Innovation is the implementation of a significantly improved product or service, process, new marketing method or a new organizational method in business practices, work environment or external relations (ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 2005). Although the term is popularly linked to the creation of new technologies and new companies, innovation, according to the above concept, is transversal, that can be applied to processes, organizations, business models and the most diverse areas of the economy, "mature" or "non-mature" (ARBIX et al, 2010). Thus, innovation is important for companies and for the growth of countries and has received increasing attention from government policies.

Innovation should not be treated as a simple process based on basic scientific research, but should be structured and well defined (ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 2005). It is a learning process that is facilitated and amplified when developed in an interactive and integrated way (EDQUIST, 2001) between the various social actors in an organized way (ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 2005). And it is precisely in this structuring that lies the importance or role of NIS. When they are structured in a planned way they can strengthen the development of technologies and the progress of the nation (FREEMAN, 1995).

Edquist (2001) presents a more generic concept of NIS, which defines all the economic, social, political, organizational and other important factors that can influence the development, diffusion and use of innovations, whether sectorial or regional. While the regional ones refer to the innovation system of a certain geographic region of a country or parts of different countries, the sectorial ones present more specific focuses on certain technological or product areas (EDQUIST, 2001).

NISs present two groups of basic components that influence each other: the actors that comprise it – the organizations –, and the interactions and relationship between them provided by institutions (EDQUIST, 2001; ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 2005; SOUZA, 2005). Organizations are formal structures with explicit purposes and they are consciously created. Among these, Edquist (2004) highlights companies, scientific and technological organizations (which develop basic knowledge and formal education), development organizations, entrepreneur capital and the government. Institutions define the routines, habits, rules, practices and laws that regulate relationships and interaction between individual, groups and organizations (EDQUIST, 2001, 2004). For example, the legal systems, norms, national standards and patent legislation (EDQUIST, 2001, 2004).

NISs serve as a reference to understand the different technological dynamics of countries. To characterize them, based on a study including 46 countries and a previous study from Nelson (1993), Freeman (1995) and Patel; Pavitts (1994), Albuquerque (1999) proposes a classification according to its maturity: "mature", "catching up" and "non-mature". This degree of maturity refers to the level of integration between the components of the system, and also how much innovation reflects and is important in the economic system, dynamizing it (NELSON, 1993). To do so, the author uses a set of indicators of science and technology, such as: gross domestic product per capita, generated patents, investments in research and development, published articles, rate of illiteracy and graduates, and the number of scientists and engineers graduated in the country.

According to Albuquerque (1999), mature NISs are countries that have a good balance of investments in science and technology, with an infrastructure that encourages a relationship between key institutions, allowing exchange and interaction between them, generating knowledge and innovation. In these countries, innovation is reflected in the number of generated patents. Some examples of countries in this category are: Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Austria, Switzerland, Canada, the USA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Israel.

The "catching up" group includes countries that are in transition between "mature" and "non-mature". This means that these countries are undergoing a process of accelerated maturation and focus on innovative activities (expanding infrastructure and concentration of scientific development in key disciplines for industrial advancement) (SILVA, 2009). They are countries that have grown in the number of patents and rates in education, as well as advances in research and development, engineering and science. They have the characteristic of investing in scientific infrastructure and the capacity to absorb the technology generated outside the country adapting it to their own national system. Some examples in this category are in East Asia - Korea, Taiwan and Singapore (ALBUQUERQUE, 1999).

Finally, the "non-mature" group includes countries with an unbalanced distribution of investments in science and technology that generate gaps between the institutions involved, as well as educational problems (ALBUQUERQUE, 1999). They are divided into three groups. The first group includes countries with problems of education and low level of development in R&D. The scientific structure shows some level of activity and some innovative actions, but the number of patents and papers is still below those belonging to the "mature" and "catching up" groups. Scientific infrastructure is limited, and few disciplines meet international standards, thus having poor interaction with the technology community. Another important point is that budget issues affect the stability of research groups and their results. This includes countries as Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Venezuela, India, South Africa, Greece, Spain and Portugal.

The second group includes countries with a low numbers of patents in an economic context of growth, good level of education and excellent sources of scientific research, however the results generated by research do not present civil, butmainly military purposes. Therefore, despite technological investments, the effects are weak, since the resources are not well allocated and distributed. It includes systems from countries such as Russia, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic and Slovakia), Hungary, Poland and Romania.

Finally, the third group includes countries with a good ratio between patents and economic growth but which have a low per capita patent rate: in its more technology-intensive business sector, patents are not important. There is a scientific structure with high levels of activity and a high degree of technological diffusion. Examples of this group are Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand.

Therefore, the Brazilian NIS is classified as "non-mature" due to a dynamic of interaction that does not allow an adequate connection between science and technology that foments the production of knowledge. In addition, another feature is the presence of foreign or state investments participating in technological production, as well as a regional concentration in the country of technological activities (ALBUQUERQUE; BAESSA; KIRDEIKAS, 2005). On the other hand, the system in France is considered "mature". The country has been through a process of change of its productive structures, demanding efforts and preparation of the society. In addition, coordination and the generation of processes to stimulate innovation are carried out by the highest governmental spheres (ARBIX, 2010).

Innovation environments can be defined as delimited spaces that present conditions to develop activities and technological processes with economical purposes to foster innovation (ZOUAIN, 2003). They are structured based on scientific and technological knowledge, supporting the development of innovations and creating a space of synergy between the actors, who can share the same physical space (SILVA, 2009). There are elements from the NIS that act as triggers of innovation.

