productivity and knowledge
make the same impact in competitiveness as innovation does. Besides, external
and internal demands predict trends in terms of searching products and
processes and strategies and these three items achieve better interaction
between market and productivity control. In a global context, Brazil,
specially, has a lot of techniques to learn in terms of how to work with its
resources in an adequate way, whether they are natural or not. That is why
studies about critical factors for competitiveness are determined for the
Brazil's sustainable growth.
Keywords: competitiveness;
growth; innovation; knowledge; productivity.
1. INTRODUCTION
One
important issue Porter (2008) used to point out was the fact that the growth of
the investments in competition is essential for the consolidation and
improvement of all kinds of competition and for the growth of productivity
levels.
Additionally,
one of the biggest concerns of the corporation world is how to create an
accurate strategy and how to deal with factors as innovation, productivity and
competitiveness. Strategies are related to which methods companies will use to
achieve innovations, in other words, they are directed to the productivity
growth and to acquire the best performance of competitiveness. Therefore, these
factors are important to enhance the corporation profitability.
It
is essential to notice that one procedure used by companies to survive in the
market is in its inherent philosophy, in another word, it is related to how
corporations deal with the fact that they need to constantly change their
strategies due to the nonstop population change of thoughts.
The
20th century was characterized by several innovations. One of these innovations
was launched in the automotive market: Ford T, the car whose price was highly
competitive when it was compared to
others of its time. It was reported that almost 80% of North-Americans had
already had a car, in which most of them were Ford T consumers.
In
that time, Ford T was the main competitor of General Motors’ car. The
innovative solution found by GM to acquire competitiveness among its main
competitor was to develop car with different colors, which was totally
different from the way Ford had dealt with business, because Ford only
considered available black cars to its customers.
The
method created by GM had introduced a new market standard that it has been
using nowadays: the production focused on what consumers want, not forgetting
to improve quality in goods and the way to guarantee customers’ maintenance
(TEDLOW, 2012).
Analyzing
the previous situation, it can be inferred that the current circumstances of
Brazil is similar to what Ford used to live in the beginning of 20th century.
This situation can be easier to comprehend through an interview made by EXAME
magazine in April 2015. In this interview, Michael Porter said that in
countries like Brazil, the government is extremely bureaucratic with high
taxes. Although Brazil has a lot of resources and innovative people to make
this country better, Brazil can be left behind.
The
aim of this work is to search for practical evidences that show how companies
deal with innovation to provide services, what kind of productivity techniques
are used by them and if productivity and innovation really are identified as
critical factors of competitiveness.
While
theoretical survey was embraced to build the conceptual knowledge about
competitiveness and its critical factors (innovation and productivity), case
studies based on qualitative approach were used to analyze practical applications
and its structural evidences that could be able to improve competitive
strategies.
Keeping
in mind this way of research (theoretical + practical study), some companies of
providing service in the radio-communication market of São Paulo were chosen
for an interview. Employees of different areas of these companies were
submitted to questions and interviews about concepts of competitiveness,
productivity and innovation; however, all sectors are focused on customer
services.
In
order to achieve the goal of this research, it was essential to identify the
answers of the questions in the table 1.
TABLE 1: Important questions to understand how
professionals deal with competitiveness, productivity and innovation
|
Questions |
|
How do employees deal with innovation,
productivity and competitiveness in their daily routine? |
|
What level of understanding and
knowledge did employees have regarding the impacts of innovation,
productivity and competitiveness on their work? |
|
Why are critical factors of
competitiveness part of their market decisions and are they potential
value-adders for organizations' competitiveness? |
Based
on all academic research and interviews did, despite the fact that all
professionals have knowledge of competitiveness, innovation and productivity,
these concepts given by them were put toward in a very superficial way and they
were characterized according the professional's position. However, if all these
concepts were getting together, it can be made an unique definition of
competitiveness, productivity and innovation for the whole company.
Therefore,
it is essential for corporations to define internally concepts of innovation,
productivity and competitiveness in furtherance of guiding itself towards its
plans. Furthermore, if the basis of the company is not solid enough, it could
be more difficult to face stiff competition and easier to lose market-share for
emerging companies.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1.
Competitiveness
According
to authors of management literature, competitiveness concept is divergent from
each of them and it has still been discussing
nowadays. On the authority of Haguenauer (1983), competitiveness can be seen as
performance, which means that it is a combination of corporation factors, such
as price and quality. According to Haguenauer (1983), competitiveness could be
considered as efficiency, too. When efficiency is related to competitiveness,
competitiveness means the ability to produce goods with better quality than its
competitors’ products. In other words, corporations could be more competitive
in relation to its competitors when its competitive differentials and its
strategies are enough to maintain this company alive in the market.
According
to Degen (1989), competitiveness is the base of successful or failure of a
business in which there is free competition. This term refers to corporations
whose competitiveness rates grow and show up totally different from their
competitors, whether their profit potential or growth. Competitiveness is the
correct capability of business activities in its microenvironment.
Competitiveness
is the company is committed to create and implement competitive strategies
which allow themselves of perpetuation or enlargement of a sustainable position
in the market. (FERRAZ; KUPFER; HAGUENAUER, 1995, p.3; COUTINHO; FERRAZ, 1995,
p.18).
