RESUMO O discurso dominante sobre os ecossistemas de empreendedorismo (EE) enfatiza o perfil de algumas localidades com histórico reconhecido de sucesso. Isso tem dificultado uma compreensão mais profunda dos mecanismos econômicos que moldam as tendências evolutivas na atividade empreendedora e como elas operam em lugares distintos. Nós propomos que esses ecossistemas possuem regularidades, mas elas também podem assumir diferentes configurações. Por meio de técnicas de fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), abordamos essa questão com dados do estado de São Paulo. Esta pesquisa se concentra em cinco dimensões dos ecossistemas de empreendedorismo: ciência e tecnologia, capital humano, dinâmica de mercado, dinâmica dos negócios e infraestrutura. Os resultados apontam para a natureza relativamente heterogênea dos ecossistemas. Não obstante, as universidades de pesquisa, a intensidade de empregos intensivos em conhecimento e a disponibilidade de crédito se apresentam como condições fundamentais. A proximidade ao principal centro econômico aparece como um diferencial importante entre os ecossistemas.

ABSTRACT The dominant discourse on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (EE) remains focused on the profile of a handful of successful locations. This has hindered a deeper comprehension of the economic mechanisms that shape evolutionary trends in entrepreneurial activity and how they operate in distinct places. We propose that EE have regularities, but they can also assume different configurations, i.e., varying combinations of influential dimensions. Through fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis, we address this issue with data from the State of São Paulo, Brazil. This research focuses on five EE dimensions: Science & Technology, Human Capital, Market Dynamics, Business Dynamics, and Infrastructure. Findings point at the heterogeneous nature of EE distributed in three different paths. While configurations’ vary in terms of causal conditions, research universities, knowledge-intensive jobs and wider credit operations are core-causal conditions. Proximity to the main economic hub appears as a key differentiator among ecosystems.

RESUMEN El discurso dominante respecto a los Ecosistemas de emprendimiento (EE) pone énfasis en el perfil de algunas localidades con reconocido historial de éxito. Esto ha dificultado una comprensión más profunda de los mecanismos económicos que moldean las tendencias evolutivas en la actividad emprendedora y cómo ellas operan en lugares distintos. Partimos de la proposición de que estos ecosistemas tienen regularidades, pero también pueden asumir diferentes configuraciones. A través de técnicas de fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis, abordamos el caso del Estado de São Paulo, Brasil, enfocando cinco dimensiones de los Ecosistemas de emprendimiento: Ciencia y Tecnología, Capital Humano, Dinámica de Mercado, Dinámica de Negocios e Infraestructura. Los resultados apuntan a la naturaleza relativamente heterogénea de los ecosistemas. No obstante, las universidades de investigación, la intensidad de empleos intensivos en conocimiento y la disponibilidad de crédito son condiciones fundamentales. La proximidad del principal centro económico representa un aspecto diferencial importante entre los ecosistemas.

RESUMO As capacidades dinâmicas e de inovação têm recebido considerável atenção, tanto na academia quanto na prática. Embora um dos mais antigos questionamentos da literatura econômica e de estratégia envolva a compreensão das características determinantes do sucesso comercial e da perpetuação da empresa, a literatura ainda carece de um modelo abrangente de capacidades de inovação e dinâmicas. Este estudo apresenta um modelo que avalia as perspectivas das capacidades de inovação e dinâmicas da empresa a partir de quatro capacidades essenciais: capacidades de desenvolvimento, operações, gerenciamento e transações. Dados de uma pesquisa com 1.107 empresas brasileiras de manufatura foram utilizados para a realização de testes empíricos e discussões sobre a estrutura das capacidades dinâmicas. Análises de regressão e fatoriais validaram o modelo; discutimos o resultado, contrastando com a estrutura de capacidades dinâmicas. A capacidade de operações é a menos dinâmica de todas as capacidades, com a menor influência em inovação. Isso reforça a noção das capacidades de operações como "capacidades ordinárias", enquanto as de gerenciamento, desenvolvimento e transações explicam melhor a dinâmica e a inovação das empresas.

