Marcos de Oliveira Morais
UNIP University, Brazil
E-mail: marcostecnologia@ig.com.br
Irapuan Glória Júnior
UNIP University, Brazil
E-mail: profirapuan@ndsgn.com.br
Antônio Sérgio Brejão
UNIP University, Brazil
E-mail: prof.sergiobrejao@uol.com.br
Pedro Luiz de Oliveira Costa Neto
UNIP University, Brazil
E-mail: politeleia@uol.com.br
Submission: 3/4/2019
Revision: 3/14/2019
Accept: 3/26/2019
ABSTRACT
This article deals worth Innovation
Quality (or Quality of Innovation) instead of Quality Innovation (or Innovation
in Quality). It is recognized that innovations along with knowledge must be
part of any kind of organization strategy as relevant tools in order to obtain
competitive advantage. To associate quality and creativity to these factors
makes the results more significant. The goal of the current study is to discuss
innovation as a positive or negative factor for quality improvement and try to
measure such relation through an indicator that is open to numerical
determination with application in several practical conditions, especially in
the productive activity. A set of dimensions is proposed for the innovation
quality as a way to achieve such goal. It is proposed and discussed an index called
Innovation Quality as a goal to quantify the real contribution of innovation in
each case, so aiming to open a thorough discussion about this concept.
Keywords: Quality;
Innovation; Dimensions; Measurement; Process
1. INTRODUCTION
The
search for innovation became the object of desire and need of the modern
organizations (SANTOS et al, 2014).
The innovation associated to quality and other concepts now integrate a
relevant competitive strategy for the companies. Innovation became a vital
factor for the organizations survival, attributing to it the organizational
success and growth, and so may be considered as a main economic development
conductor (LOW;
KALAFUT, 2003; SANTOS et al., 2014)
However, in general literature, quality and innovation are seen as different
factors, unlikely of what is considered in the present work.
The
innovation became an alternative in the organizations development with the
purpose to meet the internal and external changes for the organizational
performance improvement compared to competitors, giving them important competitive
advantage (BEDANI,
2012),
maybe the most distinguished pioneer to understand the innovation importance,
mentions that the real competitive advantage of the company in the condition of
the innovation holder is not placed in the opportunity to operate as a
monopoly, but in the shield obtained due to the temporary disorganization of
the market, and even more in the time it makes necessary to develop a long term
plan (SCHUMPETER,
1942).
The
organizations must try to search for creativity, but mainly they should be able
to turn this creativity into an effective innovation through the value of their
worker’s knowledge that will be its greatest intangible asset. Innovation is
characterized as the finding, search, and development of new products,
processes and improvement of the organizational management. It’s an interactive
procedure in which there is the participation of economic and social agents,
including different kinds of information and knowledge that mandatorily have a
direct relation with regional agents (JACOSKI;
COSTELLA; RIGON, 2014).
The
performed a research on innovation quality with focus an innovation awards,
particularly in Finland, showed that this kind of incentive for the promotive
of innovation still weak and the main motivation of enterprises for a
competition award is the increase of credibility, reputation and visibility in
indices. It is not refereed in this research a specific method for metering
innovation quality in an objective way somehow similar with what is presented
in this paper (MAKKONEN;
INKINEN, 2014).
To
direct resources to innovation more than competitors, enabling to add value to
the brand (CARVALHO;
BARBIERI, 2013),
otherwise a due to technological changes and opening of new markets, companies
are more conscious of the innovation importance and are investing in skilled
labor and improvement of processes and products (SILVA
et al., 2013).
Therefore,
to characterize innovation quality shall be relevant, once the products,
services and processes life cycles are getting smaller. Evaluate innovation
quality that is offered to client, either internal or external, allows the
organization to explore the gap between the clients’ needs and the meeting of
these needs in order to provide better satisfaction and loyalty (SILVA
et al., 2013).
This
article gives sequence to the idea developed in a previous reference by the
same authors going further in the proposal of establishing ways to characterize
and measure the innovation quality concept. The authors don’t intend to cover
every aspect of the issue, because it can be complex, and it would be a very
long discussion. Through a practical approach that can be enhanced and suitable
to other situations, it is tried to establish the possibility of consolidating
the concept of quality innovation through its characterization by a measurable
index. The purpose of the current work is so to move forward from the initial
idea, providing to other interested researches discussions and prepositions
through the continuity of this study.
There
is lack of explanatory models and theoretical proposals about the innovation
processes elaborated from the organizations reality (CENTURIÓN
et al., 2015).
This finding justifies the effort developed in the current work, where it is
moved going besides the already explored models for innovation itself, but to
its quality, which is discussed and measured so exploring a gap in the
literature.
It
is assume that innovation does not necessarily provide improvement in products,
services and processes quality, or even in people’s quality of life (COSTA NETO;
MORAIS, 2016).
This may occur in cases of highly innovative products, although subject to
failures, but very powerful to clients’ attraction (REIS,
2015).
The study had a qualitative/quantitative approach; the samples were taken from
companies of the automotive branch, white line, lighting, education, services
provider and connectors from June to July, 2017. Coordinators and managers from
these companies were interviewed.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1.
