INSTITUTIONS
THAT FOSTER INNOVATIVE ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN BRAZIL: MAPPING AND CONNECTIONS

Abstract

This paper contemplates the deepening
of a research conducted by the Brazilian Micro and Small Business Support
Service (SEBRAE) during the 26th Anprotec
Conference held in Fortaleza, state of Ceará, in the
year of 2016. The research included a method to map out the needs of the Brazilian
Innovation Ecosystem and covered ten institutions such as Accelerators, represented
by ABRAII (Brazilian Association of Innovation and Investment Accelerators), Co-working
spaces - represented by the Impact Hub. a Development Bank, FINEP (Studies and
Projects Funding Agency), Anjos do Brasil; Venture
Capital Investment Funds - represented by ABVCAP (Brazilian Association of
Private Equity & Venture Capital), Incubators - represented by SUPERA
Incubator, SEBRAE (Brazilian Micro and Small Business Support Service), Businesses
- represented by Samsung Brazil and Technology Innovation Nuclei, part of
Universities, represented by FORTEC (National Forum of Managers of Innovation
and Technology Transfer). For this mapping, a matrix that considers the
business development stage model was used to identify key actions and gaps in
innovative entrepreneurship fostering in Brazil, also taking five critical
business development variables into consideration - technology, talent,
finance, location, and evolution. The results point to recurrences and
lack of support and contribute with proposals for the Brazilian innovation
ecosystem.

Key-words: innovative entrepreneurship; innovation ecosystem;
network of institutions.

Resumo

Este artigo contempla o aprofundamento
de uma pesquisa realizada pelo Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas
Empresas (SEBRAE) durante a 26ª Conferência Anprotec, realizada em Fortaleza,
Ceará, no ano de 2016. A pesquisa incluiu um
método para mapear as necessidades do Ecossistema Brasileiro de Inovação e
cobriu dez instituições tais como
Aceleradoras, representadas pela ABRAII (Associação Brasileira de Aceleradoras
de Inovação e Investimento), Espaços de Co-working, representadas pelo Impact Hub, um
Banco de Desenvolvimento, FINEP (Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos), Anjos do
Brasil; Fundos de Investimento em Venture Capital, representada pela ABVCAP (Associação
Brasileira de Private Equity & Venture Capital), Incubadoras, - representada
pela SUPERA Incubadora, SEBRAE (Serviço Brasileiro de apoio às Micro e Pequenas
empresas), Empresas - representadas pela Samsung Brazil e o NIT (Núcleo de
Inovação e Tecnologia das Universidades), representado pela FORTEC (Forum
Nacional de gerentes de Inovação e Transferência de Tecnologia). Para esse
mapeamento, uma matriz que considera o modelo de estágio de desenvolvimento de
negócios foi utilizada para identificar as principais ações e lacunas no
fomento ao empreendedorismo inovador no Brasil, levando em consideração cinco
variáveis ​​críticas de desenvolvimento de negócios - tecnologia,
talentos, finanças, localização e evolução. Os resultados apontam para
recorrências e falta de apoio e contribuem com propostas para o ecossistema
brasileiro de inovação.

Palavras-chave:
Empreendedorismo Inovador; Ecossistema de inovação; Rede de Instituições

1 - Introduction

It
is known that a country’s economy can be shaped by different players in an
innovation ecosystem, including research institutes, universities, companies,
development agencies, public policy agents, accelerators, incubators, and
technology parks.

Innovation
is facing major challenges in terms of indicators and performance in Brazil.
The 2014 Innovation Research (PINTEC) conducted by the Brazilian Institute of
Geography and Statistics (IBGE) shows sectoral business performance
characteristics and reviews innovation requirements. According to the survey,
almost 30% of the assessed businesses implemented innovative and relevant
products or processes from 2009 to 2011, thus generating a 35.7% innovation
rate. The rate from the previous period (2006 to 2008) was higher, reaching
38%. As it can be noted, this rate, which could have been higher already due to
Brazil’s entrepreneurship potential, has dropped from one period to another.
This aspect is of concern as, while a member of the BRICS, Brazil needs to
re-think the emphasis with which local innovation initiatives can confront the
trend that should not be seen as inexorable, to be primarily an exporter of
food and minerals and this kind of development is directly linked to its
entrepreneurial potential (MOTA, 2013).

Another
important fact is the limited partnership between universities and
entrepreneurship concerning innovation and technology. Several countries
already see as crucial the correlation between entrepreneurial education,
technology transfer, and innovation environments. Brazil needs to consider
different views and perspectives to create these and other partnerships, which
are still in an early stage. The same can be said about the actions taken by
other institutions fostering innovative entrepreneurship. Despite countless
support groups in Brazil, the actions taken by each organization lack
coordination, and their roles and mechanisms are not disseminated properly
(ETZKOWITZ, 2017).

Under
those circumstances, this paper intend to develop and implement a network
mapping method of the entities developing innovation mechanisms in the
Brazilian innovation ecosystem, identifying these entities as potential
transformers along the several business development stages, as well as the main
development process variables, such as technology, talent, finance,
infrastructure and market. This work was based on the experience gained during
the 26th Anprotec Conference - National
Association of Entities Promoting Innovative Enterprises (held in the city of
Fortaleza, state of Ceará - Brazil, in October 2016),
where we first mapped out innovation needs with the participation of
representatives from ten innovative entrepreneurship fostering entities. The
mapping was organized and presented in a model that crosses business
development stages and analysis of the five main variables. It was based on the
“Science Parks as Global Entrepreneurship Platforms” study (Piqué et al., 2008)
and on a literature review.

The
mapping was carried out based on research conducted throughout Brazil, using the
articulation and capillarity of Brazilian Micro and Small Business Support
Service (SEBRAE), a private entity which has been operating for over 40 years
promoting the competitiveness and sustainable development of small businesses.
It was implemented by analysts of the Access to Innovation, Technology and
Sustainability Unit of SEBRAE in Brazil, under the guidance of experts in
related areas.

