Orchestrators of innovation networks in the city level: the case of Pacto Alegre

Autores

  • Julhete Mignoni Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos - UNISINOS
  • Bruno Anicet Bittencourt Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos - UNISINOS
  • Silvio Bitencourt da Silva Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos - UNISINOS
  • Aurora Carneiro Zen Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - UFRGS

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-01-2021-0002

Palavras-chave:

Innovation networks, Orchestration, Orchestrators

Resumo

Purpose – This paper investigates the roles and activities of the orchestrators of innovation networks
constituted within cities. In this sense, the authors expected to contribute for research related to the roles and
activities of the orchestrators of innovation networks constituted in the scope of cities given the large number
and diversity of complex and multiple dimensions social actors (Castells & Borja, 1996; Reypens, Lievens &
Blazevic, 2019).
Design/methodology/approach – The authors conducted an exploratory research with a single case study
in depth. The case chosen for the paper is the case of Pacto Alegre. The case selection criterion was the
relevance of the Pacto Alegre Case in the construction of an innovation network in the city of Porto Alegre, Rio
Grande do Sul, Brazil. The Pacto Alegre network was proposed by the Alliance for Innovation (composed of the
three main Universities in the city: UFRGS, PUCRS and UNISINOS) and by the Municipality of Porto Alegre. In
addition to these actors, the network counts on financial and development institutions as sponsors, with media
partners, with design partners, with an advisory board (composed of five professionals considered references in
different themes) and composed by more than 100 companies, associations and institutions from different areas
(Pacto Alegre, 2019). Data were collected from 09/20/2020 to 11/30/2020 through in-depth interviews,
documentary research and non-participant observation.
Findings – In this research, the authors highlighted the city as a community that involves and integrates
various actors, such as citizens and companies, to collaborative innovation activities. For this, they proposed a
framework on innovation networks and network orchestration. In this direction, seven dimensions of the
“orchestration of innovation networks” were assumed as a result of the combination of previous studies by
Dhanaraj and Parke (2006), Hurmelinna-Laukkanen et al. (2011) and da Silva and Bitencourt (2019). In the
sequence, different roles of orchestrators associated with the literature were adopted based on the work by
Pikkarainen et al. (2017) and Nielsen and Gausdal (2017).
Research limitations/implications – The authors’ results advance in relation to other fields by promoting
the expansion of the “orchestration of innovation networks” model with the combination of distinct elements
from the literature in a coherent whole (agenda setting, mobilization, network stabilization, creation and
transfer of knowledge, innovation appropriability, coordination and co-creation) and in the validation of its
applicability in the context of the innovation network studied. In addition, when relating different roles of
orchestrators to the seven dimensions studied, it was realized that there is no linear and objective relationship
between the dimensions and roles of the orchestrator, as in each dimension there may be more than one role
being played in the orchestration.
Practical implications – Therefore, the findings suggest two theoretical contributions. First, the authors
identified a role not discussed in the literature, here called the communicator. In the case analysis, the authors
observed the communicator role through functions performed by a media partner of the innovation network
and by a group of civil society engaged in the city’s causes. Second, the authors indicated a new dimension oforchestration related to the management of communication in the innovation network and its externalities such
as p. ex. civil and organized society, characteristic of an innovation network set up within a city.
Originality/value – Although several studies have proposed advances in the understanding of the
orchestration of innovation networks (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006; Ritala, Armila & Blomqvist, 2009; Nambisan
& Sawhney, 2011; Hurmelinna-Laukkanen et al., 2011), the discussion on the topic is still a black box (Nilsen &
Gausdal, 2017). More specifically, the authors identified a gap in the literature about the role and activities of
actors in the city level. Few studies connected the regional dimension with the roles and activities of the
orchestrators (Hurmelinna-Laukkanen et al., 2011; Pikkarainen et al., 2017), raising several challenges and
opportunities to be considered by academics and managers.

Downloads

Os dados de download ainda não estão disponíveis.

Referências

Adner, R., 2017. Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management 43 (1), 39–58

Appio, F.P., Lima, M., Haikel, M.-H., Cadene, A.-L., And Sotirios, P. (2018). Understanding Smart Cities: Innovation Ecosystems, Technological Advancements, And Societal Challenges. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, forthcoming.

Araújo, R. A. S. F. R., Farias, S., & Hoffmann, V. E. (2018). Analysis of scientific production on interorganizational networks study field. INMR-Innovation & Management Review, 15(1), 92-115.

