Consórcios e suas barreiras no desenvolvimento de projetos P&D de tecnologias pré-competitivas: modelo conceitual e aplicação
Consortia and their barriers in the development of pre-competitive technologies in R&D projects: conceptual model and application
Reinaldo Lopes Ferreira, Cristina Godoy, Eduardo Vasconcellos, Fernando Fernandez
Resumo
Este artigo propõe caracterizar as principais barreiras ao desenvolvimento de arranjos colaborativos de pesquisa e desenvolvimento (P&D) de tecnologias pré-competitivas. As barreiras foram relacionadas a partir da literatura e de depoimentos dos participantes do consórcio de Pesquisa da Tecnologia de Processamento por Atrito e Mistura (C2PA), cujo foco se concentra nas tecnologias de deposição superficial por atrito (friction surfacing - FS) e de soldagem por agitação e fricção (friction stir welding - FSW). Foi avaliado o grau de interferência dessas barreiras sobre esses modelos de cooperação. Os resultados do estudo mostram que as barreiras tendem a refletir cada tipo de formação, por exemplo, se são concorrentes ou não, pelo grau de maturidade das tecnologias desenvolvidas, verificado pela escala TRL (Technology Readiness Level). A pesquisa revelou que as barreiras consideradas mais prejudiciais aos consórcios são aquelas associadas à falta de confiança entre as partes e ao gerenciamento (inadequado) da colaboração. Igualmente, houve ressalvas para as dificuldades decorrentes da cultura de inovação e/ou do mindset de produção da indústria brasileira, que não está habituada a P&D de longo prazo.
Palavras-chave
Abstract
This article proposes the description of the main barriers to the development of collaborative research and development (R&D) arrangements of pre-competitive technologies. The barriers were related from the literature and interviews from members of the Friction Processing Consortium (C2PA), whose focus is on friction surfacing (FS) and friction stir welding (FSW) technologies. In addition, the degree of interference of these barriers with these cooperation models was assessed. The study results show that the barriers tend to reflect each type of formation, for example, whether they are competing or not, the maturity degree of the technologies developed, verified by the TRL (Technology Readiness Level) scale. The research revealed that the barriers considered the most harmful to consortia are those associated with lack of trust between the parties and (inadequate) management of collaboration. Likewise, there were exceptions to the difficulties arising from the innovation culture and/or production mindset in the Brazilian industry, which is not used to long-term R&D.
Keywords
References
1 Chesbrough H. Inovação aberta: como criar e lucrar com a tecnologia. Porto Alegre: Bookman; 2012.
2 Hagedoorn J, Schakenraad J. Interfirm partnerships for generic technologies: the case of new materials. Technovation. 1991;11(7):429-444.
3 Tigre PB. Gestão da inovação: a economia da tecnologia no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Campus; 2006.
4 Fernandez FF, Vasconcellos E, Guedes LF, Carlana R, Matta V. Long-term R&D-based consortia: paths to integrate basic research with company strategy. In: Proceedings of the of the 25th International Conference for Management of Technology; 2016; Orlando, FL. Orlando: IAMOT; 2016. p. 973-992.
5 Trott P. Gestão da inovação e desenvolvimento de novos produtos. 4. ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman; 2012.
6 Mankins JC. Technology readiness levels: a white paper. Washington, DC: NASA; 1995 [acesso em 3 jan. 2013]. Disponível em: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/trl/trl.pdf
7 Smilor RW, Gibson DV, Avery CMR. R&D consortia and technology transfer: initial lessons from MCC. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 1989;14(2):11-22.
8 Chiesa V, Manzini R. Organizing for technological collaborations: a managerial perspective. R&D Management. 1998;28(3):199-212.
9 Benedetti MH, Torkomian ALV. Uma análise da influência da cooperação universidade-empresa sobre a inovação tecnológica. Gestão & Produção. 2010;17(4):1-14.
10 Ritala P, Huizingh E, Wijbenga P. Participating R&D consortia with without competitors. In: Proceedings of the ISPIM Asia-Pacific Innovation Forum; 2014; Manchester. Manchester: ISPIM; 2014.
11 Powell WW, Grodal S. Networks of innovators. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery DC, Nelson RR, editors. The Oxford handbook of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005. cap. 3, p. 56-85.
12 Brocke J, Lippe S. Managing collaborative research projects: a synthesis of project management literature and directives for future research. International Journal of Project Management. 2015;33(5):1022-1039.
13 Santoro MD, Gopalakrishnan S. Relationship dynamics between university research centers and industrial firms: their impact on technology transfer activities. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2001;26(1-2):163-171.
14 Parolin SRH, Vasconcellos E, Bordignon JA. Barreiras e facilitadores à inovação: o caso Nutrimental S. A. Revista de Economia Mackenzie. 2006;4(4):12-34.
15 Ghapanchi AH, Tavana M, Khakbaz MH, Low G. A methodology for selecting portfolios of projects with interactions and under uncertainty. International Journal of Project Management. 2012;30(7):791-803.
16 Corsaro D, Cantú C, Tunisini A. Actors’ heterogeneity in innovation networks. Industrial Marketing Management. 2012;41(5):780-789.
17 Branstetter LG, Sakakibara M. When do research consortia work well and why? Evidence from Japanese panel data. The American Economic Review. 2002;92(1):143-159.
18 Santoro MD. Success breeds success: the linkage between relationship intensity and tangible outcomes in industryuniversity collaborative ventures. The Journal of High Technology Management Research. 2000;11(2):255-273.
19 Convênio de Cooperação Científica e Tecnológica. VDT055-12. Campinas; 2015. 20 p. (Mimeo).
20 Vergara SC. Projetos e relatórios de pesquisa em administração. 3.ed. São Paulo: Atlas; 2000.
Submitted date:
06/22/2020
Accepted date:
09/13/2020
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email