In
order to deepen the participation of all ten entities, after data
consolidation, it was communicated the conclusions of the Conference and
validated them with the entities. Thus all ten organizations had been
identified that were represented in SEBRAE Innovation Forum, which took place
in the above mentioned Anprotec Conference: Accelerators,
Co-working spaces, Development Bank, FINEP (Studies and Projects Funding Agency),
Anjos do Brasil, Venture Capital investors,
Incubators, SEBRAE, Businesses and NITs (Technological Innovation Nuclei). Additionally,
their roles and mechanisms in the four stages and in the five variables of
business development were reviewed, and their positioning was consolidated in a
single matrix. Simultaneously, the relationship between each of these
organizations was addressed, enabling an isolated and a consolidated view of
their networking in the Brazilian innovation ecosystem studied.

The
results contribute to an organized exposition of the actions and main
relationships of the entities identified. It should be noted that the experience
gained from this paper can be replicated in countries in which innovation
ecosystems need greater clarity as to the roles played and mechanisms developed
by their entities, and in the cases where development can be conducive to
positive, efficient and effective actions.

2 – Literature Review

This
section addresses the Brazilian innovation ecosystem, mentioning key
institutions that foster innovative entrepreneurship and their main roles and
support mechanisms. Additionally it is discussing the role of Tech Parks and
Incubators for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) innovation support.

2.1 Context of the Innovation
Ecosystem in Brazil.

Generally,
we are constantly searching for innovation, as a business can better contribute
to accelerate growth with higher income and consistent employment generation
based on its innovation capacity. Today, Brazil is among the world’s twenty
largest economies. Nevertheless, one question arises: what prevents Brazil from
being an effectively innovative nation? Maybe low investment in human
development is among the possible answers. A country capable of expand its
participation in innovation is a country that invests significant resources in
its population (education, health and well-being). The main objective of an
innovation ecosystem is to facilitate or make the development of a nation
feasible by providing entrepreneurs with a sound basis for innovation
(LUNDVALL, 1988). UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)
support a work by Desai et al. (2002) that developed the Technology Achievement
Index (TAI), measuring a country’s technology creation and dissemination
potential. Focused on measuring the ability to create technology, TAI assesses
which countries are successfully backing these capabilities in five elements:
knowledge generation centers, innovation funding centers, interest in
entrepreneurship, laws favoring innovation, and which entities are involved in
the ecosystem to effectively make innovation happen.

Some
of these key elements can be found in Brazil; however, they are not effectively
and fully integrated. Brazil is among the emerging countries that most produce
scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, the academic and the corporate worlds are
still very distant from one another (MALDANER, 2006).

Based
on historic information, the Brazilian national scenario was marked by the 2nd
National Science, Technology and Innovation Conference (2002), held in
Brasília. At that time, the need for new public policies encouraging innovation
environments based on cooperation between the three segments - governmental
institutions, private companies, and universities - was quite clear. In this
sense, several entities gained new perspectives and sought greater cohesion in
this innovation ecosystem. In the Triple Helix concept proposed by Etzkowitz (2006), government, private companies and
universities interaction became a reference every time innovation was
discussed. After the establishment of a legal framework in the country in 2004,
with Acts 10.973 and 11.196 (Innovation Act and Good Will Act), Brazil had a
legal basis for all matters related to RD&I (Research, Development and
Innovation) in companies and scientific-technological institutions.

In
2008, during the IASP Conference in Johannesburg, Josep
Miguel Piqué, Itxaso Palacio Francesc
Solé and Henry Etzkowitz presented
an article named “Scientific parks as
global entrepreneurship platforms”. Companies inserted in a
cluster and the Triple Helix model as base were used in this research. In this
theory defined by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff
(2000), and structured under the development of Lundvall (1988), Nelson (1988)
and Freeman (1995), interaction between universities, the industry and the
Government is believed to be a great solution for the development of societies
that are based on knowledge. Historically, it is stated that, similarly to a
physical device, the Triple Helix gave rise to venture capital, incubators, and
science and technology parks.

Piqué et al. (2008) prepared a model
representing the progress in the support to agents involved in the innovation
system through every businesses development stage and the main variables of
such path - technology, talent, finance, location and evolution/market. Six La Salle
Innovation Park born-global companies, in Barcelona, showed that the support to
agents varied significantly during development stages in a very interesting
way.

The results of the abovementioned
research helped identify key support factors for technology startups during
each business development stage. Additionally, the results also showed the
relative importance of agents as supporters and how they offer support. Thus,
governments and other organizations can help by improving policies that support
technological entrepreneurship. The results
demonstrated that universities, industry and public administration presented
different roles during each development stage of a born-global company. Moreover,
the government provided special support in the first inception and launching
phase. For subsequent growth and maturity stages, primary support is provided
by networks between companies.

In Brazil, in 2014, ANPEI (National
Association for Research and Development of Innovative Companies) conducted a
study providing a map that identify the main actors of the national Brazilian
innovation system. This study showed flows and interactions in the relationships
between these actors which comprised Government and private institutions from
the states of São Paulo, Paraná, Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, Rio de
Janeiro, Espírito Santo, Minas Gerais, Bahia,
Alagoas, Federal District, Mato Grosso and Pará. This research aimed to disseminate
information and develop a view of flows among the 237 interviewees. The map of
the Brazilian innovation system shows the large group of actors with different
representative sizes such as businesses,
scientific-technological
institutions and its subdivisions, habitats and support, class entities, investors, infrastructure
and government and its subdivisions, regulation, development and education. Connections among them on several different levels of
interests. For example, the habitats
and support group is related to businesses
with management support and class
entities with articulation/causes and receive inputs of technology from scientific-technological institutions,
of resources/taxes from the government and businesses and of infrastructure
from the own infrastructure, as
a group, for establishment or maintenance.

In this ANPEI study, a diagram
that reveals the intensities of the relations among actors and their
subdivisions was also presented. It is possible to visualize the intensity of
the relations - low, medium, high or +high - both inter-actors and
intra-actors. In this last case, it is considered the relationships within the
large groups. When looking at inter-actors relationships, it is possible to
have the highest one among large enterprises and government-development,
followed by the relationship between large enterprises and class entities,
large enterprises and scientific-technological institutions,
and small enterprises and government- development. Intra-actor relationships
are shown to be stronger within the group of scientific-technological institutions-knowledge
and within the group of large firms.

