51622

Suzana Xavier Ribeiro
Marcelo Seido Nagano

Revista de Gestão

PURPOSE – Thepurposeofthispaperistoinvestigatehowcertaincharacteristicsoftheuniversity–industry– government collaboration facilitate knowledge creation and management, hence innovation focusing on particularities of the Brazilian scenario. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH – As a conceptual basis, there are correlations between theories of knowledge management and the Triple Helix, a model referenced to university–industry–government cooperation. The research was conducted through a multiple case study at two National Institutes of Science and Technology (INCTs in Portuguese). FINDINGS – The main results show the importance of participation in the INCT program, as it enables the creation of an organizational structure with the coordinator’s leadership, who directs the flow of knowledge among organizations and stimulates innovation. ORIGINALITY/VALUE – The choice of the topic is justified by the lack of studies on the identification and analyses of the main aspects of this type of collaboration in an integrated way.

Knowledge management, Triple helix, University-industry-government collaboration

RIBEIRO, S. X.; NAGANO, M. S. Main Dimensions that Impact Knowledge Management and University-Business-government Collaboration in the Brazilian Scenario. Revista de Gestão, v. 25, n. 3, p. 258-273, 2018.

Ribeiro, S. X., & Nagano, M. S. (2018). Main Dimensions that Impact Knowledge Management and University-Business-government Collaboration in the Brazilian Scenario. Revista de Gestão, 25(3), 258-273.

10.1108/REGE-05-2018-0074

http://www.spell.org.br/documentos/ver/51622/main-dimensions-that-impact-knowledge-management-and-university-business-government-collaboration-in-the-brazilian-scenario/i/pt-br

Artigo

Inglês

Ahuja, G.; Soda, G.; Zaheer, A. (2012). The genesis and dynamics of organizational networks. Organization Science, v. 23, n. 2, pp. 434-448.

Al-Tabbaa, O.; Ankrah, S. (2016). Social capital to facilitate ‘engineered’ university-industry collaboration for technology transfer: a dynamic perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, v. 104, n. C, pp. 1-15.

Alavi, M.; Leidner, D. (2001). Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quartely, v. 25, n. 1, pp. 107-136.

Ankrah, S.; Al-Tabbaa, O. (2015). University-industry collaboration: a systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, v. 31, n. 3, pp. 387-408.

Arza, V. (2010). Channels, benefits and risks of public-private interactions for knowledge transfer: a conceptual framework inspired by Latin America. Science and Public Policy, v. 37, n. 7, pp. 473-484.

Bardin, L. (1977). Análise de Conteúdo. Edições 70, Lisboa, p. 70.

Beesley, L. G. A. (2003). Science policy in changing times: are governments poised to take full advantage of an institution in transition? Research Policy, v. 32, n. 8, pp. 1519-1531.

Bruneel, J.; D’Este, P.; Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, v. 39, n. 7, pp. 858-868.

Chen, C.; Huang, J. (2007). How organizational climate and structure affect knowledge management – the social interaction perspective. International Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 27, n. 2, pp. 104-118.

CNPq. (2016). Resultados e impactos do programa institutos nacionais de Ciência e tecnologia. http://confap.org.br/news/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/panorama-INCT-CONFAPMaranh%C3%A3o-1.pdf.

Cunningham, J. A.; Link, A. N. (2015). Fostering university-industry R&D collaborations in European Union countries. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, v. 11, n. 4, pp. 849-860.

Davenport, T.; Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What they Know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Dell’ano, D.; Del Giudice, M. (2015). Absorptive and adsorptive capacity of actors within university-industry relations: does technology transfer mater? Journal of Innovation and Entrepreurship, v. 4, n. 13, pp. 1-20.

Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: the triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, v. 42, n. 3, pp. 293-337.

Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action, Routledge, New York, NY.

Etzkowitz, H.; Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and ‘mode 2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, v. 29, n. 2, pp. 109-123.

Hall, R. H. (2002). Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes. 8 ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Johannessen, J.; Olsen, B.; Olaisen, J. (1999). Aspects of innovation theory based on knowledgemanagement. International Journal of Information Management, v. 19, n. 2, pp. 121-139.

