32nd ANPAD Symposium of Innovation, Technology and Entrepreneurship
SITE 2024

The value of firms is influenced by their ability to generate innovations, as well as creating effective mechanisms to appropriate their value (Laursen & Salter, 2014). Thus, the protection of intellectual property (IP) assets has become paramount in the current knowledge society (Castells, 2000; Lall, 2003), being the main formal mechanism for the appropriation of innovations (Hall et al., 2014). Thus, companies operating in highly competitive sectors need to build robust portfolios of IP assets (trademarks, patents, industrial designs, and copyrights) to promote competitiveness (Drivas et al., 2016). Furthermore, Brazilian universities have demonstrated an increasing engagement with IP and are currently the national organizations with the highest number of patent applications filed. Given the growing importance of intangibles and a more fragile IP guarantee context in emerging countries such as Brazil (Cuervo-Cazurra & Rui, 2017), the study of this topic is relevant for the national context. It involves research related to IP management and technology transfer, including: technological prospecting in the IP field; monitoring trends in trademark registrations; IP challenges in digital transformation; assessment of impacts of geographical indications (GIs); strategies for the transfer of innovations generated by Science and Technology Institutions (STIs); evaluation of public policies to encourage the protection of creations; management of technology transfer agreements from STIs; evaluation of the relationship of STIs with firms; evaluation of public policies to encourage the protection of creations; evaluation of the convenience of protecting and disclosing creations; performance of Technological Innovation Centers (TICs) and technological tools to support IP management and technology transfer. Additionally, this theme also focuses on the analysis of the impact of IP on environments that promote innovation in the academic, business, governmental and social organizations sectors.

The rise of developing countries as centers of innovation and their new nomenclature for emerging markets have played an important role in the research agenda on innovation, R&D and digital transformation strategies. Emerging markets have provided companies with dynamic advantages in order to explore digital changes, supply flows of resources and local knowledge, through strategies oriented towards the management of innovation. Current research in emerging markets show that many innovations have emerged in a pioneering way in those markets, both in native companies and local foreign subsidiaries, to later be successfully adopted and commercialized in advanced markets (Von Zedtwitz et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2020; Ekman et al., 2021). Moreover, recent studies have explored digital transformation in emerging and advanced markets, addressing the impact of digital technologies on organizations (Wamba et al., 2018; Alberti-Alhtaybat et al., 2019; Bertello et al., 2020), the resources and capabilities necessary to successfully explore digital transformation (Ferraris et al., 2018; Muninger et al., 2019), as well as the marketing (consumption) and behavioral (acceptance, adoption and use of technologies) aspects that may influence digital transformation (Yeow et al., 2018; Tabrizi et al., 2019). Furthermore, the main goal of this theme is to bring together empirical and theoretical studies regarding innovation, R&D and digital transformation strategies in emerging market organizations, indicating possible threads for articles submission, such as: global innovation, reverse innovation, trickle-up innovation, frugal innovation, internationalization of digital startups and companies, analytical innovation, digital disruptive innovation, smart digital innovation, digital business models management, interconnectivity in digital platforms and ecosystems, use of digital technologies as a strategy or complementary resources, processes of digital innovation that generate more dynamic value propositions, digital innovative capabilities, digital transformation behavioral aspects, among others.

The theme "Responsible Innovation, ESG, and Grand Challenges" explores the crucial intersection between Responsible Innovation, ESG practices, and the Grand Challenges shaping our contemporary world. This unifying approach emphasizes the need for a holistic and ethical framework in research and innovation, promoting positive impact on multiple levels. The concept of Responsible Innovation, originally conceived within the scope of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), now transcends to incorporate ESG principles. While responsibility in research and innovation continues to respond to ethical concerns and the precautionary principle, the ESG approach broadens this responsibility to include environmental, social, and governance considerations. In this context, we will examine how Responsible Innovation can be leveraged to contribute to technological progress and environmental sustainability, social equity, and good corporate governance practices. Global Grand Challenges, as outlined by the United Nations, define urgent problems that demand innovative and responsible solutions. This theme explores how Responsible Innovation and ESG practices can be directed to address and overcome these Grand Challenges. From climate issues and resource scarcity to social inequalities, we will explore how innovation can be harnessed as a transformative force to pursue lasting solutions. Considering innovation as a process, our focus relies on the key dimensions of Responsible Innovation: anticipation, inclusion, responsiveness, and reflexivity. Anticipation refers to the proactive analysis of economic, social, and environmental impacts. Inclusion highlights the importance of engaging diverse stakeholders. Responsiveness emphasizes flexibility in the face of changes, while reflexivity implies an ongoing commitment to evaluating and adjusting innovative practices. By exploring "Responsible Innovation, ESG, and Grand Challenges," this theme aims to catalyze discussions and collaborations that propel research and innovation toward a more sustainable, inclusive, and ethical future. We welcome contributions that explore and promote the transformative potential of responsible innovation in the face of global challenges and growing expectations regarding ESG practices.