Innovation
Process Characteristics
Innovation
is taken into consideration by many as one of the major factors for the
organizational and human development, becoming the main creator of competitive
advantage, searching for more and more distinction among competitive companies,
as the main key for the sustainability of the highly aggressive market (RABECHINI
JÚNIOR; CARVALHO; LAURINDO, 2002; CLOSS; FERREIRA, 2012).
One
of the theoretical pioneers about this issue, innovation leads to economic
development and can impose the speed of the growth of a country, beyond the
innovation can be taken into consideration as a new possibility for the
creation of products and processes, but also for the use of components that
already exist (SCHUMPETER,
1942).
There
are distinguish between innovation of products, services and processes
applicable to their respective areas (CLOSS;
FERREIRA, 2012).
Shows several ways in which innovation can be classified, such as technological
innovation (related to process or product) or organizational (related to
management or business model), incremental innovation (result of small and
successive improvements that characterize the continuous performance
improvement) or radical (result of new technologies or research planned
effort), among others (VASCONCELOS,
2015).
The
technological resources implemented in the organizations lead to operational
efficiency and effectiveness, so that the companies improve the quality of
their products and services (GALLAUGHER,
2007).
This position will probably give more importance to technological innovation
rather than the others, which can be inadequate in many cases.
According
to Christensen and Wessel (2012), innovation processes can be formal or
informal. Formal processes are the ones that are organized, documented and
executed consciously by the organization. The informal ones are carried out
from usual routines and in a non-systematized way.
The
organizations that do not incorporate any kind of innovation process will
become more and more obsolete. For Bagno (2014), the lack of understanding
about what innovation is can lead to expressive difficulties in the management,
affecting the enterprise survival in the market where it is placed. One of the
main goals of innovation is to create value to the business, regardless of the
segment it belongs.
2.2.
Product
Innovation
The
product innovation can be seen as the introduction of a new product or
significantly improved regarding its characteristics or previous use by the
company (FINEP,
2004).
The success of new products can be measured by functionality aspect as, for
example, the quality of the new product that refers to the capacity of the
product to carry out its functions, the current technological knowledge
improvement compared to the competitors, the functionality and higher advantage
acquisition (KOHLI;
JAWORSKI; KUMAR, 1993; PALADINO, 2007).
Rothweel
and Gardiner (1995) state that innovation of product is a central and necessary
element for long term success in an organization. This process becomes the
essential element for the survival and maintenance of the organizations (VERMELEULEN,
2005; SILVA NETO, A. T.; TEIXEIRA, 2014).
2.2.1. Product
Quality
Maximiano
(2010) takes into account some of the quality approaches when he states that managing
the product quality starts by the specifications definitions in terms of its
performance expected by customers, but the quality issue is also significant to
the stakeholders interests on the entire productive process, inside and outside
the company.
About
the tangible products quality, Garvin et al. (1984) proposed the existence of
eight quality dimensions, shown in Table 1.
The
authors of the current work consider such products quality dimensions a good
reference to establish an evaluation of the new products innovation quality.
Table 1: Products Quality Dimension
PRODUCT QUALITY DIMENSIONS |
|
DIMENSIONS |
CONCEPT |
Performance |
Concerning the correct performance of
the main activities for which the product was designed. |
Complements |
Referring
to items that add to the accomplishment of the main functions, contributing
to improve performance. |
Reliability |
Concerning
safety in use, absence of risks and no occurrences of failures. |
Conformity |
Concerns the fulfillment of project
specifications. |
Durability |
Related to product life. |
Technical assistance |
Regarding
after-sales support and maintenance facilities in case of failure. |
Aesthetics |
Regarding
the good appearance, the good taste and the pleasant sensations provided by
the product. |
Perceived quality |
Subjective
dimension, related to the opinion of each client, influenced by specific
aspects of the product. |
Source: Garvin
(1984)
2.3.
Service
Innovation
Djellal
and Gallouj (2007) and Hipp (2008) argue that the services sector, due to their
characteristics of intangibility, heterogeneity and simultaneous production
with the consumption, is different in terms of organizations and execution
compared to the tangible products that adopt more traditional management
models.
The
innovation issue in services is often associated to the adoption of technical
systems (especially computerized systems) coming from the industrial sectors
invention, rather than other ways of less tangible innovation (GALLAUGHER,
2007).
2.3.1. Service
Quality
Service
quality has been broadly discussed in literature of services management in
several industrial sectors and many researchers have tried to characterize it
by agreeing that it has to be studied from the clients’ perspective (LEBLANC;
NGUYEN, 1997; CLEMES et al., 2008; NAGATA; SATOH; KYTOMAKI, 2011),
being possible to state that que service quality is the clients’ evaluation
about the superior service performance provided by the company (YUSOFF;
ALI, 2010).
The
customers’ perception about the service quality can be influenced by what is
expected from the service and how the service is seen by whom receives it.
Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1990) developed a prestigious model of
five gaps that characterized the factors that interfere in this difference
between the expected service and the one persevered by the clients.