Kianto, A.; Waajakoski, J. (2010). Linking social capital to organizational growth. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, v. 8, n. 1, pp. 4-14.

Leydesdorff, L.; Meyer, M. (2006). Triple helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems. Introduction to the special issue. Research Policy, v. 35, n. 1, pp. 1441-1449.

Liefner, I.; Schiller, D. (2008). Academic capacities in developing countries–a conceptual framework with empirical illustrations from Thailand. Research Policy, v. 37, n. 2, pp. 276-293.

Lüdke, M.; André, M. E. D. (1986). Pesquisa Em Educação: Abordagens Qualitativas. Editora Pedagógica e Universitária, São Paulo.

Magnier-Watanabe, R.; Benton, C.; Senoo, D. (2011). A study of knowledge management enablers across countries. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, v. 9, n. 1, pp. 17-28.

Mei, Y. M.; Lee, S. T.; Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2004). Formulating a communication strategy for effective knowledge sharing. Journal of Information Science, v. 30, n. 1, pp. 12-22.

Michailova, S.; Sidorova, E. (2011). From group-based work to organizational learning: the role of communication forms and knowledge sharing. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, v. 9, n. 1, pp. 73-83.

Mintzberg, H.; Quinn, J. B. (1998). The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases. Prentice Hall, London.

Morlacchi, P.; Martin, B. R. (2009). Emerging challenges for science, technology and innovation policy research: a reflexive overview. Research Policy, v. 38, n. 4, pp. 571-582.

Nagano, M. S.; Stefanovitz, J. P.; Vick, T. E. (2014). Innovation management processes, their internal organizational elements and contextual factors: an investigation in Brazil. Journal of Engineering and Techonology Management, v. 33 n. 7-9, pp. 63-92.

Neuman, W.L. (2010). Social Research Methods: Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 2 ed. Sage Publications, London. pp. 277-367.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, v. 5, n. 1, pp. 14-37.

Nonaka, I.; Konno, N. (1998). The concept of ‘Ba’: building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, v. 40, n. 3, pp. 40-55.

Nonaka, I.; Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Nonaka, I.; Toyama, R. (2003).The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, v. 1, n. 1, pp. 2-10.

Nonaka, I.; Toyama, R.; Hirata, T. (2008). Managing Flow: A Process Theory of the Knowledge-Based Firm. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.

Nonaka, I.; Toyama, R.; Konno, N. (2000). SECI, ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, v. 33, n. 1, pp. 5-34.

Nooteboom, B. (2000).Institutions and forms of co-ordination in innovation systems. Organization Studies, v. 21, n. 5, pp. 915-939.

Perkmann, M.; Tartari, V.; Mckelsey, M.; Autio, E.; Broström, A.; D’Este, P.; Fini, R.; Geuna, A.; Grimaldi, R.; Hughes, A.; Krabel, S.; Kitson, M.; Llerena, P.; Lissoni, F. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, v. 42, n. 2, pp. 423-442.

Putman, R. (1993). The prosperous community: social capital and public life. The American Prospect, v. 4, n. 13, pp. 35-42.

Sacomano Neto, M.; Truzzi, O. M. S. (2004). Configurações estruturais e relacionais da rede de fornecedores: uma resenha compreensiva. Revista Administração, v. 39, n. 3, pp. 255-263.

Salter, A. J.; Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Research Policy, v. 30, n. 3, pp. 509-532.

Santos, M. E. R.; Torkomian, A. L. V. (2013). Technology transfer and innovation: the role of the Brazilian TTOs. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, v. 12, n. 1, pp. 89-111.

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organization Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Schofield, T. (2013).Critical success factors for knowledge transfer collaborations between university and industry. Journal of Research Administration, v. 44, n. 2, pp. 38-56.

Sutz, J. (2000). The university-industry-government relations in Latin America. Research Policy, v. 29, n. 2, pp. 279-290.

Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, v. 17, n. 2, pp. 27-43.

Weckowska, D. M. (2015). Learning in university technology transfer offices: transactions-focused and relations-focused approaches to commercialization of academic research. Technovation, v. 41-42, pp. 62-74.

Yin, R. K. (2013). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 5 ed. Sage Publications, Los Angeles.