Orchestrators of innovation networks in the city level: the case of Pacto Alegre

Abstract

PurposeThis 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).Design/methodology/approachThe 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.FindingsIn 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).Research limitations/implicationsThe 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.Practical implicationsTherefore, 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.Originality/valueAlthough 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.

Implications of value co-creation in agro-industrial services

“…Networks are orchestrated the moment companies invest in professionals to aid them in understanding the intricacies of partnerships to face the new realities of the modern world towards creating new learning and research opportunities in their context, in addition to broadening understanding about the current market scenario and strategies to be adopted by the company so as to remain updated and competitive while at the same time contributing to the growth of other companies (Mignoni et al 2021).…”

“…This can be evidenced by Mignoni et al (2021) who state that companies can only achieve growth if both parties trust that neither of them will use the information shared to their own advantage, or when they recognize their individual role in the partnership, or even when they work together in order to make their interactions transparent at all times. Once information is shared, improvement actions grounded in Lean Thinking should be introduced in the context of value co-creation (Ferenhof et al 2018).…”

Orchestration of innovative networks in public policies: The Economic Clusters of Innovation Program from the Government of The State of Ceará

“…As for the result, the effects of management actions and their impact on the innovation generated by the network are verified. The verification of the results is essential for actions to be taken in order to maintain or to improve the results for the network as a whole, being necessary to see in which of the explained points it will be necessary to act again aiming the balance (Clegg et al, 2016;Dagnino et al, 2016;Perks et al, 2017;Pikkarainen et al, 2017;Thomas, Faccin & Asheim, 2020;Bittencourt, Santos & Mignoni, 2021;Mignoni et al, 2021).…”

Building digital resilience against crises: The case of Taiwan's COVID‐19 pandemic management

“…Collective actions constituted in the large number and diversity of actors are difficult to trigger and maintain in times of crisis due to conflicting time demands and competing goals among the involved actors. Hence, we were particularly interested in exploring how governments, as leading actors (Kumar et al, 2022;Mignoni et al, 2021), can bring together heterogeneous societal entities to collaborate on resource orchestration, thereby developing digital resilience in response to extreme crises. To do so, we addressed the following research question: RQ: How can governments orchestrate technological resources to build and cultivate digital resilience in response to rapidly developing and multidimensional crises over time?…”