The
same authors still have proposed a set of quality dimensions in services
presented in Table 2. However, Costa Neto, Costabile and Romano (2013), calls
the attention to the fact that such dimensions are related to the services
providing process, but they don’t consider the quality of the associated
product when applicable, what in many cases can influence the clients’ opinion
about the provided service.
The
same way the aspects in Products Quality Dimension, such services dimensions
can offer a suitable basis to evaluate innovation quality that provides a new
way to carry out a service.
Table 2: Services Quality Dimensions:
DIMENSIONS
OF QUALITY OF SERVICES |
|
DIMENSIONS |
CONCEPT |
Tangible
aspects |
Physical evidences of service,
appearance of premises, people, materials, objects and tools. |
Reliability |
Consistency and demonstrated ability
to provide service. |
Responsiveness |
Willingness to help the client, with
the specified deadlines. |
Competence |
Specific skills and knowledge needed
to perform the service. |
Courtesy |
Finesse, respect, consideration and
kindness in personal contact. |
Credibility |
Trust, honesty and integrity
transmitted by the service provider. |
Safety |
No risk, danger or doubt. |
Access |
Proximity and ease of contact. |
Communication |
Keep the client informed in an
understandable way and listen to it. |
Client
knowledge |
Effort to know and meet the client’s
needs. |
Source: Adapted from
Parasuraman et al. (1990).
2.4.
Processes
Innovation
The
process innovations allow the company to structure its activities so that the manager
does not need to monitor simple activities, concentrating the efforts in other
areas such planning and development.
The
innovation management in processes simplifies the actions that must be taken in
the organization, and it brings the need to pass on responsibilities and tasks,
making them simpler to the company and turning the company into a more
independent organization, which will not need the intervention of the Board in
its processes, and the process is not only composed of its activities; when a
process is identified it’s important that there are controls of measures and
time, in order to make sure whether they are fundamental or not for the
achievement of the expected result (BALZANI,
2008).
2.4.1. Process
Quality
In
2.2.1 and 2.3.1 were presented consolidated propositions related to tangible
products and services quality dimensions existing in the literature. However,
something similar is not available in relation to processes quality, and to
projects quality either.
For
Araujo (2009) the industrial processes are operational manufacturing flows
which depend on input entries (raw material, components, fuel, electric power,
manpower) for the effect of transformation from subdivided items to the output
of the finished product of the process that must be monitored and controlled to
allow the quality assurance of the process carried out and, by consequence, of
its results.
Projects
and processes have several similarities, and the main difference between these
two concepts is the factor that a project is a time-limited activity which has
beginning, middle and end, while a process is meant to operate indefinitely.
Therefore,
it can be adapted to the processes in general, either industrial or
administrative, the consideration about the two aspects of projects quality
identified (MAXIMIANO,
2010),
as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The two
aspect of processes management quality.
Source: Adapted from
Maximiano (2010)
The
processes products can be tangible items, services and also other results, as
softwares and other standardized projects. Whichever they are, the respective
dimensions of quality are applied to them, but its excellence will depend on
the good quality of the process itself, which has all to do with the quality of
management. In Figure 2 it is presented the conceptual sequence that must be
followed regarding the processes quality which lead’s to the client’s
satisfaction. In the authors’ of the current work opinion, this is an
open-ended discussion (BOTELHO;
NETO; VENDRAMETTO, 2012).
Figure 2: Process
quality and its management.
Source: Adapted from
Botelho, CostaNeto and Vendrametto (2012)
The
concern about quality is implied in the production techniques development and
new processes in development. The need of evolution and judgment of processes
quality has become more relevant for the organizations. The operations are
processes that have an input of entries, which pass though transformations and
result in an output, as exit services and products which must be analyzed and
controlled daily (SLACK;
CHAMBERS; JOHNSTON, 2015).
2.5.
Innovation
Quality
In
their article Innovation and Quality, the authors recognize the unquestionable
importance of innovation as a propelling element of the process in modern
times, but they also point out situations in which innovation has brought
problems and difficulties for better life conditions of people in modern
society. Thus, innovation in processes
generates high productivity, but also causes unemployment, innovations in
activities of police investigation make easy the clarification of crimes, but
cause privacy loss; the modern arms give more military power, but may cause
more destruction, and so on (COSTA
NETO; MORAIS, 2016).
This
finding made the authors interested in the concept of innovation quality, or
quality of innovation, which they think necessary, but very little explored.
The
researched literature does not fully address the innovation quality concept
present in the current work, however, the article offered by Haner (2002)
deserves special attention in which the author established clearly the
distinction between innovation quality and quality innovation. Three levels are
set up in which the innovation quality can occur: in products/services, in
processes and business. The author presents for each level a set of factors
that can influence the innovation quality, but does not create an indicator
that offers effectively a way to measure the concept.
Going
further, Costa Net and Morais (2016) suggest the creation of an index of
innovation quality (IQ) varying between -1 e +1, that would be a measure of
benefits and inconvenients which innovation might bring to individuals and
society. Negative values of IQ are associated with situations in which
innovation was considered harmful from the analyzed point of view.
The mentioned authors have proposed
two theorems:
1.
IQ value is a function of the time of
use of the innovation;
2.
The IQ time value depends on the long
term planning for the innovation use.