Autio, E.; Thomas, L. (2014). Innovation ecosystems: Implications for Innovation Management? In: DODGSON, M.; GANN, D. M.; PHILLIPS, N. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of innovation management. London: The Oxford Handbookof Innovation Management, p. 204-228.

Barrichello; Santos; Morano (2019). Determinant and priority factors of innovation for the development of nations. Innovation & Management Review. 235-252

Bittencourt, B. A.; Figueiró, P. S. (2019). Innovation ecosystems articulation and shared value creation. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, v. 17, n. 4, 2019.

Bittencourt, B. A.; Zen, A. C.; Santos, D. A. G. (2020). Orchestrating university innovation ecosystem: the case of brazillian university. Revue Internationale d’Intelligence Economique – R2IE. V 11 69-95.

Bittencourt, B.A., Zen, A.C., Schmidt, V. and Wegner, D. (2018), The orchestration process for emergence of clusters of innovation, Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, Vol. 0 No. 0, null, doi: 10.1108/JSTPM-02-2018-0016.

Carayannis, Elias G.; Campbell, David Fj. (2009). 'Mode 3'and'Quadruple Helix': toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, v. 46, n. 3-4, p. 201-234.

Castells, Manuel; Borja, Jordi. (1996). As cidades como atores políticos. Novos estudos CEBRAP, v. 45, n. 2, p. 152-166.

Choi, H., Kim, S.-H. Lee, J. (2010). ‘'Role of network structure and network effects in diffusion of innovations’innovations', Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39, pp. 170-177.

Cinelli, M., Ferraro, G., Iovanella, A. (2019). Network processes for collaborative innovation. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 430-452.

Dhanaraj, C., Parkhe, A. (2006) Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 659-669.

Dyer, Jeffrey H.; Nobeoka, Kentaro. (2000). Creating and managing a high‐performance knowledge‐sharing network: the Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, v. 21, n. 3, p. 345-367.

Ferraro, G.; Iovanella, A. (2015). Organizing Collaboration in Inter-organizational Innovation Networks, from Orchestration to Choreography. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, Vol. 7, No 24, 1-14.

Fracasso; Gamarra (2016). Technological intensity and innovation capability in industrial firms. Innovation & Management Review. 189-207

Gausdal, A., Nilsen, E. (2011). Orchestrating innovative SME networks. The case of “"HealthInnovation”. ". Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 2(4), 586–600.

Gomes, L. A. De V. et al. (2016). Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change [on-line], v. 136, p. 30-48.

Grant, Robert M. (1996). Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, v. 17, n. S2, p. 109-122.

Gupta, Anushri; Panagiotopoulos, Panos; Bowen, Frances. (2020). An orchestration approach to smart city data ecosystems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, v. 153, p. 119929.

Haug, Are Vegard. (2018). Innovation and network leadership: The bureaucracy strikes back? IOS Press. Oslo, Norway.

Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., Nätti, S., Helin, S. (2014). Innovation Network Orchestrators – Distinction between Types and Roles. In Proceedings of 30th EGOS Colloquium, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, July 3–5.

Lancee, B., Radl, J. (2012). Social connectedness and the transition from work to retirement. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. v.67, n.4, p. 481-490.

Laukkanen, P.H., Nätti, S. (2012). ‘'Network Orchestration for Knowledge Mobility – The case of an International Innovation Community’Community', Journal of Business Market Management, Vol. 5, No. $, pp.244-264.

Leminen, Seppo; Nyström, Anna-Greta; Westerlund, Mika. (2019). Change processes in open innovation networks–Exploring living labs. Industrial Marketing Management.

Li, D., Wei, Y. D., Miao, C., Wu, Y., Xiao, W. (2019). Innovation, Network Capabilities, and Sustainable Development of Regional Economies in China. Sustainability, 11(17), 4770.

Lumineau, F., Oliveira, N. (2018). A pluralistic perspective to overcome major blind spots in research on interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Annals, 12: 440-465.

Lundvall, B. Å. (2007). National innovation systems—analytical concept and development tool. Industry and innovation, 14(1), 95-119.

Majchrzak, A., Jarvenpaa, S. L., Bagherzadeh, M. (2015). A review of interorganizational collaboration dynamics. Journal of Management, 41: 1338-1360.

