SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT: SPECIFICITIES AND CONCEPTUAL PREMISES

Adriana Bin1

Sergio Salles-Filho2

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to explore the specificities of science and technology

development and innovation processes in the organizational sphere and their implications

for planning and management. Much research has been done to understand the evolution of

the institutional structures relating to knowledge creation and appropriation, to identify the

main stimuli and the results associated with them, and to analyze the concatenation of

activities involved in the execution of these processes. As the relations among science,

technology and innovation (ST&I) and economic and social development become

increasingly clear, more studies have focused on the most suitable ways of structuring and

coordinating these processes to enable them to generate more benefits.

The perception that the specificities of ST&I planning and management derive from the

specificities of ST&I development processes in different organizations has motivated a

search for a common theoretical framework within which to interpret the execution and

management of research and innovation activities. The challenge for such a framework is to

address both the micro- and macro-institutional levels. The analytical approach selected for

the present purpose is based mainly on the evolutionary economics and transaction cost

economics traditions.

Before noting the most important elements in this approach for a discussion of ST&I

planning and management, the article presents a brief discussion of recent trends associated

with the organization and institutionalization of ST&I development processes. On the basis

of this initial presentation and after highlighting certain conceptual aspects, the article then

justifies and discusses the difference between the planning and management of ST&I and

of other processes in the organizational sphere, posing three key questions: (i) Why plan

1 PhD student at the Department of Science and Technology Policy, State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), São Paulo, Brazil, Tel: 55 19 35214597, e-mail: adriana.bin@gmail.com. 2 Professor of the Department of Science and Technology Policy, State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), São Paulo, Brazil, Tel: 55 19 35214597, e-mail: monteirosalles@gmail.com.

2

and manage ST&I processes? (ii) What are the elements that make ST&I planning and

management different from other planning and management processes in the organizational

sphere? (iii) What premises need to be taken into consideration when planning and

managing ST&I processes?

The conclusion sums up the conceptual structure proposed on the basis of the preceding

analysis, recommending that ST&I processes must be planned and managed as evolutionary

processes defined by targeted attitudes to search routines and an understanding of the

selective instances in which organizations are engendered, taking into consideration the

distinct institutional elements that mediate such relations.

Recent trends in knowledge production and appropriation

Recent trends in the understanding of the relations among science, technology and

innovation (ST&I)3 have consisted mainly of open approaches. Open approaches are based

on the collective logic that characterizes the production and social appropriation of

knowledge, but also on perceptions of an increase in participation and interaction by the

different actors who comprise this collective logic in the production of common results.

According to open approaches, sharing (planned or unplanned) is the crux of any

innovative system in terms of a systemic logic. Gibbons et al. (1994) argue that the

dynamics of science and research in contemporary society is influenced by new

mechanisms of knowledge generation that are more oriented to contexts of application and

use, resulting in the approximation of knowledge creation and its social appropriation. For

these authors this new form, called Mode 2, contrasts with the traditional form of

knowledge production, Mode 1, since by evidencing the need to solve a specific problem it

leads to the involvement of a more varied array of actors, transdisciplinarity (with constant

interaction between basic and applied science, and between theory and practice), an

increasing concern with social accountability, and an extension of quality control over what

is produced via the incorporation of new criteria which consider interests beyond those

traditionally involved in the disciplinary scientific universe.

3 The article suggests that in a broad perspective innovation is the process of creation and social appropriation (via the market or not) of products, processes and methods that did not previously exist or that contain some new feature that is different from what existed before.

3

The central argument in this analysis is that in the innovation process value is added not by

the cost savings and productivity gains that are so characteristic of mass production and

scale economies, but by the capacity to produce, pursue, reconfigure and negotiate

knowledge continuously so as to create competitive advantages. Thus collaboration is

required to stimulate competition (Freeman, 1992; Gibbons et al., 1994).

It can be said, then, that the difference between recent and traditional forms of collaboration

is slender and that it is time to take a less conservative view of the assets that must be kept

within the limits of a given organization. Although knowledge is increasingly recognized as

a strategic asset of great importance to guarantee competitive advantages, the significance

of sharing is highlighted by the notions that the faster knowledge circulates the faster it

grows, and that economies of scale and scope in knowledge production are positive and

non-determinable.

In other words, the division of labor is increasingly important to the innovation process.

Other reasons associated with ideological claims, entertainment, vanity, rewards and

learning are also present, but their importance is secondary. The main reason for the

expansion of sharing and for its management and organization lies in the economies of

scale and scope that derive therefrom, precisely because of an intrinsic feature of

knowledge production, which is the indeterminacy of limits.

The notion of collaboration found in open approaches originates in the concept of open

science. Open science is a concept that reflects the emergence of a new ethos of scientific

production in the late 16th and early 17th century (scientific revolution), valorizing a

commitment to rapid dissemination of scientific findings in contrast with the previous ethos

and its emphasis on secrecy (David, 2004). The commitment to disseminating scientific

findings, which converges with the basic norms that characterize the Republic of Science

(Merton, 1973), is justified by the possibility of results validation, less duplication of

efforts, increased complementarity, and spillover effects indicating enhanced efficiency in

the creation of knowledge.

However, as the institutional evolution of knowledge creation becomes increasingly

associated with the idea of the social appropriation of knowledge, and hence with the

benefits derived from that appropriation, the idea comes into being (and is upheld to some

4

extent) of a cultural and institutional approximation between the two normatively distinct

research communities: the Republic of Science, initially characterized by the aim of

maximizing the pace of growth in scientific knowledge and thus by the logic of open

science; and the Realm of Technology, in which controlling knowledge by secrecy and/or

exclusive property rights is necessary to the creation of economic benefits (David, 1998).