There
are three considerable competitiveness factors: the systemic, the structural
and internal ones.
Corporations
cannot control external forces. These forces are called systemic factors and
can be classified according to their complexity, which include economic, tax,
institutional and international issues. As long as they are not controlled,
these factors are the biggest worries of modern economy. One example of
external factors is the leadership of country, which can interfere in the
economy; moreover, can retract or to encourage the growth of corporations
through monetary, tax and economic politics and companies are not able to keep
in control.
Structural
factors were defined as "those which, even not being totally controlled by
companies, they have partial influence in companies and characterize the
competitive environment that companies ought to deal with". In these are
included rules corporations need to follow to satisfy their consumers, type of
their competitors and understanding of supply-demand relation.
All
corporations should have their proper management method; as a result, creating
handed-picked competitive strategies, innovative designs which fit in perfectly
with the companies' strategy goals and guarantee processes flexibility. These
facts consist on how impacting competitiveness internal factors really are
and what are companies’ position and
perception among their market-share.
The
competitiveness of corporations is ensured when they know how to work with
their internal and external operational area. There are needs companies should
implement in their philosophy to ensure their position in the market, which
involve the fact that: the company should know its competitors' market-share,
its customers and the market it works.
Internal
and external analyses are required to acquire a better structure and strategic
position for organizations. Additionally, according to Chiavenato (2014),
competition happens when others organizations try to do what a certain
organization does, but in a better way. Organizations gain competitive
advantages when it is demanding to copy it.
Chiavenato
(2014) points out that competitive advantages commonly are relevant to internal
issues. Furthermore, a company is peculiar to others not because of their
tangible assets (tactile possessions of a company), but because of their
intangible assets (goods that cannot be touched, for example, contracts,
licenses, brands, confidence of their providers). If companies rely on their providers
or their brand, they can be in a significant competitive advantage, reducing
possibilities of new competitors.
On
the authority of Miranda (1994), organizations ought to create goods and
services to satisfy consumers, whether internal or external. Recently, it is
impossible to imagine competitiveness without quality. Quality can be
understood as everything that could improve goods according to consumers' point
of view (DEMING, 1993). In Deming’s
point of view, quality is a great competitive differential advantage able to
please purchasers, who could include new qualities in goods and services.
Toyota's
corporation introduced Lean Manufacturing in 1950. This manufacturing system
takes into consideration production techniques in small lots, minimizing step
up, and more. It is well-known by a production system whose focus is quality.
As
stated by Womack and Jones (1998), Lean Manufacturing’s goal is to find better methods to manage supply
chains, keep in touch with customers and providers, and reduce movements (less
equipment, less human effort, time-reduction, for example). In addition to
Womack and Jones' concept, Shah and Ward (2003) defined Lean Manufacturing as a
combination of practices that any system with high-quality is able to produce
goods according to customer’s requirements, with no waste. However, Godinho
Filho (2004) explains that Lean Manufacturing is a Strategic Paradigm
Manufacturing Management, which defines a management system whose emphasis is
to achieve some performance goals determined by company's philosophy, as
quality and productivity.
On
the other hand, Lean Manufacturing is not a solution for all the problems in
which its application is related to company's strategies goals. It can be
noticed that how important it is through "Table 1: Lean Manufacturing -
The most important concept".
In
70s, Motorola has implemented a new method to ensure quality, well-known by Six
Sigma. Sigma letter (σ) is from Greece and means processes variability - a tool
that consists in using several statistic methods. "Table 2: Sigma
Levels" was created based on these statistics method; and it can be
noticed that Six Sigma points out the lowest number of defects per million.
Through this number of defects, companies can reduce their spending.
Table 1: Lean Manufacturing - The most important
concept
|
Determine
what is important for the consumers, avoiding wastes and identifying value. |
|
Working in flow. |
|
Just in Time. |
|
Hunting for perfection. |
|
Six Sigma Quality. |
|
Security, order and cleaning. |
|
Human
resources capacity and development. |
|
Visual
Management. |
|
Promote adjustment of all areas toward lean
thinking. |
Source: Adaption of Filho and Fernandes’ article
published on Revista de Gestão & Produção, 2004.
Table 2: Six Sigma
|
Sigma Levels |
Defects per million (PPM) |
Competitiveness
level |
|
6 |
3.4 |
|
|
5 |
233 |
|
|
4 |
6210 |
|
|
3 |
66807 |
|
|
2 |
308537 |
|
|
1 |
690.000 |
Source: The Six Sigma Handbook, by Thomas Pyzdek,
2003.
Furthermore,
some companies' requirement is to acquire more quality in their goods, services
and processes and it represents that they are supposed to present little parts
per million imperfection index (PPM). Six Sigma is a scientific method of
management system operation and processes; moreover, it trains employees to
present satisfactory results for consumers and superiors. Its operation
consists in:
1. Observe
all relevant factors of business and market;
2. Develop
a solution for a certain problem (or hypothesis) based on observations;
3. Based
on hypothesis, make predictions;
4. Based
on predictions, do experiments and observations. Try to register as much
information as possible. If the last hypothesis was not certain enough, modify
its hypothesis founded on new facts. If there is variation, it is important to
use statistic tools to segregate what is possible reason from what is not.
