOR scale to measure the level of market
orientation in Brazilian technology-based MSMEs.
Although the concept of business performance has a variety of meanings (e.g. short- or
long-term, financial or organizational benefits), in the literature it is broadly viewed
from two perspectives, those are subjective and objective method.
The subjective method is primarily concerned with the performance of firms relative to
their own expectations or assessments or relative to the competition (Pelham and
Wilson, 1996).
The second method is the objective concept which is based on absolute measures of
performance (Cronin and Page, 1988). Objective measures relate mainly to financial
measures, e.g. return on assets (ROA), return on equity (ROE), return on investments
(ROI), growth in sales, growth in profits…
47
This study adopts both the subjective and objective concepts in order to gauge
information about the performance of Brazilian technology-based firms. The objective
concept is explored in the dimension of “Innovation Management Success”. The
subjective concept is used taken into consideration the market orientation performance
of firms relative to their competitors.
3. Methodology
For the purpose, the research can be considered "descriptive" as taxonomies proposed
by Vergara (2002, 2005) and Gil (1991, 1997). According to these authors, descriptive
research has as its fundamental goal the description of the characteristics of a given
population or phenomenon, or else the establishment of relations between variables. In
descriptive research, there is no interference from the researcher, who only attempts to
understand the frequency with which the phenomena occur. Such research may also
establish correlations between variables and define its nature, but without the
commitment of explaining the phenomena it describes (Vergara, 2002; Gil, 1991, 1997).
48
3.2 Variables of the Study
In the section 2.3.2 can be found the variables regarding to Market Orientation, which
are: Intelligence generation, Intelligence dissemination and Responsiveness.
A total of 20 items are identified to measure the level of market orientation, including 6
items for intelligence generation, 5 items for intelligence dissemination and 9 items for
responsiveness (see Annex II).
The variables regarding to measure the level of Innovation Management are the
dimensions of the “A. T. Kearney’s House of Innovation” (section 2.4.2): Innovation
Strategy, Organization and Culture, Innovation Life Cycle Management and
Enabling Factors for Innovation Management. In order to measure the level of
innovation management, a total of 29 items are identified, including 4 items for
innovation strategy, 6 items for culture and organization, 14 items for innovation life
cycle process and 5 items for enabling factors (see Annex I).
The firm performance is splited into the following variables: innovation management
performance and market orientation performance. The innovation management
performance is defined as the dimension Innovation Management Success of “A. T.
Kearney’s House of Innovation”, composed by 11 items (See Annex I). The market
orientation performance is composed by 8 items (see Annex III).
Table 3.1 summarizes the variables of the study and their respective items:
49
Table 3.1 – Variables of the study
Variables Items
Primary data were collected through structured interviews. In order to reach the levels
of usage of both Innovation management and market orientation practices by the target
firms and the performance levels attained by such firms, survey instruments were
developed. More specifically, the IMP rove Assessment tool, developed by A.T.
Kearney and supported by the European Commission under the Europe INNOVA
Initiative, was the basis to gauge Innovation Management practices of firms (see survey
tool in Annex I). The MARKOR scale was the basis applied to gauge Market
50
Orientation information (see survey tool in Annex II). Finally, firm performance will be
gauged through the survey tool in Annex III.
In the Annex I, personal background information and company information are also
included.
Regarding to market orientation, all the items use 5-point Likert scale. Chosen
respondents will indicate the degree of how much they agree with the statement about
market orientation’s performance in their companies. The scale varies from number 1,
which means “strongly disagree”, to number 5 with the meaning of “strongly agree”.
Similar to market orientation measurement, the 8 items for business performance are
measured by 5-point Likert scale. But in this case, as the items correspond to subjective
measurements -relative to major competitors, number 1 means “far below” and number
5 means “far higher”.
Because all of instruments are designed in English, while the survey will be conducted
in Brazil, the questionnaire will be translated into Portuguese.
4. Field Research
In order to collect the primary data a field research was carried out. Data were collected
through personal interviews with the entrepreneurs from the target firms in two ways:
personal visits to those firms located in the State of Rio de Janeiro or via Skype (video
call) to firms located in São Paulo, Minas Gerais, Recife and Santa Catarina.
Concerning to time frame, the field research was undertaken within the period of
October 1, 2010 and March 15, 2011.
Because of limited time and financial resources, the research had to be geographically
limited covering firms from five Brazilian states, namely: Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo,
51
Minas Gerais, Recife and Santa Catarina. Three of them are located in the Southeast
region in Brazil. The reason for this choice is that, according to data from the Brazilian
Association of Entities Promoting Innovative Enterprises (ANPROTEC) 11, in these 3
states are concentrated more than 70% of the total of Brazilian technology-based
MSMEs.
The target group of the research are the Brazilian technology-based firms (as defined in
Chapter 2), located in one of the 5 states that comprehend the areas of study, with at
least 2 years working and 5 employees.
NEP Genesis - Center for Studies and Research in Entrepreneurship, Innovation and
Venture Capital located at Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (http://www.puc-
rio.br/).
Instituto Inovação S.A. - private company, whose main objective is to bring scientific
and technology knowledge to the market (http://www.institutoinovacao.com.br/).
Antera Gestão de Recursos S.A. and Instituto Inovação S.A. are part of the consortium
to manage the Criatec fund.
11
Available at http://www.anprotec.org.br/
52
4.4 Established contact
The main contact established during the field research was with the National Bank of
Economic and Social Development (BNDES)12. Located in the State of Rio de Janeiro,
under the Ministry of Development, Industry and Trade, BNDES is the largest
development bank in Latin America. With a social function, BNDES’ main goal is to
support projects that contribute to the development of the country, with the
technological innovation as one of its top priorities.
Because all the VC backed firms interviewed are from the Criatec fund, which belongs
to BNDES, this contact is very important. The contact was personally established with
the manager of the Capital Market area in BNDES, responsible for the Criatec fund.
The main problem encountered during the field research was to get in contact with the
entrepreneurs from Non-supported firms. Besides to find out who are the entrepreneurs
from each Non-supported firm, it was hard to convince them to take part in the research.
Additionally, because entrepreneurs are too busy, some interviews were canceled more
than once by the same entrepreneur.
With VC backed firms was easier to get in contact because of the help from research
partners: they sent the firms a letter and advised the entrepreneurs to take part in the
research. Additionally they available the personal e-mails of entrepreneurs.
Another point was that, because of the large number of questions, the interviews took a
long time. This meant that some interviews had to be divided into two different days.
12
www.bndes.gov.br
53
5. Data Analysis
Background
SPSS 17.0 for Windows computer program was the main tool used to analyze collected
data. At the first level of quantitative data analysis, descriptive statistical procedures
involving cross-tabulations and frequencies distributions were used. At the second level
of analysis, chi-square tests to find out the association between category of respondents
and some variables were performed. In addition, in order to complement data and
exemplify some results, qualitative information was available in some cases.
5.1 Introduction
This section presents the data analysis of the research. The presentation is organized
according to the questionnaire sequence and the variables of the study. The section is
organized as follows: (i) personal background information; (ii) company information;
(iii) innovation management; (iv) market orientation; and (v) firm performance.
In each sub-section data are presented through graphics in two ways: 1) a pie chart with
the results of the total interviewed firms and 2) bar chart with responses divided in the
two categories of respondents (VC backed firms and Non-supported firms).
54
5.2 Personal background information
Here are presented the data related to the personal information, such as age, sex and
education level, of the interviewed entrepreneurs.
55
Figure 5.2.3: Sex of entrepreneur
56
Figure 5.2.5: Educational background
57
5.3 Company information
Here are presented the data related to the company information, such as number of
employees and years in operation.
