1 Introduction

Small businesses have difficulty in generating and implementing innovations, which hampers their competitivity and survival (VRANDE et al, 2009). Developing innovations in the context of small business benefits entrepreneurs whenexploring changesto understandopportunities of business differentiation(PAREDES et al, 2015). Thus, the survival and competitivity of a small business aredirectly related to the entrepreneur’s ability to seekandexplore innovation opportunities (UKKO; SAUNILA, 2013).

Granovetter(2007) argues that different aspects of human life are directly influenced by social relations, which, when properly explored, can contribute to thesuccess of any type of activity. For the author, entrepreneurs come to be seen asagents engaged in their social relations, which are composed of a wide network of different types of actors. In this context, entrepreneurs need to resortto a consolidated social network in order to seize opportunities and acquire resources to implement actions (ALDRICH; ZIMMER, 1986).

Since innovation is a defining factor for small business survival, entrepreneurs need to count with resources from social relationships to allow innovative actions (VALE; AMÂNCIO; WILKINSON, 2008). Birley (1985) highlights that entrepreneurs do not rely only on physical and financial resources to conduct their business, but also on advice, information, opinions, confidence, and contacts from businesses. Similarly, in the context of innovation in small business, entrepreneurs shouldarticulate their network of contacts of different levels and types to be able to conceiveinnovation (PARTANEN; CHETTY; RAJALA, 2014).

However, Huggins and Thompson (2015) point out that despite the increasing acknowledgement of entrepreneurship and innovation in the scope of economic development, the role of social networks is yet to be explored. In general, studies address alliances betweencompanies towards innovation (PITTAWAY et al 2004), entrepreneurs’ social networks ininternationalization (FILATOTCHEV et al 2009) or the understanding about creation and evolution of new businesses (LARSON; STARR, 1993).

Thisstudy analyzescompanies participating in the LIA Program – Local Innovation Agents, promoted by SEBRAE(in Portuguese –Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas, that is, Service of Support to Small and Medium-sized Companies), that achieved successful innovation actions. The main goal of the LIA Program is to enhancecompetitivity in micro- andsmall companies, information diffusion oninnovation, technology and application of solutions, adapted to the characteristics of each business, to generate direct impact on business management, improvement of products and processes, and identification of new market clusters for products andservices.

Specifically, our goal is to describe the actions and types of innovation adopted by the entrepreneurs in study, as well as to characterize the types of social networks used and accessed resources. In the theory scope, we seek to contribute with theanalysis of how entrepreneurs’ social networks favor innovation actions in small companies and by highlighting the role of these networks in the access to the resources required for innovation deployment. In a practical context, this study intends tocontribute to different supporting bodies tosmall companies in the encouragement ofactions that promote the development and expansion of these social networks in the scope of small companies.

2 Entrepreneurs’ Social Networks

The central thesis of the new economic sociology unfolds reflections on the role of social links in the economic world through the concept of embeddedness(GRANOVETTER, 2007). Such term designates that economic actions and transactions are rooted in relationships and cannot be analyzed without considering social relations and individual social context (VALE, 2015). Thus, social networks refer to objects, people or groups of people that can provide resources such ascapital and information (OSTGAARD; BIRLEY, 1994), as well as support ideas inareas about which the individual does nothave expertknowledge (ALDRICH; ZIMMER, 1986).

For Granovetter (2007), networks are composed of two types of ties: weak ties, constitutedof possibleandsporadiccontacts, and strong ties, characterized by intense and frequent contacts. In this context, Newbert, Tornikoski and Quigley (2013) state that businesses should acquireresources from an increasingly diverse set of strong ties and an even larger range of weak ties. By connecting an individual to worlds apart from their own, weak ties enable a better absorption of different typesof information and opportunities (VALE, 2015). In turn, strong ties tend to providerelationships based onaffective and frequent contact (ELFRING; HULSINK, 2003). Therefore, help and support to individuals in the strong tie are moreevident, serving to access resources more easily due to the sense of mutual obligation and reciprocity (NEWBERT; TORNIKOSKI; QUIGLEY, 2013), especially in thecontext of family companies (STAMM; LUBINSKI, 2011)

In turn, Dubini and Aldrich (1991) highlight and classify the networks as personal and business related. Personal networks are characterized by all people with whom entrepreneurs have direct contact and are able to collaborate withadvice, business support or even by offering a portfolio of options for personal relations, such as family and friends (DUBINI; ALDRICH, 1991). Business networks established within the context oforganizations are characterized by allrelationships among owner, managers, employees and how they are structured according to standards of coordination and procedures. The business network (or extended network) is partly shaped by entrepreneurs’ personal network, sincepersonal contacts intermediate and benefit the contact with other companies anddifferent resources (HUANG; LAI; LO, 2012; JENSEN; SCHOTT, 2014).