5. Repeat
steps 3 and 4 until the situation there is no divergences between hypothesis
and experiments/observations results.
Through
these manual steps, it is possible to see how theory explains the relations
that exist in the market and business. This theory is used for future
predictions to develop a deeper study of customers' goals of corporations.
In
Six Sigma, the fascinating result is showed by the reduction of politic
influences. Despite the fact that these politic factors have no stop, the
policy influences less in organizations where Six Sigma has application than
traditional corporations.
2.2.
Productivity
In
market whose consumers tend to appreciate goods and services with quality,
Cerqueira Neto (1991) explained that the biggest corporations advocate for
addition of programs with total quality, whose results achieve the customers'
requirement; moreover, these programs also roll back operation costs, minimize
wastes, decrease costs with external services, and optimize the use of existing
resources.
The
operation management tries to present modifications in its strategies, since
the Critical Customer Requirements (CCR) changes to a new quality standard.
Because of that, many companies need to be flexible to restructure their productive
system, giving more value to human
beings and their communication skills, readapting quality techniques and, all
these factors will turn goods and services more competitive. By this way, the
CCR assistance and restructure of processes reflect their results on
corporation's productivity.
According
to Longenecker, More and Petty (1997), productivity means the efficiency that
inputs are transformed in production.
Similarly
to Second Law of Thermodynamics, efficiency (η) consists in the relation
between "used energy" and "total energy", as it can be seen
in Equation 2.1.
η= Used Energy (2.1)
Total Energy
In comparision to the last concept of efficiency, in a market economy, it can be noticed that efficiency and productivity are similar and they are related to link inputs and outputs with monetary values. Due to this fact, the value of goods should overcome inputs costs of production to obtain better efficiency/productivity. The productivity, based on Second Law of Thermodynamics, is considered as a monetary relation between total revenue (received value related to quantity of sold goods or services) and total costs (sum of all production and product distribution expenses, expressed in equation 2.2.
Other
definition of productivity was given by Japan Productivity Center for Social -
Economics Development (2010) as minimization of the use of material resources,
workforce, machines, equipments in order to roll back production costs; spread
its market; increase the number of employers; advocate for the increasing wages
and for the improvement of better quality of life, common capital, work and
consumers interests.
As
mentioned before, productivity should not be measured by monetary methods;
nevertheless, has to be considered all human beings and their virtues in order
to achieve better quality of life.
2.3.
Innovation
Schumpeter
has done a research focus on the difference between invention and innovation.
As maintained by Schumpeter, an invention is an idea, sketch or a model for a
new or improved artifact, product, process or system, and an innovation happens
when there is some commercial transition which involves a lucrative invention.
In addition to Schumpeter's idea, Drucker thought that innovation consists in
transform preexisting thing into wealth-producing resources.
As
maintained by Drucker (1987), a systemic innovation consists in going to hunt
for organized and determined changes; and make a diagnosis of how changes
impact on economic and social innovation.
In
Drucker's point of view, it is essential to develop innovation according to an
order and analyzing all practicable conditions for it - for example, whether
this innovation have application or not.
Defined
as a process, innovation can be divided into different models: Radical
innovation (it is an introduction of new methods which develop quickly into new
business), incremental innovation (it happens when a new characteristic is
added, eliminated or substituted with no value changes, in another word, it is
an improvement of goods that occurs gradually), improvement innovation (this
happens when goods or services characteristics are unchanged; however there are
a lot of individual improvements in its elements), ad hoc innovation (which
results in new solutions for customers), innovation through formalization (it
is related to the standardization of product/service) and innovation through
recombination (when different services/products are associated).
Breakthrough
in products can be divided into two parts: a technologically new product and a
technologically improved product. According to Oslo Manual, a technologically
new product is a product whose characteristics differ from those previously
existing products, which is created through completely new breakthrough, use of
new knowledge or combination of existing technologies. A technologically
improved product is an existing product whose performance has been upgraded
through elements which can reduce production costs, for example.
As
stated by Oslo Manual, technological process innovation is to adopt
technologically new or improved production methods, since products order until
its deliver. It can involve methods as use of different equipment and use of
new knowledge.
One
field of the economy that has been valued is the service sector. This sector is
vital for the economy development and for the improvement of quality of life
(FITZSIMMONS; FITZSIMMONS, 2014). Furthermore, "product" of the
service is considered intangible and instable, due to the fact that it cannot
be stocked and its consumption is in the same time as its production.
As
maintained by Gallouj (1994), there are three manners to be innovative in
services: anticipatory (when there is new knowledge to be explored), ad hoc
(group of processes with a solution for specific problems) and formalized
(group of arrangements that help with conducts of service, as strategies.
According
to Gallouj (1994), breakthrough in services is based on the relationship
between company/supplier and consumers. Despite the fact that customers are
important for innovation in services, companies are responsible for accepting
others opinion and to manage processes in favor to promote innovation, adding
value to its products.
In an
interview for Marketing World, Luiz Serafim (2012), who is the head of
Corporative Marketing at Brazil's 3M, addressed that to leverage innovation in
a company, it is essential to define what innovation is. After that, create the
future company's overview and align to people's activities and researches.