Regarding to the type of ownership, all of VC backed firms are joint stock companies
and all of Non-supported firms are limited companies.
58
Figure 5.3.2: Number of employees X Category of respondents
59
Figure 5.3.4: Years in operation X Category of respondents
Here are presented the data related to the innovation management. The data were
separated into sub-sections according to the research variables: innovation strategy,
organization and culture, innovation life cycle management and enabling factors for
innovation management.
This variable includes the items Q 3.1.1 – Q.3.1.4 from questionnaire (see Appendix I).
Regarding to the item Q 3.1.1 (Does your company have a clear vision for its future?),
all interviewed firms answered it in a positive way. Figures 5.4.1 until 5.4.7 are related
to the vision´s attributes of firms.
60
Figure 5.4.1: Vision´s attribute: documented for all staff to see
61
Figure 5.4.3: Vision’s attribute: clearly linked to innovation
62
Figure 5.4.5: Well understood by customers and suppliers X Category of respondents
63
Figure 5.4.7: Well understood by innovation partners X Category of respondents
64
Figures 5.4.9 until 5.4.17 are related to the innovation strategy´s attributes of firms.
Figure 5.4.10: Innovation strategy´s attribute: setting clear objectives for innovation
management activities
65
Figure 5.4.11: Setting clear objectives for innovation management activities X
Category of respondents
66
Figure 5.4.13: Innovation strategy´s attribute: setting clear objectives for project
management in each innovation project
67
Figure 5.4.15: Innovation strategy´s attribute: basis for organizational changes and
business model development
Figure 5.4.16: Basis for organizational changes and business model development X
Category of respondents
68
Figure 5.4.17: Innovation strategy´s attribute: Focused on the development of
innovation capabilities
69
Figure 5.4.19: Degree of communication X Category of respondents
But when the chi-square test was performed on the findings the results showed that
there was no significant difference between the two categories of respondents because
the calculated chi-square value was less than the tabulated one (3.08 against 7.82 at 3
degrees of freedom and 0.05 significance level).
70
Figure 5.4.21: Degree of understanding X Category of respondents
71
Figure 5.4.23: Degree of implementation X Category of respondents
72
Figure 5.4.25: Innovation projects: balance between incremental and radical
innovation
73
Figure 5.4.27: Innovation projects: balance with respect to risk and return
Figure 5.4.28: Balance with respect to risk and return X Category of respondents
74
Figure 5.4.29: Innovation projects: balance with respect to long and short-term
perspectives
75
Figure 5.4.31: Innovation projects: balance between low and high cost
Figure 5.4.32: Balance between low and high cost X Category of respondents
This variable includes items Q 3.2.1 – Q.3.2.6 from questionnaire (see Annex I).
76
Figure 5.4.33: Staff attitudes towards innovation: excited about innovation
Figure 5.4.34: Staff attitudes towards innovation: open rather than skeptical towards
new ideas
78
Figure 5.4.37: Staff attitudes towards innovation: Imaginative
79
Figure 5.4.39: Staff attitudes towards innovation: reluctant to try out new methods
80
Figure 5.4.41: Staff attitudes towards innovation: able to “sell” ideas internally
Figure 5.4.42: Able to “sell” ideas internally X Category of respondents
81
Figure 5.4.43: Staff attitudes towards innovation: Focusing on business impact
82
Figure 5.4.45: Capacity for innovation viewed by customers
83
Figure 5.4.47: Capacity for innovation viewed by competitors
In general, firms that answered “more or less” argued that multinationals are beginning
to worry about their capacity for innovation.
The only company which responded that their capacity for innovation is viewed by
competitors to a low degree argued: “Competitors in this market are not able to realize
our differential because they see only the final features”.
84
competitors to a high or very high degree, 64% of VC-backed firms answered the same.
When analyzing only the higher degree these differences are even more significant:
75% of Non-supported firms answered that their capacity for innovation is viewed by
competitors to a very high degree against only 29% of VC-backed firms.
This result shows that the Non-supported firms’ capacity for innovation is viewed by
competitors to a higher degree than VC-backed firms’ capacity for innovation. This
finding is supported by chi-square test because the calculated value was greater than
the tabulated one (8.15 against 7.82 at 3 degrees of freedom and 0.05 significance level)
implying that there is a statistically significant association between category of
respondents and firm´s capacity for innovation viewed by competitors.
85
Figure 5.4.50: Capacity for innovation viewed by suppliers X
Category of respondents
86
Figure 5.4.52: Capacity for innovation viewed by the entrepreneur X
Category of respondents
This result shows that entrepreneurs from VC-backed firms view their firm´s capacity
for innovation to a higher degree than those from Non-supported companies. This
finding is supported by chi-square test because the calculated value was greater than
the tabulated one (7.68 against 5.99 at 2 degrees of freedom and 0.05 significance level)
implying that there is a statistically significant association between category o f
respondents and firm´s capacity for innovation viewed by the entrepreneurs.
Figure 5.4.53: Degree of partnerships’ support and enhance: idea management phase
87
predominance of the negative answer: 46% of interviewed firms answered that
partnerships do not support and enhance the idea management phase or do this to a very
low degree, while 28% answered that partnerships support and enhance the idea
management phase to a high or very high degree.
Figure 5.4.55: Degree of partnerships’ support and enhance: development phase
88
Figure 5.4.56: Support to the development phase X Category of respondents
Figure 5.4.57: Degree of partnerships’ support and enhance: launch phase
89
Figure 5.4.58: Support to the launch phase X Category of respondents
90
Figure 5.4.60: Number of external partners participating in innovation projects X
Category of respondents
Figure 5.4.61: Number of external partners that have cooperated in the last 3 years
91
Figure 5.4.62: Number of external partners that have cooperated in the last 3 years X
Category of respondents
92
Figure 5.4.64: Number of people current working on innovation projects with
external partners X Category of respondents
This variable includes items Q 3.3.2 – Q 3.3.14 from questionnaire (see Annex I).
93
Figure 5.4.65: Time for the most profitable from the development until
product/service on sale
Figure 5.4.66: Time for the most profitable from the development until
product/service on sale X Category of respondents
94
Figure 5.4.67: Time for the most profitable product/service from the project
authorization until the breakeven point
Figure 5.4.68: Time for the most profitable product/service from the project
authorization until the breakeven point
95
Figure 5.4.69: Number of incremental innovation projects started in the last 4 years
Figure 5.4.70: Number of incremental innovation projects started in the last 4 years X
Category of respondents
But when the chi-square test was performed on the findings the results showed that
there was no statistically significant difference between the two categories of
respondents because the calculated chi-square value was less than the tabulated one
(6.95 against 11.07 at 5 degrees of freedom and 0.05 significance level).
96
Figure 5.4.71: Number of incremental innovation projects that showed success
within the last 4 years
97
Figure 5.4.73: Number of radical innovation projects started in the last 4 years
Figure 5.4.74: Number of radical innovation projects started in the last 4 years X
Category of respondents
98
Figure 5.4.75: Number of radical innovation projects that showed success
within the last 4 years
99
Figure 5.4.77: Assessment of new ideas by an interdisciplinary team
Figure 5.4.80: Assessment of new ideas by a set of predefined criteria applied to all
innovation projects X Category of respondents
101
Figure 5.4.81: Assessment of new ideas by criteria tailored per project
102
Figure 5.4.83: Assessment of new ideas by criteria derived from innovation strategy
Figure 5.4.84: Assessment of new ideas by criteria derived from innovation strategy X
Category of respondents
103
Figure 5.4.85: Provision of feedback to the suppliers
For the 14% of firms that provide no feedback to their suppliers on suggestion that they
have given to them, the following reasons were mentioned: there is low loyalty of
suppliers and to train the supplier makes the project more expensive.