It is natural for entrepreneurs to resort to and engage in their personal contact network in the daily activities of a start-upcompany, however, as its processes develop and consolidate in the market, the need to rely more on business networks arises. (STAM; ARZLANIAN; ELFRING; 2014). Thus, according to Dubini and Aldrich (1991), business networks are constituted of suppliers, clients, and competing companiesor other professional contacts established by entrepreneurs that offer the required information and resources.

Schott and Sedaghat (2014) also distinct that entrepreneurs’ social networks can be classified as private networks (family and friends) and public networks (workplace, professional, market, and international relations). Such nomenclature is associated with inter-relationship of personal and business networks proposed by Dublin and Aldrich (1991). Private relationships have a rather positive impact on business networks in consolidatedcompanies. In contrast, public contacts enable to access useful resources for start-up or developing companies (GREEVE; SALAFF, 2003; SCHOTT; SEDAGHAT, 2014).

Entrepreneurs hardly have all the resources required to drive their businesses,which leads them to rely on their social interactions to acquire such resources (OSTGAARD; BIRLEY, 1994; LE and NGUYEN 2009). According to the entrepreneur’s needs, social networks are formed to enable the articulation of resources, whether social, financial, or physical (BRUSH; GREENE; HART, 2001). Therefore, resources accessed by entrepreneurs in their relationships range different types and favor the entrepreneurs’ ability to mobilize resources (FERGUSON; SCHATTKE; PAULIN, 2016).

In turn, Brush, Greene and Hart (2001) classify these resources in five types: 1) Physical – raw material and inputs, machines and equipment, vehicles, real estate, and physical location; 2) Technological and financial – patents, licenses, and technologies applied to theproduction process, equity, and third-party capital, 3) Social – legitimation, reputation, relationship with clients/suppliers, informal andformal relationships withother institutions, confidence and emotional andmoral support, 4) Human – formal and informal education, professional experience, knowledge/abilities, and 5) Organizational – formal and informal information systems, control and management, structure and organizational culture, among others.

3 Entrepreneurial Social Networks and innovation in small business

The innovation typologies applied in small companies should be analyzed considering their peculiar characteristics (MALDONADO; DIAS; VARVAKIS, 2009). Naturally, small businesses reflect entrepreneurs, who do not always organize themselvesas innovation managers(TAVARES, FERREIRA; LIMA, 2009). For Berends et al. (2014), the type of innovation is often diffuse in small business, without following a formal planning or clear understanding on the concept of innovation. In this context, theOSLO Manual (2005) encompasses fourtypes of innovation in small companies: 1) Products/Services; 2) Processes; 3) Organizational, and 4) Marketing. Another derived typology is highlighted from asustainable perspectiveand includes innovations of any sort resulting from adding valuewithoutharming theenvironment (FREEMAN, 1996).

When establishing a link between entrepreneurs’ social networks and innovation in small business, it is important to understand entrepreneurs from twodifferent perspectives: entrepreneurs as network articulators and entrepreneurs as innovation agents (VALLE; WILKINSON; AMÂNCIO, 2008). Despite appearing distinct, these approaches merge when considering entrepreneurs as designers of networks subjected to varied innovation degrees. Thus, entrepreneurs are able toarticulate, unite, and connect different actors and resources to add value to theproduction activity (HUGGINS, 2010).

For Feldens, Maccari and Garcez (2012), several are the barriers to innovation in small businesses, including physical structure, organizational capacity, and evenspecific legislations. Complementarily, according to Partanen, Chetty, and Rajala (2014), small companies rely on fewresources in financial, technological (P&D), and physical terms, in addition to intangible resources, like informationabout themarket andinventions. Such scenario leads entrepreneurs to complement theirresources by engaging in different types of relation networks (DUBINI; ALDRICH, 1991; PARTANEN; CHETTY; RAJALA, 2014). Small businesses have difficulty in promoting innovations resulting from theirinternal environment, thus relying on innovations supported by external knowledge, relationships with external agents, as research institutions, government bodies, suppliers, clients, and partners, thus characterizing open innovation (VRANDE et al, 2009; LEENDERS; DOLFSMA, 2016). These agents constituting theentrepreneurs’ relation network correspond to their main sources of innovation resources (PARTANEN; CHETTY; RAJALA, 2014).