With the advent of the diffusion of technologies associated with the concept of industry 4.0, the socioeconomic and business dynamics face changes (Schwab, 2019). The era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the Shared Economy and Artificial Intelligence began to affect companies, supply chains and the entire ecosystem. This new context requires a reformulation of the role of governments and institutions as a whole (Schwab, 2019).

Specifically in business dynamics, regional innovation models and policies face changes with technological trends, resulting in new organizational configurations (Aranguren, Magro, Navarro & Wilson, 2018). The traditional Triple Helix (TH) metaphor formed by the connections among actors in the university-business-government spheres proposed by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1995), has been strengthened and incorporated new models of innovation generation, including society (Quadruple Helix - QH) and the environment (Quintuple Helix – 5H), as important helices in the dynamics of innovation, specifically in this context of technological transformations (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1995; Carayannis & Campbell, 2009; Carayannis & Campbell, 2011).

The relationships between TH and Quadruple actors reflect the emergence of innovation mechanisms and environments, such as business incubators, science, technology and innovation parks, innovation hubs, regional economic development projects (arrangements and productive systems and innovations), and others.

This track will be receiving articles on the themes below:

- Innovation environments (ecosystems; business incubators; science, technology and innovation parks; innovation areas; innovation districts);

- Mechanisms for protecting knowledge and transferring technology (commercialization offices, technological innovation centers, and others);

- Innovation systems (national/regional) and Triple Helix, Quadruple and Quintuple Helix;

- The role of organized civil society in innovation and economic development;

- The role of the university in the 21st century, entrepreneurial university and university management.

Innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystems have been highlighted among researchers and policymakers for their ability to generate jobs, wealth, and technological development. Innovation ecosystems (ADNER and KAPOOR, 2010) and entrepreneurial ecosystems (ISENBERG, 2010) have historical roots in the discussion about business ecosystems (MOORE, 1993). While innovation ecosystems aim to analyze distributed value creation among autonomous but interdependent actors that cooperate (ADNER, 2006), entrepreneurial ecosystems are dedicated to understanding how a set of elements (infrastructure, science and technology, human capital, business dynamics, and market dynamics) are related to foster entrepreneurial activity (ALVES et al., 2019; ISENBERG, 2010). Since then, the use of these terms has grown and criticism has emerged regarding conceptual ambiguity in ecosystem research, stemming these from the variation in defining boundaries and levels of analysis of phenomena (RITALA; GUSTAFSSON, 2018). Moreover, the concepts have received criticism for lack of theoretical consistency and empirical evidence (GOMES et al., 2018, 2021; OH et al., 2016; SCARINGELLA; RADZIWON, 2017). The diversity of concepts and empirical applications that arise in this field highlights the theoretical and methodological challenges of the area and also underlines the opportunities for future research, especially in emerging countries. Hence, this theme brings together theoretical and empirical studies that contemplate:

1. Theoretical and conceptual advances on EI and EE;
2. Start-up Ecosystems;
3. Studies on EI as a platform and in the territorial scope;
4. Analysis of national, sectoral and regional innovation systems;
5. Orchestration and governance of ecosystems;
6. Ecosystem management: strategies, capabilities, knowledge management, design, innovation processes in ecosystems and governance structures;
7. Actors and elements of ecosystems;
8. Open innovation, triple/quadruple helix, knowledge transfer and co-creation of value within ecosystems;
9. Public policies and development of best practices in technology parks, incubators and innovation poles.

In addition to the national scenario, it is necessary to consider that innovation and entrepreneurship have practical and theoretical relevance worldwide (BERRY; BERRY, 2018).