104
Figure 5.4.87: Provision of feedback to the direct customers
105
Figure 5.4.89: Provision of feedback to the indirect customers X
Category of respondents
106
Figure 5.4.91: Provision of feedback to product/service development personnel
For the 18% of firms that answered “no”, an entrepreneur argued: “Our partnership
with the university is hard, usually punctual with a lab or a researcher”.
107
Figure 5.4.93: Provision of feedback to research institutes and universities X
Category of respondents
108
Figure 5.4.95: Provision of feedback to experts on intellectual property rights X
Category of respondents
When the chi-square test was performed the results show that the calculated value was
slightly less than the tabulated one (5.03 against 5.99 at 2 degrees of freedom and 0.05
significance level) implying that the difference between the two categories with respect
to this question was profound though not statistically significant at 0.05 level.
109
Figure 5.4.97: Formal system for generating and assessing ideas
110
Figure 5.4.99: Percentage of generated ideas taken to the development stage
111
Figure 5.4.101: Percentage of innovation projects with well defined targets
113
Figure 5.4.105: Frequency of customer data and feedback analysis
114
Figure 5.4.107: Definition of indicators to measure innovation activities
This variable includes items Q 3.4.1 – Q 3.4.5 from questionnaire (see Annex I).
Regarding to the item Q 3.4.1 (Does your company use incentives to stimulate
innovation?), all of firms answered it in a positive way. Figures 5.4.109 until 5.4.117
are related to the incentives to stimulate innovation used by firms.
115
Figure 5.4.109: Incentives to stimulate innovation: extra money
116
Figure 5.4.111: Incentives to stimulate innovation: direct recognition
117
Figure 5.4.114: Incentives to stimulate innovation: permission to use company´s
facilities for free to test own ideas
118
Figure 5.4.116: Incentives to stimulate innovation: provision of administrative
support to get external fund
119
Figure 5.4.118: Number of patents generated within the last 5 years
As mentioned by an interviewed
entrepreneur, one of the reasons
for the 32% of the firms that did
not generate any patent within
the last 5 years is that they do not
see patent as a protection tool.
120
Figure 5.4.120: Number of patents turned into market success
121
Figure 5.4.122: Percentage of innovation projects with defined targets
122
Figure 5.4.124: Percentage of innovation projects that met targets
These results show that Non-supported firms present a higher percentage of innovation
projects that have met defined targets than VC-backed firms. This finding is supported
by chi-square test in which the calculated value was almost the same as the tabulated
one (9.18 against 9.49 at 4 degrees of freedom and 0.05 significance level).
123
Figure 5.4.126: Partnership with universities or research institutes
This finding is supported by chi-square test in which the calculated value was greater
than the tabulated one (5.77 against 3.84 at 1 degree of freedom and 0.05 significance
124
level) implying that there is a statistically significant association between category of
respondents and partnerships with universities.
125
5.5 Market Orientation
Here are presented the data related to the market orientation. The data are separated into
sub-sections according to the research variables: intelligence generation, intelligence
dissemination and responsiveness.
This variable includes items Q 4.1.1 – Q 4.1.6 from questionnaire (see Annex II).
126
they will need in the future. This finding is supported by chi-square test in which the
calculated value was greater than the tabulated one (7.86 against 7.82 at 3 degrees of
freedom and 0.05 significance level) implying that the difference between the two
categories with respect to this question was statistically significant.
127
significant when analyzing the negative answers: 25% of Non-supported firms
answered “strongly disagree” or “disagree” against none of VC-backed firms.
But when the chi-square test was performed on the findings the results showed that
there was no statistically significant difference between the two categories of
respondents because the calculated chi-square value was less than the tabulated one
(6.88 against 9.49 at 4 degrees of freedom and 0.05 significance level).
128
faster than VC-backed firms to detect changes in their customers’ product/service
preferences. This finding is supported by chi-square test in which the calculated value
was greater than the tabulated one (7.67 against 5.99 at 2 degrees of freedom and 0.05
significance level).
Figure 5.5.7: Poll of end users to assess the quality of products and services
Figure 5.5.8: Poll of end users to assess the quality of products and services X
Category of respondents
129
Figure 5.5.9: Detection of fundamental shifts in the industry
But when the chi-square test was performed on the findings the results showed that
there was no significant difference between the two categories of respondents because
the calculated chi-square value was less than the tabulated one (2.66 against 5.99 at 2
degrees of freedom and 0.05 significance level).
130
Figure 5.5.11: Review of the likely effect of changes in business environment
on customers
But when the chi-square test was performed on the findings the results showed that
there was no significant difference between the two categories of respondents because
the calculated chi-square value was less than the tabulated one (5.30 against 9.49 at 4
degrees of freedom and 0.05 significance level).
131
5.5.2 Intelligence dissemination
This variable includes items Q 4.2.1 – Q 4.2.5 from questionnaire (see Annex II).
132
Figure 5.5.15: Discussion of customers’ future needs between marketing personnel
and other departments
The following testimonials from entrepreneurs illustrate some reasons for the 25% of
firms that answered “neither agree nor disagree”: “We promote this kind of discussion,
but there is no marketing personnel in our firm” and “In our company marketing
personnel work more as a collector than a disseminator of information”.
Figure 5.5.16: Discussion of customers’ future needs between marketing personnel
and other departments X Category of respondents
133
Figure 5.5.17: Dissemination of information about important events with customers
134
Figure 5.5.19: Sharing of data on customer satisfaction at all levels in the firm
Figure 5.5.20: Sharing of data on customer satisfaction at all levels in the firm X
Category of respondents
135
Figure 5.5.21: Dissemination of information about competitors
136
5.5.3 Responsiveness
This variable includes items Q 4.3.1 – Q 4.3.9 from questionnaire (see Annex II).
Figure 5.5.26: Tendency to ignore changes in customers’ product/service needs X
Category of respondents
138
This result is supported by chi-square test where the calculated value was greater than
the tabulated one (8.50 against 7.82 at 3 degrees of freedom and 0.05 significance level)
implying that there is a statistically significant association between category of
respondents and the tendency to ignore changes in customers’ product/service needs.
139
categories with respect to this question was profound though not statistically significant
at 0.05 level.
140
Figure 5.5.31: Speed of response to competitor’s intensive campaign
Some reasons for the negative answers were mentioned by interviewed entrepreneurs:
“Currently our firm has little commercial structure”; “Our firm does not have a
marketing area” and “For our company it is not possible to implement this kind of thing
due to a lack of personnel and preparation.”
141
against 23% of VC-backed firms. But when the chi-square test was performed on the
findings the results showed that there was no significant difference between the two
categories of respondents because the calculated chi-square value was less than the
tabulated one (3.06 against 9.49 at 4 degrees of freedom and 0.05 significance level).
142
supported firms. This finding is supported by chi-square test in which the calculated
value was greater than the tabulated one (8.85 against 7.82 at 3 degrees of freedom and
0.05 significance level implying that the difference between the two categories with
respect to this question statistically significant at 0.05 level.
143
Figure 5.5.37: Ability to implement a marketing plan in a timely fashion
144
Figure 5.5.39: Efforts to make changes in products/services
But when the chi-square test was performed on the findings the results showed that
there was no significant difference between the two categories of respondents because
the calculated chi-square value was less than the tabulated one (4.66 against 7.82 at 3
degrees of freedom and 0.05 significance level).
145
5.6 Firm performance
Here are presented the data related to the firm performance. The data are separated into
sub-sections according to the research variables: innovation management performance
and market orientation performance.
This variable includes items Q 3.5.1 – Q 3.5.11 from questionnaire (see Annex I).
146
those from VC-backed firms. But these are not significant differences, as demonstrated
by chi-square test in which the calculated value was less than the tabulated one (4.44
against 11.07 at 5 degrees of freedom and 0.05 significance level).
