Avaliação da inovação em projetos de pesquisa: proposta do artefato Gerenciador de Inovação em Projetos de Pesquisa para Instituições de Ciência e Tecnologia (GIPPICT)

André Silvestri Schuh; Anderson Ricardo Yanzer Cabral; Mariana de Freitas Dewes

doi:10.5585/2024.26093

Authors

André Silvestri Schuh Instituto Federal de Educação https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7651-2753
Anderson Ricardo Yanzer Cabral Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul / Instituto de Educação https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7602-4162
Mariana de Freitas Dewes Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul / Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre (UFCSPA) / Porto Alegre https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6576-1287

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5585/2024.26093

Keywords:

innovation, technological products, intellectual property

Abstract

Objective: To describe the use of an artifact to identify technological products subject to intellectual protection in research projects, through the intervention carried out in an Institution of Science and Technology (ITS) dedicated to the area of education.

Methodology/approach: The scientific method used is Design Science Research (DSR), divided into five stages; its approach is qualitative, applied in nature and exploratory in purpose. Originality/value: The study presents a unique artifact, developed for a certain class of problem, whose relevance involved the theoretical study and practical application of innovation indicators in the daily use of activities relevant to the Technological Innovation Centers.

Main results: After the intervention carried out by using the artifact, the proven result is an annual increase of more than 100% on the number of intellectual property registration requests made by the researched ITS.

Theoretical/methodological contributions: The application of the DSR provided the presentation of a usual artifact used as a proposed instrument to solve a real problem, whose future development could generate new studies and other artifacts for the same class of problem.

Social/management contributions: Scientific, technological, marketing, environmental aspects and improvements in the quality of life of the community remain as possible targets for the vision of the future of the fruits of this research, with the possibility of using a personalized instrument to assist in the management of innovation , which can be replicated in other ITS.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

André Silvestri Schuh, Instituto Federal de Educação

MSc in Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer for Innovation. Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Rio Grande do Sul (IFRS), and State University of Rio Grande do Sul (UERGS). Porto Alegre, RS - Brazil.

Anderson Ricardo Yanzer Cabral, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul / Instituto de Educação

Dr in Computer Science. Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUC-RS), and Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Rio Grande do Sul (IFRS). Porto Alegre, RS - Brazil.

Mariana de Freitas Dewes, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul / Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre (UFCSPA) / Porto Alegre

Dr in Administration. Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), and Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre (UFCSPA). Porto Alegre, RS - Brazil.

References

Almeida, D. B., & Pinheiro, D. H. (2020). Innovation Policy in Federal Universities in the Northeast: reflections of the implementation of NITs through the Innovation Law. Journal of Management Analysis, 9(3), 51–65. https://doi:10.12662/2359-618xregea.v9i3.p51-65.2020

Almeida, R. L., & Maricato, J. M. (2021). Exploring innovation concepts and metrics in the context of universities. Information Magazine, 26(2), 646–679. https://doi.org/10.5433/1981-8920.2021v26n2p646

Angeluci, A. C. B., Redigolo, G. L., Arakaki, P. J., & Silva, P. S. F. (2020). Design Science Research as a Method for Research in TDIC in Education. Paper presented at the International Congress on Education and Technology – CIET 2020, São Paulo, Brasil. Retrieved August 25, 2022, from https://cietenped.ufscar.br › article › download.

Arrabal, A. K., Wiggers, R. V., Colombo, A. P., Cardoso, R. dos S., Arrabal, O. H. B., & Santos, E. I. da S. (2021). Intellectual Property Culture in the Context of Brazilian Technology Transfer Offices. Brazilian Journal of Development, 7(8), 81248–81267. http://dx.doi.org/10.34117/bjdv7n8-373

Audy, J. (2017). Innovation, development and the role of the University. Advanced Studies Journal, 31(90), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-40142017.3190005

Brasil. (2016). Federal Law No. 13,243, of January 11, 2016. Provides for incentives for scientific development, research, scientific and technological training and innovation.. Brasília: Diário Oficial da União. Retrieved April 22, 2022, of L13243 (planalto.gov.br)

Brasil. (2016). National Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation 2016-2022. Brasília: MCTIC. Retrieved September 21, 2023, from http://www.finep.gov.br/images/a- finep/Politica/16_03_2018_Estrategia_Nacional_de_Ciencia_Tecnologia_e_Inovacao_2016_2022.pdf

Brasil. (2020). Practical guide to the Lei do Bem: roadmap and update of the Lei do Bem guide. Brasília: MCTI. Retrieved May 12, 2023, from https://antigo.mctic.gov.br/mctic/export/sites/institucional/tecnologia/Lei_do_bem/Noticia/Arquivo/GUIA_PRATICO_DA_LEI_DO_BEM_2020_MCTI.pdf

CAPES. (2019). Working Group Report CAPES Ordinance 171/2018. Brasília: Capes – GT Technical Production. Retrieved April 26, 2022, from https://www.gov.br/capes/pt-br/centrais-de-conteudo/10062019-producao-tecnica-pdf

Christensen, C.M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R.L., & Sadtler, T.M. (2006). Disruptive innovation for social change. Harvard business review, 84(12), 94–101, 163. Retrieved March 5, 2023, from Disruptive Innovation for Social Change (hbr.org)

Dresch, A., Lacerda, D. P., & Júnior, J. A. V. A. (2015). Design science research: research method for advancing science and technology. Porto Alegre: Bookman.