The approximation occurs precisely in terms of the elements of appropriability for scientific

findings, given that their dissemination becomes dependent on access to scientific

publications.

While the tension between open science in its original sense and proprietary science still

characterizes contemporary relations between science, technology and innovation, as

already noted a more radical movement toward openness is in progress which is

reconfiguring the permeability of knowledge flows and is therefore reconfiguring these

tensions. Open science in this direction acquires a broader meaning related to shared access

to and development of science. Thus this broader meaning of open science includes the

concepts of open access and open data: the former relates to access to scientific findings via

the elimination of the property restrictions associated with the circulation of scientific

publications; the latter relates to data transparency and to the pre- and post-publication

discussions that stimulate collaboration among labs and research groups around the world

in deciding the direction for a particular research project to take and how to distribute

complementary activities (Salles-Filho et al., 2008).

A view of open science that can be considered even broader includes the concept of open

innovation. This concept, coined by Chesbrough (2003), is based on the idea that

innovation processes require complementary contributions from different types of actors to

become scientifically and technologically mature and commercially viable. Thus open

innovation concentrates on using sources of ideas external to the organization to increase

competitiveness in the creation of new technology and the pursuit of returns from the sale

of ideas created in house when not related to the organization’s core competencies.

However, open innovation does not rule out the importance of maintaining the internal

competency of absorbing and adapting knowledge acquired externally so as to incorporate

its value.

5

It is beyond the scope of this article to develop a thorough exploration of experiences that

illustrate such movements. However, it is important to note three points of convergence in

open approaches. The first is information technology (IT), a cornerstone of any open

approach, enabling individuals and organizations to develop forms of mass collaboration.

Initiatives such as wiki platforms (which enable multiple users to create and edit web

pages), portals, virtual networks and practice communities are some examples of how IT

helps operationalize open models.

The approximation of the two research practice communities – the Republic of Science and

the Realm of Technology – to produce the current interweaving of science, technology and

innovation is the second point of convergence characteristic of open approaches. This

approximation promotes a mutual contamination between originally different kinds of

ethos, with elements of appropriability permeating science and elements of dissemination

(and openness) spreading in the realm of technology and innovation. However, it should be

stressed that the elements that support traditional organizational and institutional forms of

ST&I are both strongly grounded in the logic of collaboration and maintained by open

approaches: the authorship of scientific publications is respected and property rights are

appropriately managed in the sphere of technological development and innovation.

The third point, which is especially relevant here, relates to the new structures of

governance that are emerging from experiences with open approaches and are capable of

handling more dynamic knowledge flows. According to Christensen et al. (2005), open

models based on collaboration among large numbers of actors involve more complex

planning and management structures than those used before these new organizational forms

emerged. Thus it can be said that there are new elements alongside the traditional features

of the dynamics of ST&I and that these new elements should be taken into account when

analyzing recent trends in planning and management in this area.

ST&I, organizations and institutions: the evolutionary approach and transaction cost economics

The elements discussed in the previous section are crucial to an understanding of the

processes of ST&I development based on the evolution of the organizational and

institutional structures in which these processes are engendered. However, this is a macro

approach, which characterizes broad concepts and movements without going more deeply

6

into the specificities of the organizations in which such processes take place and their

relations with macro-institutional structures. Thus for a profound reflection on the concepts

and instruments of ST&I planning and management, no less important than characterizing

the fundamental elements that reveal the social nature of ST&I processes and recent trends

relating to the greater openness and dynamism of knowledge flows in such processes is the

pursuit of a conceptual framework capable of providing more general references on the

behavior of organizations that carry out these processes and on how they make decisions

and relate to each other and to other organizations and instances in the environment in

which they are engendered.

An attempt is made in what follows to expand this understanding by presenting and

applying the contributions of the evolutionary and transaction costs economics approaches,

which do not merely treat institutions as exogenous variables that affect economic behavior

but go further by seeking to explain how the institutions that affect the behavior of

economic actors arise, develop and are transformed. They do so by focusing on processes

of change and on the different configurations that the actors and instances involved in the

development of ST&I can acquire over time, configuring more or less general relations

between ST&I and social and economic change.

These approaches have been chosen mainly because of (i) the ability of the evolutionary

approach to explore processes of change and the relations established between the behavior

of economic actors (organizations and individuals) and the macro-institutional structures in

which such actors are immersed in generating innovations and their effects on broader

technological and economic changes; (ii) the ability of transaction cost economics (TCE) to

discuss the mechanisms for regulating and coordinating transactions between different

economic actors (understood as governance structures), a key aspect in any attempt to

understand how distinctly collective and multi-institutional activities such as ST&I are

conducted.

While these approaches evidently do not encompass all the topics that need to be

investigated in order to develop concepts and instruments relating to ST&I planning and

management, as shown below they nonetheless comprise elements that help structure the

conceptual framework that constitutes the key challenge for this proposal. It is also

7

important to note that many of the concepts developed by these approaches are useful in

every sense for organizations generally, whether they are public or private, and whether or

not they are exclusively dedicated to scientific and technological activities.