In addition, cases illustrating the
intensity of relations between the actors and a collection of opinions on what
is desired in the future were presented. The most
frequently answered item was the reduction of bureaucracy. Another clear and
well-signaled demand was the need for inter-sectoral construction. Next, it was
seen the request for a closer approximation of the scientific class of small
and medium-sized enterprises. In a collaborative way, the maps remain open to
participation for completeness of information.

Currently,
Brazil has several entities focused on developing Innovation and  Technology including:

a)
CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher
Education Personnel);

b)
FINEP (Studies and Projects Funding Agency);

c)
CNPQ (National Council for Scientific and Technological
Development) as fomenting agencies;

d)
FOPROP (Pro-Dean Research and Graduate Studies Forum);

e)
FORTEC (National Forum of Managers of Innovation and
Technology Transfer) as forums and technology transfer;

f)
ANPEI (National Association of Innovative Companies);

g)
SEBRAE (Brazilian Micro and Small Business Support
Service);

h)
ANPROTEC (National Association of Entities Promoting
Innovative Enterprises) as integration agents.

This research aim to present the
actions of a relevant group of institutions part of the Brazilian innovation
ecosystem within a matrix that takes into account all stages from ideation to
business maturity. Entrepreneurship support actions were expected to vary from
one stage to the other and from one institution to another, as the realities of
institutions framed as Government, universities and businesses/industry were
considered.

2.2 – National System
of Innovation

Technological
innovation does not happen by chance, nor in isolation. There is a whole set of
factors and agents that interact to affect a process of change, which in the
Schumpeterian view is the new element that makes a circular flow of the economy
change its trajectory. "The National Innovation System is an institutional
construction, the product of a planned and conscious action that drives
technological progress in complex capitalist economies” (ALBUQUERQUE 1996, p.
57).

According
to Dahlman & Frischtak
(1993), the innovation system can be defined as the network of relationships
and exchanges between the various economic agents and institutions working on
the introduction of new technologies. In emerging economies, the system also
includes the transfer of new technologies, the importation of new equipment and
direct foreign investments, as well as including public and private investments
in research, development and diffusion of technological innovations.

There is a diversity of systems that
depends on the stage of development in which the countries are. According to
Albuquerque (1996), this diversity could be perceived by the characteristics of
the configuration of each system, such as the specifics of the innovative
companies, the interaction between the companies and the universities or the research
institutes, and even the different forms of financing research and innovation.
The author differentiates three categories of innovation systems:

Table
1 - Categories of Innovation Systems

1a. category

Developed countries, mature systems, close to the technological frontier

United States, Japan, Germany, France and Italy

2a. category

Countries with technological dynamism focused on diffusion; small and
territorially close to developed countries.

Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Switzerland, South Korea and Taiwan.

3a. category

Countries with S & T developed but not completing their innovation
system

Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and India.

Source: Albuquerque
(1996).

Dutrénit
(1994) considers the National Innovation System as the set of agents,
institutions, articulations and social practices linked to the innovative
activity within the countries. For the author, innovative dynamics depend more
on learning processes than on resources. And it is within the national systems
that the learning processes take place, that allow to reproduce and to feed the
individual and collective memory that generates the conditions for the
interaction of the agents and organizations, in a motorcycle that allows to
develop learning processes that generate innovations. It is worth to emphasize
that for the author, it is in the company that the technological accumulation
materializes, and the external environment to the company would be the space
where the positive dynamic conditions for the technological innovation are
created.

According to the OECD report (2002),
innovation results from a growing complex of local, national and global
interactions between individuals, firms and other knowledge institutions.
Governments also have a strong influence on the innovation process by funding
public organizations that are directly involved in the generation of knowledge,
such as universities and research laboratories, as well as providing funding to
all actors involved in the innovation system.

Knowledge, in all its forms, plays an
important role in economic development, and innovation is at the heart of this
economy. According to the Oslo Manual of the OECD (2004), innovation is a
complex and systemic phenomenon. This systemic approach shifts the focus of the
policies, emphasizing the interaction of the institutions, in the creation as
in the diffusion and in the own application of the new technological
discoveries. Thus, "to this set of institutions and flows of knowledge the
term National Innovation System was coined, (OECD, 2004, p.17)" an
expression that was originally used by Freeman (1990) in 1987, emphasizing the
importance of National (of nation) term and the relevance of the articulation
between the agents, such as Government, Universities, Institutes of Research
and Companies.

2.3
– Tech Parks, Incubators and Areas of Innovation in Brazil.

The concept of Technological Park has
been discussed inside organizations such as IASP, which is an International
Association of Science Park. The role of Tech Park to increase the opportunity
for innovative companies to develop new products or services and then deliver
them to the market continue to be important, especially for small and medium
size companies. Even though, there is a discussion taking place that the
concept of Tech Park could be expanded to an area of innovation.

According to Jackson (2015), a
feature of innovation ecosystem is that entities within the ecosystem are
geographically located and strategically linked to focus on developing a
specific technology. Silicon Valley is the best-known example of a geographically
localized ecosystem.

Figure 1 – Virtuous
circle of innovation into economy

Source: Jackson
(2015).

According to Jackson (2015), to
reinvest in R&D is an important aspect of the innovation ecosystem in order
to produce a good result in terms of companies´ profit. The author pointed out
that an innovation ecosystem is known to be thriving and healthy when the
resources invested in the research economy (either through private, government,
or direct business investment) are in the commercial economy.

Resources can be provided by several
different actors such as Government, Industry, Investors, even in the early
stage as it is shown on figure 2, which combine the virtuous circle with the
level of innovation development from the discovery stage to the
commercialization.

Figure 2 – Linking innovation to the virtuous circle.

Source: Jackson
(2015).

Figure 2 links
the innovation spectrum to the two economies in the virtuous cycle; thereby
illustrating the projection, along the different development stages, of the
available resources within an ecosystem for discovery, technology development,
and commercialization.

