INSTITUTIONS THAT FOSTER INNOVATIVE ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN BRAZIL: MAPPING AND CONNECTIONS INSTITUIÇÕES QUE PROMOVEM O EMPREENDEDORISMO INOVADOR NO BRASIL: MAPEAMENTO E CONEXÕES

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 Ceara, 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. Keywords: Innovative entrepreneurship. Innovation ecosystem. Network of institutions. RESUMO Este artigo contempla o aprofundamento de uma pesquisa realizada pelo Servico Brasileiro de Apoio as Micro e Pequenas Empresas (SEBRAE) durante a 26a Conferencia Anprotec, realizada em Fortaleza, Ceara, no ano de 2016. A pesquisa incluiu um metodo para mapear as necessidades do Ecossistema Brasileiro de Inovacao e cobriu dez instituicoes tais como Aceleradoras, representadas pela ABRAII (Associacao Brasileira de Aceleradoras de Inovacao e Investimento), Espacos 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 (Associacao Brasileira de Private Equity & Venture Capital), Incubadoras, - representada pela SUPERA Incubadora, SEBRAE (Servico Brasileiro de apoio as Micro e Pequenas empresas), Empresas - representadas pela Samsung Brazil e o NIT (Nucleo de Inovacao e Tecnologia das Universidades), representado pela FORTEC (Forum Nacional de gerentes de Inovacao e Transferencia de Tecnologia). Para esse mapeamento, uma matriz que considera o modelo de estagio de desenvolvimento de negocios foi utilizada para identificar as principais acoes e lacunas no fomento ao empreendedorismo inovador no Brasil, levando em consideracao cinco variaveis criticas de desenvolvimento de negocios - tecnologia, talentos, financas, localizacao e evolucao. Os resultados apontam para recorrencias e falta de apoio e contribuem com propostas para o ecossistema brasileiro de inovacao. Palavras-chave: Empreendedorismo Inovador. Ecossistema de inovacao. Rede de Instituicoes.


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. 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.

LITERATURE REVIEW
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. 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 p-ISSN: 1807-1112 e-ISSN:  Revista Prâksis | Novo Hamburgo | a. 17 | n. 2 | mai./ago. 2020 251 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 mediumsized 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: 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.

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:  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 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.

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. 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.  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. 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).

INNOVATION IN SMES
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).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research comprised ten innovative entrepreneurship-fostering institutions in Brazil and can be considered a case study. According to Yin (2001)   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.

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. 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. 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 (

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 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

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 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. 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. "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.