The evolutionary approach, whose foundations are consolidated in An Evolutionary Theory

of Economic Change, published in 1982 (Nelson & Winter, 2005), focuses on an

understanding of economic change as an evolutionary process. Although it does not

significantly reformulate the premises of orthodox economic theory, this approach adopts a

different perspective on rationality from the maximizing account of objective rationality,

considering instead that organizations have certain capabilities and decision-making rules at

any given moment and that these change over time as a result of deliberate efforts to

overcome problems and random events. These organizations are also subject to selective

instances over time, and these eventually determine which organizations are able to survive

and grow (so that there are always organizations that survive and organizations that are

eliminated).

This approach conceptualizes organizations via their routines, i.e. their regular and

predictable patterns of behavior in carrying out the full range of their activities. Thus

routines are persistent and hereditary factors of organizations, albeit also molded over time

by the characteristics of the context of which these organizations are part, which determine

their possible behaviors and accumulate over time while also being permanently subject to

a selective environment (Nelson & Winter, 2005).

However, there are search processes that serve to modify the operating characteristics over

time, i.e. routines that alter operating routines. Just as the idea of routines resembles the

concept of genes in biological evolutionary theory, search processes are analogous to the

concept of mutation. Search activities are non-random and occur under conditions of

uncertainty, since their success is defined only after a selective instance (which may be the

market or society). Moreover, they are irreversible and cumulative activities, necessarily

entailing simultaneous learning processes (Rosenberg, 2006) and occurring on the basis of

benchmarks (paradigms and technological trajectories) subject to path dependency and the

risk of lock-in (Dosi, 1988). The selective environment (market or extra-market) in turn

determines how the relative use of different technologies changes over time. The key

8

concept that flows from these determinations in the evolutionary approach is that of

dynamic search and selection processes whereby patterns of behavior in organizations and

their results in the market and society are jointly determined over time (co-evolution).

Application of the concepts of search and selection to the microeconomic study of technical

progress entails important considerations regarding innovation processes. In particular,

these processes take place in an environment of uncertainty in which conditions and results

are unknown in advance, and which is influenced by factors relating to the nature of

technology, objectively sought out by economic actors, and more or less dependent on

learning and individual and collective technological capabilities (Salles-Filho, 1993).

However, application of the concepts of search and selection is not confined to the

microeconomic study of technical progress or even to the study of the firm as principal

economic actor and the market as preponderant selective instance. Just as the configuration

of technological trajectories can be derived from organizations’ search efforts, so can the

interpretation of the dynamic processes whereby the other behavior patterns of

organizations (not exclusively related to technological aspects) and institutions are jointly

determined to configure evolutionary trajectories, henceforth called organizational and

institutional trajectories (Dosi & Marengo, 1994, Salles-Filho et al., 2000).

In sum, the evolutionary approach can be applied both in a micro-perspective that focuses

on organizations’ search processes and their subjection to selective instances at a later

stage, and in a macro-perspective oriented toward more general technological and

institutional change. Thus the evolutionary approach is highly useful in analyzing not only

the processes internal to organizations but also the role played in broader innovation

processes (in which other actors participate) by the organizations involved in knowledge

production, serving as an instance both of search via modification of patterns and of

selection.

This contribution, together with the idea that uncertainty is inherent in ST&I activities

because innovation is established only after an instance of ex post selection, will be used

later in discussing the specificities of ST&I planning and management.

Moving on to transaction cost economics (TCE), originally developed by Williamson

(1987), although this approach does not focus on technical progress (as does the

9

evolutionary approach) it is equally useful in analyzing the processes of decision making

that lie at the core of ST&I development. Within the framework of new institutional

economics (NIE), TCE starts from some elements developed by Coase (1994) to move

forward in understanding the governance structures adopted by economic actors as a way to

coordinate solutions to production problems or other types of problem that require

interaction among various components of a system, especially economic transactions.

TCE works with the perspective that the fundamental (albeit but not the only) goal of

economic actors (defined broadly rather than only within the universe of firms) is to

minimize transaction costs, i.e. the costs associated with relations of exchanging and

contracting. Costs can be classified as ex ante (e.g. the costs of drafting, negotiating and

safeguarding an agreement) or ex post (e.g. the maladaption costs incurred when

transactions drift out of alignment with requirements, the setup and running costs

associated with governance structures, or the bonding costs of effecting secure

commitments).

It is the need to minimize transaction costs, in conjunction with the fundamental conditions

imposed by the environments external and internal to organizations, that justifies the

adoption of different governance structures (hierarchy, market and hybrid) by economic

actors. According to Williamson (1987), the existence of transaction costs is associated

with two key elements: (i) contractual incompleteness due to bounded rationality (people

have limited memories and limited cognitive processing power); and (ii) opportunism

(incomplete or distorted disclosure of information, especially as a calculated effort to

mislead or otherwise confuse).

Variation in transaction costs is associated with transaction frequency, the uncertainty

inherent in the environment in which transactions are carried out, and asset specificity. A

rise in transaction costs entails increased safeguards or governance structures that enhance

control (Williamson, 1987).

As with the evolutionary approach, in this case too it is important to note that TCE is a

theoretical framework that can be applied very broadly, since ultimately the make-or-buy

choice is pertinent to any case in which interaction among the various components of a

system is required. The application of TCE to the analysis of ST&I development processes

10

complements the evolutionary approach insofar as it is a suitable framework for

interpreting search processes in organizations, especially with regard to the choice of

governance structures associated with knowledge production and development or

acquisition of the complementary assets necessary for innovation, and hence with decisions

on integration, contracting or cooperation/collaboration in developing knowledge creation

and appropriation activities. In this case, the analysis of transaction costs and appropriate

governance structures relates not only to market positioning via surplus production and

profit appropriation but also to the optimal positioning of organizations in innovation

systems so as to participate in them successfully and legitimately.