ABSTRACT Innovation and dynamic capabilities have gained considerable attention in both academia and practice. While one of the oldest inquiries in economic and strategy literature involves understanding the features that drive business success and a firm's perpetuity, the literature still lacks a comprehensive model of innovation and dynamic capabilities. This study presents a model that assesses firms' innovation and dynamic capabilities perspectives based on four essential capabilities: development, operations, management, and transaction capabilities. Data from a survey of 1,107 Brazilian manufacturing firms were used for empirical testing and discussion of the dynamic capabilities framework. Regression and factor analyses validated the model; we discuss the results, contrasting with the dynamic capabilities' framework. Operations Capability is the least dynamic of all capabilities, with the least influence on innovation. This reinforces the notion that operations capabilities as "ordinary capabilities," whereas management, development, and transaction capabilities better explain firms' dynamics and innovation.

RESUMEN La innovación y las capacidades dinámicas han ganado considerable atención tanto en la academia como en la práctica. Mientras el entendimiento de las características que impulsan el éxito y la perpetuidad de la firma es una de las preguntas más antiguas en la literatura de economía y estrategia, aún falta un modelo amplio sobre capacidades de innovación y capacidades dinámicas. El artículo presenta un modelo de evaluación que operacionaliza una visión basada en las capacidades de innovación y capacidades dinámicas de la firma. El modelo se basa en cuatro capacidades esenciales (desarrollo, operación, gestión y transacción). Se realizó un survey con 1.107 firmas industriales brasileñas para probar empíricamente y discutir el modelo de las capacidades dinámicas. El análisis factorial y de regresión validaron el modelo. La capacidad de operación es la menos dinámica y con menor influencia en la innovación. Eso refuerza la noción de que la capacidad de operación es una "capacidad común", considerando que las otras capacidades explican mejor la dinámica de la firma.

The recent challenges of the Brazilian naval and offshore industry have generated a unique opportunity for studies on technological innovation and economic development. This paper presents the recent developments and future prospects of this industry under the theoretical framework of 'technological interfaces'. Technological interfaces are defined as the thread of knowledge and technology necessary for establishing a transaction between two or more agents. It is both a theoretical construct and a tool for better understanding industrial coherence and dynamics. The development project of ship and platform construction in Brazil, unveils a potential dynamic similar to large national projects, such as the U.S. space project in the 50s. By establishing scientific parameters of analysis for the study, it is possible to generate a broader diagnosis of the technological interface matrix of the industry, but mainly it is possible to map the framework of operational gaps and the needs for technical-scientific development.

The firm’s role, besides producing goods and services, is to promote technological change and innovation. While academic research on technological capabilities has led to a better understanding of the process of technical change itself, there is no consensus on the ultimate definition of innovation capability. The purpose of this paper is to present a framework for innovation capability. This is formed by four key capabilities (technology development, operations, management and transaction) that enable firms to reach Schumpeterian profits. Given that the study is characterized as a theoretical paper, methodologically is supported on an extensive literature review. Our main findings can be summed up in three aspects: (1) every firm has all four capabilities; none of them are null; (2) to be innovative, at least one of the firm’s capabilities must be predominant; (3) any firm, when established, is primarily technological or transactional, in a second stage, operational or managerial.

As environments become more competitive and change, firms need to look for new ways of competing by implementing changes and innovations aiming at improving or even building new capabilities. Through multiple case studies, we examine the relationship between routines, capabilities and innovation seeking to identify the changes and innovations that have occurred along the trajectory of two wine producing firms in the Serra Gaúcha of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The results indicate that both companies submitted changes/innovations in routines and capabilities, however, the different strategies and decisions made led to totally different outcomes in terms of size, growth and market-share.