Other important point is training heads in favor to get along well and
cooperate with each other's work. Moreover, he pointed out the importance of
relationship networking sites belonging to the corporation in which employees
can learn more with others company' fields. Another factor that contributes for
innovation leverage is to take a holistic approach of all system.
Holistic
and integrated approaches allow corporations to keep up to business news. When
a company develops an integrative structure, a
pleasant and engaging organizational culture is responsible for promoting union
between talents, organization, behavior and management. According to Chiavenato
(2014), motivating people to create a health environment contributes to develop
excellent company competitiveness. Moreover, considering people as essential
pieces of corporations, it can be noticed the importance of human capital
(which represents qualities of humans that can be whether maintained or
improved) in organizational competitiveness since they are the source of
knowledge.
2.4.
Brazil
related to the world
2.4.1. Brazil's
competitiveness
According
to "2016/2015 World Competitiveness" report, made by World Economic Forum, Brazil is in 75th of
140 countries in competitiveness ranking.
The
report revealed that Brazil's position was below smaller countries as Uruguay,
Vietnam and Hungary, and its main competitors, like India, Mexico, Russia and
South Africa.
The
World Economic Forum had collect data that showed Brazil's downward trend,
whose data was joined in "Figure 1: Brazil's position on the WEF's research
(2006 - 2015)". The reasons why Brazil has
been characterized by low competitiveness is explained by corruption scandals
that have determined mistrustfulness in its institutions, the lack of
investments in innovation and weak basic infrastructures as education, which
are fundamental factors for the competitiveness growth.
Figure 1: Brazil's position on WEF's research
(2006-2015)
Source: Adaptation of Fundação Dom Cabral’s report of
Brazil’s competitiveness performance, 2015.
Carlos Arruda (2015), coordinator
of Dom Cabral Foundation's Innovation Center, claimed that Brazil has been
losing many positions on competitiveness ranking due to Brazil’s low
improvement in regulatory issues and infrastructure.
On
the other hand, this negative evaluation was not exclusive for Brazil. The
world economy has been noticing a period with low growth rate, increase of
unemployment rate and low productivity. This situation can be modified if
countries readopt accelerated growth programs, focused on social inclusion and
increase of productivity rates.
The research was done involving 12 categories with 108 variables. It showed that the competitiveness leader is Switzerland, followed by Singapore and United States. Switzerland is well-known by its stable unemployment rate, investments in innovation and its excellent education (Table 3: The top ten of World Economic Forum report).
Table 3: The top ten of the most competitive of the
world, according to World Economic Forum report.
Source: World Economic Forum, 2015.
It
was identified that Brazil ended up decreasing in 9 of 12 evaluated categories.
The indexes which showed the worst performances were 3 of basic competitiveness
factors (health and primary education, economic environment and institutions)
and it was noticed improvement in infrastructure, market-share and technology
readiness. According to "Table 4: Brazil's development according to 12
competitiveness pillars", Brazil's health and primary education have been
disappointing all Brazilians.
Table 4: Brazil's development according to 12
competitiveness pillars
|
Basic
Requirements |
103º |
Efficiency enhance |
55º |
|
Institutions |
121º |
Superior Education and training |
93º |
|
Infrastruture |
74º |
Efficiency in goods market |
128º |
|
Economic Environment |
117º |
Efficiency in job market |
122º |
|
Health and Primary Education |
103º |
Development in finance market |
58º |
|
|
Technological Readiness |
54º |
|
|
Innovation and refinement factors |
64º |
Market-share |
7º |
|
Refinements in business |
56º |
|
|
|
Innovation |
84º |
||
Source: World Economic Forum, 2015.
Due
to the fact that this research was done in 2014, economists consider that there
still are factors which must disfavor Brazil's population, as the increase of
deficit of public sector, the rising in inflation and the raise of unemployment
rates.
2.4.2. Brazil's
productivity
In
80s, Brazil had become aware of the increase of productivity rates, whose
reason was structural changes in economy. This fact happened because rural
population moved to cities, going to hunt jobs in industries.
Recently,
data of Conference Board revealed that Brazilian corporations show the lowest
average of productivity when it is compared with Latin countries. While
Brazil's productivity rates was almost US$ 11 per hours worked in 2013, Chile's
was almost US$ 21, Argentina's was US$ 13,9. According to “Chapter 2.2 –
Productivity”, productivity should not be measured by labor gain per hour
worked. It involves factors like efficiency with which work is operated and if
it satisfy customer's order.
Despite
the fact that Brazil has advanced two years in school average of formal
workers, it does not raise productivity indexes. Moreover, it can be noticed huge
difference between education and job market. Another reason for Brazil's low
productivity is lack of technology. “A worker with a powerful computer can be
more productive than other with a bad computer or without it", explains
Marcelo Moura, Insper’s professor.
In
countries with no efficient technology, the government can import or produce it
in its territory; however, Brazil' situation is completely different. As stated
by Moura, technology imports is great concern for Brazil since Brazil has a lot
of protectionist measures protecting national industry.