147
Figure 5.6.5: Contribution of public research grants to total income
148
Figure 5.6.7: Contribution of exports to gross income
149
Figure 5.6.9: Percentage of total income from innovations not older than 3 years
Figure 5.6.10: Percentage of total income from innovations not older than 3 years X
Category of respondents
Figure 5.6.12: Company’s expenditures on innovation over the last 2 years X
Category of respondents
151
Figure 5.6.13: Company’s operational profit data over the last 2 years
Figure 5.6.14: Company’s operational profit data over the last 2 years X
Category of respondents
Figure 5.6.16: Type of innovation with more impact in the operational profits
153
Figure 5.6.17: Type of innovation with more impact in the operational profits X
Category of respondents
154
Figure 5.6.19: Reduction in operational costs attributed to process innovation X
Category of respondents
But when the chi-square test was performed on the findings the results showed that
there was no statistically significant difference between the two categories of
respondents because the calculated chi-square value was less than the tabulated one
(2.28 against 5.99 at 2 degrees of freedom and 0.05 significance level).
Figure 5.6.20:Growth driver with highest impact on profit growth over the last 4 years
155
Figure 5.6.21: Growth driver with highest impact on profit growth over the last 4
years X Category of respondents
156
Figure 5.6.23: Number of people employed over the last 4 years X
Category of respondents
157
Figure 5.6.25: Current impact of innovation management on business success X
Category of respondents
But when the chi-square test was performed on the findings the results showed that
there was no significant difference between the two categories of respondents because
the calculated chi-square value was less than the tabulated one (3.10 against 9.49 at 4
degrees of freedom and 0.05 significance level).
158
Figure 5.6.27: Future impact of innovation management on business success X
Category of respondents
159
Figure 5.6.29: Degree of current innovation management performance improvement
X Category of respondents
This variable includes items Q 5.1 – Q.5.7 from questionnaire (see Annex III). It is
important to say that these items correspond to subjective measurements relative to
major competitors.
160
more than our competitors because we are leaving “no market share”, so any
participation will be achieved tremendous growth in percentage terms.”
161
Figure 5.6.33: Firm´s sales growth X Category of respondents
162
Figure 5.6.35: Firm´s success in achieving customer satisfaction X
Category of respondents
163
Figure 5.6.37: Firm´s success in retaining current customers X
Category of respondents
164
Figure 5.6.39: Firm´s success in attracting new customers X Category of respondents
165
expertise, national company and national product, sponsorship of major events in the
area.
For those firms that answered to be on the average, one entrepreneur argued: “The
problem is that our major competitors are already established in the market”.
166
is that their industrial competitors show little flexibility.
For the 18% of firms that show a time to market below the competitors, some reasons
were mentioned by the interviewed entrepreneurs: multinational competition, new team
and unstructured processes, lack of investment, difficulty of finding qualified staff and
solutions offered to the market more complex than that of competitors.
167
6. Main results
This section gives overview about the main results of the research with respect to each
variable of the study. It also highlights the main differences presented between VC-
backed firms and Non-supported firms. Additionally, it allows the identification of the
interviewed entrepreneurs and firms’ profiles.
168
90% of interviewed firms have an innovation strategy:
- 89% said that their innovation strategy results from an analysis of potential
business opportunities activities;
- 89% said that their innovation strategy focuses on the development of their
innovation capabilities;
- 86% answered that their innovation strategy guides the improvement of your
current product/service or process development;
- 78% said that their innovation strategy guides their idea management;
- 71% answered that their innovation strategy sets the objectives for their project
management in each innovation project;
- 71% answered that their innovation strategy provides the basis for
organizational changes and business model development;
- 57% have innovation strategy as a guide for their innovation management
activities;
- 53% have their innovation strategy fully communicated to their staff;
- 50% have their innovation strategy fully understood by their staff;
- 43% have their innovation strategy fully implemented.
86% of interviewed firms answered that their innovation projects are aligned
with their innovation strategy:
- 43% present a balance between incremental and radical innovation projects;
- 39% have their innovation projects are balanced with respect to risk and return;
- 32% have their innovation projects balanced with respect to long and short-term
perspectives;
- 32% answered that their innovation projects are balanced between low and high
cost.
169
- 75% of interviewed firms answered that their staff is able to “sell” new ideas
internally.
- 71% of interviewed firms answered that their staff is imaginative.
- 64% of interviewed firms answered that its staff is able to think “out-of-the
box”.
- 32% of firms answered that their staff is not reluctant to try out new methods.
- 32% of respondents answered that their staff is focused on business impact.
- 90% of the entrepreneurs answered that their capacity for innovation is viewed
by customers to a high or very high degree.
- 78% of the entrepreneurs answered that their firm´s capacity for innovation is
viewed by them to a high or very high degree.
- 68% of interviewed firms answered that their capacity for innovation is viewed
by competitors to a high or very high degree.
- 64% of interviewed firms answered that their capacity for innovation is viewed
by suppliers to a high or very high degree.
- 46% of interviewed firms answered that partnerships support and enhance the
product/service development phase to a high or very high degree
- 29 % answered that partnerships support and enhance the launch phase to a high
or very high degree
- 28% answered that partnerships support and enhance the idea management
phase to a high or very high degree
170
6.3.3 Innovation life cycle management
- 71% of interviewed firms assess new ideas by criteria derived from innovation
strategy.
- 68% of interviewed firms assess new ideas by an interdisciplinary team.
- 39% of interviewed firms assess new ideas by criteria tailored per project
defined in the early development phase.
- Only 28% of interviewed firms assess new ideas by a set of predefined criteria
applied to all innovation projects.
171
- 53% of interviewed firms regularly provide feedback to research institutes and
universities on suggestions that they have given to them.
- 39% of firms regularly provide feedback to their suppliers on suggestion that
that they have given to them.
- A large number of firms did not have any contact with experts on intellectual
property rights.
- Half of interviewed firms have generated none or 1 patent within the last 5
years;
- 35% of interviewed firms had 100% of their generated patents within the last 5
years were turned into market success.
- 79% of interviewed firms have at least 50% of their innovation projects with
defined targets with respect to time, budget and quality;
172
- 73% have met the defined targets for at least 50% of their innovation projects.
- 71% of interviewed firms have universities or research institutes as innovation
partners.
- 75% of interviewed firms have some human resources policy to stimulate staff
qualification.
- 71% of interviewed firms answered that important information about their major
customers are disseminated through the whole business unit within a short period.
- 70% of interviewed firms answered that when one department finds out something
important about competitors, it is quickly to alert other departments.
- 68% of interviewed firms have interdepartmental meetings at least once a quarter
to discuss marketing trends and developments.
- 61% of interviewed firms share data on customer satisfaction at all level in the
business unit on a regular basis.
- 50% of interviewed firms answered that their marketing personnel spend time
discussing customers’ future needs with other functional departments.
173
6.4.2 Responsiveness
- 90% of firms answered that customer complaints do not fall on deaf ears.
- 82% of interviewed firms periodically review their product development efforts to
ensure that they are in line with what customers want.
- 82% of interviewed firms answered that their departments make concerted efforts to
do the changes that customers would like to see in a product or service.
- 72% of interviewed firms do periodical meetings to plan a response to changes taking
place in their business environment.
- 68% of interviewed firms have a good coordination between the activities of their
different departments.
- 61% of interviewed firms do not tend to ignore changes in their customers’
product/service needs.
- 46% of interviewed firms think they are able to implement a marketing plan in a
timely fashion.
- 43% of interviewed firms answered that it does not take them a long time to decide
how to respond to their competitor’s price changes.
