or lack of access to technology and
financial difficulties. Compared to general adoption of innovation by micro and
small enterprises studied by SEBRAE (2009), the studied firms have a tendency
to develop in the same direction.
Keywords: Innovation; small and micro enterprises, furniture
sector.
1.
INTRODUCTION
Faced
with the steadily increasing market demand for greater productivity, innovation
value, competitive differentiation and better quality standards in production
of goods and services, the scope of the parameters gets globalized so as the
competitiveness in micro and small businesses, forcing them to increase in
its structure for competitive strategies, adoption of innovation in
products, processes and administrative systems, which encourage the development
of its innovative power to obtain competitive success beyond the market
differences by developing new products, processes and services.
Thus,
there is a need in the evolutionary development of new skills and in internal
organizations to generate competitive advantages, which include both the
actions of generating innovation, quality in its products, and production
flexibility especially in the case of micro and small businesses, where the
advancement of these capabilities is through the development of new
technologies to develop products, processes and administrative processes.
Relationated
to the micro and small enterprises in Brazilian´s furniture scene, the IBGE
(Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics), shows that it is composed of
approximately 13,500 micro, small and medium enterprises, which employs about
185,000 people. The IEMI (Institute of Industrial Studies and Marketing) (2009)
estimates, however, that between formal and informal enterprises in the
country, there are currently more than 50,000 units producing furniture.
The
IEMI (2009) argues that furniture industries in Brazil have been seeking to
improve their actual production capacity which has developed considerably and
the quality of its products due to increased exports. The furniture industry is
currently investing in the adaptation of design and technology upgrade through
the adoption of innovation processes in developing their products, but also in
their productive and administrative processes, seeking to meet the consumers in
European countries, as well as the United States and the United Kingdom.
However,
Silverio and Pegoraro (2010) argue that generally in the industries, there are
only few companies that have formalized the process of innovation. This
occurrence is partly because of their processes have diverse and complex
characteristics that hinder their development, such as the dependence on a wide
range of sources, ideas, innovative, knowledge and information which are
acquired through interaction among the various organizational levels of the
company, as well as the interaction for inter organizational information
exchange, in the case of a horizontal network cooperation.
Thus,
this research aimed to identify participants in the Center of the SMEs from
ACIC from Concordia which belongs the furniture makers of Santa Catarina State,
South-Brazil The determining factors in the adoption of innovation in products,
processes and administrative processes was compared with data obtained by
SEBRAE (2009) which was compared with the SMEs questionnaire results in order
to override the national stage for adoption of innovation in SMEs to the scene
of the companies studied by this research.
2. METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES
Through
a literature research, it was identified the constituent factors pertinent to
the three groups of innovations cited by Andreassi (2007), Ferreira et al.
(2008); Sonaglio Marion and Son (2010), particularly from micro and small
enterprises. Besides this, we identified these same factors in a survey
conducted by SEBRAE (2009), which describes the scenario of SMEs innovative
sprayed throughout Brazil scenario.
On
this basis, an empirical research was conducted through a structured
questionnaire composed of multiple choice closed questions, consistent with the
factors of the innovations groups mentioned. This questionnaire was divided
into three blocks: Innovative initiatives, innovation and factors, constraints
to adoption of the constituent factors of the three innovations groups
mentioned.
The
population of this empirical research is the core of the ACIC Furniture makers
of Concordia, which is incorporated into AMOESC - Furniture Association of the
West of Santa Catarina, carrying out the joint and coordinated trade union,
employers, strategic and operating in the furniture industries from West of
Santa Catarina State. This center currently has 12 companies, which are
distributed in the cities of Peritiba, Concordia, Arabutã and Seara, all
located in the middle west of Santa Catarina and engaged in the custom
furniture industry.
Thus,
the data collection took place during a monthly meeting held by the group of
companies and safeguarded by ACIC, which brought together managers from 12
companies participating of the core, and these were the respondents.