Brazil's
productivity has as challenges its bureaucracy and infrastructure. The
abundance of bureaucracy favors job informality, which could be harmful for its
GNP (Gross National Product) and productivity rates. In a current situation,
Brazil's population has been dealing with a tough situation, characterized by
the lowest GNP of its history. The "Figure 2: Brazil's economy growth
since 1967 until 2015 (year-by-year GNP, in %) shows its GNP according to these
years.
Figure 2: Brazil's economy growth since 1967 until 2015
(year-by-year GNP, in %).
Source: UOL and IBGE, 2016.
2.4.3. Brazil's
breakthrough
Business
Mobilization for Innovation (Mobilização Empresarial pela Inovação - MEI)
(2015) pointed out that Brazil has been dealing with lack of its development.
Brazil will take about 34 years to reach China and European Union's level of
investments, for example.
According
to BBC News, Brazil has few records at American office of patents when it is
compared with others Eastern countries. While Japan has submitted about 54
thousands patents, the number of patents submitted by Brazil is about 330, as
can be seen in "Table 3: Number of patents granted in a year per
country".
Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) revealed that Brazil invests
1,2% of its GNP in research and development (R&D), while China and European
countries invest 2%, as can be seen in "Figure 4: Investment in research
in comparison to GNP (2012) in percentage". In "Figure 3: Brazil's
investment in R$ billion" reveals that its government invested less than
55 billion in innovation.
Table 5: Number of patents granted in a year per
country
|
Year |
||||||||
|
Countries
|
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
|
Japan |
33354 |
33682 |
35501 |
44813 |
46139 |
50677 |
51919 |
53849 |
|
South
Korea |
6295 |
7548 |
8762 |
11671 |
12262 |
13233 |
14548 |
16469 |
|
Canada
|
3318 |
3393 |
3655 |
4852 |
5014 |
5775 |
6547 |
7043 |
|
Switzerland |
1035 |
1112 |
1208 |
1608 |
1663 |
1831 |
2270 |
2398 |
|
India |
546 |
634 |
679 |
1098 |
1234 |
1691 |
2424 |
2987 |
|
Italy |
1302 |
1357 |
1346 |
1798 |
1885 |
2120 |
2499 |
2628 |
|
Cingapure |
393 |
399 |
436 |
603 |
647 |
810 |
797 |
946 |
|
Brazil |
90 |
101 |
103 |
175 |
215 |
196 |
254 |
334 |
|
Mexico |
56 |
54 |
60 |
101 |
90 |
122 |
155 |
172 |
|
Argentina |
37 |
32 |
45 |
45 |
49 |
63 |
75 |
71 |
|
Spain |
268 |
303 |
317 |
414 |
469 |
642 |
711 |
789 |
Source: Adaptation of U.S.PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
PTMT, 2015.
Figure 3: Brazil's investment in R$ billion.
Source: Technology and Science Department and OECD
International
evaluation revealed that growth rhythm of countries depends on private sector,
since most investments for research are from companies. One alternative showed
by industries to improve investments in innovation is to facilitate patent
registration procedures and more accessibility in credit programs.
Figure 4: Investment in research in comparison to GNP (2012) in percentage
Source: Technology and Science Department and OECD
3. METHODOLOGY
This
article shows an applied nature research structured among two propositions: the
first basis is centered in a bibliographic and exploratory research about
critical factors of competitiveness, in this case, innovation and productivity.
And the second premise works with a qualitative approach made through
interview, analyzing a radio-communication service provider called TechnoRadio
Corporation.
As maintained by Yin (2001), study
cases are empirical researches that consider a present-day phenomenon in a
real-life situation. This investigation is mainly required when limits between
phenomenon and context are not so clear to see and it is centered in develop
theoretical proposals to collect and analyze data.
The
case study was taken into consideration in this article as an exploratory part
of it and it was important to describe the activities of several essential
sectors related to consumer services which have a lot of potential to be
submitted to innovation.
The
focus of this research is searching for evidences that prove the influence of
innovations and productivity on the competitiveness of provided services.
Despite the fact that radio-communications companies of São Paulo city are in a
market that needs to be highly innovative, this market has not been so
innovative.
All
questions and interviews made were focused on the investigation of the current
state of competitiveness in these corporations interviewed. The quiz contained
questions about why and what critical factors are valued by them and how these
factors are widespread in the company.
4. CASE STUDY, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Companies
are focused on achieving all, or most of their, strategy goals. To do it, they
call for employers who follow their aim. On the other hand, it is difficult to
maintain a group which does not have in mind an unique definition for
competitiveness, productivity and innovation. It is extremely important for all
kind of businesses to understand the terms which sustain the business identity.
After
collecting data and analyzing them, it can be noticed that these professionals
have a really restrict concept of competitiveness, innovation and productivity,
which are focused on their line of business.
The
Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9 were created after the definitions of
competitiveness; productivity and innovation were given by interviewing
professionals of the following areas:
· Pre-sales:
which involves sales supporting areas, including areas charged with guarantee,
contract signature, finances and IT
· Sales: sales areas that work with deals and
contract closure, determining prices and deadlines.
· Post-sales: areas that give support to
consumers right after contract signature.
Table 6 points out levels of research
agreement and it was used to classify the definitions.