Many authors explore the applicability of TCE to discussion of the forms of knowledge

creation and social appropriation, especially with regard to the limits of in-house R&D

(Teece, 1988; Pisano, 1990), the acquisition of complementary assets for innovation

(Teece, 1986) or, more recently, the emergence of a movement of intense collaboration

associated with knowledge creation (Benkler, 2002). The key idea to be retained from this

literature for present purposes is that the criteria used to choose the best form of

management for search processes, especially with regard to the governance structure best

suited to ST&I, must be diverse and varied because they involve not only a trade-off

between transaction costs and the costs of internal organization but also a great many

organizational and institutional factors.

It is in this sense that the concepts derived from TCE are fundamental to any analysis of the

logic of ST&I planning and management. They provide a reference framework within

which to understand how organizations position themselves in their institutional

environment, i.e. what should be done in-house and to what extent, what to buy and to what

extent, and what should be done through collaboration. Uncertainty is also a key element

derived from TCE when analyzing ST&I planning and management — not uncertainty as

an inherent condition of ST&I activities (because their results cannot be known beforehand)

but the uncertainty this condition reveals in the establishment of contractual relations

between the different actors involved in such activities, i.e. uncertainty associated with the

bounded rationality of economic actors. Another element is the variety of governance

structures that can be used in the development of these activities, entailing variety and

possibly complexity in the mechanisms for managing such structures.

11

Planning and managing ST&I

The preceding section outlines characteristics and analytical approaches of vital importance

for an understanding of the logic of the activities relating to the creation and social

appropriation of knowledge that drive ST&I processes and for an understanding of the

behavior of the actors who engage in such activities. In what follows we use these

approaches and concepts to answer three questions of particular importance for this study:

(i) Why plan and manage ST&I processes? (ii) What are the elements that make ST&I

planning and management different from other planning and management processes in the

organizational sphere? (iii) What premises need to be taken into consideration when

planning and management ST&I processes?

Why plan and manage ST&I processes?

The main answer to the first question reflects the fact that ST&I comprise the foundation

for value creation in contemporary society insofar as they entail knowledge creation and

appropriation.4 Understanding these activities as social processes and identifying their

association with income generation and distribution entails pinpointing their relation to the

enhanced competitiveness, growth and legitimacy of the organizations engaged in such

activities, and to economic and social development in the broader sense.

However, there are no guarantees a priori that the direction and shape of the different

activities involved in such processes, or the structure selected to coordinate the interaction

among the various actors (division of labor and knowledge flows), will produce more

efficient and effective results that maximize the creation of value and benefits in the given

institutional conditions.

The element of intentionality and the non-random nature of such processes entail a need for

the actors involved to use planning and management mechanisms, as a means of

encouraging these activities and seeking the best way to perform them. It should be

4 In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942), Schumpeter argues that the key aspect of capitalism is its dynamic and evolutionary nature linked to the innovation processes that culminate in the creation of new products and processes, penetration of new markets, development of new sources of raw materials and other inputs, and changes in the forms of industrial organization. In this sense organizations innovate in pursuit of competitive advantage (or to defend a competitive position), and by doing so they temporarily achieve a position from which they can obtain extraordinary profits (or other advantages) compared with their competitors. Thus competition via innovation becomes the most important type of competition that characterizes models of industrial organization (Schumpeter, 1984).

12

stressed, however, that the optimal way to perform these activities must be understood

within the context and taking into account the institutional limits in which such processes

are engendered, as expressed at the micro level by routines and organizational habits, and at

the macro level by the so-called “rules of the game” imposed by society.

Nelson (1991) states that for an organization to become competitive on the basis of

innovation it needs a reasonably coherent strategy that defines and legitimates the way in

which it is organized and governed, so as to lay a legitimate foundation for decision making

and bargaining for the resources required to create or acquire the competencies need to

achieve such a position, and that this can be done by planning and management. Nelson

(2006) complements the argument by presenting planning and management as means to

avoid redundancy and waste while also stimulating the economies of scale and scope

associated with ST&I processes.

Although it is possible to justify the importance of ST&I planning and management at the

micro level based on the above argument, it is important to note that from an evolutionary

perspective innovation is a process that necessarily involves winners and losers. In the case

of firms, the idea of winners and losers can easily be associated with the competitive game,

so that the winners are seen as the firms that are most profitable and hence best fitted to

survive, while the losers are less profitable and thus forced to change strategy or even quit

the competition. In the case of other types of organization, such as public research

institutions, the idea of winners and losers acquires a different meaning: indeed, innovation

itself has a different meaning because it is not exclusively associated with a guarantee of

competitiveness for such organizations, but rather with the fulfillment of their

organizational mission. This differentiation, however, does not entail imagining that public

research institutions are not permanently subject to a selective process in which they can

evolve positively or succumb. Like any living organism, they are immersed in specific

selective environments with specific criteria and indicators, albeit different from the criteria

and indicators of a firm.

In this sense, even if all the organizations that engage in such processes implement

planning and management in search of an optimal strategy, some will succeed and others

will fail. Thus regardless of the process used to coordinate planning and management

13

activities, evolutionary environments permanently involve an intrinsic tension between the

selective pressure for better resource allocation and the inevitable and necessary errors,

failed attempts and duplicated search processes (Dosi & Orsenigo, 1988; Pavitt, 2006).