The
authors also present factors that can affect the innovation quality; such as
level of innovation use, market amplitude, user satisfaction, ethical aspects,
contribution to sustainability, facility of use and advantage effectively
provided.
In
the current work, it is tried to move forward in the search process for the
characterization of such indicator. It is possible to consider that its use may
be in different situations such as:
·
Identify
a specific innovation quality, of either a tangible product, service
or process.
·
Identify
the innovation quality itself, generically considered, taken into
account from the point of view of a group of individuals, a company, an entity
or an institution, or a group of companies, entities or institutions.]
·
Identify
a specific innovation quality applied to case “b”
·
Other
possible situations.
2.5.1. Innovation
Quality in the Organization
Quality
innovation is, also and mainly, the improvement of the existing limits of
performance, meeting the expectations and enabling the innovation quality to
develop itself Haenr (2002)
The
innovation quality concept inside the organization is seen as a resource for
the execution of an improvement process that comprises people, material and
equipment. To integrate such factors it is of extreme relevance to enable the
additional value creation for the clients inside or outside the organization.
Therefore,
the innovation quality is related to a range of activities that have as goal to
create results through the daily processes of the companies. An applicative
which the authors of the current work have carried out, obviously subject to
debates, took into consideration the factors presented in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Influent
factors in Innovation Quality.
Source: authors
As
identified in Figure 3, several factors, which can be tangible or intangible,
contribute to the existence of innovation quality, representing dimensions of
this concept. Such dimensions are detailed in Table 3.
Note that in
Picture 3 there are tangible and intangible aspects. The dimensions of innovation
quality proposed are based on the quality innovation of products presented by
Garvin et al. (1984), in Table 1 and
in the dimensions of services quality proposed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and
Berry (1990) in Table 2.
Through this
analysis, it was tried to set the innovation quality dimensions suggested in
the following research. This is, of course, another expert of the whole problem
that is proper for a deeper discussion.
Table 3: Dimensions
of innovation quality.
DIMENSIONS OF INNOVATION QUALITY |
|
DIMENSIONS |
CONCEPT |
Efficiency |
Related to product performance, process, planned and
executed service. |
Effectiveness |
Related to resource savings, optimization of existing
risks in the market. |
Human capital |
Qualification, compromise, quality of life, management of
the processes involved and decision-making. |
Quality |
Related to benefits and transformations achieved, client’s
specifications. |
Technology |
Concerns with the technical properties acquired for the
composition, creation or improvement presented. |
Adaptability |
Related to ease in technical and operational handling. |
Value generation |
Provision of growth for the organization as well as for
society. |
Environmental |
Related to the possible impact and its regeneration. |
Reliability |
Related to the lack of operational risks, physical or
economic. |
Utilization |
Period that allows obtaining competitive advantage for the
organization. |
Source: The authors, based on Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1990)
3. METHODOLOGY
The current work comprises the
literature review and an exploratory part in which an indicator of innovation
quality is proposed and a possible way to describe it in numbers is set up in
an application for which a research was done involving interviewees in six
companies from the metal sector.
From the point of view of technical
procedures, a multiple cases study was carried out, because six companies were
researched, although not deeply investigated. According to Yin (2015), a case
study in an empirical investigation of a contemporary phenomenon. The research
in fact was done about the professionals’ opinion on a matter of work interest.
The investigations can be classified
according to their purpose in terms of means and ends (VERGARA, 2000). In this study, an exploratory research was used,
which provides more acquaintance with the problem, and also a descriptive one,
that exposes the characteristics of a certain population establishing
correlation between variables and defining their nature.
According to Gil (2007), in the
exploratory research it is intended to develop, clarify and change concepts and
ideas in order to formulate more accurate problems and searchable hypotheses
for further study. So, through research data obtained out in production
environment, it was possible to collect informations which allowed the work
goals to be fulfilled and made possible an evaluation for the index of
innovation quality.
The Likert scale was used to measure
the importance of production engineer skills associated with innovation
processes. For Cunha (2007), a Likert scale is composed of a set of exclusive
items so that the interviewee shows his/her agreement in each case. The data
were collected between June and July 2017, through interviews carried out
with managers and specialists of the companies. It was decided not to publish
the name of the companies, as some of them are competitors in the same segment
and products.
Each interviewee stated about the
importance of the innovative activities related to each of the dimension of
innovation quality according to the scale as follows in Table 4.
Table 4: The
importance of the innovative activities
Strongly disagree |
Partially
disagree |
Not agree or disagree |
Agree partially |
Totally agree |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Source: The
authors
For each of the
influent factors in innovation quality presented in Figure 3, each interviewee
was required to answer whether that factor was determinant for the innovation
quality. Therefore, each interviewee evaluated the propositions that are
presented in 5.2. For the effect of the following use of the research results
in the IQ index calculation, the values 1; 0.5; 0; -0.5; -1 were respectively
associated with these above possibilities.
Eighteen specialists were selected for this research
at the metallurgic industries all having in their scope a department of
products development with the innovation as a differential. These companies
work in several segments such as household appliances, automotive, white line
and lighting. All the companies are Brazilian and located in São Paulo state,
with up to 75 workers.