From a practical perspective, innovation is the pillar of the most developed economies in the world, such as Switzerland, in 1st and 5th place, Sweden, in 2nd and 8th place, and the United States, in 3rd and 2nd place, respectively in the rankings innovation and competitiveness (GII, 2019; WEF, 2019); as well as entrepreneurship, with approximately 99% of small businesses in the world (North, 2020) and contribution of these businesses between 20% and 50% of GDP in most countries (GEM, 2020) and about 60% of jobs in the world ( GEM, 2020; SBA, 2019). Even so, both developed and developing economies are being challenged to devise strategies aimed at more effective public policies for innovation and entrepreneurship, in line with the wishes of their citizens (AUDRETSCH; MOOG, 2020).

From an academic perspective, the international literature dealing with public policies on innovation and entrepreneurship still needs to advance on the effectiveness and the context surrounding these policies (BRAUNERHJELM, 2021), as the discourses behind public policies affect the development purposes of each country (PORTER, 1998; AUDRETSCH; MOOG, 2020), as well as on the local character of these policies in the implementation process (ROPER, LOVE, BONNER, 2017).

There are several contributions on innovation and entrepreneurship policies that need to be investigated and debated, to create subsidies for public policy makers at a time when many  are under review due to their period of validity and the perspectives of current governments to leverage long-term economic and social development, and for researchers focused on advancing in the discussion that deals with public policies for innovation and entrepreneurship.

Using frugality (or doing much with little) is something often employed as a way to undertake entrepreneurship, especially in situations of difficulty and crisis (Kuckertz et al., 2020; Nelson and Lima, 2020; Kwong et al., 2019; Tsilika et al., 2020). This implies, among other possibilities, using bricolage (Baker and Nelson, 2005) and effectuation (Sarasvathy, 2001; Sarasvathy et al., 2020) – as Fisher (2012) also informs – the latter assuming the risks faced are limited to an acceptable level of loss (Dew et al., 2009; Iqbal, Ahmad, and Halim, 2021; Martina, 2020; Michaelis et al., 2020).
There are many possibilities to do much with little by using frugality. Among them is the use of means or resources already available, employing effectuation and/or bricolage. These modes of entrepreneurship can even include the utilization of non-standard resources, low-quality resources, those undervalued by others, discarded ones, and/or reused resources (Baker and Nelson, 2005; Sarasvathy, 2001). In overcoming difficulties and crises (economic, disaster, pandemic, etc.), digital solutions (Allen, 2019) can also be employed to do much with little. Digital tools are helpful to overcome the physical distance between people and to expand the reach of entrepreneurial activities at a low cost. The use of digital technology in response to crises is facilitated by effectuation and/or bricolage (e.g., Kuckertz et al., 2020; Khanal et al., 2022), even in conditions of great poverty, due to the availability of cheap and widely accessible technological means. Overall, effectuation, bricolage, and digital tools aid in development resilience of entrepreneurship and economies. The multiple forms of overcoming and resilience are particularly necessary in crisis situations so people and organizations can continue their development (Shepherd, Saade, and Wincent, 2020;Thorgren and Williams, 2020; Williams and Shepherd, 2016; Williams and Shepherd, 2018).
The topics focused on in this call for papers have their importance and research need already confirmed by extensive literature. However, such a need is particularly great in Brazil. In our country, research in entrepreneurship and innovation is limited on these topics, requiring expansion and refinement.
In this call for submissions for Enanpad, theoretical and empirical works, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed studies that may be comparisons and international perspectives, and can present any possible configuration of treatment of just one or several of the themes of the call are welcome.

This proposal brings the debate about different perspectives of social networks and the implications of creativity and knowledge flow in entrepreneurship and innovation. This theme is critical to the success of innovative ventures that depend on how well actors are able to proactively adapt their networks and deal with the consequences of turnover. Social networks develop from formal and informal exchanges between actors, being essential for entrepreneurs and managers to identify new opportunities and organize their network according to their needs (JOHANNISSON; HUSE, 2000). The position of individuals and firms in networks impacts the generation of creative ideas (WALSH; KNOTT; COLLINS, 2021) and on the creation of companies (STUART; SORENSON, 2005). Studies on entrepreneurs' networks focus on their relationships or ties with other individuals or organizations, behaving as agents of the firm (ANDERSON; MILLER, 2003; BATJARGAL, 2003; SHANE; CABLE, 2002). Their initial ties influence the economic decisions of the new venture, as a result of being immersed in the entrepreneur's social relations (GRANOVETTER, 1973). Furthermore, dormant ties, when reconnected, can be a valuable source of knowledge and social capital (Walter et al., 2015). These weak nodes originate non-redundant information that allows development and differentiation (GRANOVETTER, 1973), nurture creativity (PUCCIO; CABRA, 2012), and create opportunities for innovation. Thus, this theme brings together theoretical and empirical studies that include, for example:
• Generation of collective knowledge and its flow on the network;
• Sharing creative ideas as a precursor to innovation;
• Influence of networks on entrepreneurship;
• Knowledge flows in industrial clusters;
• Contribution of networks to the promotion of innovation ecosystems;
• Drivers of network dynamics;
• Dynamics of dormant and reconnected ties and the impact on business innovation.