In a similar fashion, several authors highlight that in the innovation process, entrepreneurs should resort to relationships with universities or research institutes (LEENDERS; DOLFSMA, 2016), partners in the same segment (ROTHAERMEL; DEEDS, 2006), clients and suppliers (DEPROPRIS, 2002). Incremental innovations seem to demand relations withsuppliers in particular, while radical innovations are associatedwithcollaboration with suppliers and clients (AHSTROM, 2010; PARTANEN; CHETTY; RAJALA, 2014). Elfring and Hulsink (2007) analyzed the combination of weak and strong ties in entrepreneurs’ social network with the ability to recognize innovation opportunities. The authors categorize entrepreneurs into twosubgroups (radical andincrementalinnovative) according to the strength of ties. Incremental innovations, which use particularly weak ties, are more likely tooffer new opportunities, while radical innovation demand a more balanced combination between strong and weak ties.

Partanen, Chetty and Rajala (2014) analyzed the different relations of contact networks with types of innovation and found that each type of innovation demandscertain types of relationship. In turn, Jensen and Schott (2014) used data from 8918 small companies in 40 countries to identify their dynamics of relation networks. The results suggest that innovations are moreinfluenced by relationships from weak ties, mentioned by the authors as public network.

Huang, Lai and Lo (2012) used a model to investigate the potential of influence of social ties of small companies founders on innovation and organizational performance. The results reveal a mediatingrole of business network towardsinnovation. A study by Vasconcelos et al (2007) analyzes themobilizing of entrepreneurs’ relationships to access simple and complex resources for thecreation and development of innovative businesses. The research focused on high-technology companies that participated in incubator by analyzing the resources andrelationships used in each of the incubation process phases.

4 Methodological Issues

According to the nature of theproposed goals, this is a qualitative and descriptive study, an approach that favors researchers to interact, thus ensuring more in-depth data, and exploration of multiple factors involved bydescribing thecharacteristics of the context studied (CRESWELL, 2009). The research strategy applied is multiple-case study, which allows to analyze the phenomenon more deeplywithin its actual context, especially when the limits between the phenomenon andcontext are notclearly defined (SAUNDERS; LEWIS; THORNHILL, 2009; YIN, 2014). Such choice generates a more robust study, enabling to compare the findings and consequently a larger amount of more robust or convincing evidence and proof (YIN, 2014). Our analysis units arethe relationship networks used byentrepreneurs in innovation actions.

We analyzed six cases chosen based on the following criteria: (1) small companies (SEBRAE, 2014); (2) at leasttwo years of experience, (3) acting in only one of the production chains served by theprogram, and (4) companies regarded assuccessful innovation cases in the LAIProgram. The successful case considered in this study refers to the companies participating in the LIA program for over one year and a half that have performed at least six innovation actions, improved theassessed innovation radar at least in two distinct stages, and presented a significantly better innovation degree in the innovation radar diagnosis.

We applied a semistructured interview as source of evidence that provides the researcher with a list of topics and issues to be addressed, modified during the interview depending on the context, thus allowing further conclusions (SAUNDERS; LEWIS; THORNHILL, 2009). We conducted nine interviews with an average duration of one hour and a half with entrepreneurs who represent successful cases in the LIA Program for implementinginnovation actions in their companies, in addition to five Local Innovation Agents who worked with the selected companies. Each interview was recorded using an audio recorder, transcribed, and further analyzed when describing each case. Chart 1 shows therespondentsand corresponding company.

Chart 2 lists the analysis categories and elements considered based on literature review.

In a simplified manner, our studyproceeded in the following steps: identifying the companies corresponding to successful cases in the LIA Program; surveying the documents; elaborating an interview script; conducting the pilot case; analysis and description of pilot case; adjustments andscript corrections; contacting theentrepreneurs of thecompanies identified; interview scheduling; evidence collection in the companies; transcription; description and analysis of evidence; description of eachcase, comparative analysis, and final report of themulti-case study.