- 32% of firms would implement a response immediately to a competitor´s intensive
campaign target at their customers.
174
- 61% of interviewed firms did not have any contribution coming from exports to
their gross income.
- 35% of interviewed firms answered that 100% of their total income come from
innovations not older than 3 years.
- 25% of interviewed firms spent more than 100% of their total income on
innovation over the last 2 years.
- 35% of interviewed firms had no operational profit over the last 2 years.
- There is a predominance of product innovation impacting more firms´
operational profits.
- 43% of interviewed firms answered that any reduction in operational costs can
be attributed to processes innovation.
- 65% of firms employed maximal 20 people over the last 4 years.
- 42% of interviewed firms answered that innovation management has a “high” or
“very high” impact on their success.
- 79% of interviewed firms think that innovation management will have a very
high impact in their success in the future.
- 68% of interviewed firms answered that they can still improve at least quite a bit
their innovation management performance.
175
- 50% of interviewed firms answered that their growth in firm’s sales was higher
or far higher than that of its major competitors.
- 50% half of interviewed firms answered that their success in attracting new
customers is higher or far higher than that showed by its major competitors .
Table bellow summarizes the main differences found between the two categories
of firms. In order to simplify the presentation, those differences that were
profound or classified through chi-squares tests as statistically significant were
marked with the symbols ** or *, respectively.
Table 6.1 -Main differences found between VC-backed and Non-supported firms
VC- Non-
Variable Item backed supporte
firms d firms
Vision documented for all staff to see 73% 50%
Innovation strategy sets clear objectives for their
57% 73%
innovation management activities
Innovation Strategy
176
Reached the breakeven point for their most profitable
36% 67%
product/service
177
dissemination
Intelligence
Data on customer satisfaction are shared at all level in
77% 58%
the business unit on a regular basis
** The differences between the two categories with respect to this question were profound though not
statistically significant at 0.05 level.
178
7. Conclusions
This work aimed to contribute with the understanding about the level of Innovation
Management and Market Orientation in Brazilian technology-based MSMEs.
According to the methodology proposed this was a descriptive research. Which means
that it had as its fundamental goal the description of the characteristics of a given
population with no interference from the researcher, who only attempted to understand
the frequency with which the phenomena occur, without the commitment of explaining
the phenomena it describes (Vergara, 2002; Gil, 1991, 1997).
In this sense, the results indicated that the objectives of the research were achieved.
In order to reach the levels of usage of both Innovation Management and Market
Orientation practiced by Brazilian technology-based firms and the performance levels
attained by such firms, a field research was carried out in Brazil to collect primary data
through structured interviews.
Data were collected from firms located in five Brazilian States (covering the Southeast,
South and Northeast regions), namely: Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Minas Gerais, Recife
and Santa Catarina. Structured interviews were personally carried out with the
entrepreneurs form the target firms. For doing this, survey instruments were used. More
specifically, the IMP rove Assessment tool, developed by A.T. Kearney and supported
by the European Commission under the Europe INNOVA Initiative, was the basis to
gauge Innovation Management practices of firms. The MARKOR scale was the basis
applied to gauge Market Orientation information. Personal background information and
company information were also included.
179
After collecting data a quantitative analysis was carried out by using SPSS 17.0. At the
first level of quantitative data analysis, descriptive statistical procedures involving
cross-tabulations and frequencies distributions were used. At the second level of
analysis, chi-square tests to find out the association between category of respondents
and some variables were performed. In addition, in order to complement data and
exemplify some results, qualitative information was available in some cases.
In order to have a better understanding of the results, they were organized according to
the questionnaire sequence and the variables of the study. For each item from the
different variables a pie chart with the results of the total interviewed firms and a bar
chart with responses divided in the two categories of respondents (VC-backed firms and
Non-supported firms) were drawn.
At the end, an overview about the main results with respect to each variable of the study
was available. It was also possible to highlight the main differences presented between
VC-backed firms and Non-supported firms, emphasizing those differences that were
profound or classified through chi-squares tests as statistically significant.
Having a further looking into the findings it was possible to make some considerations
answering to each research question:
In this study, entrepreneurs were asked to determine the level of their firms’ practices in
four components of innovation management including innovation strategy, organization
and culture, innovation life cycle management and enabling factors for innovation
management. On the whole, innovation management in Brazilian technology-based
firms has a colorful picture. There are positive activities that make clear points of the
picture, but there are still some disadvantages that need to be improved.
180
Q 1.1 – To what level is “Innovation Strategy” practiced by the firms?
All interviewed firms have a clear vision to the future and their visions are clearly
linked to the innovation. In addition, the vast majority of them have their innovation
strategy focused on the development of their innovation capabilities. But, according to
the answers, these are still in the theoretical plan: a great number of firms did not
consider innovation strategy as a guide for their innovation management activities and
did not have their innovation strategy fully communicated, understood and implemented
by their staff.
Another point is regarding to support from partnerships: there is still low support
coming from partners to the Brazilian technology-based firms. And this support is
mainly in the product/service development phase. Brazilian technology-based firms
present a lack of support from partnerships in the idea management and launch phases
of their innovation projects.
Although most of them already have their product/service development phase under
control, it means formalized or successfully in place, their idea management phase
181
needs to be improved: only a few numbers of firms have a formal system for generating
and assessing ideas. In addition, just 18% of interviewed firms have defined indicators
to measure their innovation activities.
This is the component which is practiced to the highest level among the four dimensions
of Innovation Management by Brazilian technology-based firms.
All interviewed firms use incentives to stimulate innovation. Although just half of them
give direct recognition to their staff and award extra money and almost none of them
offer an innovation award, the majority of them allow their staff to use company´s
facilities for free to test and develop their own ideas or provide their staff with
administrative support to get external fund.
Besides, most of interviewed firms have at least 50% of their innovation projects with
defined targets with respect to time, budget and quality and have met the defined targets
for at least 50% of their innovation projects. Also, most of them have some human
resources policy to stimulate staff qualification and have universities or research
institutes as innovation partners.
Entrepreneurs were also asked to determine their level of firm’s practices in three
components of market orientation including intelligence generation, intelligence
182
dissemination and responsiveness. On the whole, market orientation in Brazilian
technology-based firms has been performed slightly well. But despite of this, it is still
possible to notice a lack of human resources, activities and skills regarding to the
marketing issues.
Q 2.1 - To what level is “Intelligence generation” practiced by the firms?
Q 2.2 - To what level is “Intelligence dissemination” practiced by the firms?
Responsiveness is the factor which is effectuated the best among three dimensions of
Market Orientation in Brazilian technology-based firms.
183
Although they still have to improve their ability to coordinate separated departments
and develop marketing activities, like ‘implement a marketing plan in a timely fashion’
and ‘give a immediately response to a competitor´s intensive campaign target at their
customers’, these firms are significantly good at exerting themselves to satisfy
customers. In the aspect of caring customers’ needs and complaints, Brazilian
technology-based firms have acted quite well.
Although the concept of business performance has a variety of meanings (e.g. short- or
long-term, financial or organizational benefits), in the literature it is broadly viewed
from two perspectives, those are subjective and objective method.
This study has adopted both the subjective and objective concepts in order to gauge
information about the performance of Brazilian technology-based firms. The objective
concept was explored in the dimension of “Innovation Management Success”. The
subjective concept was used taken into consideration the Market Orientation
performance of firms relative to their competitors.
Q 3.1 - How is the “Innovation Management performance” of these firms?
With regards to the right key performance indicators to monitor and measure
innovativeness, Brazilian technology-based firms are performing moderately. For
example, 35% of them present 100% of their total income come from innovations not
older than 3 years and 25% spent more than 100% of their total income on innovation
over the last 2 years.