Entrepreneurial activity and the entrepreneurial process, despite being widely debated and researched, remain an object of interest for researchers, professionals and academics. This interest is related to the absence of definitive models that can explain and guide the creation of successful businesses. Recent literature has emphasized the importance of recognizing the diversity of initiatives and the value of different types of companies to build a healthy environment in economic, social and environmental terms (Morris, Neumeyer & Kuratko, 2015), often pointing to entrepreneurial activity as a complex process (McMullen & Dimov, 2013).

In this way, the context acquires relevance (Baker & Welter, 2018), like those observed in developing economies, which exhibit an absence of entrepreneurial culture, lack of legal provisions that encourage entrepreneurship, scarcity of resources - such as access to credit and financing - , in addition to the lack of cooperation between local enterprises and anchor organizations – such as universities and established private companies – which does not contribute to entrepreneurial activity (Cao & Shi, 2020). In the case of peripheral regions or that are going through economic crises, for example, the entrepreneur will have in their most intimate social network, the family nucleus, the mainstay for access to resources (Benneworth, 2004), building their enterprise with “whatever he wants it in hand” (Baker & Nelson, 2005, p. 330). Thus, it is understood that macro-environmental conditions will influence entrepreneurial activity, including socioeconomic and ecological aspects (Wiklund, Wright & Zahra, 2019).

It is up to entrepreneurship research, then, to debate alternatives and possible solutions to the “great challenges”, such as poverty, minorities, inequality, pollution, climate change, advances and side effects of digitalization and other issues of intense current relevance (Berger, Von Briel , Davidsson & Kuckertz, 2019; Ricciardi, Rossignoli & Zardini, 2021). Keeping the impact achieved by entrepreneurship research in

Today's economic, political and environmental challenges have mobilized diverse actors at the local, regional and national levels, as well as on a global scale. Despite the apparent awareness of the socio-environmental problems experienced, few analyzes have been undertaken regarding social innovations and their ecosystems in terms of theories, characteristics and impacts (PRADEL MIQUEL; GARCÍA CABEZA; EIZAGUIRRE ANGLADA, 2013). Based on a comprehensive concept of social innovation (DOMANSKI; HOWALDT; KALETKA, 2020), this theme proposes to discuss the social innovations operated by organizations in the urban context. In this sense, it seeks to discuss social innovation and its relationship with social change and transformation, based on its consequences for the local level, highlighting the multisectoral perspective. The results of research on social innovations, social innovation ecosystems and their consequences in cities are of interest, as well as collective responses aimed at the capacity of different actors to develop socially innovative practices. The Social Innovation Ecosystems (EIS) approach, from governance to sustainability and its influence in promoting more sustainable cities is central to this research agenda and also to the practice of social innovation (KALETKA; MARKMANN; PELKA, 2016; ALIJANI et al., 2016; HODSON; KAIKA, 2017; HOWALDT et al., 2018; 2019; ANDION; ALPERSTEDT; GRAEFF, 2020).

The theme invites authors to submit their articles on the following topics, but not restricted to them:

- Discussion on social innovation paradigms and theories;

- Experiences of social innovation and social innovation ecosystems in cities;

- Social Innovation and Governance for Sustainability;

- Multi-sectorial social innovations;

- Social Innovation and Social change

- Related topics.

One of the determinants of a country's economic development is its human capital and, therefore, the development of entrepreneurial skills has been recognized by the educational systems of many countries as a central element in the formation of this capital. In the context of education, the competence must identify what a person needs to respond to the problems they will be exposed to throughout their life (Zaballa & Arnau, 2014).

To develop these skills, what can be seen is the introduction of entrepreneurship education, from basic education to higher education, going beyond the focus on business creation. In Brazil, education for entrepreneurship, from the point of view of public policies, became part of the agenda, formalized in the Common National Curriculum Base (BNCC). The purpose is to provide means for people to develop skills and competencies that enable their performance in increasingly complex activities (Almeida & Packard, 2018). It is essential to be aware of the educational ecosystem that involves the promotion of active learning methodologies, training of educators, university-school partnerships to facilitate the teaching-learning process that will promote the gradual development of acquisition and skills and competencies necessary for life in society.

