Padrões de inovação aberta no desenvolvimento de produtos: um estudo comparativo entre as indústrias aeroespaciais brasileira e canadense.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Open innovation is a new research line that emerges from a new industrial organization of research, development and innovation (R,D&I): after a period of vertical integration and accumulation, economy seems to walk towards a more plain level with lesser barriers to new entrants due to a new scenario of collaboration and knowledge dissemination. In this new mindset, firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as firms look to advance in their technologies. The general goal of this research project is to analyze the depth and the impact of open innovation practices, as well as to identify patterns of their integration to the product development process (PDP) with focus on aerospace, a traditional high-tech segment within the metal-mechanic sector. For such, a reference model is elaborated and analyzed in two different contexts, in comparison study between Brazilian (emerging economy) and Canadian (developed economy) industries, more specifically the aerospace clusters in São Paulo and Quebec. The research comprises an aerospace market analysis, as well as the study of both countries national systems of innovation, supported by a survey that measures the intensity and importance of open innovation in Brazilian and Canadian aerospace companies plants. The survey is carried out by means of in-company questionnaire-based face interviews with R&D managers. The sample of analysis comprises a total of 53 aerospace plants, 22 of them in Brazil and 31 in Canada. Through a descriptive analysis of survey data, it is possible to identify similarities and differences in the patterns of open innovation in the two clusters. Among the similarities one highlights the focus on the product, the early involvement of customers in the PDP, the strategies adopted regarding intellectual property (IP) protection, the concentration of collaborative arrangements within the boundaries of the aerospace industry and the low intensity use of pecuniary tools, such as venture capital, spin-offs and/or acquisitions. Among the differences, Canada stands out with respect to its innovation public policies and assistance programs, which are found to be more effective in relation to Brazilian policies. Besides, Canadian plants seem to have a better innovative performance, at the cutting edge of aerospace technologies and higher international relevance. The survey also finds that the intensities of openness in Brazil and Canada are quite similar, although the patterns and motivations differ: Brazilian plants are more engaged in providing R&D services for products of third parties under direct contract (and not within collaborative arrangements) to local customers, while Canadian plants seem to be more engaged in a wider spam of collaborative fronts in a wider geographical range. Besides, Brazilian plants are much less intense in the adoption of formal IP protection methods in relation to Canadian ones, which hinders (but not prevents) the full adoption of open innovation in the Brazilian cluster. Based on the results, this text concludes with recommendations directed to the three vertices of the triple helix in both countries, namely: enterprises, science and technology institutes and the government.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».