When it comes to the firm’s financial results, their performances are not so bad, but still
far from ideal: the largest concentration of firms’ income data for 2009 and 2010 is in
the range of 250-500 thousand of Euros; more than half of interviewed firms did not
184
have any contribution coming from exports to their gross income and 35% of them had
no operational profit over the last 2 years.
These results reveal that most of Brazilian technology-based firms are still in the phase
of heavy investments, some with no product in the market and trying to solve current
problems with limited financial and human resources.
Q 3.2 - How is the “Market Orientation performance” of these firms?
Brazilian technology-based firms are performing better than their major competitors in
retaining new customers, achieving customer satisfaction and building a positive image.
But when it comes to the questions related to growth in market share, growth in sales
and attracting new customers they are not so good.
These results mean that Brazilian-technology based firms are facing difficulties to enter
into the market. Once they reach a position into the market they can compete with some
advantage.
- Non-supported firms are better in the aspects related to the innovation strategy and
enabling factors for innovation management than VC-backed firms.
185
Regarding to the ‘Innovation strategy’, VC-backed firms are performing better just in
the aspect related to the documentation. When it comes to the aspects related to the
implementation of the Innovation Strategy, such as: ‘setting clear objectives for their
innovation management activities’;; ‘provide the basis for organizational changes and
business model development’ and ‘to be fully communicated, understood and
implemented by their staff’, Non-supported firms are performing better.
Regarding to the ‘Enabling factors’ the differences are even more significant: Non-
supported firms are performing better at all items in which the two groups showed some
difference between them. Especially in items: ‘met the defined targets for 100% of their
innovation projects’ and ‘partnership with universities or research institutes’, where the
differences are statistically significant.
-VC-backed firms are better in the aspects related to the innovation life cycle
management than Non-supported firms.
-Although none of the two groups have excelling in relation to ‘Organization and
culture’, it is important to emphasize that they presented significant differences between
them regarding this dimension: staff from Non-supported firms are more ‘able to think
“out-of-the box” and these firms have their ‘capacity for innovation viewed by
competitors and customer’ to a higher degree than VC-backed firms. On the other hand,
the staff from VC-backed firms are more ‘focused on business impact’ and the
entrepreneurs view their firms capacity for innovation to a higher degree than Non-
supported firms.
186
Q5 - Are there differences in the level of Market Orientation between VC-backed and
Non-supported firms?
-VC-backed firms are better in the aspects related to the intelligence generation and
intelligence dissemination than Non-supported firms.
The differences here are significant: VC-backed firms are performing better at all items
regarding to intelligence generation and dissemination in which the two groups showed
some difference between them. Especially in items: ‘meeting with customers to find out
what products or services they will need in the future’ and ‘we are not slow to detect
changes in our customers’ product/service preferences’, where the differences are
statistically significant.
- Non-supported firms are better in the aspects related to the responsiveness than VC-
backed firms.
This dimension of market orientation showed the biggest number of items with
statistically significant differences between the two groups of firms.
VC-backed firms are performing better just in the aspect related to the ‘coordination of
the different departments’, while Non-supported firms are better in the activities
regarding to the marketing issues and in the aspect of caring customers’ needs like ‘to
be able to implement a marketing plan in a timely fashion’ and ‘periodically review
their product development efforts to ensure that they are in line with what customers
want’, respectively.
There are some items from Innovation Management performance where it is possible to
see clear differences between the two groups of firms:
187
Regarding to income data and profit, Non-supported firms are performing better. But
more VC-backed than Non-supported firms think that innovation management has a
“high” or “very high” impact on their current success.
The statistically significant difference here is about the growth driver with highest
impact on profit growth: VC-backed firms consider de external growth, while Non-
supported firms have the organic growth impacting more.
The two groups of firms also presented some differences related to Market Orientation
performance:
While Non-supported firms are performing better in the items related to the ‘growth in
sales’ and ‘success in attracting new customers’, VC-backed firms are better in
‘growth in market share’ and ‘success in achieving customer satisfaction’.
Final conclusions
As final conclusions, the research results have revealed that, in general, Brazilian
technology-based MSMEs are practicing each dimension of Innovation Management to
a different level, with the “Enabling factors for innovation management” practiced at
the highest level among all. Market Orientation has been practiced slightly well by these
firms, with de component “Responsiveness” effectuated as the best.
At the end, this research not only confirms, from the point of view of Innovation
Management and Market Orientation, the assertions of Pavitt et al., 2005: “Despite the
different efforts started so far Brazilian technology-based MSMEs face difficulties of
implementation. These difficulties can be approached by the fact that, traditionally,
technological innovation appears to have been largely bypassed in defining the
management structures of high-technology companies. Most companies build their
structures around the traditional functions of finance, marketing, production, human
resources and R&D.”; but also reveals in detail the strengths and weaknesses of the
Brazilian technology-based firms. Thus the overall research was able to reach all the
expectations established as relevant to the study.
As recommendations for future work of unfolding and deepening of the research results,
can be proposed:
189
References
ACS, Z. J.; AUDRETSCH, D. B. Innovation and small firms. Massachussets: The MIT
Press. 1990. 212 p.
AUDRESTSCH, D., LEHMANN, E. Financing high tech growth: The role of banks and
venture capitalists. Schmalenbach Economic Review, 56, 340–357, 2004.
Bertoni, F., Colombo, M. G., and Grilli, L. Venture capital financing and the growth of
new technology based firms. Working paper, Politecnico di Milano, Department of
Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering. 2008.
Bottazzi, L., and Da Rin, M. Venture capital in Europe and the financing of innovative
companies. Economic Policy, 17, 229–269. 2002.
Burgel, O., Fier, A., Licht, G., and Murray, G. Internationalisation of high tech start-ups
and fast growth: Evidence from Germany and UK, DP 00-35. Mannheim: Centre for
European Economic Research. 2000.
Colombo, M., D’Adda, D., & Piva, E. (2009). The contribution of university research to
the growth of academic start-ups: An empirical analysis. Journal of Technology
Transfer, this issue.
190
start-ups. Working paper, Politecnico di Milano, Department of Management,
Economics and Industrial Engineering.
Davila, A., Foster, G., & Gupta, M. (2003). Venture capital financing and the growth of
start-up firms. Journal of Business venturing, 18, 689–708.
DAY, G. “The Capabilities of Market Driven Organizations,” Journal of Marketing, 58
(October), 37 - 52. 1994.
DOSI, G. The Nature of Innovative Process, In: Dosi, G. et al. (orgs.), Technical
Change and Economic Theory, Londres & Nova York: Pinter Publisher, 1998.
Engel, D., and Keilbach, M. Firm level implications of early stage venture capital
investment: Na empirical investigation. Journal of Empirical Finance, 14, 150–167.
2007.
191
FERNANDES, A.C.; CÔRTES, M. R. Caracterização do perfil da empresa de base
tecnológica no estado de São Paulo: uma análise preliminar. Universidade Estadual de
Campinas. Campinas. 1999. 33 p.
FILION, L. J. The Definition of small business as a basic element for policy making.
Centre for sociology (Ed.). Small Business, Marketing and Society (Congress). The
Institute of Sociology, USSR Academy of Science, Academy of Science of Georgia,
Rússia/Georgia/Tbilisy: 1991.
GARVIN, D. How the Baldrige award really works. Harvard Business Review.
November/December., 80-93. 1991.
192
Han, J. K., N. Kim, and R. K. Srivastava “Marketing Orientation and Organizational
Performance: Is Innovation a Missing Link?” Journal of Marketing, 62(October), 30 -
45. 1998
Hellmann, T., & Puri, M. The interaction between product market and financing
strategy: The role of venture capital. Review of Financial Studies, 13, 959–984. 2000.