The main challenge, still according to Jackson
(2015):

“To create growth in an innovation
ecosystem is figuring out how to turn the breakthroughs of R&D efforts into
products that lead to profits. Achieving this goal is complicated by the fact
that the two economies operate on different reward systems, thereby making it
challenging to link discoveries derived from fundamental research with
innovative products that can translate into profits in the market place
(JACKSON, 2015, p. 5)”.

Another important point is that
investment in R&D is fundamental to increase the economic spillover
(SCHUMPETER, 1942), as it is shown by figure 1. The main aspect of innovation
is to have a final product or service going to the market, generating profit
that will be reinvested in R&D again in a virtuous circle

This is the main reason why for a
company, especially a startup, to be inside a Tech Park or incubator is a key
issue. There is a productive and a collaborative network among companies and
people that cover and overpass difficulties and pave the way to innovative
results.

2.4 – Innovation in SMEs

Vrandea
et al. (2009) have made a research on a survey database of 605 innovative SMEs
in the Netherlands. In their study, they conclude that open innovation is
practicing extensively among those small companies and they found that those
companies have faced several different barriers for open innovation. Some of
them are related to corporate organization and culture, no matter which type of
open innovation is pursued.

In a different study, Fernández-Olmos
and Ramírez-Alesón (2017) provide a research using a
panel of 44,885 observations for SMEs for the period 2003–2013. Their findings
“confirm the importance of the inclusion of three factors: the macroeconomic
cycle (macro-level), the industry lifecycle (industry-level) and the age of the
firm (firm-level) at the macroeconomic, industry and firm level since they
influence the TCN (Technology Collaboration Network) and the innovation
performance relationship (p.16)”.

It is possible that SMEs can have
some capabilities for innovation, especially because it flexibility and
specificity that can be advantages in accelerating innovation. At the same time
this background can manage the whole process or the integrate process together
with large companies in a process of open innovation (EDWARDS et al, 2005).

Another important point is that the
SMEs normally run a key role in terms of regional development and encouraging
innovation in those firms is central to development policies (JONES AND TILLEY,
2003). The main question that comes out is, how to do this, how it is possible
to encourage SMEs to become innovative. It is important to offer some
instruments and mechanisms that small firms can utilize for their innovations
initiative. In this sense, for small firms, or startups, to be part in an innovation
ecosystem, such as Incubator or Tech Park, is an important asset for their
innovation initiative or projects (AUDY, et al., 2017).

In this regard, it is clear that for
startups to be inside an Incubator is not enough condition to become innovative.
To be part of this environment is important but not sufficient. The question
that arise is what mechanisms must be provided in order to facilitate
innovation in SMEs, trying to discover which factors contribut
to the success of their innovation efforts. Currently technology becomes too
much complex that a single startup cannot handled by itself and the knowledge
is ever-more distributing across several firms, and the collaboration among
them is an important factor of success. SMEs also have engaged in various modes
of collaboration (KLEINKNECHT AND REIJNEM, 1992).

3 – Research Methodology

The
research comprised ten innovative entrepreneurship-fostering institutions in
Brazil and can be considered a case study. According to Yin (2001), a case
study can be used when one deliberately wants to work with contextual
conditions believing that they are significant and pertinent to the phenomenon
studied. A case study is specifically appropriate for research requiring a
detailed understanding of social or organizational processes because of the
richness of the data collected in the context. This research design is useful
when it is important to understand the impact and influence of the
organizational and environmental context on social processes (CASSEL &
SYMON, 2004).

The institutions considered in this
multiple-case study were chosen from a Forum, part of the 26th Anprotec Conference, which took place in October 2016 in
the city of Fortaleza, State of Ceará. This event was
co-hosted by SEBRAE in partnership with Anprotec. This
association, founded in 1987, has approximately three hundred and fifty
associates (technology parks, business incubators, accelerators, teaching and
research institutions, public bodies) and plays a crucial role in the
articulation of the Brazilian innovation ecosystem.

SEBRAE Innovation Forum, an action
part of the Conference addressing different topics on an annual basis, talked
about challenges when consolidating new spaces and mechanisms to foster
innovative entrepreneurship in 2016. Two hundred and seventy people attended it.
They were split into ten islands that represented great players of the
Brazilian innovation ecosystem considered innovative entrepreneurship
promoters. Each Island had at least one member representing one institution,
which had to present its key development actions to the audience. Players
represented in the islands were:

-
Accelerators - represented by ABRAII (Brazilian
Association of Innovation
and Investment Accelerators);

-
Co-working spaces - represented by the Impact Hub;

-
A Development Bank;

-
FINEP (Studies and Projects Funding Agency);

-
Anjos do Brasil; Venture Capital Investment Funds -
represented by ABVCAP (Brazilian Association of Private Equity & Venture
Capital);

-
Incubators - represented by SUPERA Incubator;

-
SEBRAE (Brazilian Micro and Small Business Support
Service);

-
Businesses - represented by Samsung Brazil;

-
Technology Innovation Nuclei, part of Universities -
represented by FORTEC (National Forum of Managers of Innovation and Technology
Transfer).

Data were first collected in a
meeting held immediately after the Forum, attended by the ten institutions and
guided by Josep Miguel Piqué - lecturer of the 2016 SEBRAE
Innovation Forum. At the time, the matrix model (figure 3) was presented, which
was the basis for this research and which was developed based on a research
authored by Piqué et al., (2008).

Figure 3. Model of the matrix used in the research.

Source: based on the work of Piqué et al. (2008).

To
deepen the business behavioral analysis studied and to obtain comparable
results, the authors of the referred study chose five main variables of the
business development process. The variables are related to the lines of figure
1 and are described in the reference work as follows (Piqué et al., 2008).

·
Technology or intellectual property and the
characteristics of the R&D.

·
Talent, meaning among others the educational and
professional background of the entrepreneurial team, their global diversity and
their organization and roles in the business.

·
Financial sources and
conditions.

·
Location and connections to technology platforms, as well as
the area of influence.