Specificities of ST&I planning and management

An answer to the second question requires a return to the components discussed in the

preceding sections to test how far they indicate distinctive characteristics. Although they

are obviously not all exclusive to ST&I processes, the difference is that together they are in

fact specific.

Three elements stand out: (1) indeterminacy; (2) the profile of the professionals involved in

such processes and the organizational culture that derives from their activities; and (3)

multi-institutionality. In what follows, each of these elements is described and analyzed in

terms of its implications for ST&I planning and management.

(1) Indeterminacy is the main element invoked to characterize the specificity of ST&I

processes. Stokes (2005) argues that research proceeds by making choices and that these

choices, which precede investment decisions, are guided by the goals set for the project

rather than results (since the results are evidently not known beforehand). Thus they are

decisions that meet planning requirements and must be based on ex ante assessments,

whereas only ex post judgment is capable of indicating, with relative reliability and in a

timely manner, which research projects have in fact contributed to general progress in a

particular knowledge area or led to significant practical applications.

The same interpretation can be applied to innovation processes, which are also

characterized by countless choices guided by objectives. Thus, as already mentioned in

outlining the evolutionary approach, despite the intentionality of the search processes and

decisions that culminate in changes to routines in order successfully to appropriate new

products, processes, methods or systems, appropriation and hence success actually takes

place only after an ex post selection instance (Nelson & Winter, 2005).

Kay (1988) indicates two important characteristics of ST&I processes that reinforce their

indeterminate nature. The first is the non-deductibility of R&D, at the level of both product

and firm, given that any particular research effort may lead to the creation of a variety of

products as well as potentially creating externalities and hence problems relating to

14

property rights. The other characteristic indicated by this author is the existence of a time

lag between research activities and commercial or social appropriation of the results.

Kay (1988) and Coombs et al. (1989) argue that the indeterminacy inherent in R&D and

innovation derives from technological and market aspects as well as equally unpredictable

aspects characteristics of the overall economic context. In addition, these authors note that

the level of indeterminacy is not uniform for all types of R&D and innovation but varies

between the extremes of basic research and radical innovation (high indeterminacy), and

incremental technical improvements (low indeterminacy).

For present purposes, however, it is important to note that although indeterminacy is a key

differentiator of ST&I processes, the uncertainty that gives rise to indeterminacy is intrinsic

to any human activity, since what has yet to be done is by definition uncertain. The

distinguishing feature of the indeterminacy in ST&I processes is that it arises from

activities that have not yet been tested. In this sense, they can be considered more

indeterminate than activities that have been carried out and tested before.

Along the same lines, it can be said that ST&I basically involve assessment and decision

making in conditions of uncertainty and high indeterminacy as to results, and that the

decisions in question relate to the direction and form of execution of ST&I processes and to

the structure of coordination that governs interactions among the various actors who take

part.

The discussion in Coombs et al. (1989) indicates that any choice that is part of the

framework of initiatives in the planning and management of research and innovation

involves an assessment based on a set of criteria that contemplate the variety and

complexity characteristic of ST&I processes. Nelson & Winter (2005), for example, present

relevant criteria for the determination of resource allocation in R&D projects for

technological planning. However, according to these authors there does not seem to be a

pattern in R&D allocation decisions, which obviously must attend both to factors on the

demand side and to factors that influence the ease or cost of invention and generally relate

to the required knowledge base.

Several other authors (Freeman, 1982; Dosi, 1984; Coombs et al., 1989; Jain & Triandis,

1997; Phaal et al., 2004; Tidd et al., 2005) argue, like Nelson & Winter (2005), for the need

15

to include “S&T push” and “demand pull” in the criteria used for ST&I planning and

management. Broadly speaking, this means considering the potential capability of a given

research project to consolidate or structure a scientific and technological basis in the

organization, even if a priori there is no pre-existing market for whatever results, as well as

considering the expected pay-off from the project.

The analysis of TCE as applied to ST&I presented in the previous section mentions some

broader criteria commonly used to support decision making to determine the appropriate

governance structures. These criteria are also important in distinguishing the direction of

ST&I processes, which means they are also suitable for identifying the scientific problems

to be addressed, the technologies to be explored, and the products, processes and methods

to be developed. There is no such thing as a pre-determined list of criteria, of course. They

will depend to a great extent on the specificities of the organization doing the analysis.

Moreover, it is also worth stressing that the criteria change over time, along with the

organizational and institutional structure in which the ST&I processes are engendered.

Although the authors who discuss this topic focus on the various criteria that should be

considered to deal with indeterminacy, as mentioned earlier, this is not a distinctive feature

of this type of analysis since any assessment is always based on an interpretation of the

attributes of an object according to established criteria (Zackiewicz, 2005). The distinctive

feature of ST&I planning and management imposed by indeterminacy is the inherent

impossibility of precisely measuring the relevant attributes of the various alternatives,

which also makes it impossible to interpret them precisely in a set of criteria. The function

of the criteria is merely to support decision making: their measurement and analysis cannot

directly elicit a discernment regarding the best of a set of choices, given the intrinsic

indeterminacy that makes imprecise any ex ante calculation on this subject. Thus decisions

taken in the sphere of ST&I planning and management are always wagers, albeit supported

by criteria (Howells & James, 2001).

(2) The second element that differentiates ST&I planning and management from other

planning and management processes in the organizational sphere is the profile of the

professionals involved, as well as the culture shared by such professionals, which is

strongly derived from the rules, norms and values associated with knowledge creation.