Figueirôa, D. L. (2012). The evaluation of design artifacts and the problems arising from randomness. Pernambuco: UFP. Retrieved March 12, 2022, from https://repositorio.ufpe.br/bitstream/123456789/11599/1/tese_doutorado_dino.pdf

Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625

IBGE. (2017). PINTEC: Innovation Research. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. Retrieved May 3, 2023, from https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/multidominio/ciencia-tecnologia-e-inovacao/9141-pesquisa-de-inovacao.html?=&t=o-que-e

Lacerda, D. P., Dresch, A., Proença, A., & Júnior, J.A.V.A. (2013). Design Science Research: research method for production engineering. Production Management Journal, 20(4), 741–761. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2013005000014

Lacerda, F. C. B., & Santos, L. M. (2018). Comprehensiveness in higher education training: active learning methodologies. Evaluation Journal, 23(3), 611–627. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-40772018000300003

Lakatos, E. M., & Marconi, M. de A. (2003). Fundamentals of scientific methodology. São Paulo: Atlas.

Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology.New York: R. S. Woodworth. Retrieved March 10, 2022, from https://idoc.pub/documents/1932likerta-technique-for-the-measurement-of-attitudespdf-vlr0oozp3xlz

Lima, P. G. (2009). Science and technology policy: developed countries, Latin America and Brazil. Mato Grosso do Sul: UFGD. Retrieved May 12, 2022, from https://repositorio.ufgd.edu.br/jspui/bitstream/prefix/2269/1/politica-cientifica-e-tecnologica-paises-desenvolvidos-america-latina-e-brasil.pdf

Machado, M. C., & Campoli, J. S. (2022). Management of academic projects and behavioral skills in professional and technological education. Research, Society and Development Journal, 11(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v11i1.24554

Martins, R. (2012). Technological Innovation Centers as a strategy for MCT's innovation policies. Latin American Jour-nal of Business Management, 3(2), 226-247. Retrieved December 5, 2022, from https://www.lajbm.com.br/index.php/journal/article/view/95/60

Moraes, M. C. B., Amboni, N., & Kalnin, G. F. (2017). Academic production in evaluation of higher education in Brazil. Journal of Evaluation, 22(3), 697–717. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-40772017000300007

Nielsen, J., & Landauer, T. K. A. (1993). Mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In: Proceedings of ACM INTERCHI’93 Conference. Amsterdam: ACM Press, 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1145/169059.169166

OECD. (2015). Manual Frascati 2015: Orientações para a recolha e comunicação de dados sobre investigação e desenvolvimento experimental, a medição das actividades científicas, tecnológicas e de inovação. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en.

OECD. (2018). Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th Edition, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris/Eurostat, Luxembourg.

https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en

Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. A. (2007). Design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302

Pereira, C. A. P., Moraes, E. A., & Sallaberry, J. D. (2012). Market Value versus Valuation of Internally Generated Goodwill: A Study Based on Financial Statements. Article presented at the Proceedings of the Brazilian Congress on Costs – ABC 2012, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.

Retrieved June 21, 2022, from https://anaiscbc.emnuvens.com.br/anais/article/view/354

Pereira, Y. B., Miranda, A. L. B. B., & Sena, D. C de. (2023). Prospecting the state of the art of scientific research on technology readiness level. Research, Society and Development, 12(1), 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v12i1.39230

Ramos, M. Y. (2008). Evolution and new perspectives for the construction and production of science, technology and innovation indicators. Electronic Journal of Library and Information Science,1(1), 1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2008v13nesp1p1

Schmidt, P., Santos, J., Fernandes, L., Matsumura, G., J., & Machado, N. (2009). Residual Model for Measuring Intangible Assets. Journal of Accounting Education and Research, 2(2), 18–37. https://doi.org/10.17524/repec.v2i2.28

Schumpeter, J. A. (1988). The theory of economic development. São Paulo: Nova Cultural.

Silva, L. R. S., Alves Junior, E. dos S., Silva, G. Q. do P., Geribello, R. S., & Amarante, M. dos S. (2021). The product life cycle and its importance for strategic management. Revista Pesquisa E Ação, 7(1), 95–114. Retrieved February 23, 2023, from

https://revistas.brazcubas.br/index.php/pesquisa/article/view/1052/991

Speroni, M. R., Trindade , E. P., Macedo , M., Ostuni Gauthier , F. A., & Cid Bastos , R. (2017). Using linked data to represent regional innovation indicators. NAVUS - Management and Technology Journal, 7(3), 95–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.22279/navus.2017.v7n3.p95-103.541

Thorn, B. (2020). The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global. Economy, Journal Contributions to Political Economy, 39(1), 118–120. https://doi.org/10.1093/cpe/bzaa010

Turchi, L. M., & Morais, J. M. (2017). Policies to support technological innovation in Brazil: recent advances, limitations and proposed actions. Brasília: Ipea. Retrieved September 3, 2022, from https://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/stories/PDFs/livros/livros/171103_politicas_de_apoio_a_inovacao.pdf

Virzi, R. A. (1992). Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: how many subjects is enough? Journal Human Factors, 34(4), 457–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208920340040.

WIPO. (2021). Global Innovation Index 2021: Tracking innovation through the COVID-19 crisis. WIPO Magazine, 1(3), 1–206. https://doi.org/10.34667/tind.44315