·
Evolution/Market, evolution of the value chain,
sales, and other market and commercial characteristics.

The columns refer to the stages in
the general business development model, which divides the process into four
stages: conception, launching, growth and maturity.

After presenting the matrix, among
other activities and data collection, each institution indicated in which
quadrants of the matrix they offered business support. Thus, the matrix model
was filled out in ten different ways. In addition, institutions were questioned
about the items deemed necessary in the Brazilian innovation ecosystem.
Therefore, it was possible to obtain a list of items that can be worked to
improve the ecosystem, under the light of relevant players for innovative
entrepreneurship fostering.

As
part of this research, descriptive procedures were used both to collect data
and to develop the analysis. They have been considered descriptive because they
report a phenomenon involving its configuration, structure, activities, and
seek to illustrate the complexity of the situation and the aspects involved (GODOY
et al., 2006).

To increase the accuracy and to
update the information collected during the Conference, additional data were
collected from the institutions to be included herein. This stage occurred
between March and April 2017 and counted on the answers given by the
institutions studied to questions made by e-mail. The questions were basically
used to revalidate the matrix filled out and also to provide a new opportunity
to indicate the items missing in the Brazilian innovation ecosystem based on
the perception of each institution.

As a result, the consolidated matrix
application in all ten entities is presented considering actions to support
innovative entrepreneurship in general, without the cut of
technological-based ventures considered in the research with companies of La
Salle technological park, which is a Park where Josep
Piqué are working for. We also bring to light
items that are missing in the Brazilian innovation ecosystem based on the
perceptions of the institutions studied and reflections on what can be done to
reduce the gaps.

4 – Matrix Application and Results

The consolidated representation of
actions supporting the Brazilian innovative entrepreneurship of all ten
researched institutions can be found in figure 4. Then, the responses provided
and needs shown are detailed in order to improve the Brazilian innovation
ecosystem.

Figure 4. Matrix used in the
research with the result of the inclusion made by the entities studied.

Source: elaborated by the authors, based on the work
of Piqué et al., (2008)

Accelerators
are entitled to support ventures having physical space and infrastructure in
the launching and growth phases. Their actions may also be focused on
supporting market structuring, from inception to growth. The need of a law
ensuring risk investments and lack of fiscal incentive was mentioned when
questions about what was missing for the greater integration and better results
within the ecosystem. Accelerators believe there is a reasonable number of
players investing in the initial phases of businesses; however, resources are
necessary to continue growing from the first seed to the proper structure aimed
at receiving resources from structured funds (as Venture Capital).

Co-working
spaces have a new model focused on the work environment and form of production.
Following steps taken by startups, these spaces gather people and different
entrepreneurs to work in an environment free from traditional structures.
According to ANCEV (National Association of Coworking and Virtual Offices),
Brazil already has more than four thousand spaces operating in such way. In the
mapping done with the representative of this group, it is possible to perceive
the participation in finances in the inception phase and location in the
inception and launching phases. The need for a collective agenda of players
from this ecosystem and an agreement of players linked to the Government aimed
at making the business establishment process simpler was highlighted.

The Development Bank has a historic
role in Brazil’s advancement. It provides financing for agriculture, trade and services, micro, small and medium
businesses, education
and health, basic sanitation
and environmental projects, as well as public transport in large cities since
the 1960s. All variables were provided with support during launching, growth
and maturity, except the ventures inception phase in
the representative’s matrix. Greater integration between the ecosystem agents
and forms of ensuring financing to startups are missing in the opinion of the
institution.

The Studies and Projects Funding
Agency (FINEP) was created in 1967 to provide financing and prepare studies for
economic development programs and projects, and focus on improve the technology
developed in Brazil. The institution’s matrix shows participation in finance
throughout all businesses development stages. The representative highlighted
the need for improvement in the Venture Capital structure and the creation of
credit guarantee funds.

Anjos do Brasil
is a non-profit organization acting since 2011 in the country. Its main role is
to support startups in their growth phase. Volunteers, sponsors and supporters
that promote angel investment within the Brazilian entrepreneurship system keep
the organization. In the matrix filled out by this representative, we obtained
the participation in talents in the conception phase and in finances in the
first three stages (conception, launch and growth). The institution reports the
lack of equity protection and fiscal incentives for angel investors,
co-investment funds with angel investors, market liquidity and entrepreneurs
better prepared with global view for a better integration and operation of the
Brazilian innovation ecosystem.

Venture Capital includes all classes
of risk investors. They usually invest in businesses with significant revenue
in the growth phase. Their purpose is to help businesses achieve peak
commercial expansion. During the research, the group’s representative
highlighted support to talents, finance and market in the growth stage. They
reported the lack of entrepreneurial education, corporate vision to transform
good ideas into good businesses meeting the market demand, more incentives for
risk investors, regional funds/regional investors, and greater interaction of
the ecosystem and more resources for early stages (lack of investors in early
stage).

Business incubators intend to create
or develop micro or small businesses by providing help during the first
development stages. In universities, they help projects from scientific and
technological developments. In a proper environment, businesses receive advice
in all areas required with a complete structure to jump from the initial stage
to the more advanced stages. The first incubators emerged in the 1980s in
Brazil. Incubators identified themselves as technology (in the inception,
launching and growth phases), talents (in the inception and launching phases),
finance (in the inception and launching phases), location (in the inception,
launching and growth phases) and market (in the launching and growth phases)
supporters in our research matrix. Representative of incubators highlighted
several topics such as:

-
the need of incentives
for entrepreneurs to access markets;

-
greater connection
between the industry and startups;

-
entrepreneurial
qualification;

-
interaction between
different national ecosystem agents;

-
financial incentives,
since interest rates are very high in Brazil and so inhibit investments in risk
capital;

-
Institutional and
legal framework in order to guide possible partnerships between businesses, the
academy, and a collaborative innovation culture (for example, for open
innovation and development covenants).