Table 6: Levels of how close information given by professionals is to the academic research
|
Consistent with the research |
|
Relevant to the provider sector |
|
Not compatible with the research |
|
Additional point to
improve the research |
Table 7: Definitions of competitiveness
|
a) Competitiveness is necessary and it
gives as results improvement and techniques development; |
|
b) A flexible company (which
takes into consideration opinions and concepts came from market) with an ethic attitude reveals competitive
profile; |
|
c) Competitive factor is according to
the way company deal with quality, price and support; |
|
d) It is required for
competitiveness to have enough distribution channels in order to reach target
audience; |
|
e) Experience and market
interpretation are determined to guarantee great competitiveness; |
|
f) It is essential to guarantee
service maintenance to ensure better quality; |
|
g) Conversation between teams is
important in order to avoid concerns with integration. |
Table 8: Definitions of productivity
|
a) Productivity is a metric used to
measure amount of time spent in each process and how long each process will
take to give its return; |
|
b) In services, productivity is measured by customers
contentment and maintenance of existing contracts; |
|
c) If customers call support area in low frequency, more productivity is its service, because the
service has been done efficiently; |
|
d) Productivity associated with number of sales and
contracts; |
|
e) Two people of sales area are not following the
same goals, while one of them thinks it is require to sell more, other
convince its customers that company's products have a lot of differentials. |
|
f) It is necessary to improve process in order to
enhance productivity; |
Table 9: Definitions of Innovation
|
a) Innovation consists in adding factors and it
could happen in any sector; |
|
b) Innovation can be a potential risk, because of
it, it tend to be questioned; |
|
c) Innovation is limited by human thinking; |
|
d) It started with market needs and consumers
demand; |
|
e) It is hard to think application for innovation in
services; |
|
f) Innovations have been happening incrementally in the companies
(gradually); |
Through
information given by employees, the Graph 1 was created to transform
qualitative data into quantitative orientation.
After
analyzing all pieces of qualifications, it could infer that these professionals
have in mind one-dimensional concept of competitiveness, innovation and
productivity.
Graph 1: Quantitative information obtained through interviews
Despite
the fact that the group interviewed was very heterogeneous and it is difficult
to find someone that does not appropriate these concepts, it is important for
business to comprehend all competitive strategies which sustain its identity.
5. CONCLUSION
Based
on a theoretical conceptualization and practical data collected qualitatively,
it can be concluded that concepts of competitiveness, innovation and
productivity are known by all professionals interviewed. However, these terms
were exposed in a very superficial way.
The
analysis of qualitative data and its comparison to the theoretical research
reveal that while 20% of results are compatible with the academic research, 45%
is related to relevant information for the company's business. Besides that, it
was concluded that 25% of data is not compatible with theoretical research and
10% is information that improved this survey.
On
the other hand, when it is considered all answers of competitiveness, it was
revealed that around 57% of them are specific for the service sector in which
the interviewed company of radio-communication performs. It indicates the
company's flexibility and experience in dealing with the market needs.
Moreover, the studied company takes into consideration consumer's feedback to
improve its maintenance service and time that takes to get in contact with customers.
Feedback is used by them to know more about its competitiveness. Back to the
answers, 33% and 50% are related to how employees see productivity and
innovation, respectively.
Analyzing
other collected information, while 14.3% of results of competitiveness are
compatible to theoretical research, 33% of all information given was compatible
to it. However, none of information about innovation showed compatibility
between theoretical and practical parts and it is additional information to our
research.
It
can also be inferred that 26.3% of the results showed that there are factors
that improved this research, in which 28.6% in competitiveness, 16.7% in
productivity and 33% in innovation theoretical study. The information obtained
through interviews showed the fact that TechnoRadio Corporation’s concern is to
enhance quality, price and support to compete better in the market. Furthermore,
productivity must be faced as a group of time involved in all processes.
Thus,
when all ideas and reflections obtained through the results of practical
interviews were considered as part of corporation's philosophy, terms of
competitiveness, innovation and productivity will be treated so naturally by
professionals that could help them to understand and improve operational and
business results. Besides, it is crucial that companies define innovation,
competitiveness and productivity according to its way of thinking, in order to
prepare their employees to achieve the corporation's aims (SERAFIM, 2012).
The
company interviewed reveals the importance for them to have a place where
professionals can be trained according to its needs, especially in the sector
of radio-communication, in which is tough to have professionals trained. When
the theme is innovation, employees claimed that, in Brazil, consumers require
for products with low prices than products with differentials or technological
benefits.
Due
to this fact, companies are not so committed to adapt their products to the
national market and have been abandoning the desire for innovation. That's the
reason why, when the assumption is national scenario, it was revealed that
Brazil's bureaucratic procedures fight against innovative process, not
attending internal needs and disfavoring its competitive condition. This
country does not have as a culture to encourage patents registration nor offer
reliability to invest in new business, because Brazil is infamous for its high
taxes, policy with no credibility and precarious education system.
The
educational system does not offer appropriate professionals that the
radio-communication job market requires, which can be considering a huge
difference between academic and professional system. The company interviewed
revealed that it has a training place focused on qualifying technical workers
according companies' needs.