16

According to Jain & Triandis (1997), researchers are highly qualified and socially distinct,

in that they are highly creative and curious, and capable of taking their own initiatives, all

of which are fundamental characteristics for intellectual activities that require a good deal

of persistence. They are also intrinsically skeptical, as noted by Merton (1973), which

makes them especially prone to question everything.

As for the rules, norms and values derived from the ethos of scientific investigation and

technological development, which are shared by the professionals involved in knowledge

creation and characterize a differentiated organizational culture, two are of particular

interest to a study of ST&I planning and management: (i) the imperatives of recognition in

the sphere of scientific institutions; and (ii) the need for constant internal and external

communication, both of which relate to the element of ideas generation strongly associated

with scientific and technological activities.

Scientists, understood as professionals who do basic and applied research, have a clear need

to win recognition from the scientific community through publications, conferences and

other meetings. Coombs et al. (1989) argue that reputation and satisfying their intellectual

curiosity are more important to scientists than financial returns, for themselves or the

organization. Thus according to these authors management structures in non-academic

research organizations (industrial or public) should provide incentives that guarantee the

recognition of their scientists by the community (allowing them to interact with their peers

via the literature or face to face) or at least compensate them for a lack of recognition.

This question is often treated from the perspective of the intrinsic discrepancy between

scientists’ individual goals and the objectives of the organization (Jain & Triandis, 1997).

The usual result is conflict between scientists and managers, with the former demanding

respect for the principles of the scientific ethos, freedom to do research as they see fit and

authority based on professional status, while the managers usually take more “utilitarian”

views, require compliance with standards, and base their authority on bureaucratic positions

and hierarchical power relations. In the case of engineers, the discrepancy is less

pronounced because recognition of engineers is generally associated with the development

and appropriation of new technology, an interest they share with managers.

17

The need for internal and external communication that characterizes the ethos of scientific

investigation and technological development shared by the professionals engaged in

knowledge creation is also a very important element in the delineation of ST&I

management structures. In the case of internal communication, the members of a project

team or working group need to build strong relationships in order to assure the interaction

and feedback characteristics of non-linear innovation processes, as well as the exchange of

ideas required to resolve specific issues. Internal communication is particularly

instrumental in avoiding redundancy, fostering new insights and promoting interaction

between fundamentally distinct areas such as R&D, marketing and production, or between

R&D and corporate planning, so as to minimize conflict (of the kind that frequently pits

managers against researchers).

In the case of external communication, this basically involves the establishment of channels

through which to maintain relations with the scientific community, with users (Jain &

Triandis, 1997), and with other organizations that may serve as sources of knowledge,

consumers of the knowledge created, or partners in joint development. In the context of

open approaches this type of communication becomes even more important, given the

increased permeability of knowledge flows and more intense participation by different

actors in the knowledge creation process.

Although the profile of the professionals involved in ST&I is characterized above in terms

of the ethos of scientific and technological development, emphasizing researchers’

specificities, the idea that innovation is not just technological and that it requires other

types of activity in addition to those directly relating to R&D enables this notional profile

to be broadened to include professionals associated with promoting innovation from a

broader perspective. Analogously, however, this profile is also strongly associated with

creativity and autonomy, and with the establishment of structures that foster

communication to the detriment of structures that favor conflict, by avoiding or eliminating

institutional lock-in and strengthening the ability to learn and promote change.

Lastly, it should be stressed that although there are general characteristics of the profile of

professionals involved in ST&I, especially the R&D component, and of an organizational

culture appropriate for research and innovation indicating specific elements to be

18

considered in planning and management, it is equally important to consider particular

characteristics relating to the evolution of rules and internal standards in each organization

and their co-evolution with broader institutional structures.

(3) The third and last element that differentiates ST&I planning and management processes

from other planning and management processes in the organizational sphere is multi-

institutionality, discussed above in connection with the collective logic underlying the

execution of research and innovation activities, the recent tendency for increasing inter-

organizational collaboration, and the growing permeability of knowledge flows.

The difference this makes is that an analysis of planning and management must take the

external environment into account, not just in terms of the macro-institutional components

but also considering at the micro level the relationships actually or potentially established

between different organizations. Three main types of relationship are important in this

context, with due consideration to their intersections: relationships established through

governance structures to mediate the transactions associated with knowledge creation and

appropriation (buying, selling, licensing, transfer, partnering etc.); relationships established

on the basis of the institutionally delimited roles of different actors in the performance of

specific functions in the sphere of ST&I systems; and relationships that derive from an

understanding of the selective nature of this institutional environment.

In sum, indeterminacy, the profile of the professionals involved and multi-institutionality

raise the following main points for ST&I planning and management: the need to

contemplate a variety of criteria such as support for analysis and decision making on the

direction and form of execution of scientific and technological development and innovation

processes, and the structure for coordinating the interactions among the various actors who

participate in them; the capacity to deal with high levels of creativity, curiosity and

autonomy of initiative on the part of researchers, to manage conflicts between researchers

and managers, and to permit their insertion and adequate recognition in the scientific

community; and the ability to create distinct structures of relationship between

organizations and institutions in knowledge production and appropriation.

19

Premises of ST&I planning and management

Having defined the key elements that distinguish ST&I planning and management, the next

step is to answer the third question, which relates to the premises to be taken into

consideration when conducting such efforts. Broadly speaking, it can be said that the basic

premise of ST&I planning and management is a combination of coordination and control

with freedom: coordination and control so that organizations are capable of deploying their

internal knowledge base as well as external knowledge bases in differing ways to seize new

opportunities in an efficient and effective manner, in line with the organization’s general

goals; and freedom to assure the necessary autonomy in creative environments and

experimentation with new solutions (Betz, 1987; Jain & Triandis, 1997; Sapienza, 2004).