The Brazilian Micro and Small
Business Support Service (SEBRAE) is a non-for profit
private organization acting for over forty years in the promotion of
competitiveness and sustainable development among small businesses, in the
promotion of entrepreneurship. It also acts in the economy formalization
process by binding the public and private sectors together. During the
research, SEBRAE’s
representative identified support actions in technology, talent and location
for all businesses development phases. SEBRAE
supports the growth and maturity phases of financing and the launching, growth
and maturity phases of market. The ecosystem gaps included: the need for deeper
connection/relationship among scientific-technological institutions
and the market/business, lack of public policies adjusted to small businesses
reality, greater organized integration between entities with operations
targeted to Innovation and, lastly, firm purpose and focus of the ecosystem
players on execution and results.

Representing the businesses group
considered as Industry in the Triple Helix model, a global company participated
and located support actions focused on technology, finances and location in the
early phases of businesses development (inception and launching) and on
inception, launching and growth of market in the matrix. The gaps observed in
the ecosystem included the need for more Intellectual Property institutions,
more investors and greater talents inventory.

The Innovation Law 10.973 (2014)
determined that every Institution of Science and Technology must
have its own Technology Innovation Nucleus (NIT) or associated to another
institution. The purpose of a NIT is to manage the institution’s innovation
policy and take accountability for the technology transfer. The representative
of this category participated in the research highlighted support actions in
the four stages of business development for technology, talents, finance and
location tracks. Market support is provided in the early phases (inception and
launching). The representative believes that actions to reduce bureaucracy,
prioritization of personnel formation in technology are missing (since half
undergraduates in Public Higher Education Institutions are from
law/administration/pedagogy), as well as the strengthening of entrepreneurship
facilitation structures within Institutions of Science and Technology.

5
– Discussions

The
Brazilian innovation ecosystem is relatively new and complex, among other
factors, due to the number of players involved and the number of initiatives,
sometimes for specific development phases, as noted in this study. According to
Arbix (2010), the Brazilian tradition was created to
support and encourage scientific research, which became paramount for
businesses qualification and the creation of a few economy strategic sectors.
However, the entire amount involved in these support actions made sense at the
time; however, this is a lot different now - due to changes in the world, the
society and the State itself. The author believes the low innovation content in
terms of economy and most Brazilian businesses is a reason for concern and that
even with the recent institutional improvement, the national science, technology
and innovation system is still insufficient to transform the knowledge
generated in technology research centers, products and services with an impact
on the economy, regardless of the sector.

In
this multiple-case study, ten institutions fostering the innovative
entrepreneurship in Brazil were researched. Some of them represented large
groups in the ecosystem, including businesses/industry, accelerators and
businesses incubators. Part of the study required institutions to show within
the reference matrix - which crosses the four businesses development phases
five main variable of the development process.

After fulfilling the symbols created
for each institution in the quadrants considered to have actions/projects
supporting businesses by the representative in the consolidated matrix, a high
concentration of actions can be noted especially in the launching and growth
phases. The variable with more support from institutions was the finance. Seven
institutions considered to have supported businesses in the launching phase in
this variable. With regard to all phases, all institutions showed some form of
support. This is a significant amount, even in the research cut out, which had
four different representative directly linked to financial support.

Location
also presented good support, also with seven institutions in the launching
phase quadrant. On the other hand, market/evolution showed less support,
especially in the inception and maturity phases. Which, in turn, were the
phases with less support from the institutions studied.

The
other part asked institution about what was missing in the Brazilian innovation
ecosystem. Participants indicated the existence of common gaps. Thus, it is
understood that such gaps deserve attention, or some kind of prioritization in
order to better develop and improve the ecosystem.

Participating
institutions reported more frequently the need to reduce bureaucracy together
with a legislation encouraging businesses and investments development, whether
through by the tax authorities or other facilitating means. Accordingly, when
analyzing the themed ranking of what is desired by players in the future
reduced bureaucracy appeared with the highest percentage of answers in the
survey conducted by ANPEI with 237 players, which was mentioned in the first
part of this article. Another clear widely provided answer in ANPEI’s study was
the need for inter-sectoral construction. Then, there is the need to request a
greater approximation of the scientific class to small and medium businesses.

Lack
of investments and opportunities of sources of resources is also noted by more
than half of the institutions researched. In this regard, we had general and
other specific answers not always under the same point of view. For
accelerators, there is a lack of investments from the first businesses
recruitment to the necessary robustness to access venture capital funds in the Death
Valley step. On the other hand, the venture capital funds representative
believes that there is a lack of resources for the early phases of ventures.

When
observing the financial part of the matrix, an agglomeration of support actions
in the inception and launching phases can be noted, which are reduced in later
phases (growth and maturity). In any case, the indications of support provided
by the institutions researched are not necessary linked to effective investment
or resources release for businesses.

An
item was widely considered as missing in the Brazilian innovation ecosystem:
integration between fostering institutions and players in general that came out
from the workshop with the participants in the event. An integration gap in the
agenda of players focused on innovation in Brazil can be noted. This may lead
to rework, confusion of responsibilities related to each role and difficulty in
understanding and access by the main stakeholders: the entrepreneurs.

Another
frequently highlighted item can be included in the group of businesses
qualification needs, thus increasing the qualification of entrepreneurs to act
systemically with a global market vision. This, along with the need to
prioritize technology formation and a structured inclusion of the
entrepreneurship theme in Institutions of Science and Technology. One of the
institutions researched also reported the lack of talents inventory for
education and qualification in Brazil.

The
need of adequacy in public policies and legislation focused on accessibility
for every business (from micro to small and even the most developed ones) to
technology and innovation inputs was also highlighted. The lack of intellectual
property institutions was another especial consideration made by the
businesses’ representatives.

Also
related to this gap is the current average time for patents approval in Brazil,
which reached 10 years. Such slowness for the idea advocated by the
intellectual property and the useful lifecycle of an innovation is a paradox
and a clear bottleneck within an important mechanism for competitiveness and
innovation. Initiatives have already been conducted to soften the backlog
situation, such as the preferential analysis of small businesses patent applications
even as a form of creating and protecting their innovation as most applications
submitted currently to INPI (Brazilian Institute of Industrial Property) come
from large businesses and universities. However, this action is not targeted to
reach the root cause and the Government is mainly entitled to seek solutions
for this, as the Institute is directly linked to MDIC (Ministry of Development,
Industry and Foreign Trade). For such, noting the importance of INPI’s work for
the economy is the main step towards establishing improvements, such as
increased number of applications evaluators and the general infrastructure
necessary to increase the analysis flow.