Jain, B., and Kini, O. Venture capitalists’ participation and the post-issue operating
performance of IPO firms. Managerial and Decision Economics, 6, 593–606. 1995.
Jaworski, B. J., and A. K. Kohli “Market Orientation in United States and Scandinavian
companies. A cross-cultural study,” Scandinavian Journal Management, Vol. 12, No.2,
139 - 157. 1993
193
LA ROVERE, R. L. Perspectivas das micro, pequenas e médias empresas no Brasil.
Revista de Economia Contemporanea, v. 5. Edição especial. 2001. p. 20-38.
194
OECD. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Manual de Oslo:
proposta de diretrizes para a coleta e interpretação de dados sobre inovação tecnológica.
1997.
PAVITT, K.; TIDD, J.; BESSANT, J. Gestão da Inovação. Porto Alegre: Bookman. 3ª
edição. 2005.
PREECE, S.B.; MILES, G.; BAETZ, M.C. Explaining the international intensity and
global diversity of early-stage technology-based firms. Journal of Business Venturing,
v. 14, p. 259-281.1998
ROTHWELL, R.; ZEGVELD, W. Innovation and the small and medium sized firm:
their role in employment and in economic change. London: Frances Pinter. 1982. 268 p.
195
Slater, S. F., and J. C. Narver “Market Orientation, Customer Value, and Superior
Performance,” Business Horizons, March-April, 22 - 27. 1994
VERGARA, S. C. Metodologia do trabalho científico. 22ª ed. São Paulo: Cortez, 2002.
196
ANNEX I
2. Your age
20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61 or above
3. Sex
Male Female
4. Education level
Secondary High school Bachelor’s Degree Master Degree Doctor Degree
1. Name of firm:
2. Address:
3. Tel:
4. Email:
5. Number of employees:
< 5 5-10 10 – 20
6. Years in business:
< 1 year 1 - 3 3 - 5 5 - 10 above 10 years
7. Years in operation
< 1 year 1 - 3 3 - 5 5 - 10 above 10 years
8. Type of ownership
197
PART 3 - INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Q 3.1.1 – Does your company have a clear vision for it’s future? (What it wants to
become?)
- It sets the objectives for your project management in each innovation project
- It provides the basis for organizational changes and business model development
Q 3.1.3 – To what degree is your innovation strategy communicated to, understood and
implemented through your company? (1= not at all and 5= fully)
198
- Communicated
- Fully understood
- Implemented
If yes, your innovation project(s) are: (1= not applicable and 5= fully applicable)
Q 3.2.1 To what degree would you rate staff attitudes towards innovation?
(1= not applicable and 5= fully applicable)
- Imaginative
199
Q3.2.2 To what degree do others view your capacity for innovation?
(1= very low and 5= very high)
- Your competitors
- Your suppliers
- Yourself
Q 3.2.3 To what degree do partnerships support and enhance each phase of the
innovation life cycle? (1= not at all and 5= to a very high degree)
- Idea management
Q 3.2.4 How many external partners regularly participate in your innovation projects?
Q 3.2.5 How many of these have cooperated in at least one innovation project during
the last 3 years?
Q3.2.6 How many people currently work on innovation projects in which external
partners are involved?
Q. 3.3.1 What is the length of time (in months) for your most profitable product/service
group from the beginning of the development (project authorization) until you take (or
envisage that you will take) your product/service off the market?
200
Q 3.3.2 How many months does it take for your most profitable product/service group
from the beginning of the development (project authorization) to getting new
product/service on sale?
Q 3.3.3 How many months did it take for your most profitable product/service group
from the project authorization to reach the breakeven point?
- Product innovations
- Service innovations
- Process innovations
- Organisational innovations
Q.3.3.5 How many of these projects showed success (e.g. reached break even) within
the last 4 years?
- Product innovations
- Service innovations
- Process innovations
- Organisational innovations
201
Q 3.3.6 How many radical innovation projects to develop completely new
products/services/processes/organizational or business models have you started in the
last 4 years?
- Product innovations
- Service innovations
- Process innovations
- Organisational innovations
Q.3.3.7 How many of these projects showed success (e.g. reached break even) within
the last 4 years?
- Product innovations
- Service innovations
- Process innovations
- Organizational innovations
Q.3.3.8 How do you assess new ideas and ways of developing business?
(1= not applicable and 5= fully applicable)
- A set of predefined criteria applied to all innovation projects (i.e., standards in place)
202
- Criteria tailored per project defined in the early development phase (i.e., no standards
in place)
Q 3.3.9 How regularly do you provide feedback to the following groups on suggestions
that they have given to you? (1= not at all and 5= highly regularly)
- Suppliers
- Purchasing
- Direct customers
- Indirect customers
- Production/service development
- Network partners
Q 3.3.10 Do you have a formal system for generating and assessing ideas?
If yes, what percentage of the generated ideas are radical ideas and incremental ideas?
Q 3.3.11 How formalized are your development processes (with clearly defined stages,
milestones, etc)? (1= not at all and 5=successfully in place)
203
- Product innovations
- Service innovations
- Process innovations
- Organizational innovations
Q 3.3.12 For innovation projects launched during the past 3 years, what percentage had
well defined targets (such as “volume of sales within a specific time frame”, “turnover
from theses sales”, “timing of first sales” etc.)?
Q 3.3.13 In the course of a year, how many times do you analyse customer data and
customer feedback?
Q 3.3.14 Have your company defined indicators to measure its innovation activities?
- Allowing them to use company’s facilities for free to test and develop their own
ideas
204
Q 3.4.2 How many patents have your company generated within the last 5 years?
Q.3.4.3 How many of those patents were turned into market success?
Q.3.4.4 For innovation projects in the last 3 years, what percentage had targets defined
with respect to time, budget and quality?
These information are closely related to the benchmarking process, please ensure that
data is as complete and accurate as possible. Please give the values for each year
individually.
Q 3.5.1 What is your income data (income from sales and other income streams) for the
last 2 years? Total income (in thousands of Euros)
Q 3.5.2 What was the percentage from innovations that are not more than 3 years old?
205
Q 3.5.4 What was your company’s operational profit data (EBIT) been over the last 2
years?
Q 3.5.6 How were last year’s operational profits gained from innovation projects
distributed across different types of innovation? (please distribute 100 percentage points
across de following innovation types)
- Product innovations
- Service innovations
- Process innovations
- Organizational innovations
Q 3.5.8 Which growth drivers had the highest impact on your profit growth over the last
4 years? (please distribute 100 percentage points across de following growth drivers)
Q 3.5.9 How many people did you employ over the last 4 years?
206
Q 3.5.10 What is the current and future impact of innovation management on your
business success? (1= very low and 5= very high)
- Current success
- Future success
Q 3.5.11 How much can you still improve your current innovation management
performance? (1= not at all and 5= very much)
207
ANNEX II
The following statements indicate the degree of market orientation in the activities
described. Please write a number to indicate your attitude on each statement:
(1) Strongly disagree – (5) Strongly agree
Q 4.1.1 We meet with customers at least once a year to find out what products or
services they will need in the future.
Q 4.1.3 We are slow to detect changes in our customers’ product/service preferences.
Q 4.1.4 We poll end users at least once a year to assess the quality of our products and
services.
Q 4.1.5 We are slow to detect fundamental shifts in our industry (for example,
competition, technology, regulation).
Q 4.1.6 We periodically review the likely effect of changes in our business environment
(for example, regulations) on customers.
208
4.2. Intelligence Dissemination
Q 4.2.1 We have interdepartmental meetings at least once a quarter to discuss marketing trends
and developments.
Q 4.2.2 Marketing personnel in our business spend time discussing customers’ future needs
with other functional departments.