·
Company "A" - Metallurgical company of casting of aluminum under
pressure, offering services to the automotive segment, has not own product, all
the developments are done in partnership with its clients. It has about 70
employees. Founded in 1965.
·
Company "B" - Metallurgical foundry company of aluminum under
pressure, offering services for companies of the automotive segment and white
line. Has areen of development of its own products. It has about 60 employees.
Founded in 1999.
·
Company "C" - Metallurgical company of injection of plastics.
Provider of services for the segments of white line and electro-electronics. Acts
in development of products with its clients, with sectors of engineering of
products and processes. It has about 75 employees. Established in 1982.
·
Company "D" - Metallurgical company of injection of plastics and
assembly of electronic equipments. It has area of development of products its
own products certified by Inmetro, (Brazilian official organization). Makes
assembly and distribution of its products to the wholesale market. It has about
70 employees. Founded in 1991.
·
Company "E" - Metallurgical company manufacturing reflectors for
civil construction and street lighting, with development and manufacturing
department of own products. Also resales imported products. It has about 75
employees. Founded in 1985.
·
Company "F" - Metallurgical company of machining of serial parts
with the help of numerical computerized control (CNC). Has its own products and
is services provider, with department of development of projects (own and for
others). It has about 60 employees. Founded in 2001.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this section
the field research results are presented with the interviewed specialists about
each of the dimensions of the innovation quality considered, besides the
processing used for the value calculation involved in the numerical
determination of innovation quality.
In Table 4
are presented the research application results in absolute number of answers
and in Table 5 the respective percentage values. Based on these data the
following considerations are performed.
Table 5: Results of
the application in absolute numbers.
DIMENSIONS |
Strongly disagree |
Partially disagree |
Not agree or disagree |
Agree partially |
Totally agree |
Number of respondents |
Efficiency |
0% |
6% |
11% |
28% |
55% |
100% |
Effectiveness |
6% |
6% |
11% |
38% |
39% |
100% |
Human capital |
6% |
6% |
11% |
33% |
44% |
100% |
Quality |
0% |
0% |
11% |
22% |
67% |
100% |
Technology |
11% |
6% |
11% |
39% |
33% |
100% |
Adaptability |
6% |
6% |
11% |
38% |
39% |
100% |
Value generation |
6% |
6% |
11% |
39% |
38% |
100% |
Environmental |
17% |
22% |
28% |
22% |
11% |
100% |
Reability |
6% |
6% |
22% |
33% |
33% |
100% |
Utilization |
6% |
11% |
28% |
22% |
33% |
100% |
Source: Authors
Table 6: Results of
application in percentage numbers:
DIMENSIONS |
Strongly disagree |
Partially disagree |
Not agree or disagree |
Agree partially |
Totally agree |
Number of respondents |
Efficiency |
0 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
10 |
18 |
Effectiveness |
1 |
1 |
2 |
7 |
7 |
18 |
Human capital |
1 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
8 |
18 |
Quality |
0 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
12 |
18 |
Technology |
2 |
1 |
2 |
7 |
6 |
18 |
Adaptability |
1 |
1 |
2 |
7 |
7 |
18 |
Value generation |
1 |
1 |
2 |
7 |
7 |
18 |
Environmental |
3 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
18 |
Reability |
1 |
1 |
4 |
6 |
6 |
18 |
Utilization |
1 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
6 |
18 |
Source: Authors
4.1.
Construction
of the Indicator of Innovation Quality
In order to
measure the innovation quality from the obtained informations by following the
assumptions established for the IQ index, the below operations were carried
out. It is emphasized that it is an evaluation of this value in accordance with
case “b” considered in 2.5, so it is generically determined the importance
given to innovation by a group of companies with certain productive
characteristics.
Initially, at
the authors’ criteria were attributed to each of the dimensions of innovation
weights from 0 to 1 trying to describe comparatively its relative importance as
shown in Table 6. How and why such weights should be attributed is open to
discussion in future researches.
Next, the
average evaluations of innovation quality qi were calculated for each dimension
of innovation quality by the Equation 1.
|
(1) |
where:
qi =
average evaluation of innovation quality provided by dimension i, i = 1, 2, 3,
... 10.
qij
= frequency (Table 4) of the interviewees’ indications regarding the j possibility
in the Likert scale for of the dimension i
q'ij
= respective relative frequencies (Table 5).
rj =
attributed value to the j possibility in the Likert scale being, in increasing
agreement terms, -1; -0.5; 0; 0.5; 1.
The calculations carried out for the
values qi determination are presented in Table 6.