6. Final considerations.

It is necessary to comment on some
points made by the institutions studied and provide proposals. The authors believe
that the insistence culture could also be added on the gaps related to
education and qualification. Brazil is not culturally prepared to fail. Error
has a more negative connotation than that of learning, which ends up
interfering directly in the quantity, quality and type of local
entrepreneurship. Cultural change is extremely complex and may take generations
to become a reality. However, the idea that making mistakes is part of the
process and may provide benefits and growth could be implemented in
entrepreneurship subjects, schools and universities. It should also be worked
by large entities fostering entrepreneurship and innovation such as the
Ministries of Science, Technology, Innovation and Communications and
Development, Industry and Trade, and SEBRAE together with the S System (set of
institutions of interest for production sectors, such as SENAI, SESI, etc.).

In line with this, including specific
entrepreneurship subjects in Institutions of Science and Technology curricula
and in public and private high schools is a structural change action that would
bring medium and long-term benefits to the reality of Brazilian
entrepreneurship and the view of the population in relation to businesses.
Brazil was currently able to reverse the majority proportion of
entrepreneurship by necessity for entrepreneurship by opportunity according to
the GEM (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2015) research conducted in 2015; the
proportion of entrepreneurs by opportunity compared to the initial rate of
entrepreneurs was 56.5%. Such proportion reduced significantly compared to the
previous three years, when it remained close to 70%. Overcoming 50% is a
victory for our country and we must bear in mind that such proportion of entrepreneurship
by opportunity can be even higher and reach the majority of cases. Encouraging
the creation of technology courses may also transform the reality of Brazilian
entrepreneurship in the future. Increasing the offer of courses that will
change the knowledge base of the population is necessary.

Bureaucracy is seen as an obstacle to
the ideal flow of actions promoting innovative entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship
itself. The authors highlight that it is important to go beyond positive
initiatives already being implemented in Brazil such as Lei Geral
(General Law), created by the Lei Complementar
Federal (Federal Supplementary Law) 123/2006. This law simplified and
differentiated treatment for small businesses, or the example of REDESIM -
business owner - National Network for the Simplification of Registration and
Legalization of Companies and Businesses, which streamlines and integrated
businesses and business’ owners registry and legalization process. A reduced
number of steps and agencies to report when starting a business is also
essential do not discourage the potential for businesses creation, as well as
to change the tax burden for entrepreneurs.

Government initiatives aimed to
provide more safety could encourage investors to increase the volume of resources
invested in ventures countrywide. Thus, changing the proportion of expenses,
including in R&D which - according to a report prepared by the MCTIC (Ministry
of Science, Technology, Innovation and Communication, 2016) - counts on the
Brazilian Government as the main source, while in countries more
technologically dynamic such as Japan, Korea, USA, Germany and China,70% of
R&D expenses are paid by businesses.

To improve the level and quality of
integration of efforts between players of the Brazilian innovation ecosystem,
we suggest a structured and detailed sharing of information as the first step
towards the convergence of actions, thus avoiding the overlapping of
initiatives and increasing the chance of forming a partnership for complementary
or joint work. The School of Administration of Getúlio
Vargas Foundation (FGV-EAESP, 2017) has launched a mapping platform called
Mapped in Brazil, which links any organization part of the entrepreneurship
ecosystem in the country. The website is free-registration crowdsourcing for
players and has a curatorship of the institution with the aim of increasing
transparency in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. This is an excellent initiative
for businesses seeking support to innovate and may be considered/integrated
when deepen information to be shared. Such as a platform exposing players of
the Brazilian innovation ecosystem with structured descriptions of institutions
and their main projects/promotion actions, standardized fields and curatorship,
as well as updates under the responsibility of one institution, which could
also be SEBRAE
itself.

Lastly, institutions fostering
innovative entrepreneurship in Brazil may implement the mission-oriented
policy. According to CGEE - Center for Strategic Studies and Management - study
conducted in 2015: “mission-oriented policies can be defined as systemic public
policies that draw on frontier knowledge to attain specific goals or ‘big
science deployed to meet big problems’.” In agreement with the defense of this
study, for Brazil, this new mission-oriented approach means developing,
implementing and monitoring a strategic innovation policy program that draws on
the strengths of its innovation system to overcome the country’s weaknesses and
address its challenges, seizing the opportunities offered by such a vast and
richly endowed country. It requires putting innovation at the heart of economic
growth policy.

This paper can be used as a basis for
future works developed by SEBRAE or any other institution interested in sharing
knowledge and facts on support programs in the Brazilian innovation ecosystem.
Other research can be done from this study is to go deeply in partnership also
considering even more players already framed in large Triple Helix groups, for
example.

REFERENCES

ALBUQUERQUE, E. M. (1996) Sistema nacional de inovação no
Brasil: uma análise introdutória a partir de dados disponíveis sobre ciência e
tecnologia. IN: Revista de Economia
Política, vol. 16, no. 3 (63). Rio
de Janeiro: Nobel, julho-setembro 1996.

ARBIX, G.
(2010). Estratégias de inovação para o
desenvolvimento. Tempo Social, revista de sociologia da USP, São
Paulo, v. 22, n. 2, p. 167-185, nov. Available: <http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ts/v22n2/v22n2a09>. Acesso
em: 21 abr. 2017.

AUDY, J., KNEBEL, P. & PIRES, S. (2017). A Aventura da Transformação. ANPROTEC, Brasilia-DF, Brazil.

BRASIL,
(2004). Lei n. 10.973, de 02 de dezembro
de 2004. Estabelece medidas de incentivo à inovação e à pesquisa científica
e tecnológica no ambiente produtivo. Diário Oficial da República Federativa do
Brasil. Brasília, DF.

CASSEL, C. & SYMON, G. (2004). Essential guide to qualitative methods
in organizational research. London: Sage.