Q 4.2.3 When something important happens to our major customer or market, the whole
business unit knows about it within a short period.
Q 4.2.4 Data on customer satisfaction are shared at all levels in the business unit on a regular
basis.
Q 4.2.5 When one department finds out something important about competitors, it is quickly to
alert other departments
4.3. Responsiveness
Q 4.3.1 It takes us a long time to decide how to respond to our competitor’s price changes.
Q 4.3.2 For one reason or another, we tend to ignore changes in our customers’ product or
service needs.
Q 4.3.3 We periodically review our product development efforts to ensure that they are in
line with what customers want.
Q 4.3.4 Our personnel get together periodically to plan a response to changes taking place in
our business environment.
209
Q 4.3.5 If a major competitor were to launch an intensive campaign targeted at our
customers, we would implement a response immediately
Q 4.3.6 The activities of the different departments in this business unit are well coordinated.
Q 4.3.8 Even if we came up with a great marketing plan, we probably would not be able to
implement it in a timely fashion.
Q 4.3.9 When we find that customers would like to see changes to a product or service, the
departments involved make concerted efforts to do so.
210
ANNEX III
Overall performance of the firm for the past 12 months relative to major competitors
was: Far below (1) – Far higher (5)
211
Appendix A: Interviewed firms
- VC-backed firms
http://www.daccordmusic.com/eng/site/company.php
Address: Rua D. Maria César, nº 170 - Sala 203ª Bairro do Recife,
Recife - PE – Brazil - 50030-140
Phone: +55 (81) 3224-4386
http://www.rizoflora.com.br/
Address: Parque Tecnológico de Viçosa
Av. Oraida Mendes de Castro S/N Novo Silvestre
Viçosa/MG – Brazil - 36570-000
Email:contato@rizoflora.com.br; Phone: +55 (31) 3892-2581
Date:10.12.2010 / Time:14:00
http://www.subsin.com.br/english/index.html
Address: Av. João Luís Alves S/N Fortaleza São João – PIRF- Urca
Rio de Janeiro – RJ - 2291090
Email: subsin@subsin.com.br; Phone: +55 21 22758001
Date:21.12.2010 / Time:10:30
212
http://invitrocells.site.com.br/
Address: Av. José Candido Silveira, 2100 – Horto – Belo Horizonte-MG
Email: contato@invitrocells.com.br; Phone:+55 31 34861920
Date:22.12.2010 / Time:10:00
http://www.edgeit.com.br/index.php?w2l=EN_US
Address: Av.Paulista, 726 - conjunto 1707 - São Paulo - Brasil - 01310-910
Phone: +55 11 3254-7660
Date: 06.12.2010 / Time:19:00
http://www.deprocer.com.br/
Address:Estrada Adhemar Bebiano, 1660, Del Castilho – Rio de Janeiro – RJ
Phone: +55 (21) 2467-3381
Date:05.01.2011 / Time:11:00
http://www.arvus.com.br
Address: R. Coronel Luiz Caldeira, 67 - 2. Andar- Bairro Itacorubi -Florianópolis-SC
Phone: +55 (48) 4009.2704
Date:14.12.2010 / Time:09:00
213
http://www.magnamed.com.br/INGindex.html
Address:Rua São Paulino, 221 Vila Mariana - São Paulo - SP - Brasil CEP:04019-040
Email: magnamed@magnamed.com.br; Phone +55(11) 5081-4115
Date:05.01.2011 / Time:18:00
http://www.celer.ind.br
Address: Rua Padre Eustáquio,1.133 - Carlos Prates - Belo Horizonte - MG
Phone +55 (31) 3413-0814
Date:06.01.2011 / Time:08:00
http://www.tmed.com.br/eng/
Address:Rua: Ricardo Hardman, 552 – Tamarineira - Recife - PE
Phone +55 (81) 3366-9100
Date:10.01.2011 / Time:18:00
http://www.biocancer.com.br/
Address: Av. Bernardo Monteiro, 918-Santa Efigênia- Belo Horizonte- MG
Phone +55 (31) 3224-2030
Date:12.01.2011 / Time:09:00
http://www.biologicus.com.br/
Address: Av. Prof Luiz Freire, 700 – Curado- Recife - PE, 50740-540
Phone +55 (81) 4141-4149
Date:13.01.2011 / Time:18:00
214
Usix (Ebix): http://www.ebix-la.com.br
Address: Rua São José, 40 - Ed. São José - Cobertura - Centro Rio de Janeiro - RJ -
Phone +55 (21) 3553.8749
Date:25.01.2011 / Time:10:00
- Non-supported firms
http://www.fabricadigital.com.br
Address: Av, Nossa Sra de Copacabana, 895/1001 – Copacabana, Rio de janeiro – RJ
Phone: +55 (21) 2548-7877 Email: atendimento@fabricadigital.com.br
Date:21.12.2010 / Time:19:00
215
http://www.cleverpack.com.br/index.php?lang=en
Address:Rua Guilherme Maxwell, 547/406, Bonsucesso, Rio de Janeiro – RJ
Phone: +55 (21) 2573-6426
Date:06.12.2010 / Time:19:00
Bionix
http://www.bionix.com.br/
Address:Rua Lucidio Lago, 96/403, Meier – Rio de Janeiro – RJ
Phone:+55 (21) 9805 – 6510 E-mail: lee@bionix.com.br
Date:05.01.2011 / Time:08:00
http://www.kognitus.com.br
Address:Avenida Marechal Floriano, 38/ 901 Centro - Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Phone: 55 (21) 3553-5654 / 3553-4050
Date:17.01.2011 / Time:16:00
http://www.ativatec.com.br/
Address:Rua Dalcídio Jurandir, 255/ 313 -Barra da Tijuca – Rio de janeiro – RJ
Email: contato@ativatec.com.br; Phone: +55 (21) 3594-5979
Date:19.01.2011 / Time:18:00
http://www.bioaptus.com.br/
Address:Av Antonio Carlos, 6627-Inova/114 – Belo Horizonte – MG
Phone:+55 (31) 3409-6788
Date:21.01.2011 / Time:10:00
216
http://www.tecc2.com.br
Address:Avenida João Luis Alves, S/N - Forte São João - PIRF - Rio de Janeiro, RJ –
Phone: +55 21 2295-9179
Date: 18.01.2011 / Time:18:00
http://www.pam-membranas.com.br/
Address:Rua Paulo Emídio Barbosa sn, Parque Tecnológico do Rio de Janeiro, QD 6A,
Edificio MP, Módulo 1, Ilha do Fundão/Cidade Universitária - Rio de Janeiro/RJ
E-mail: pam@pam-membranas.com.br; Phone: 21-3733 1980
Date:18.01.2011 / Time:08:00
INOVAX
http://www.inovax.com.br/
Address:Av. Rio Branco, 4, 407/408 and 409 - Centro - Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Email: inovax@inovax.com.br; Phone: (21) 2103-5550
Date:13.01.2011 / Time:11:00
MILESTONE (Affero)
http://www.milestone-ti.com.br/
Address Rua Bambina, 25, Botafogo, Rio de Janeiro –RJ
Phone: +55 (21) 4063-9157
Date:20.01.2011 / Time:11:00
CORTEX INTELLIGENCE
http://www.cortex-intelligence.com/site/english/index.php
Address Rua da Assembléia, 10 – 3711/3712, Centro, Rio de Janeiro - RJ
E-mail: contato@cortex-intelligence.com; Phone: +55 (21) 32823180
Date:20.01.2011 / Time:18:00
217
Declaration of Academic Honesty
I hereby declare to have written this Master’s Thesis by my own, having used only the
listed resources and tools. It is well known to me that a false declaration is deemed to be
an offence against the examination regulations of the International SEPT Program and
the University of Leipzig.
218