Table 7: Values of
pi, rj, qi and qi
DIMENSIONS |
Weights (pi) |
Calculations |
__ qi |
||||
Efficiency |
0,7 |
0,00 |
-0,03 |
0,00 |
0,14 |
0,56 |
0,670 |
Effectiveness |
1 |
-0,06 |
-0,03 |
0,00 |
0,20 |
0,39 |
0,495 |
Human capital |
0,8 |
-0,06 |
-0,03 |
0,00 |
0,17 |
0,44 |
0,515 |
Quality |
1 |
0,00 |
0,00 |
0,00 |
0,11 |
0,67 |
0,780 |
Technology |
0,7 |
-0,11 |
-0,03 |
0,00 |
0,20 |
0,33 |
0,385 |
Adaptability |
0,7 |
-0,06 |
-0,03 |
0,00 |
0,20 |
0,39 |
0,495 |
Value generation |
0,9 |
-0,06 |
-0,03 |
0,00 |
0,20 |
0,39 |
0,495 |
Environmental |
0,9 |
-0,17 |
-0,11 |
0,00 |
0,11 |
0,11 |
-0,060 |
Reability |
1 |
-0,06 |
-0,03 |
0,00 |
0,17 |
0,33 |
0,405 |
Utilization |
0,7 |
-0,06 |
-0,06 |
0,00 |
0,11 |
0,33 |
0,325 |
Source: Authors
At last, the
general IQ assigned to the innovation quality concept by the interviewees of
the researched companies is calculated by the weighted average shown in
Equation 2 where pi are the weights attributed to the dimensions of
innovation.
|
(2) |
4.2.
Comments
Here are presented the propositions
made and the comments referring to each of the quality innovation dimensions
evaluated by the interviewees.
Efficiency: "It is important the innovation that enhances
the efficiency assigned to the performance of the product, service or process
planned and executed in the organization".
Innovation will bring more quality
to contribute to better products production or services with more efficiency in
the processes, better productivity, costs reduction and waste elimination. It is an issue in which incremental
innovation, which provides continuous improvement, or radical innovation as a
result of new technologies can occur with different quality evaluations. This
dimension was the second best considered by the interviewees, who agreed in 84%
about the importance of innovating processes for a better productivity.
Effectiveness: "The innovation related to the effectiveness of
the organization is important because it prevents the client’s loss risk and
fosters the competitive advantage in the market".
In an aspect it was tried to measure
the innovation importance for the global result of the organization represented
by its success in the achievement of market, prestigious and financial-economic
stability. The agreement index was 78%, lower than the previous one; possibly
due to the more operational than management nature of the interviewees.
Human capital: "Innovation can positively affect the
qualification and skill of the human capital and, as a consequence, the
organization performance".
The importance of this dimension is
undeniable and recognized more and more by the organizational leaders.
Innovation is expected to represent improvement of the human capital of the
organizations by giving to such organizations better and more suitable ways to
be recognized by knowledge and ability to solve problems. 77% of the
interviewees agreed with this proposition, perhaps less than expected, maybe
for not seeing how innovation can contribute for the human capital enhancement.
Quality: "Innovation can work positively on quality of processes, products
and services related to the organization clients".
This requirement measures how the
innovation contributes to the quality of the organization (what can be done
with more or less quality). It was the best dimension evaluated in terms of
agreement, with 89% and 0% of non-agreement. An expected result, because
average level workers in modern organizations are aware of the quality
importance.
Technology: "To obtain new technologies affects directly the
organization performance".
We live in a time when technology is
often the main factor for the success of the companies. However, the agreement
with this requirement was 72% by the interviewees of the current research. This
may reflect the feeling that technology must be suitable to its purpose and
technological innovations not always achieve their purpose.
Adaptability: "Innovation can be adjusted to meet the
organization’s needs".
The agreement with this proposition
was 78%, as high as in other cases, certainly due to its practical importance.
Value Generation: "Innovation is an important factor in value
generation for the organization".
The dimension of value generation,
also with 78% of agreement, had its importance recognized in the research. It
is a comprehensible outcome, maybe because it has less visibility than quality
(of which is an integrating component) and efficiency.
Environmental: "Innovation is a factor of reduction on the
negative environmental impacts produced by the company".
The environmental issue was the one
with the worst result compared to the others, with the lower agreement of 33%
and non-agreement of 39%. This suggests that the possibility of innovation
contribute to environmental problems reduction is not the main concern of the
interviewees. Maybe it makes sense because the researched companies are not
directly concerned about the importance of the tripod formed by
social-economic-environmental aspects considered essential for the
sustainability of the planet.
Reliability: "Innovation promotes greater reliability to
actions of the organization, such as reduction of failures occurrence in
products, services and processes, as well as of the involved risks”.
However, this requirement was the
third worst evaluated with agreement of 66% and non-agreement of 12%, and
evaluated by the indicator qi = 0.405. More applicable to tangible products,
maybe the time distance among conception, process of production and the use of
the product has determined the low recognition of its importance.
Utilization: "Innovation favors the use of products and
services of the organization with aspects as suitability, durability and lack
of failures and risks".
This proposition was the second
worst evaluated, with 55% of agreement and 12% of non-agreement, by reasons
possibly also related to the difficulty of seeing its advantages.
4.3.
Discussion
How to
interpret the value IQ = 0,405 found in the current application? It is a
positive and intermediate value showing clearly that the interviewees recognize
the importance of innovation, what is certainly not new, but they have
attributed a lower value than perhaps should be expected. The reason for that
is certainly not due to the weights scale used, since it why provides an
average value according to these weights, assuming different importance to the
various dimensions, but the weighted average value must not be very distant
from the arithmetic one.