Nelson (2006) questions the need for planned coordination and centralized control, arguing

that these structures may impede the flexibility required for research and innovation. Thus

it is not a matter of eliminating a decision-making structure but of keeping it decentralized

and informal so as to guarantee speed and functionality (since a formalized process may be

slower), and of keeping it associated with actions capable of restricting research to areas in

which applications appear promising.

Thus it is a matter of establishing a decision-making system for coordination and control

that is compatible with the traditions of the scientific community (Nelson, 2006) and

capable of promoting innovation, which according to Betz (1987) occurs within a structure

that offers directions without rigidity.

ST&I planning and management as evolutionary processes

In sum, analyzing ST&I planning and management via the same approaches as those used

to investigate the development of such processes means conceiving of these efforts as

applied to search routines by organizations and also to the identification of their selective

environments, enabling organizations to take decisions continuously on what to do and how

to do it (and also on how much of it to do), based on the information available. The goal

should therefore be to create the conditions to plan and manage research and innovation as

an evolutionary process defined by attitudes internal to the organization (search routines)

and by instances to which the organization is continuously subject (selection process).

20

To assist in directing and executing search procedures, given the intention to succeed with

the results of research innovation, planning and management must be capable of creating

routines to identify opportunities (arising from the stimulus produced by the evolution of

knowledge and scientific and technological development, and from the demands of society

and the market), train people, design and execute projects, and interact with other actors,

guaranteeing the physical, financial and human resources this requires. Particularly with

regard to interaction, it is worth stressing the importance of defining more adequate

governance structures, meaning those capable of minimizing transaction costs and

guaranteeing the benefits associated with the values constructed by organizations in the

institutionalization process. TCE is a highly useful framework for make-or-buy decisions in

this context.

Complementarily, the planning process must consider aspects relating to the social

appropriation of research and of new products, processes and methods, creating routines to

increase comprehension and operations in different markets, social segments and technical

and economic systems, with their respective legal and regulatory frameworks, and to take

the business opportunities that arise as well as exploring the conditions of appropriability of

the knowledge developed and acquired. Thus although there is indeterminacy, economic

actors should always look to the future and behave strategically, guided by the idea that

their actions influence the world and that they can bring about expected changes through

articulation with other actors.

Concretely speaking, the task is to develop an evolutionary vision of the ST&I planning

and management process. To take the concept proposed by Nelson & Winter, planning can

be seen as an organized search procedure that together with management creates internal

routines in organizations. If planning and management in general can be understood as

instruments for dealing with evolving environments, there is all the more reason for

planning and management in S&T to be based on the same principle.

Integrated management of ST&I is the link that brings together planning and management

of search procedures with market (or extra-market) selection, creating routines and methods

to communicate, translate and interact with the different perspectives that make up the

processes of ST&I development. Ultimately, inasmuch as ST&I planning and management

21

involve assessment and decision making in conditions of indeterminacy, their results are

the alternatives selected to orient the direction and form of execution of ST&I development

processes, as well as coordination of the interaction among the various actors who take part

in them.

From this perspective it can be concluded that ST&I planning and management are also

routines of the organization, with all the characteristics of routines, such as specificity,

relations with learning processes, resilience and evolution. It becomes clear that just as

ST&I processes in the organizational sphere result from certain organizational and

institutional configurations which change over time, planning and management procedures

are also characterized by this evolutionary component.

The motivations capable of orienting search procedures regarding this type of

organizational innovation are varied and necessarily include the identification of

opportunities for growth, sustainability, visibility and legitimacy for the organization. The

initiative of studying and internalizing existing practices or developing and/or adapting

them can be taken by different areas of groups within the organization, out of an interest in

changing the operating routines used in management to improve the operating routines used

in development and production or as a result of a mandate containing this objective. As

with technological innovation, the scope and level of formalization of planning processes as

well as their organization in terms of management and the flow of decisions vary

enormously.

Hence the importance of ensuring not only that ST&I planning and management are

suitable for dealing with specific and evolutionary processes increasingly characterized by

intense forms of collaboration, but also that they are themselves understood as evolutionary

processes continually subject to selective instances. The fundamental effort is therefore to

identify structures and choose suitable methods and tools with which to operationalize

them, while also striving to institutionalize this type of procedure in the organizational

sphere so as to make this type of practice legitimate and resilient.

22

References

BENKLER, Y. Coase’s Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the Firm. The Yale Law

Journal, v. 112, 2002. pp. 369-446.

BETZ, F. Managing Technology: competing through new ventures, innovation, and

corporate research. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1987.

CHESBROUGH, H. Open Innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from

technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2003.

COASE, R.H. La empresa, el mercado y la ley. Spain: Alianza Editorial, 1994.

COOMBS, R.; SAVIOTTI, P.; WALSH, V. Economics and Technological Change.

London: Macmillan, 1989.

DAVID, P. Common Agency Contracting and the Emergence of ‘Open Science’

Institutions. The American Economic Review, v.88, n.2, 1998. pp. 15-21.

DAVID, P. Understanding the emergence of ‘open science’ institutions: functionalist

economics in historical context. Ind. Corp. Change, v.13, n.4, 2004. pp. 571-589.