Back
to the corporations interviewed, another thing that this research pointed out
is the fact that the corporative environment is highly competitive, in which
some professionals fight against innovations. Furthermore, it could be noticed
that the cooperation between some areas is not so common to see, which could be
so harmful for its employees because it is not so worthy to work in a place
with a lot of disintegrated areas.
In
national scenario, it is clear Brazil have to do bureaucratic and structural
adjustments. Making these factors better contributes to direct Brazil's
educational and technological development in favor to improve the country.
Nevertheless, Brazil's political scandals, its lack of investment in education
and heath have discouraged businesspeople to invest in Brazil, which economy
has been dealing with several political uncertainties.
In
this tough time for Brazil, characterized by a political and economic crisis,
with a fewer trained professionals in the market and low investment in the
country's needs, corporations must have contributors who should be trained to
encourage their team, to be focused and to be productive leaders in order to
achieve the competitive differential existed in human potential. According to
Chiavenato (1999), if an organization really wants to achieve its goals, it
should know its employees' individual interests. Maintaining this relationship,
both of them win. Nowadays, it is important for professionals to work for a
company with identity (company's ideals is similar to their way of thinking),
motivation and learning development.
REFERENCES
AGOSTINI, R. (2016) Ritmo de
inovação do Brasil está a 3 décadas do chinês– Folha de São Paulo. Available
in:
<http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/2015/08/1663445-ritmo-de-inovacao-do-brasil-esta-a-3-decadas-do-chines.shtml>.
Access in: Feb. 15.
BERNARDES, R.; BESSA, V.; KALUP, A. (2005) A economia da inovação no setor de serviços: desvendando o cenário
brasileiro. São Paulo, PUC.
BISPO, C. S. et al. (2015) Empreendedorismo
e Inovação. Available in: < http://www.ibes.edu.br/aluno/arquivos/artigo_empreendorismo_inovacao.pdf>.
Access in: May 5, 2015.
BRASIL,
L. (2016) O que é Lean- Lean
Institute Brasil. Available in:
<http://www.lean.org.br/o-que-e-lean.aspx>. Access: Apr. 20.
CERQUEIRA, A. ;NETO, B. P. (1991) Gestão
da qualidade princípios e métodos. São Paulo: Livraria Pioneira Editora.
CHIAVENATO, I. (2005) Administração
de Recursos Humanos. São Paulo: Atlas.
CHIAVENATO, I. (2014) Comportamento
Organizacional: A dinâmica do sucesso das organizações. São Paulo: Editora
Manole.
CHIAVENATO, I. (1999) Gestão de
Pessoas; o novo papel dos recursos humanos nas organizações. Rio de
Janeiro: Campus.
COSTAS, R. (2016) Entenda por que
a produtividade no Brasil não cresce - BBC Brasil. Available in:
<http://www.bbc.com/portuguese/noticias/2014/05/140519_produtividade_porque_r>.
Access in: Feb, 12..
COUTINHO, L.; FERRAZ, J. C. (1995) Estudo
da competitividade da indústria brasileira. 3.ed. Campinas: Papirus:
Editora da Unicamp.
DEGEN, P. J.; MELLO, A. A. A. (1989) O empreendedor: fundamentos
da iniciativa empresarial. São Paulo: McGraw-Hill.
DEMING, W. E. (1990) Qualidade:
a revolução na administração. Rio de Janeiro, Marques-Saraiva.
DRUKER, P. F. (1987) Inovação e
espírito empreendedor. Editora Pioneira.
FERRAZ, J. C.; KUPFER, D.; HAGUENAUER, L. (1995) Made in Brazil: Desafios competitivos para indústria. Rio de
Janeiro: Campus.
FILHO, M. G.; FERNANDES, F. C. F. (2004) Manufatura enxuta: Uma revisão
que classifica e analisa os trabalhos apontando perspectivas de pesquisas
futuras. G&P: Gestão & Produção,
v. 11 n. 1, p. 1-19.
FITZSIMMONS, J. A.; FITZSIMMONS, M. J. (2014) Administração de serviços: Operações,
estratégia e tecnologia da informação. 541 p. AMGH Editora. Translation made by
Scientific Linguagem Ltda.
FUNDAÇÃO DOM CABRAL. (2016) Brasil cai 18 posições no ranking de competitividade do Fórum Econômico
Mundial. Available in <http://www.fdc.org.br/blogespacodialogo/Lists/Postagens/Post.aspx?ID=458>.
Access in: Mar. 02.
GALLOUJ, F. (1994) Innovation dans les services.
Paris: L’Harmattan.
GODINHO FILHO, M. (2004) Paradigmas
estratégicos de gestão da manufatura – configuração, relações com o
planejamento e controle da produção e estudo exploratório na indústria de
calçados. Thesis (Graduate Degree) – Universidade Federal de São Carlos,
São Carlos.
GODINHO FILHO, M.; FERNANDES, F. C. F. (2003) Um sistema para
classificar e codificar os trabalhos relacionados com o Controle da Produção e
o Controle da Qualidade. Revista Gestão
& Produção, v. 10, n. 1.
HAGUENAUER, L. (1989) Competitividade:
conceitos e medidas: uma resenha da bibliografia recente, com ênfase no caso
brasileiro. Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ/IEI, 1989 (textos para discussão n. 211).