This theme brings together theoretical and empirical studies of articles that examine, without excluding other possibilities within the scope of this call:

- Education for Entrepreneurship in Basic Education and Higher Education

- Pedagogical and organizational practices for the development of entrepreneurship education

- Integration of Professional Education and Entrepreneurship Education

- Development of courses for training educators to teach entrepreneurship

- Educational methodologies for entrepreneurship

- Innovative learning environments

- Didactic-pedagogical practices oriented to Entrepreneurship for comprehensive professional training

- Studies and research on Entrepreneurship in the Postgraduate courses

- Teaching Cases in Entrepreneurship

The Fourth Industrial Revolution strengthened the importance of culture and technical, behavioral and functional competences that must be improved during all years of study. In addition, the generic skills that enable successful participation in innovation and entrepreneurship processes are highly valued. The importance of innovations is clear, as companies and organizations continually seek out innovative employees. Companies need innovations to create competitiveness and the public sector to produce high-quality and cost-effective services (Keinänen and Kairisto-Mertanen, 2019). Thus, there is a need for professionals who are able to participate in innovation processes and who can contribute to the creation of innovations (Hero and Lindfors, 2019). However, “the role of higher education is not only to train undergraduate students for future work, but also to train future employees to perform work tasks, which then generate innovations” (Keinänen and Kairisto-Mertanen, 2019, p. 17). Thus, this poses challenges to the ways of educating, since we need changes in all the main stages of education: planning, implementation and evaluation of learning outcomes (Lappalainen, 2018).

More and more discussions on how to prepare people and environments to become more innovative and entrepreneurial are gaining ground in the academic and managerial context.

In this track, we will discuss papers focused on different aspects of research related to the technical, behavioral and functional side of innovation. Theoretical essays and empirical work on the following topics are accepted:

Leadership for Innovation

Skills for Entrepreneurship and Innovation

Entrepreneurial intention

Innovative and Entrepreneurial Behavior

Culture for Innovation

Pedagogy for Innovation

Entrepreneurial Education

Learning for Innovation

Service Learning

Service Innovation

Mindset for Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Other related topics

Agribusiness in Brazil has been a major support of Brazilian GDP and is the sector in which we are world leaders in the production of various crops, such as soybeans, corn, oranges, sugarcane, coffee, cattle, poultry, etc. (IBGE, 2017) and in supplying the population. In this context, innovation and entrepreneurship are essential in contributing to the solution of problems at the level of production units, as well as to our agro-industrial systems as a whole. Therefore, advancing knowledge in regard to innovation and entrepreneurship in agribusiness is of academic and practical relevance. USP's SEMEAD has already awakened to this locus of knowledge. ANPAD could also contribute to the advancement of knowledge through the Administration and Accounting PPGs, in addition to doctoral and master's programs in agribusiness, and several undergraduate courses and technology exclusive to this topic. Finally, the aim of this theme is to examine and advance the various dimensions of innovation and entrepreneurship within the context of agribusiness. So, we encourage contributions that address, but not limit themselves to, the following topics:

Innovation, Technology, and Sustainability in Agribusiness: 4.0 technologies, digital agriculture, smart farming, biotechnology and production systems and sustainable technologies in agribusiness, and ESG (Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance) in organizations;

Innovation and Entrepreneurship Ecosystems in Agribusiness: agribusiness startups (Agtechs), technology-based companies, science and technology institutions (ICTs) and universities, investors, incubators, accelerators, hubs, poles, technology parks and society;

Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Social and Impact Organizations: the profile of rural entrepreneurs, creating businesses, cooperativism, networks, family farming, and ;

Transformative Innovation: Sustainable Sociotechnological Transition, National and Regional Innovation Systems, Technological Sustainable Innovation/Entrepreneurship Systems, Technological Partner Niches; Innovative entrepreneurship and Sustainable Transition in production units;

Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Sustainable Products and Processes: sustainable products and processes in agribusiness chains;

Management and Public Policies of Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Agribusiness.