However, a
reason for not having a higher value for the target index may be in the
variability of the answers given by the interviewees. It is noted that the
decreasing importance attributed by them (see Table 7) was in the following
order: quality; efficiency; human capital; effectiveness, adaptability and
value generation; reliability; technology; utilization; environmental. Such
classification does not necessarily match the innovation potential shown in
Table 2, but it calls the attention to some points that deserve reflections.
(a) The environmental issue to which was assigned
importance weight 0.9 was evaluated negatively in terms of innovation quality.
This may point out a worrisome lack of awareness in the researched companies
about the importance of this aspect, which is basic for the sustainability of
the planet. It probably happened because it is not presented as such for the
kind of activities carried out in the sample companies.
(b) The efficiency, second best evaluated dimension,
overcame clearly the effectiveness placed in fourth place. This was possibly
because the interviewees are more involved with manufacturing processes of the
company than to aspects linked to business.
(c) It is worthy to note the awareness about the quality
dimension by the interviewees with 89\% of favorable agreement, which was the
most outstanding evaluated dimension.
(d) Besides the environmental dimension, utilization and
technology were the less scored dimensions, what was also surprising and there
is no reasonable explanations for this.
(e) The authors feel reasonable to suppose that a
considerable reduction in variance in the opinions of interviewees in such kind
of research may be obtained, possibly with the use of more directly constructed
propositions.
5. CONCLUSIONS
In the current work it was tried to
go further is the establishment of an indicator for innovation quality as
proposed by Costa Neto e Moraes (2016).
A literature review about innovation
and quality was done, concluding that ideas about these issues were thoroughly
discussed, but no attempt of establishing numerically an indicator for the
innovation quality was found.
In view of these considerations, a
research was carried out involving eighteen specialists from the metal sector
and they were asked to give their opinion about question limited with ten
dimensions of innovation quality proposed by the authors. The outcome was
submitted to unprecedented methodology to reach the establishment of a
measurement for innovation quality.
The authors are aware that what was
done is possibly not near of reaching a more solid formalization about this
issue, but they believe that a first important step has been taken in this
direction. Of course, other either theoretical or applied researches must be
performed to have more advanced procedures in the direction of the proposed the
discussion. Any contribution or discussion about what was presented in this
work will be welcome and considered for further studies.
The aim of this work was to promote
the importance of innovation quality through the elaboration of an indicator
that, although theoretical, allows its practical use even though there may
still be some adjustments to be made, being suitable for discussion.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors thank CAPES
for their support for the development of this research.
REFERENCES
ARAUJO, M. A.
(2009) Administração de Produção e
Operações - uma abordagem prática. São Paulo: Brasport.
BAGNO, R. B. (2014) Inovação como uma nova função
organizacional: caracterização a partir da experiência de empresas industriais
de grande porte no Brasil. São Paulo: Cultrix.
BALZANI, H. S. (2008) Gestão de processos. Sebrae, v. 4.
BEDANI, M. (2012) O. Impacto dos
valores organizacionais na percepção de estímulos e barreiras à criatividade no
ambiente de trabalho. Revista de
Administração Mackenzie (RAM), v. 13, n. 3, p. 150‑176.
BOTELHO, W. C.; COSTA NETO, P. L.;
VENDRAMETTO, O. (2012) Considerations on Project Quality. XVIII
ICIEOM 2012 – International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management, v. 18, n. 1, p. 1–10.
CARVALHO, A. P.; BARBIERI, J. C.
(2013) Inovações ambientais em cadeias de suprimento: um estudo de caso sobre o
papel da empresa focal. Revista de
Administração e Inovação, v. 10, n. 1, p. 232–256.
CENTURIÓN, W. et al. (2015) O
processo de inovação tecnológica de empresas fornecedoras associadas à rede
Petrogas/SE. Revista de Administração e Inovação, v. 12, p. 24–51.
CHRISTENSEN, C.; WESSEL, M. (2012) Surviving disruption. Harvard Business Review, v. 90, p.
56–65.
CLEMES, M. D. et al. (2008) An Empirical Analysis of
Customer Satisfaction in International Air Travel. Innovative
Marketing, v. 4, p.
50–62.
CLOSS, L. Q.; FERREIRA, G. C. (2012)
A transferência de tecnologia universidade-empresa no contexto brasileiro: uma
revisão de estudos científicos publicados entre os anos 2005 e 2009. Gestão da Produção, v. 19, n. 2, p. 419‑432.
COSTA NETO, P. L.; COSTABILE, L. T.;
ROMANO, S. M. V. (2013) A qualidade dos produtos das redes de serviços. Simpósio de Redes de Suprimentos e
Logística (I SIMREDES), v. 4, p. 25–37.
COSTA NETO, P. L.; MORAIS, O. M. (2016) Innovation and
Quality. IFIP International Conference
on Advances in Production Management Systems, v. 1, p. 431–437.
CUNHA, L. M. A. (2007) Modelos Rasch e Escalas de Likert e
Thurstone na medição de atitudes. Lisboa:
Braga.
DJELLAL, F.; GALLOUJ, F. (2007) Innovation and employment
effects in services: a review of the literature and an agenda for research. The Service Industries Journal, v. 27, n. 3, p. 193–202.