The analysis of the collected evidence followed the content analysis technique, which, according to Bardin (1977), defines the concept of a set of systematic techniquesand procedures to unveil what lies beyond words, leading respondents to provideinformation intertwined with the messages. The use of semistructured interview justifies and highlights the application of content analysis since this type of interviewexpects researchers to be free to seekinformation other than that provided in the questions and answers. Our study followed the content analysis phases proposed byBardin (1977).

5 Comparative Analysis of the cases

Após a descrição individual de cada caso, foi realizada a análise comparativa com base nas categorias analíticas do estudo, procurando destacar as semelhanças e diferenças e, quando possível, a comparação com a teoria. Inicialmente são descritas as características das empresas e dos empreendedores e depois as inovações em produtos/ serviços, processos, organizacionais, marketinge as redes sociais empreendedoras e recursos acessados.

5.1 Characteristics of Companies and Entrepreneurs

In the context of economic activity, we identified two companies of the service sector, three from trade sector, and one from the industry/trade sector. The company in case 2 employs the smallest number of professionals, with four employees, whilethe company in case 6 employs the largest number of professionals, with 31 (thirty-one) employees.

We observed that most of the entrepreneurs were male since only two of the analyzed companies are managed bywomen. Regarding education, we found that only the entrepreneur in case 3 does not have higher education, only technical training unrelated to the business area, while all remaining entrepreneurs wereAdministration, Accounting, or Computer Science graduates.

In the scope ofprofessional experiences, the entrepreneur in case 1 has extensive experience as banker, university professor, and business consulting. In case 2, the entrepreneur has prior experience as salesperson and manager of a clothing store, while in cases 3, 4 and 6 – second-generation family companies –, therespondententrepreneurs have priorexperience in their own business andlearned to work with their parents. Finally, in case 5, the entrepreneur has priorexperience as bank system programmer, which benefited the identification of business opportunities.

5.2 Innovations in Product/Service, Entrepreneurial Social Networks, and Accessed Resources

Concerning theinnovation typologies, we learned that the innovations standing out in the studied cases encompassed the availability of services related to the main products, launch of new product lines, and increase in the mix of marketed products resulting from the expansion of physical space or layout dynamization.

When analyzing the availability of new services, we found that in case 3, theentrepreneur offered the services of credit granting and asset analysis through thecooperation of a financial institution. The entrepreneur in case 1, in addition to providing a new service tied to the traditional ones, developed aconsulting/advisory kit in partnership andcooperation with hisown clients, combining their different services. These innovations may reflect an open innovation application in small companies (VRANDE et al, 2009) that defines a series of technology exploration and innovation implementation practices in cooperation with competing companies, partners, and clients.

The entrepreneur in case 2 introduced a new line of seasonal products taking into account the clients’ suggestions and thestore expansion. Similarly, theentrepreneurs in cases 3, 4, and 6 issuednew product lines due to the expansion of physical structure and production capacity. The analyzed cases revealed that theinnovations counted with a creative use of scarce or external resources, withoutstructured planning, supported on their own prior experiences. Berends et al. (2014) also addressed such a way of innovating by introducing that small companies do not usually implement formalized innovation processes for neither products or services. The entrepreneurs highlight difficulties in product innovation in the scope of small companies, like legal and fiscal matters, skilled labor, and risk aversion, similarly to some of the findings of Feldens, Maccari and Garcez (2012), who point out four of the main barriers to innovation in Brazilian small companies.

We also have come across the importance of friends for productinnovation in the studied companies. In case 1, the entrepreneur emphasizes that these friends are generally former colleagues andprofessional contacts, asuniversity professors and business consulting. In turn, in the remaining cases, friends whoinfluenced the innovations are notnecessarilyprofessional contacts or involved in the entrepreneurs’ activities, but brought in suggestions, feedbacks, andarticulation with suppliers and partners. Likewise, Elfring and Hulsink (2007) corroborate the importance of strong ties, such as family and friends, at the earlyinnovation stages, pointing out that theseties alleviate the entrepreneur’s insecurity.

In turn, business networks showed several professional contacts with directly influence on service innovations. Theentrepreneurs from the companies analyzed in this study are generally influenced by clients when unfolding an innovation idea, while the implementation process is influenced by competing companies, suppliers, and partners in the same segment. Likewise, Depropris (2002) emphasizes the importance of the relationshipwithsuppliers to establish an innovation; in addition, Rothaermel and Deeds (2006) also point out that interacting with partners and competing companies in the same segment is an important factor for innovation.