Martins, Joberto Sb. (2018). Towards smart city innovation. Revista de Tecnologia da Informação e Comunicação, v. 8, n. 2, p. 1-7.

Mcadam, Maura; Debackere, Koenraad. (2018). Beyond ‘'triple helix’toward helix'toward ‘'quadruple helix’models helix'models in regional innovation systems: implications for theory and practice. R&D Management, v. 48, n. 1, p. 3-6.

Milagres, R. (2014). The Governance Structure of Cooperative Networks–The Genolyptus Case. RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação, 11(3), 7-29.

Müller, R., do Rocio Strauhs, F., Queiroz, J. V., & da Silva, C. L. (2017). Cooperative networks for innovation: a panorama of the Brazillian scenario between 2003 and 2011. RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação, 14(1), 41-51.

Nambisan S., Sawhney, M. (2011). Orchestration Processes in Network-Centric Innovation: Evidence from the Field. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25: 40–57.

Nicotra M. Romano M. Del Giudice M. Schillaci C. E. (2018). The causal relation between entrepreneurial ecosystem and productive entrepreneurship: A measurement framework.The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(3), 640–673. 10.1007/s10961-017-9628-2

Nilsen, E. R., Gausdal, A. H. (2017). The Multifaceted Role of The Network Orchestrator — A Longitudinal Case Study. International Journal of Innovation Management.

Nyström, A. G., Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Kortelainen, M. (2014). Actor roles and role patterns influencing innovation in living labs. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(3), 483-495.

Pacto Alegre. Pacto Alegre, Porto Alegre, 2019. Disponível em: <https://pactoalegre.poa.br/>. Acesso em: 02 nov. 2019.

Paulini, M., Murty, P., Maher, M. L. (2013). Design processes in collective innovation communities: a study of communication. CoDesign, 9(2), 90-112.

Pikkarainen, M., Ervasti, M., Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P.,; Nätti, S. (2017). Orchestration roles to facilitate networked innovation in a healthcare ecosystem. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(9).

Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. Harvard Business Review, v. 76, n. 6, p. 77–90.

Provan, Keith G. (1983). The federation as an interorganizational linkage network. Academy of Management Review, v. 8, n. 1, p. 79-89.

Ritala, P.; Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P.; Nätti, S. (2009). Innovation Orchestration Matching Network Types and Orchestration Profiles. 25th IMP-conference in Marseille, France, 1-11.

Ritala, Paavo; Armila, Leila; Blomqvist, Kirsimarja. (2009). Innovation orchestration capability—Defining the organizational and individual level determinants. International Journal of Innovation Management, v. 13, n. 04, p. 569-591.

Sakakibara, M. (2002). Formation of R&D consortia: Industry and company effects. Strategic Management Journal [on-line], [S.l.], v. 23, n. 11, p. 1033-1050.

Silva, S. B., Bitencourt, C. C. (2019). Orquestração de redes de inovação constituídas com o conceito de living lab para o desenvolvimento de inovações sociais. Administração Pública e Gestão Social, 11(2).

Silva, S.B. (2016). A capacidade dinâmica de “orquestração de redes de inovação” no Modelo de Inovação Aberta, Revista Alcance Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 19-33. 2016.

Sørensen, Eva; Torfing, Jacob (2016). (Ed.). Theories of democratic network governance. Springer.

Teece, D. J. (2000). Managing intellectual capital: organizational, strategic, and policy dimensions. London: Oxford University Press.

Valkokari, K., Seppänen, M., Mäntylä, M., & Jylhä-Ollila, S. (2017). Orchestrating innovation ecosystems: A qualitative analysis of ecosystem positioning strategies. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(3).

Visnjic, I.; Neely, A,. Cennamo, C.; Visnjic, N. (2016) Governing the City: Unleashing Value from the Business Ecosystem. California Management Review, 59(1), p. 109–140

Wu, D., Rosen, D. W., Panchal, J. H., Schaefer, D. (2016). Understanding communication and collaboration in social product development through social network analysis. Journal of Computing and information Science in Engineering, 16(1).

Yin, R.K. (2010). Estudo de caso: planejamento e métodos. 4. ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman.

Downloads

Publicado

2023-09-13

Edição

Seção

Artigos

Como Citar

Orchestrators of innovation networks in the city level: the case of Pacto Alegre. (2023). INMR - Innovation & Management Review, 20(3), 194-210. https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-01-2021-0002