After
the data collected in the SMEs of the ACIC (Furniture Center of Concordia) the
answers were compared to data obtained from the study realized from SEBRAE
(2009), in relation to the adoption of the constituent factors of the three
groups of innovations cited by Andreassi (2007), Ferreira et al (2008);
Sonaglio Marion and Son (2010) cited in the blocks and framed.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1.
Innovative initiatives
Initially
we identified which of the three groups of innovations cited by Andreassi
(2007), Ferreira et al. (2008); Sonaglio Marion and Son (2010) from the core
sector of furniture companies studied have more activity, the data is shown in
(Graphic 1).
|
Graphic 1 – In
which innovation group the company has more innovative initiatives? Source: Research data (2011) |
It
was found that the highest concentration of innovative activities are focused
on the product (54%). This finding is based on the need for these companies to
maintain a constant process of evolutionary development and differential
offered in their products. Thus adding more exclusive, differential structural
and aesthetic. These differentials are generating aspects of the driving force
direct confrontation with the major manufacturers of custom furniture, which
are considered direct competition to the Center of the furniture.
Wi thing
the production processes (42%), the actions directed seek for innovative
alternatives that add value to products, reflecting an increase in its final
quality. From this, innovation in production processes becomes an enabler for
reducing costs through increased productivity.
With
regard to innovation in administrative (4%), there is a constant monitoring of
the managers of core businesses in relation to new proposals and administrative
arrangements applicable to mold the business. With this goal, the development
of innovation in the other two innovative groups is satisfactorily sustained.
Given
this scope, and based on the fact that innovation often part of the generation,
discussion and development of ideas, which we identified as the main potential
sources of innovative ideas among the three groups discussed innovations, and
these data is shown in (Graphic 2).
|
Graphic 2 –
Potential fonts for innovative ideas Source: Research data (2011) |
It
was verified that the largest potential source of innovative ideas for products
come from professionals in architecture and product development (72%). Since
the manufactured products by the Center projects are unique, the process for
the development of customized products follows the specific needs and desires
of customers, not making use of models and therefore pre-structured process of
product development.
The
potential sources of innovative subsequent ideas, both representing 58% of
quotes. These are generated from the monthly meetings of the Furniture Center,
through the exchange of experiences and technical information between
corporative managers, in order to generate solutions and differentiated
products offered by them.
Relationed
to the corporative managers as sources of potential generation of innovative
ideas, the finding is translated by the most of the activities of which are
centered on the manager in charge of micro and small enterprises. Thus, the
manager also becomes a key part in generating ideas for potential products.
Tangent
to the potential generation of innovative ideas for processes, the results show
that fundamentally depart from the managers of these companies (86%). These
findings are based on the experience and knowledge that these managers have
faced to production processes. Besides this, it was contacted that employees
are one of the most significant potential sources of generation of innovative
ideas for production processes (58%).
The
potential for generating innovative ideas in administrative proceedings, are
controverting of update actions and / or incremental innovations, which features
a parallel monitoring of the evolution of administrative existing models and
are constantly evolving as mentioned by Marion and Son Sonaglio (2010). Thus,
the main potential source of innovative ideas for administrative processes
comes from the managers of companies (86%), which is primarily responsible for
the administrative sector.
As
important as the potential generation of innovative ideas for the three groups
of innovations cited by Andreassi (2007), Ferreira et al. (2008); Sonaglio
Marion and Son (2010), is the understanding of why innovate, that is, the
objectives for which the core sector companies studied furniture seeking to
achieve through the adoption of innovation compared to the goals pursued by the
SMEs surveyed by SEBRAE (2009). This discussion is presented in Section 4.2 of
this research.
3.2.
Comparative study of the factors of innovation
According
to the collected data from Brazilian SMEs surveyed by SEBRAE (2009), the
importance attributed to an adoption of innovation is mostly linked to the
objective of growth ahead of competition (82%) With the objective of
structuring and consolidation of an innovative business in the three groups of
innovations (products, processes and administrative processes).
