Search results

This paper investigates the roles and activities of the orchestrators of innovation networks constituted within cities. In this sense, the authors expected to contribute for research related to the roles and activities of the orchestrators of innovation networks constituted in the scope of cities given the large number and diversity of complex and multiple dimensions social actors (Castells & Borja, 1996; Reypens, Lievens & Blazevic, 2019).

The authors conducted an exploratory research with a single case study in depth. The case chosen for the paper is the case of Pacto Alegre. The case selection criterion was the relevance of the Pacto Alegre Case in the construction of an innovation network in the city of Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The Pacto Alegre network was proposed by the Alliance for Innovation (composed of the three main Universities in the city: UFRGS, PUCRS and UNISINOS) and by the Municipality of Porto Alegre. In addition to these actors, the network counts on financial and development institutions as sponsors, with media partners, with design partners, with an advisory board (composed of five professionals considered references in different themes) and composed by more than 100 companies, associations and institutions from different areas (Pacto Alegre, 2019). Data were collected from 09/20/2020 to 11/30/2020 through in-depth interviews, documentary research and non-participant observation.

In this research, the authors highlighted the city as a community that involves and integrates various actors, such as citizens and companies, to collaborative innovation activities. For this, they proposed a framework on innovation networks and network orchestration. In this direction, seven dimensions of the “orchestration of innovation networks” were assumed as a result of the combination of previous studies by Dhanaraj and Parke (2006), Hurmelinna-Laukkanen et al. (2011) and da Silva and Bitencourt (2019). In the sequence, different roles of orchestrators associated with the literature were adopted based on the work by Pikkarainen et al. (2017) and Nielsen and Gausdal (2017).

The authors’ results advance in relation to other fields by promoting the expansion of the “orchestration of innovation networks” model with the combination of distinct elements from the literature in a coherent whole (agenda setting, mobilization, network stabilization, creation and transfer of knowledge, innovation appropriability, coordination and co-creation) and in the validation of its applicability in the context of the innovation network studied. In addition, when relating different roles of orchestrators to the seven dimensions studied, it was realized that there is no linear and objective relationship between the dimensions and roles of the orchestrator, as in each dimension there may be more than one role being played in the orchestration.

Therefore, the findings suggest two theoretical contributions. First, the authors identified a role not discussed in the literature, here called the communicator. In the case analysis, the authors observed the communicator role through functions performed by a media partner of the innovation network and by a group of civil society engaged in the city's causes. Second, the authors indicated a new dimension of orchestration related to the management of communication in the innovation network and its externalities such as p. ex. civil and organized society, characteristic of an innovation network set up within a city.

Although several studies have proposed advances in the understanding of the orchestration of innovation networks (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006; Ritala, Armila & Blomqvist, 2009; Nambisan & Sawhney, 2011; Hurmelinna-Laukkanen et al., 2011), the discussion on the topic is still a black box (Nilsen & Gausdal, 2017). More specifically, the authors identified a gap in the literature about the role and activities of actors in the city level. Few studies connected the regional dimension with the roles and activities of the orchestrators (Hurmelinna-Laukkanen et al., 2011; Pikkarainen et al., 2017), raising several challenges and opportunities to be considered by academics and managers.