FINEP. (2004) OCDE - Manual de OSLO - Proposta de diretrizes
para coleta e interpretação de dados sobre inovação tecnológica.
Available: http://gestiona. com.
br/wpcontent/uploads/2013/06/Manual-de-OSLO-2005.pdf.
GALLAUGHER, J. (2007) Strategic Positioning and
resource-based thinking: cutting through the haze of punditry to understand
factors behind sustainable, successful internet businesses. International Journal of E-Business
Research, v. 3, n. 3, p. 14‑25.
GARVIN, J. B. et al. (1984) Venus: The nature of the surface
from Venera panoramas. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Solid Earth, v. 1, p. 3381‑3399.
GIL, A. C. (2007) Como Elaborar Projetos de Pesquisa. São
Paulo: Atlas.
HANER, U.-E. (2002) Innovation quality - a conceptual
framework. International Journal of
Production Economics, v. 80, n. 1, p. 31–37.
HIPP, C. (2008) Service peculiarities and the specific role
of technology in service innovation management. International Journal of Services Technology and Management, v. 9,
n. 2, p. 1-20.
JACOSKI, C. A.; COSTELLA, M. F.;
RIGON, M. (2014) Análise do desempenho da inovação regional: um estudo de caso
na indústria. Revista de Administração e
Inovação, v. 11, n. 2, p. 71–88.
KOHLI, A. K.; JAWORSKI, B. J.;
KUMAR, A. (1993) Metodologia da pesquisa: guia prático. Journal
of Marketing Research, v. 30,
n. 4, p. 467–477.
LEBLANC, G.; NGUYEN, N. (1997) Searching for excellence in
business education: an exploratory study of customer impressions of service
quality. International Journal of
Educational Management, v. 11, n. 2, p. 72–79.
LOW, J.; KALAFUT, P. C. (2003) Vantagem Invisível. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
MAKKONEN, T.; INKINEN, T. (2014) Innovation quality in
knowledge cities: Empirical evidence of innovation award competitions in
Finland. Expert Systems with Applications, v. 21, n. 12, p. 5597–5604.
MAXIMIANO, A. C. (2010) Administração de projetos: como transformar
ideias em resultados. São
Paulo: Atlas.
NAGATA, H.; SATOH, Y.; KYTOMAKI, S. G. P. (2011) The
dimensions that construct the evaluation of service quality in academic
libraries. Performance Measurement and
Metrics, v. 5, n. 2, p. 53–65.
PALADINO, A. (2007) Investigating the drivers of innovation
and new product success: a comparison of strategic orientations. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
p. 534–553.
PARASURAMAN, A.; ZEITHAML, V. A.; BERRY, L. L. (1990)
SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service
quality. Retailing: Critical Concepts, v. 64, n. 1, p. 12–40.
RABECHINI JÚNIOR, R.; CARVALHO, M. M.;
LAURINDO, F. J. B. (2002) Fatores críticos para implementação de gerenciamento
por projetos: o caso de uma organização de pesquisa. Production, v. 12, n. 2, p. 28–41.
REIS, J. G.
(2015) Modelo de avaliação da qualidade
para redes de suprimentos. These (Doctor in Production Engineering). São Paulo: These - Universidade Paulista UNIP.
ROTHWEEL, R.; GARDINER, P. (1995) Invention, Innovation,
Re-innovation and the role of the user: A case study of british hovercraft
development. Technovattion, v. 3, n.
3, p. 167–186.
SANTOS, D. F. L. et al. (2014) Innovation efforts and
performances of Brazilian firms. Journal
of Business Research, v. 67, n. 4, p. 527–535.
SCHUMPETER, J. (1942) Capitalismo,
socialismo e democracia. Rio de Janeiro: Fundo de Cultura.
SILVA, B. et al. (2013)
Contribuições da inovação aberta para uma empresa de comunicação. Revista Gestão & Tecnologia, v. 12,
n. 2, p. 222–246.
SILVA NETO, A. T.; TEIXEIRA, R. M.
(2014) Inovação em Micro e Pequenas Empresas: Mensuração do Grau de Inovação em
Empresas Participantes do Projeto Agentes Locais de Inovação. Brazilian
Business Review, v. 11, n. 4, p.
1–29.
SLACK, N.; CHAMBERS, S.; JOHNSTON, R. (2015) Administração da Produção. São Paulo: Atlas. v. 4.
VASCONCELOS, M. (2015) Gestão da Inovação. São Paulo: FNQ.
VERGARA, S. C. (2000) Projetos e relatórios de pesquisa em
administração. São Paulo: Atlas.
VERMELEULEN, P. (2005) Uncovering Banners to Complex
Incremental Product Innovation in Small and Medium – Sized Financial Service
Firms. Journal of Small Business Management, v. 43, n. 4, p. 432–453.
YIN, R. K. (2015) Estudo de caso: planejamento e métodos.
Porto Alegre: Bookman.
YUSOFF, W. Z.; ALI, M. I. A. S. (2010) Understanding the
Services Provider Perspective to wards Better Service Quality in Local Authorities.
Journal of Facilities Management, v.
8, n. 3, p. 226–230.