Compared
to data collected by SEBRAE (2009), it was asked to the managers of the
companies which forming the core of the ACIC furniture makers about the
importance of these same factors in the adoption of innovation in their
companies, obtaining the results shown by the (Graphic 3).
|
Graphic 3 –
Why innovate is important? Source: The authors |
Through
the data shown in (Graphic 3), it’s possible to compare and see clearly that
the core companies studied have a trend line, containing a difference of 4
(four) percentage points to data SEBRAE (2009), in relation to the insertion in
factor markets unexplored (53%) through the adoption of innovation in one or
more of the three groups ranked by Andreassi (2007), Ferreira et al. (2008);
Sonaglio Marion and Son (2010). However, it was diagnosed a misalignment
between the two groups of companies surveyed in factor linked to growth faster
than the competition.
This
condition, often in response of 41% for companies in the Furniture Center of
the ACIC and 82% for firms studied by SEBRAE (2009), taking place on the
grounds that the core companies studied operate in a network of horizontal
cooperation. Taking this as their fundamental purpose of performance
inter-companies cooperation. That means that the companies in the Furniture
Center of ACIC are looking through cooperative action to expand their
operations in new and larger markets, such as internationally.
The
fact cooperate dampens rivalry generated by this competition, converting it
into inter firm trust and reciprocity, thereby promoting the evolutionary
development of competitive firms in a joint core, thus giving the basis for
them to achieve their common goal of expanding market.
The
second most often factor (41%), is the external competition in the businesses
core, by the companies which are not pertinent from the core businesses groups.
But these are considered by their managers when questioned as direct
competition, thus supporting the second highest frequency of responses in
growth factor faster than the competition.
Among
this, are the two factors with greater frequency responses (Graphic 3) which
become cornerstones for the survival of this group of companies in its segment,
with the adoption of innovation as the key factor of competitive
differentiation, hence of its development evolution.
Within
this context, Pereira et al. (2009) makes the determination of SMEs to
innovate, they are simultaneously improving its positioning in terms of
competitive advantage over the competition, fostering and perpetuating the
longevity of the business. Still, the adoption of innovation is seen by the
author as a measure of success, since it is the skill that the company has to
survive in the market. Thus, the company acquires the ability to be
self-perpetuating, which is directly linked to the ability of these companies
continues the search for innovations with the goal of meeting the new and
exacting demands.
In
the same proportion as the importance of setting objectives to innovate, is the
process of adoption and / or operationalization of these ideas. However, for
this it was found a series of restrictions. Because of that, the group of
companies asked, answered that the major constraints encountered at the time of
adoption of innovations in at least one of the three groups mentioned, and the
data collected was compared to those collected in the SMEs surveyed by SEBRAE
(2009). These data and their comparisons are discussed in section 4.3 of this
research.
3.3.
Comparative study of restrictions on adoption of innovation
Initially,
the research made from SEBRAE (2009) sought to identify which of the three
groups of innovations cited by Andreassi (2007), Ferreira et al. (2008);
Sonaglio Marion and Son (2010) is considered critical in the adoption of the
Brazilian innovation in SMEs, and the group of organizational innovations
and/or administrative proceedings was diagnosed as the most critical.
According
to research, this finding is directly related to the centralization of the
administration that exists in Brazilian SMEs about the managers which, in most
cases, is also the owner of the company. This feature makes the way the company
acts organizationally, and is very similar to the way of particular job of the
manager.
In
this context, it was diagnosed that the professionalization of management has
proven to be a critical constraint in organizational innovation process of the
Brazilian SMEs. This finding assumes that these managers do not have a very
advanced academic training, reaching the maximum average degree of schooling,
with low regard to the university level.
Based
on this identification, we diagnosed a number of constraints that hinder the
implementation of innovative actions, both in organizational processes, and in
processes of innovation in products and in innovation in Brazilian production
from SMEs. Such restrictions are listed in (Table 1) and classified, as their
level of criticality on innovative actions.