DOSI, G. Technical Change and Industrial Transformation: The Theory and an

Application to the Semiconductor Industry. London: MacMillan, 1984.

DOSI, G. The nature of the innovative process. In: DOSI, G.; FREEMAN, C.; NELSON,

R.; SILVERBERG, G.; SOETE, L. (Eds) Technical Change and Economic Theory.

London: Pinter Publishers, 1988. pp. 221-238.

DOSI, G.; MARENGO, L. Some Elements of an Evolutionary Theory of Organizational

Competences. In: ENGLAND, R.W. (Ed.) Evolutionary Concepts in Contemporary

Economics. United States: University of Michigan, 1994.

DOSI, G.; ORSENIGO, L. Coordination and transformation: an overview of structures,

behaviours and change in evolutionary environments. In: DOSI, G.; FREEMAN, C.;

NELSON, R.; SILVERBERG, G.; SOETE, L. (Eds) Technical Change and Economic

Theory. London: Pinter Publishers, 1988. pp. 13-37.

FREEMAN, C. The Economics of Industrial Innovation. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: The MIT

Press, 1982.

23

FREEMAN, C. Formal Scientific and Technical Institutions in the National System of

Innovation. In: LUNDVALL, B.A. National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory

of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter, 1992. pp. 169-187.

GIBBONS, M. ; LIMOGES, C. ; NOWOTNY, H. ; SCHWARTZMAN, S. ; SCOTT, P. ;

TROW, M. The New Production of Knowledge: the dynamics of science and research

in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications Inc, 1994.

HOWELLS, J.; JAMES, A. Corporate Decision-Making on the Sourcing of Technological

Knowledge. Discussion Paper Series, Policy Research in Engineering, Science and

Technology (PREST), University of Manchester, 2001.

JAIN, R.K.; TRIANDIS, H.C. Management of Research and Development

Organizations: managing the unmanageable. 2nd Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons,

Inc., 1997.

KAY, N. The R and D function: corporate strategy and structure. In: Dosi, G.; Freeman, C.;

Nelson, R.; Silverberg, G.; Soete, L. (Eds) Technical Change and Economic Theory.

London: Pinter Publishers, 1988. pp. 282-294.

MERTON, R. K. The Sociology of Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,

1973.

NELSON, R. Why do firms differ, and how does it matter? Strategic Management

Journal, v.12, 1991. pp. 61-74.

NELSON, R. As fontes do crescimento econômico. Trans. Adriana Gomes de Freitas.

Campinas: Editora da Unicamp, 2006.

NELSON, R.; WINTER, S. Uma teoria evolucionária da mudança econômica. Trans.

Cláudia Heller. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp, 2005.

PAVITT, K. Innovation Process. In: FAGERBERG, J.; MOWERY, D.C.; NELSON, R.R.

(Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

pp. 86-114.

24

PHAAL, R.; FARRUKH, C.J.P.; PROBERT, D.R. Technology roadmapping: a planning

framework for evolution and revolution. Technological Forecasting and Social

Change, v.71, n.1-2, 2004. pp. 5-26.

PISANO, G. The R&D boundaries of the firm: an empirical analysis. Administrative

Science Quarterly, v.35, n.1, 1990. pp. 153-176.

ROSENBERG, N. Por dentro da caixa preta: tecnologia e economia. Trans. José Emílio

Maiorino. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp, 2006.

SALLES-FILHO, S. A Dinâmica Tecnológica da Agricultura. Doctoral thesis in

economics. Instituto de Economia/Unicamp, 1993.

SALLES-FILHO, S.; ALBUQUERQUE, R.; SZMRECSÁNYI, T.; BONACELLI, M.B.;

PAULINO, S.; BRUNO, M.; MELLO, D.; CORAZZA, R.; CARVALHO, S.;

CORDER, S.; FERREIRA, C. Ciência, tecnologia e inovação: a reorganização da

pesquisa pública no Brasil. Campinas: Editora Komedi, 2000.

SALLES-FILHO, S.; BIN, A.; FERRO, A.F.P. Abordagens abertas e as implicações para a

gestão e C,T&I. Conhecimento e Inovação, 2008. In press.

SAPIENZA, A.M. Managing Scientists: leadership strategies in scientific research. 2nd Ed.

New Jersey: Wiley-Liss, Inc., 2004.

SCHUMPETER, J.A. Capitalismo, socialismo e democracia.Rio de Janeiro: Zahar

Editores S.A., 1984.

STOKES, D. E. O quadrante de Pasteur: a ciência básica e a inovação tecnológica. Trans.

José Emílio Maiorino. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp, 2005.

TEECE, D. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration,

collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, v.15, n.6, 1986. pp. 285-

305.

TEECE, D. Technological change and the nature of the firm. In: DOSI, G.; FREEMAN, C.;

NELSON, R.; SILVERBERG, G.; SOETE, L. (Eds) Technical Change and Economic

Theory. London: Pinter Publishers, 1988. pp. 256-281.

25

TIDD, J.; BESSANT, J; PAVITT, K. Managing Innovation: integrating technological,

market and organizational change. 2nd Ed., Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Lta, 2001.

WILLIAMSON, O.E. Las instituciones económicas del capitalismo. Mexico: Fondo de

Cultura Económica, 1987.

ZACKIEWICZ, M. Trajetórias e Desafios da Avaliação em Ciência, Tecnologia e

Inovação. Doctoral thesis. Departamento de Política Científica e Tecnológica/Unicamp,

2005.