The objective of this track is to examine new methods, techniques, and processes that allow the methodological development of research in innovation and entrepreneurship management contexts. We encourage contributions that explore the association of different methods, multi-mixed methods, or that address, but are not limited to, the following topics: (1) Specificities of innovation and/or entrepreneurship management for methodological and theoretical design: How can exist and emerging methods contribute to the theoretical and analytical advance for studies in the field of Innovation/entrepreneurship? Or how can new methods be applied in teaching innovation and entrepreneurship? (2) Interdisciplinary Research: How can methods from other areas of knowledge contribute to innovation management and/or entrepreneurship studies? Advances in cognitive science, analysis, simulation, and computational intelligence that can be applied to the study of innovation and/or entrepreneurship; (3) New units and levels of analysis in innovation/entrepreneurship management: What kind of methodological challenges and opportunities exist when studying forms of organization such as innovation or entrepreneurial ecosystems? How can we study innovation management and/or entrepreneurship issues when many actors or information are involved? (4) Measurement issues in innovation management and/or entrepreneurship research: How can we measure the apparently intangible concepts used in innovation management and/or entrepreneurship research? (5) Methodologies, techniques, tools, metrics, and practical impact: How can we use methods to better communicate results so that they can be understood outside academia? How can we combine rigorous research methods with practical relevance at the same time? (6) Methodologies and new techniques for data collection, cleaning, standardization, processing, and analysis for research and scientific production in the field of innovation and entrepreneurship.

New issues related to different disruption modes - such as technological changes, institutional interruptions, and global challenges for society - emerge, leveraging sector transformation, new business generation and new epistemologies. It is important to understand the peculiarities of innovation management (IM) generated by them.
● New patterns of relationships between environment and organizations are established, configuring themselves in emerging contexts that impact GI. For example, the relationship between financialization and IM (Lazonick, Mazzucato, 2013) is poorly explored. What conditions does financialized capitalism bring to IM? Furthermore, transformative innovation makes it possible to face global challenges such as sustainability and inclusion (Schot and Steinmueller, 2018), which were enhanced by the pandemic COVID-19, leading to changes in technological development in national innovation systems (Guderian et al., 2020). What are the trends in policies for transformative innovation? What are the skills needed to engage different actors in transformative innovation? How has innovation been managed to accelerate the development of pandemic-fighting technologies in public and private institutions?
● The management of inter- and intra-organizational relationships requires greater understanding to overcome disruptions. How do organizations overcome the challenge of long-distance collaboration? How does substitution/overlapping (Hansen, 2015) influence relationships between partners with geographic and non-spatial distances? How to sustain mechanisms for university-industry interaction with high relational intensity that enable knowledge co-creation (Perkmann et al., 2013; Rossi et al., 2017)?
● Disruptions drive changes in organizations. How do organizations develop capabilities to deal with technological trends? How to understand labor in innovation activities? Does ambidexterity (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004) favor IM?
● Epistemologically, how can critical and interpretive approaches (e.g. innovation as a complex and performative process and practice - Garud et al., 2018; Langley et al, 2013) contribute to IM?

There is a growing interest of managers and practitioners in creating, adopting and developing structures, methods and techniques to manage innovation within organizations (Hidalgo & Albors, 2008). Innovation management concerns how organizations deal with creating, diffusing, or adopting innovations.
Although studies on innovation have been characterized by interdisciplinarity, traditionally, the understanding of innovation management used to be strongly related to the management of technological innovation. However, to understand the various nuances of innovation management, classic works (Van de Ven, Angle, & Poole, 2000; Joe Tidd, 2001; Utterback, 1994) as well as recent ones (Damanpour, 2020; OECD, 2018; Škudienė et al., 2020; J. Tidd & Bessant, 2018) highlight factors ranging from strategic to operational, from incremental to disruptive, from conception to measurement, from closed to open, as well as ways of dealing with innovations ranging from technological to non-technological ones. Silva et al. (2014, p. 488) argue that managing innovation processes should go beyond the visual representation of a model, i.e. should be grounded on "solid conceptual foundations about their limits, objectives, competitive and strategic context, and organizational parameters".
With the emergence of models, tools and methods to support innovation decision-making processes, this track aims at revealing different perspectives and approaches on innovation management and its implications within the organizational context. Submissions should include conceptual and empirical approaches, either quantitative and qualitative, on:
- Emerging in-house and open innovation management tools, in public or private organizations, resulting in technological, managerial and/or social innovation;
- Integration of innovation management with strategies and decision-making processes in different organizational arrangements;
- Comparative studies on innovation management tools for different geographies, sectors and organizational sizes.