Tabela 1 –
Difficulty companies causes
|
Categories
/ Causes |
Ranking |
Nº |
Restrictions |
Answers
(%) |
|
Fault
Management |
1º |
1 |
Lack of working
capital |
42% |
|
3º |
2 |
Financial problems |
21% |
|
|
8º |
3 |
Point / inappropriate
location |
8% |
|
|
9º |
4 |
Lack of knowledge
management |
7% |
|
|
Economic
causes and cyclical |
2º |
5 |
Lack of customers |
25% |
|
4º |
6 |
Defaulted |
16% |
|
|
6º |
7 |
Country's economic
recession |
14% |
|
|
Operational
Logistics |
12º |
8 |
Inadequate facilities |
3% |
|
11º |
9 |
Lack of skilled labor |
5% |
|
|
Public policies and legal framework |
5º |
10 |
Lack of bank credit |
14% |
|
10º |
11 |
Problems with
monitoring |
6% |
|
|
13º |
12 |
High tax burden |
1% |
Source:
SEBRAE (2009)
Based
on (Table 1), we have sought to identify the group of companies which forming
the core of the ACIC Furniture of Concordia, which due to the restrictions
outlined by SEBRAE(2009) are present when seeking to innovate in any one of
three groups of innovations. The results are elucidated in (Table 2).
Table
2 - Causes of the restrictions cited by the companies studied
|
Categories / Causes |
Nº |
|
Restrictions |
|
Fault Management |
1 |
Lack of working capital |
45% |
|
2 |
Financial problems |
15% |
|
|
3 |
Point / inappropriate location |
15% |
|
|
4 |
Lack of knowledge
management |
60% |
|
|
Economic
causes and cyclical |
5 |
Lack of customers |
15% |
|
6 |
Defaulted |
45% |
|
|
7 |
Country's economic
recession |
75% |
|
|
Operational
Logistics |
8 |
Inadequate facilities |
30% |
|
9 |
Lack of skilled labor |
90% |
|
|
Public policies and legal framework |
10 |
Lack of bank credit |
30% |
|
11 |
Problems with
monitoring |
10% |
|
|
12 |
High tax burden |
80% |
Source:
Survey data (2011)
From
these data, it is possible to compare the company’s answers from the core of
the ACIC - Furniture Concordia which has demonstrated the same restrictions in
relation to SMEs surveyed by SEBRAE (2009). To elucidate this comparison, it
was generated the (Graphic 4), which is based on the data presented in (Table 1
and Table2).
As
can be seen in (Graphic 4) there are spines of differences. The first concerns
the restriction (lack of management knowledge, 60%), and the evidence is
clearly justified by the fact of low educational background of managers of the
companies studied. Thus, it is observable that the lack present in knowledge
management highlighted by SEBRAE (2009) reflects more strongly in the companies
studied. This occurs through the strong relationship between the
decision-making process and the difficulty of professional management, where
both problems fall into the academic deficiency.
|
Graphic 4 –
Empiric data comparison between SEBRAE (2009) X researched companies Source: The author |
General
Note: figures for the X axis of Figure 4 we have: 1 - Lack of working capital;
2 - financial problems; 3 - Point / inappropriate location; 4 - Lack of knowledge
management; 5 - Lack of customers; 6 - Delinquent, 7 - the country's economic
recession, 8 - inadequate facilities; 9 - Lack of skilled labor; 10 - Lack of
bank credit; 11 - Problems with the control, 12 - high tax burden.
The
second divergent thorns, is the constraint No. 7 (the country's economic
recession, 75%). Considering the constant oscillation of this factor, it is
justified by the economy aculeus floating around the valuation of inputs and
raw materials arranged in a country where the managers of the Furniture Center
considering the situation of recession, generating a potential cause and
permanent difficulties with regard to its market performance.
The
third aculeus being controversial restriction No. 9 (lack of skilled labor,
90%). This is due to the lack of human resources specialized in furniture.