DAHLMAN, C. J.
& FRISCHTAK, C. R., (1993) National Systems Supporting Technical Advance in
Industry: The Brazilian Experience. IN:
National Innovation Systems – A
Comparative Analysis, p. 414 - 450. New York, Oxford University Press.

DESAI, M.,
FUKUDA-PARR, S., JOHANSSON, C. & SAGASTI, F. (2002). Measuring
Technology Achievement of Nations and the Capacity to Participate in the
Network Age. Available: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/measuring-technology-achievement-nations-and-capacity-participate-network-age.
Accessed in 2018/11/06.

DUTRÉNIT, G. Sistema Nacional de Innovacion., (1994). IN: Revista de Comercio Exterior Del Banco Nacional de Comercio Exterior,
Vol. 44, número 8, p. 666 a 668. México, agosto.

EDWARDS, T.,
DELBRIDGE, R., MUNDAY, M. (2005). Understanding
innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises: a process manifest. Technovation 25, p. 1119–1120.

ETZKOWITZ, H.,
(2017). Innovation Lodestar: The
entrepreneurial university in a stellar knowledge firmament. Technological
Forecasting & Social Change, n. 123, p.122–129.

ETZKOWITZ, H.,
GULBRANDSEN, M., LEVITT, J. (2000). Public
Venture Capital: Government Funding Sources for Technology En-trepreneurs.
Harcourt-Brace, New York.

FERNÁNDEZ-OLMOS, M. & RAMÍREZ-ALESÓN, M. (2017). How internal and external factors influence
the dynamics of SME technology collaboration networks over time. Technovation n. 64–65, p. 16–27.

FGV-EAESP, (2017)
Escola de Administração de Empresas da Fundação Getúlio Vargas; SARFATI, G.
Mapped in Brazil: Entrepreneurial ecosystem in Brazil. Available: <http://www.mappedinbrasil.com.br/>. Acesso em: 19 abr. 2017.

FREEMAN, C., (1990).The Economics of Innovation. IN: The International Library of Critical
Writings in Economics 2. E Vermont (USA): Edward Edgar Publishing Company,
1990

FREEMAN, C.,
(1995). The ‘National System of
Innovation’ in Historical Perspective.  Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 19, n. 1,
pp. 5–24.

GEM - GLOBAL
ENTREPRENEURSHIP MONITOR, (2015). Empreendedorismo no Brasil 2015. Brasília, DF.

GODOI, C. K., BANDEIRA-DE-MELHO, R.
& SILVA, A. B. da (2006). Pesquisa
qualitativa em estudos organizacionais: paradigmas, estratégias e métodos. São Paulo:
Saraiva.

JACKSON, D.
(2015), What is an innovation ecosystem?
-  Available on internet: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266414637_What_is_an_Innovation_Ecosystem

JONES, O. AND
TILLEY, F.  (2003) Competitive Advantage in SMEs: organizing for Innovation and Change.
Wiley, Chichester.

KLEINKNECHT, A.
AND REIJNEM, J. O. N., (1992). Why do
firms co-operate on R&D? An
empirical study. Research Policy 21, p. 347–360.

LUNDVALL, B.-Å., (1988). Innovation as an interactive process: From
user-producer interaction to the National Innovation Systems. In: Technology and Economic Theory. Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R.R., Silverberg, G. and Soete, L. (eds.). Pinter Publishers,
London, p. 349–369.

MALDANER, L.
F., (2006). O Desafio da Inovação:
Brasil x Coreia do Sul. Novo Hamburgo, RS, Ed. Feevale.

MAZZUCATO, M.,
PENNA, C. (2015). The Brazilian
Innovation System: A Mission-Oriented Policy Proposal. Avaliação de Programas em CT&I.
Apoio ao Programa Nacional de Ciência (Plataformas de conhecimento). Brasília,
DF: Centro de Gestão e Estudos Estratégicos.

MCTIC (2016) - Ministry
of Science, Technology, Innovation
and Communication –. Estratégia Nacional de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação. Brasilia – DF. Impresso em 2017.

MOTA, R. (2013). Brazil, BRICS and the innovative scene. IN: Brazil, BRICS and the international agenda.
Org.: José Vicente de Sá Pimentel. Brasília :
FUNAG.

NELSON, R. (1988) Institutions Supporting Technical Change in the United
States. IN, Technical Change and
Economic Theory. G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson,
G. Silverberg, L. Soete (eds.). London and New York:
Pinter Publisher, p. 312-329.

OCDE. (2002) Dynamising National Innovation Systems. Paris: OCDE Publications.

OCDE (2004). Manual de Oslo – proposta de diretrizes para coleta e interpretação de
dados sobre inovação tecnológica, 1997. Traduzido pela FINEP, 2004.

PIQUÉ ,
J. M., DEL PALACIO, I., SOLE, F. & ETZKOWITZ, H. (2008). Science Parks as Global
Entrepreneurship Platforms. Johannesburg: XV IASP World
Conference.

SCHUMPETER, J.
A. (1942), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy.
Harper Perennial Ed. New York, published in 2008.

VRANDEA, V. vande, JONGB, J. P. J de, VANHAVERBEKEC, W., ROCHEMONT, M.
de (2009) Open innovation in SMEs:
Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation 29, p. 423–437.

YIN, Robert. K., (2001) Estudo de caso: planejamento e métodos.
2. ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the
institutions considered in this study.

In addition, the authors would like
to thank the support received from SEBRAE in Brazil and from
the colleagues that helped with research information and especial inputs: Technical
Director Heloisa Regina Guimaraes de Menezes, Unity Manager
Célio Cabral de Sousa Júnior, Deputy Unity Manager
Marcus Vinicius Lopes Bezerra, Agnaldo
de Almeida Dantas, Paulo Puppin
Zandonadi, Maria de Lourdes da Silva, Jane Blandina da Costa and the Institutional Advisory Unit.

The authors would also like to thank
Dr. Josep Miguel Piqué and Mr. Marcos Suassuna for
the support and mentoring when structuring this study.