The results corroborate the conceptual model proposed by Huang, Lai, and Lo (2012), who sought to investigate the potential of influence of social ties on the innovation of small companies based on a three-dimension structure of relation networks for innovation: interaction with suppliers, clients, and competing companies. Still regardingbusiness networks, the entrepreneurs in cases 1, 3, 5, and 6 accessed financial resources frombank institutions and credit agents, while incase 3, the financial resources wereaccessed through a partnership with afinancial institution. The importance of such relationships is noticeable since the entrepreneurs in cases 1 and 3 highlight therelationship withcredit agentsas determinant for the implementation of these innovations. Le and Nguyen (2009) state that the relationship with banks facilitates innovations to be implemented since entrepreneurs hardly have their own resources.

As for personal networks, all entrepreneurs reported accessing social resources. In turn, human resources, in general, were accessed by the entrepreneurs in the scope of their personal networks, except for the entrepreneur in case 4. Brush, Greene and Hart (2001) classified these types of resources by expressing that social resources provide moral and technical support, while human resources correspond to formal or informal education, professional experience, and abilities. Only the entrepreneur in case 1 highlights theaccess of a different type of resource through the personal network, which was the case of service innovation in which physical resources were accessed through the relationship with his son and partner when implementing a video conference room.

In cases 1 and 3, the entrepreneurs accessed technological resources from their business networks, which in case 1corresponded to the deployment technology of a videoconference system. In case 3, theentrepreneur highlights the relationship with a supplier when implementing a credit granting system.

We found that the entrepreneurs accessed the organizational resources mainly through their employees or formal and informal systems of information. The exception was case 1, in which the company accessed organizational resources through clients and partners by elaborating aconsulting kit. Severalauthors (PITTAWAY et al., 2004; PARTANEN; CHETTY; RAJALA, 2014; LEENDERS; DOLFSMA, 2016) highlight that theparticular dynamics of small business replaces the possibility of innovations derived only from the internal environmentwithinnovations based on external knowledge.

5.3 Innovations in Products, Entrepreneurial Social Networks, and Accessed Resources

The process innovations adopted in the analyzed cases introduced significantchanges to internal procedures by using more innovative management tools andsystems. We identified innovations such as the reformulation and mapping of internal processes, applicationof ISO 9001, implementation of a client relationship system, use and update of managementsoftware, application of financial control tools and stock control system. In addition to these innovations in traditional processes, we also observed sustainable ones, as theresidue destination program and energy efficiency project.

The adoption of a management system for the relationship with clients wasanother action exclusive to the company in case 1. However, the entrepreneurs in cases 2, 4, and 6 reported having implemented or improved their relationship with clients by applying and updating the integrated management system. Tavares, Ferreira and Lima (2009) emphasize the importance of client relationship for small business innovation since its credibility reflects entrepreneurs’ performance and their relationship with clients.

The update or use of a management system was another innovation identified in cases 1, 2, and 4. Adopting an innovative management system, like in cases 2 and 6, in which the entrepreneurs report thedeployment of new technologies, can be regarded as a technological innovation, since, according to Ahstrom (2010), these innovations can be characterized by thedeployment of new technologies thatenhance business efficiency.

We also identified innovation actions that can be categorized as sustainable innovation, which, according to Freeman (1996), establishes the fusion betweensustainability andinnovation, encompassing the creation of added value without compromising natural resources. These sustainable actions were found in cases 1, 2, and 3 and were associated with management actions for solid residues and energy efficiency. It is worth highlighting that in cases 2 and 3, the application of theenergy efficiency project required specific measures that favor the management of residues as consequence of lower energy consumption, or at least a more responsible use. Such actions enable some clear results of less cost with electrical power, in addition to a greater credibility for clients.

For the social networks that promotedinnovation processes, we found the use ofpersonal networks was generally associated with family partners actively participating in the innovations. In the analyzed cases, these personal networks are directly linked to moral and technical support. Birley (1985) argues that such networks are highly important toidentifyimprovement opportunities regarding routine operations.

During the innovation processes, the entrepreneurs generally access social and human resources, and more rarely organizational resources. Social resources are the most accessed in personal networks for corresponding to the closest ties in the scope of moral and technical support. Brush, Greende and Hart (2001) state that social and human resources are the base of social capital, often accessed exclusively in an informal manner. In turn, regarding business networks, theentrepreneurs reported accessingfinancial andtechnological resources in addition to social and human resources, as in cases 1 and 2, and only financial resources in case 3. Wefound that technological resources derived from the development of managementsoftware, while financial resources resulted from subsidies granted by SEBRAE.