Besides this, companies do not have the core of financial resources available
to support and invest in training units specialized in the furniture industry.
Finally,
the fourth aculeus refers to the aspect of constraint # 12 (high taxes, 80%).
This was widely cited by the companies studied, because of the wide variety of
raw materials and components to the furniture industry uses in its products.
This makes the tax burden for companies to become very buoyant. This
restriction has been considered by the Center for Furniture and studied by SMEs
by SEBRAE (2009), as a major constraining factor in the adoption of innovation
for companies that mold.
Given
this context, the comparison of data collected by the Center for Furniture
studied in relation to data SEBRAE (2009), except the divergent spines
identified, follow the same trends. You can then point out that the SMEs
studied and face it in a balanced proportion, with the same restrictions of the
adoption of other innovations that SMEs which were studied by SEBRAE (2009).
However,
in relation of the adoption and/or operationalization of potential innovations
in at least one of the three groups of innovations cited by Andreassi (2007),
Ferreira et al. (2008); Sonaglio Marion and Son (2010), companies in the
Furniture Center of ACIC, which showed three restrictions are regarded as the
most difficult of resolution (Graphic 5).
|
Graphic 5 –
Restrictions in innovation of adoption/operations Source: Research data (2011) |
Observing
the data collected, it has to be a major constraint in adopting and/or operate
a product innovation for the lack of technology (72%). This restriction
interferes directly with the ability to value assignment on manufactured products
as well as difficulty in meeting the demand in terms of satisfaction on the
desire to meet the customer about the product ordered. This fact is due to
technological limitations of the equipment to perform more complex procedures,
which assign the value needed to meet customer's satisfactory, but also
differences in the generation of product.
The
production processes, diagnosed that the main restriction comes from the lack
of skilled labor (72%) in the furniture segment. Next to this finding, the
financial constraint (58%) for investment in innovation is considered the
second biggest constraint to the adoption of innovation in production
processes. Given this, it detects that the notes for the product to hold and
become contradictory when business managers’ point to a lack of core technology
as the most difficult.
This
contradiction is explained by the strong dependence of access to new
technologies and financial restriction of the company. If these companies have
financial constraints for access to new technologies and hiring skilled labor,
the central constraint to the adoption of innovation in products of companies
in the Furniture Center of the financial factor is not lacked with the
available technology.
For
the group of innovations in administrative proceedings, the most cited
constraint was financial (72%), supported this need for computerization in the
Center´s industry´s management. However, according to managers, as much as the
equipment which involves the restriction of this lack in technology in these
companies, the administrative software have high added value, both purchase and
maintenance.
Given
this context, it is clear that the notes are directed specifically to the
financial constraint, even this is not the most relevant for the adoption of
innovation in any company and mold in the three groups of innovations cited by
Andreassi (2007), Ferreira et al (2008); Sonaglio Marion and Son (2010). For it
is clear that innovation can be adopted by non-financial factors such as
creativity and adaptability that the company has.
4. FINAL THOUGHTS
Initially
it was diagnosed as an isolated setting of the group constituting the core of
SMEs surveyed in relation to which of the three groups mentioned innovations
these companies seek to adopt more frequently and effort. Having this diagnosis
for the group-oriented product innovations, which is based on the need for
constant evolution of the characteristics of products manufactured by them? In
the case of these customized products, which require each new project a certain
level of exclusivity and differential structural and aesthetic?
On
this basis, was diagnosed with a second phase where the emphasis placed by
these companies to innovate in fact, and what goals they seek to foster
innovation in the three groups mentioned innovations. Thus, as a result it was
found that for the MSE of the Center Furniture by adopting the goal of
innovation is the opening and entry into new markets, or to expand their scale
of operation. As for SMEs surveyed by SEBRAE (2009), they seek to foster
innovation with the main objective to grow faster than its competition.