HENDERSON, B. D. As origens da
estratégia I.
JUNIOR, P. C, R.; GUIMARÃES, T. A. (2012) Inovação em Serviços: o estado
da arte e uma proposta de agenda de pesquisa. RBGN - Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, v. 14, n. 44, p.
293-313.
LONGENECKER, J.; MOORE, C.; PETTY, J. W. (1997) Administração de pequenas empresas. São Paulo: Makron Books.
MANO, C. (2016) "O Brasil pode ficar para trás",
afirma Michael Porter. Available in:
<http://veja.abril.com.br/economia/o-brasil-pode-ficar-para-tras-acorporationa-michael-porter/>.
Access in: Feb. 27.
MACHADO-DA-SILVA, C. L.; FONSECA, V. S. (1996) Competitividade
Organizacional: uma Tentativa de Reconstrução Analítica. Curitiba: Organizações & Sociedade, v. 4, n.
7, p. 97-114.
MARINO, L. (2006) Gestão
da qualidade e gestão do conhecimento: fatores-chave para produtividade e
competitividade empresarial. Bauru, UNESP: XIII SIMPEP.
MARIOTTO, F. (1991) O conceito de competitividade da
empresa: uma análise crítica. Revista de
Administração de Empresas, v. 31, n. 2, p. 37-52,.
MIRANDA, R. L. (1994) Qualidade total: rompendo as barreiras
entre a teoria e a prática. 2 ed. São Paulo: Makron Books.
ORGANIZAÇÃO PARA COOPERAÇÃO ECONÔMICA E DESENVOLVIMENTO. Manual de Oslo.
In: Propostas de Diretrizes para Coleta e Interpretação de Dados sobre
Inovação Tecnológica. 135 p. Ed. FINEP. 1 ed. Translation made
by Paulo Garchet.
PYZDEK, T. (2003) The Six Sigma Handbook: A Complete Guide for Green
Belts, Black Belts, and Managers at All Levels. United States Of America:
Mcgraw-hill. 850 p.
PORTER, M. E. (1998) Competição:
Estratégias Competitivas Essenciais. Translation. São Paulo: Elservier Editora
ltda.
PORTER,
M. E. (1990) The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Business Review,
Boston, v.68, p.73-95.
SÁ, S. (2016) Como alavancar a inovação. Available in:
<http://exame.abril.com.br/marketing/como-alavancar-a-inovacao>. Access in: Mar. 17.
SANTOS, A.; FAZION, C.; MEROE, G. (2011) Inovação: um estudo sobre a
evolução do conceito de Schumpeter. Caderno de Administração. Revista da Faculdade de Administração da FEA.
ISSN 1414-7394, v. 5, n. 1.
SANTOS, M. (2015) Contribuição à
Compreensão do Conceito de Competitividade nas Organizações. Available
in: <
http://sistema.semead.com.br/9semead/resultado_semead/trabalhosPDF/11.pdf>. Access in: Mar. 20.
SCHUMPETER,J. A. (1988) A teoria
do desenvolvimento econômico. São Paulo: Nova Cultural.
SHAH,
R.; WARD, P. T. (2003) Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and
performance. Journal of Operations
Management, v. 335, p. 1-21.
SHIMIZU, M.; WAINAI K.; AVEDILLO-CRUZ, E. (1997) Value added productivity
measurement and its practical applications with linkage between productivity
and profitability. Tokyo:
Japan Productivity Center for Socio-Economic Development,. 223 p.
SILVA, C. (2001) Competitividade e estratégia empresarial: um estudo de
caso da indústria automobilística brasileira na década de 1990. FAE, v. 4, n. 1, p. 35-48.
SPORTONO, K. (2016) Brasil cai em
ranking de competitividade, sendo o 75º colocado. Available in:
< http://exame.abril.com.br/economia/brasil-cai-em-ranking-de-competitividade-sendo-75o-colocado/>.
Access in: Mar. 5.
TEDLOW, R. (2012) Miopia Corporativa: Como A Negação De Fatos Evidentes Impede A Tomada
das Melhores Decisões e o que Fazer a Respeito. Translation. São Paulo: HSM
Management, 2012.
UOL. (2015) Economia
brasileira encolhe 3,8% em 2015, pior resultado em 25 anos. Available
in: <http://economia.uol.com.br/noticias/redacao/2016/03/03/pib-2015.htm>.
Access
in: Mar. 3, 2016.
WOMACK, J. P.; JONES, D. T.; ROOS, D. (1992) A máquina que mudou o mundo. 14.
ed. Rio de Janeiro: Campus.
WOMACK, J. P.;
JONES, D. T. (1996) From lean production to the lean enterprise. IEEE Engineering Management Review, p.
38-46.
WOMACK, J. P.;
JONES, D. T. (1998) A mentalidade enxuta
nas empresas. 5. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Campus.
WORLD ECONOMIC
FORUM (2015) Competitiveness Rankings. Available in: < http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2015-2016/competitiveness-rankings/>.
Access
in: Feb. 20, 2015.
YIN, R. K. (2001) Estudo
de caso: planejamento e métodos. (2Ed.). Porto Alegre: Bookman.