5.4 Innovations in Organizations, Social Entrepreneurial Networks, and Accessed Resources

The entrepreneurs highlighted the following organizational innovationsimplemented by the studied companies: application of project architecture withstructural renovation, application of MEM – Management Excellence Model –, reformulationof strategicalplanning, acquisition of machines and equipment, andstoresectorization. Such innovations clearly demonstrate changes in the organizational structure, including different strategical direction. In almost all cases, the entrepreneurs used an architecture project or structural renovation.

The entrepreneur in case 1 described having applied an important organizational innovation that introduced an expressive change in the strategical direction andorganizational structure management. Suchinnovation was the complete reformulation of the strategical planning through theapplication of a strategical planning tool based on the MEM – ManagementExcellence Model.

The networks that benefited theimplementation of organizational innovations in the analyzed companies involved family partners in the company and some friends with specific ideas. In turn, regarding business networks, theentrepreneurs point out the participation ofemployees, LIA, consultants, SEBRAE, suppliers, and credit agents. In the scope ofresources accessed by entrepreneurs fororganizational innovations, case 1 only implemented actions of organizationalreformulation using social and humanresources from their personal networks. In turn, in case 2, in addition to social andhuman resources, the entrepreneur accessed physical resources from both personal andbusiness networks. Cases 3 and 4, 5 and 6 accessed physical and financial resources from their business networks through bank financing or SEBRAE subsidy.

5.5 Innovations in Marketing, Entrepreneurial Social Networking, and Accessed Resources

Except in case 3, the visual identity action proved a defining innovation factor for reflecting changes in the businesspositioning. Consequently, such innovation influenced the adoption of new ways ofcommunicating with clients. In cases 1 and 5, the redefinition of visual identity occurred due to the logo update andstandardization of colors business. In turn, in cases 2 and 6, the change in the company focus demanded the establishment of a new identity, unlike case 4, which leveraged thecredibility of the company name to build itsown identity. It is worth emphasizing that in case 4, the entrepreneur reported that thedevelopment of company visual identity represented a radical innovation for having caused deep changes in the organization,ranging from ways to serve customers, facade renovation, to the standardization of internal colors.

The three stores of retail trade in theanalyzed cases presented merchandisingactions. In case 2, such actions occurred according to the deployment of a specific consulting, while cases 4 and 6 involvedonly isolate actions prompted by theknowledge achieved during a course. In both cases, the motivation for merchandising actions resulted from new visual identity and product arrangement.

Another innovation action in themarketing scope that we observed in thecompanies studied was the organization of events and sales in partnership with other companies and organizations. In case 2, theentrepreneur describes having organized anevent in partnership with suppliers andother companies of the same segment to promote its new visual identity and launch a new line of products. In case 3, we identified partnerships with competing companies and the CDL to organize a Christmas sale, while in case 6 the partnership waswithschools andprofessionals of the segment for specific events. Still regarding marketing campaign, we found two other innovations worth highlighting for having not used direct financial resources. Case 3 involved thepreparation and dissemination of jingles, while case 4 engaged in a formalized policy about sponsorships and support to localevents. Similarly, a study by Panetworks et al (2015) concluded that the companies attended by the LIA Program tend to adopt creative innovations without using financial resources.

As for the social networks that benefited the implementation of marketinginnovations, we found that family members who work in the same company and somefriends were the most accessed. An example is case 4, who had the help of colleagues from the Rotary Clube. In turn, for business networks, all entrepreneurs highlighted the participation of SEBRAE, suppliers, andcredit agents.

Regarding the resources accessed by the entrepreneurs for marketing innovations, personal networks were the most accessed social resource, especially in the scope of technical and moral support. In turn, business networks also includedhuman and organizational resources and, in somecases, physical andfinancial resources. We found the implementation of visual identity actions in the companies of cases 1, 2, to 4, 5 and 6. Such actions caused changes in the whole color identity andconsequently in the facade and internal ambiance of the companies. In all cases, ambiance demanded new equipment, likemobile signs, rotating plates, and light play. In addition, case 1 involved LED lamp arrangement on the facade, while in case 2, new showcase schemes and a mobile fitting room were implemented, and in case 4, new material of product shelves and availability of shopping carts in the store. Finally, cases 5 and 6 implemented a small light play on the facade. Concerning the financial resources, in the companies of cases 1, 2,and 4, 5 and 6, we identified the use of subsidies granted by SEBRAE, used for visual identity service and other projects. Authors as Le and Nguyen (2009) state thatentrepreneurs’ social networks influence the access to financial resources, to a greater or lesser extent depending on the interactionlevel of the relationship.