Thus,
the comparative study of data on the importance to adopt the innovation has
been a trend towards alignment between the research answers, the only
difference of four percentage points more about the adoption of innovation with
the goal of entry into new markets. That this divergence is based on the model
performance in this horizontal cooperation network core. For these companies,
through the implementation of cooperative efforts aimed at innovation,
encourage the expansion of its market.
Finally,
the third stage of the research was diagnosed, what are the main limiting
factors for adoption of innovation in SMEs of the nucleus studied. Thus the
scope of this comparative study led to confirmation of a trend in the data
assimilation of research conducted by SEBRAE (2009) and the research conducted
at the Center of the ACIC Concordia Furniture. But for the core constituents of
the SMEs of Furniture, was diagnosed with four different restriction prickles,
and they respectively lack of managerial expertise, the country's economic
recession, lack of skilled labor and high taxes.
Consequently,
we can infer that this research has a good grip on the reality of micro and small
enterprises in the furniture sector in tangent to the understanding,
identification and adoption of innovations in products, processes and
administrative processes.Serving this search as an indicator for evaluating the
innovative scenario of regional furniture industry effectively and efficiently.
REFERENCES
AMOESC – Associação dos Moveleiros do Oeste de Santa
Catarina. (2010) Planejamento Estratégico
e Financeiro, 2009. Chapecó.
ANDREASSI, T. (2007) Gestão da Inovação tecnológica. São Paulo: Thomson Learning.
FERREIRA, M. J. B. et al. (2008) Relatório de acompanhamento setorial, indústria moveleira. Campinas: Unicamp, ABDI, v.1.
FLOYSAND, A. & JAKOBSEN, S.E. (2010) The
complexity of innovation: A relational turn. Progress in Human Geography. v.35, n. 3, p. 328-344.
GOEDHUYS, M. &VEUGELERS, R. (2011) Innovation
strategies, process and product innovations and growth: Firm-level evidence
from Brazil. Structural Changeand
Economic Dynamics. (2011). DOI:10.1016/j. strueco.2011.01.004.
HITT, M. A.; IRELAND, R. D.; HOSKISSON, R. E. (2008) Administração Estratégica. 7. ed. São Paulo – SP: Thomson Learning, p. 415.
IEMI – Instituto de Estudos e Marketing Industrial. Brasil Móveis: Relatório setorial de
indústria de móveis no Brasil. São Paulo – SP, 2009.
MARION FILHO, P.J. & SONAGLIO, S.M. (2010)
Inovações tecnológicas na indústria de móveis: Uma avaliação a partir da
concentração produtiva de Bento Gonçalves (RS). Revista Brasileira de Inovação. v. 9, n. 1, p. 93-118.
PEGORARO, P.R. & SILVÉRIO, A.C. (2010) A Inovação
nas Empresas, como um dos Fatores de Crescimento. Revista CAP. v. 4, n. 4.
PEREIRA et al. (2009) Fatores de inovação para a
sobrevivência das micro e pequenas empresas no Brasil. Revista de Administração e Inovação – RAI. São Paulo, v. 6, n. 1,
p. 50-65.
PORTER, M. E. (2005) Estratégia Competitiva: Técnicas para Análise de Indústrias e da
Concorrência. 4ª ed. 409 p. Elsevier,
São Paulo.
RESE, A. & BAIER, D. (2011) Success factors for
innovation management in networks of small and medium enterprises. R&D Management. v. 41, n. 2.
ROCHA, L. M. P. & DUFLOTH, S. C. (2009) Análise
comparativa regional de indicadores de inovação tecnológica empresarial:
contribuição a partir dos dados da pesquisa industrial de inovação tecnológica.
Revista Perspectivas em Ciência da
Informação. v. 14, n 1.
SEBRAE – Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e
Pequenas Empresas. (2009) Inovação e
Competitividade nas MPEs Brasileiras – set. 2009. São Paulo: Sebrae.
TRIPPL, M. (2010) Developing Cross-Border Regional
Innovation Systems: Key Factors and Challenges. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie. v.
101, n. 2, p. 150-160.