The firm's role, besides producing goods and services, is to promote technological change and innovation. While academic research on technological capabilities has led to a better understanding of the process of technical change itself, there is no consensus on the ultimate definition of innovation capability. The purpose of this paper is to present a framework for innovation capability. This is formed by four key capabilities (technology development, operations, management and transaction) that enable firms to reach Schumpeterian profits. Given that the study is characterized as a theoretical paper, methodologically is supported on an extensive literature review. Our main findings can be summed up in three aspects: (1) every firm has all four capabilities; none of them are null; (2) to be innovative, at least one of the firm's capabilities must be predominant; (3) any firm, when established, is primarily technological or transactional, in a second stage, operational or managerial.

Innovation and dynamic capabilities have gained considerable attention in both academia and practice. While one of the oldest inquiries in economic and strategy literature involves understanding the features that drive business success and a firm's perpetuity, the literature still lacks a comprehensive model of innovation and dynamic capabilities. This study presents a model that assesses firms' innovation and dynamic capabilities perspectives based on four essential capabilities: development, operations, management, and transaction capabilities. Data from a survey of 1,107 Brazilian manufacturing firms were used for empirical testing and discussion of the dynamic capabilities framework. Regression and factor analyses validated the model; we discuss the results, contrasting with the dynamic capabilities' framework. Operations Capability is the least dynamic of all capabilities, with the least influence on innovation. This reinforces the notion that operations capabilities as "ordinary capabilities," whereas management, development, and transaction capabilities better explain firms' dynamics and innovation.

La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockage dans une base de données est également interdit.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to analyze this phenomenon and identify its determinants using data from Brazilian higher education institutions.Design/methodology/approach -Based on a data set comprehending 2,230 university students from 70 different institutions across the country, the authors develop five Probit models to assess impacts related to individual traits and systemic conditions on five dependent dimensions: entrepreneurial activity, potential entrepreneurs, high-impact entrepreneurship, serial entrepreneurship and innovation-driven entrepreneurship.Findings -The lack of significance in many of the variables included in estimations suggests that student entrepreneurship seems to be a rather random phenomenon in Brazil.Research limitations/implications -Findings pose challenges for student entrepreneurship, as targets for intervention are not clear.Originality/value -Over the past decades, universities have been receiving an increasing demand to go beyond their role of producing science and technology to explore its knowledge potential to produce novel commercial applications. However, while there is a growing interest in ways to foster scientific academic entrepreneurship, universities also serve as a positive environment for student entrepreneurship training, knowledge sharing, testing ideas and learning. So far, the importance of student entrepreneurship has received far less attention than it likely deserves.

A company is an existing technological set of products and process transformed by internal and external business activities. From that point of view, a company is the result of four essential capabilities: technology development, operations, management and transactions. In order to succeed, any business company must find its capabilities' right balance by coordinating its business activities to become an efficient economic agent or simply an organized firm. However, in the real world, firms face a continuous paradox that challenges its very organization and perpetuity. Why is it so difficult to find the capabilities' right balance? On what kind of effort should the coordination structure of any existing firm rely? This paper focuses on the role of management capability as a key factor to the firm in fine-tuning the organization. A multiple case-study was conducted in 30 Brazilian firms from different industrial sectors. These firms were classified according to their management types into (1) family, (2) family-professional and (3) professional. The results show that in the three types of the firms, management capability varies according corporate strategy, resource allocation, coordination and integration, norms and procedures. Management capability's scope goes beyond the simple planning and controlling, its key role is to cope with the paradox of stability and change in order to allow innovation to flourish.

As environments become more competitive and change, firms need to look for new ways of competing by implementing changes and innovations aiming at improving or even building new capabilities. Through multiple case studies, we examine the relationship between routines, capabilities and innovation seeking to identify the changes and innovations that have occurred along the trajectory of two wine producing firms in the Serra Gaúcha of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The results indicate that both companies submitted changes/innovations in routines and capabilities, however, the different strategies and decisions made led to totally different outcomes in terms of size, growth and market-share

The dominant discourse on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (EE) remains focused on the profile of a handful of successful locations. This has hindered a deeper comprehension of the economic mechanisms that shape evolutionary trends in entrepreneurial activity and how they operate in distinct places. We propose that EE have regularities, but they can also assume different configurations, i.e., varying combinations of influential dimensions. Through fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis, we address this issue with data from the State of São Paulo, Brazil. This research focuses on five EE dimensions: Science & Technology, Human Capital, Market Dynamics, Business Dynamics, and Infrastructure. Findings point at the heterogeneous nature of EE distributed in three different paths. While configurations’ vary in terms of causal conditions, research universities, knowledge-intensive jobs and wider credit operations are core-causal conditions. Proximity to the main economic hub appears as a key differentiator among ecosystems.

No abstract