Regarding both personal and businessnetworks, all entrepreneurs accessed social andorganizationalresources through emotional, moral, andtechnical management support, a process in which relationships with suppliers and clientsstand out. Vasconcelos et al (2007) found a similar result by verifying that entrepreneurs often combine the access to the same type of resource and different types of relation networks. Especially for actions involving some third-party service provision, human resources were the most accessed, followed by organizationalresources from their business networks. Ramani, Mukherjee (2014) point out to such observation by stating that entrepreneurs require different resources according to the deployment phase ofprojects developed by service providers.

Referências

ALDRICH, H.; ZIMMER, C. Entrepreneurship through social networks. In SEXTON, D. L.; D. L.; SMILOR, R. W. (org.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. 1986. p. 3-23.

BERENDS, H., JELINEK, M., REYMEN, I.; STULTIËNS, R. Product Innovation Processes in Small Firms: Combining entrepreneurial effectuation and managerial causation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, v.31, n.3, 616-635. 2014.

BIRLEY, S. The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, v.1., n.1, p. 107-117, 1985.

BRUSH, C. GREENE, P.; HART, P. From initial idea to unique advantage: the entrepreneurial challenge of constructing a resource base. Academy of Management Executive, v.15, n.1, p.64-80, 2001.

CRESWELL, J. W. W.. Projeto de pesquisa: métodos qualitativo, quantitativo e misto. 2. ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman. 2009.

DEPROPRIS, L. Types of innovation and inter-firm co-operation. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, v. 14, p. 337–353. 2002.

DUBINI, P.; ALDRICH, H. Personal and extended networks are central to the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, v. 6, p. 305–313. 1991.

ELFRING, T., HULSINK, W. Networking by entrepreneurs: patterns of tie formation in emerging organizations. Organization Studies v. 28 n. 12, p. 1849–1872. 2007.

FELDENS, M. A. ; MACCARI, E. A. ; GARCEZ, M. P. . Barreiras para a inovação em produtos nas pequenas e médias empresas de tecnologia no Brasil. BBR. Brazilian Business Review , v. 9,n. 3, p. 1-24, 2012.

FERGUSON, R.; SCHATTKE, K.; PAULIN, M. The social context for value co-creations in an entrepreneurial network. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, v.. 22 n. 2 p. 199-214. 2016.

FILATOTCHEV, I.; LIU, X.; BUCK, T.; WRIGHT, M. The export orientation and export performance of high-technology SMEs in emerging markets: the effects of knowledge transfer by returnee entrepreneurs. Journal of International Business Studies, v. 40, p. 1005-1021. 2009.

FREEMAN, C. The greening of technology and models of innovation, Technological forecasting and social change, v. 53, n.01, september 1996.

GRANOVETTER, M. Ação econômica e estrutura social: o problema da imersão. Revista Administração Eletrônica, n. 6 v. 1, 2007.

HITE, J. M. Evolutionary processes and paths of relationally embedded network ties in emerging entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, v. 29, n. 1, p.113–144, 2005

HUANG, H. C.; LAI, M. C.; LO, K. W. Do founders’ own resources matter? The influence of business networks on start-up innovation and performance. Technovation. v. 32, p. 316-327. 2012

HUGGINS, R. Forms of network resource: Knowledge access and the role of inter-firm networks. International Journal of Management Reviews, v. 12, n. 3, p. 335–352. 2010

HUGGINS, R.; THOMPSON, P. Entrepreneurship, innnovation and regional growth: a network theory. Small Business Economics, v. 45, n. 1, p. 103-128, 2015.

JENSEN, K. W.; SCHOTT, T. Start-up firms’ networks for innovation and export: facilitated and constrained by entrepreneurs’ networking in private and public spheres. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. v. 48, n 5 p.48-60, 2014.

LARSON, A.; STARR, J. A network model of organization formation. A network model of organizational formation. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, v. 17 n. 2, p. 5-16, 1993.

LE, N.T.B.; NGUYEN, T.V. The impact of networking on bank financing: The case of small and medium-sized enterprises in Vietnam. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, v. 33, p. 867–887. 2009.

LEENDERS, R. T. A. J., DOLFSMA, W. A. Social Networks for Innovation and New Product Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, v.33 n.2, p.123-131, (2016)

MALDONADO, M.; DIAS, N.; VARVAKIS, G. Managing innovation in small hightechnology firms: a case study in Brazil. Journal of technology management & innovation, v. 4, n. 2, p. 130-142, 2009.

NEWBERT, N., L.; TORNIKOSKI, E. T.; QUIGLEY, N. R. Exploring the evolution of supporter networks in the creation of new organizations. Journal of Business Venturing, v. 28, p. 281-298. 2013.

OCDE. Manual de Oslo: Proposta de Diretrizes para Coleta e Interpretação de Dados sobre Inovação Tecnológica. Brasília: Finep, tradução português, 2005.

OSTGAARD, T., A., BIRLEY, S. Personal networks and firm competitive strategy—a strategic or coincidental match? Journal of Business Venturing, v. 9, p. 281–305. 1994

PAREDES, B. J. B.; SANTANA, G. A. ; CUNHA, T. N. ; AQUINO, J. T. . Uma análise intrassetorial e intersetorial do grau de inovação de empresas de pequeno porte do estado de Pernambuco. Revista de Administração e Inovação, v. 12, p. 140-161, 2015.

PARTANEN, J., CHETTY, S. K., RAJALA, A. Innovation Types and Network Relationships. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, n. 38 v.5, 1027–1055, 2014

PITTAWAY, L., ROBERTSON, M., MUNIR, K., DENYER, D.; NEELY, A. Networking and innovation: A systemic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, v.5, n.6, p 137-168. 2004

RAMANI, S. V.; MUKHERJEE, V. Can breakthrough innovations serve the poor (bop) and create reputational (CSR) value? Indian case studies. Technovation, v.35, n.5-6, p.295–305, 2014.

ROTHAERMEL, F.T.; DEEDS, D.L. Alliance type, alliance experience and alliance management capability in high-technology firms. Journal of Business Venturing, v.21, p.429–460. 2006

SAUNDERS, M.; LEWIS, P.; THORNHILL, A. Research methods for business students. 5 ed., London: Pearson Education Limited, 2009.

SCHOTT, T.; SEDAGHAT, M. Innovation embedded in entrepreneurs’ networks and national educational systems. Small Business Economics. v.43, n.2, p.463–476. 2014.

SERVIÇO BRASILEIRO DE APOIO ÀS MICRO E PEQUENAS EMPRESAS – SEBRAE. Anuário do trabalho na micro e pequena empresa. 6. ed., p.284, 2014.

STAM, W.; ARZLANIAN, S.; ELFRING, T. Social capital of entrepreneurs and small firm performance: a meta-analysis of contextual and methodological moderators. Journal Bussines Venturing. V.29, n.1, p.152–173. 2014

STAMM, I.; LUBINSKI, C. Crossroads of family business research and firm demography: A critical assessment of family business survival rates. Journal of Family Business Strategy, n.2, p.117-127, 2011.

TAVARES, B.; FERREIRA, M. A. M.; LIMA, A. T. F. C. Identificação e agrupamento de fatores de relevância na investigação das práticas de gestão das micro e pequenas empresas. Revista de Negócios, v.14, n.4, p.11–27, 2009.

UKKO, J; SAUNILA, M. Facilitating innovation capability through performance measurement: A study of Finnish SMEs. Management Research Review, v. 36, n. 10, p. 991-1010. 2013.

VALE, G. M. V; AMÂNCIO, R; WILKINSON, J. Empreendedorismo, inovação e redes: uma nova abordagem. RAE, v.7, n.1, 2008.

VALE, G. M. V.; Fatores Condicionantes do Empreendedorismo: Redes Sociais ou Classes Sociais? Organização e Sociedade - Salvador, v.22, n.75, p.583-602. 2015.

VASCONCELOS, G.; REZENDE, S.; GUIMARÃES, L.; FACHIN, R. Mobilizando Relacionamentos e Acessando Recursos na Criação e Evolução de Novos Negócios. Organizações & Sociedade, v.14, p.113-134, 2007.

VRANDE, V; JONG, J. P. J; VANHAVERBEKE, W. ROCHEMONT, M. Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation. v.29. p.423-437. 2009.

YIN, R. K. Estudo de caso:planejamento e método. 5. ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2001.