There are several types of innovation environments: technological parks, science parks, research parks, innovation centers, technopoles, poles de competivité, technology-based incubators, pre-incubators or technology hotels, accelerators and the core of technological innovation. Each one with its own characteristics depending on its context (SILVA, 2009).

In this paper, a technological park and competitiveness pole were studied. They are environments with different characteristics and similarities, according to Table 1. Among them are:

§ Activities that they develop: both of them offer research and development services to create and apply new technologies, although the Park also presents activities related to production;

§ Actors: universities, research centers, government and companies;

§ Activity limits (area): poles have a bigger scope given their regional performance, while Parks cover a smaller region near a university or research center;

§ Governance: this is the most variable aspect in both cases, as it is specific to each institution or to national standards, in the case of poles;

§ Assets: practically the same. Differently, Parks present in house incubators.

Table 1
Table 1: Main characteristics of Technology Parks and Competitiveness Poles

Source: Adapted from FIGLIOLI (2007); LES PÔLES DE COMPÉTITIVITÉ, n.d.; SILVA (2009).

This dimension concerns all the elements related to the management and organization of the innovation environment including the organization structure, the decision making process, the rules, procedures and technical and managerial activities developed, human resources management, the actors involved and the relationship between them. Table 3 shows the variances and resemblances between both environments.

Table 3
Table 3: Summary of convergences and divergences in the Governance dimension of the studied environments.

Source: Developed by the authors

In terms of structure, both environments present simple and not too formalized arrangements. Basically, there is a General Director who coordinates the teams in the legal, communication, administration and financial departments. For the operational areas, this Director coordinates differently accordingly to their strategy: management (TechPark) and technical (HYDREOS). ). In this aspect there is a marked difference in the French pole, which is the board of directors formed by large, small and medium-sized companies, educational institutions and other entities, which provides its strategic direction.

Regarding the decision-making process and its internal management, few differences were identified. In both cases, there are no formal rules and the decision-making process is simplified. With their simplified structured, the departments have autonomy and the processes are agile. The communication standard is similar: weekly meetings between the operational team and the General Director, and also daily alignments for specific subjects.

However, regarding those who are responsible for the project management, there is a considerable difference. The Technological Park in São José dos Campos (TechPark) does not have technical staff, as it does not adopt an active innovation approach with the resident companies. The project management is carried out by the companies themselves and the park helps by providing guidance. Unlike this, the HYDREOS pole works actively in innovation projects and it is structured to meet market demands (it is divided into specific areas of the water theme).The project manager of the pole ensures that innovations are implemented, focusing on the benefits to the region and local community. The project team’s role is to identify funding opportunities for certain types of projects that can help put an innovative idea into action

Another significant difference is related to the technical and managerial activities. The HYDREOS Pole has these activities defined and clearly distributed to each team, facilitating the governance process. The board, for example, has a managerial and relationship role, while the technical staff acts directly in executing the project. In the TechPark, these activities are distributed to all teams.

The institution members (to HYDREOS) and residents (TechPark) in both environments are differentiated in quantitative and qualitative terms. While the park has 36 institutions (24 small and medium, and 9 large ones) and universities (3), the pole has approximately 100 members including universities, laboratories, companies of all sizes, trade unions and local public institutions. This difference is linked to the way each environment operates. The TechPark concentrates all institutions in the same physical space, providing a synergy environment that facilitates the development of innovation. HYDREOS helps to develop collaborative Research and Development projects among actors in a territory around a well-defined theme (water), but does not provide the physical space for developing these projects. This is the reason why it has more members and involves public agencies, as well as analysis and research laboratories.

Regarding fostering the relationship between the agencies in both environments, the only common point that they have are the events that enable the exchange of information between the entities. At the TechPark, activities to encourage interaction are not carried out in a structured way by its manager, but occur spontaneously as they share the same physical place (even if they do not work in the same sector of activity). At HYDREOS, there are formal mechanisms for interaction between its members, such as working groups on specific topics and collaborative projects managed by the pole. Although the companies may not have much contact, they discuss the issues at hand in depth. In addition, as the companies have their own members in the board of directors, meetings are a chance for people to make contact and exchange information.

Finally, regarding human resources, in both environments studied, professionals are trained and are trained to carry out their specific activities. However, the HYDREOS pole has a more specialized staff due to its specific theme.

The results of the infrastructure dimension comprise the physical resources that the environment has or the external resources have access to. Table 4 shows the similarities and differences identified in the study.

Table 4
Table 4: Summary of convergences and divergences in the Infrastructure dimension of the studied environments

Source: Made by the authors

Regarding the physical infrastructure, there is a huge gap between the studied environments. While the HYDREOS pole only has its own offices, the TechPark has a complete infrastructure: from the companies’ offices and incubators to auditoriums and amphitheaters to hold events. The superiority of TechPark in terms of having its own infrastructure is clear, which affirms that each environment works differently. The fact of concentrating the institutions in the same physical space, despite demanding high investments, guarantees the perpetuity of the actions and is a factor of attracting companies and other institutions to the region, contributing directly to the community. Therefore, the fact of having facilities ends up being a service that this environment can offer. On the other hand, the model used at HYDREOS includes a greater quantity and a variety of members depending on the relationships established between the institutions and their infrastructures.

Concerning access to external resources (laboratories, venues, etc.), the two institutions are similar in terms of non-restriction of using external resources when necessary. Both recommend laboratories, for example, that are not company’s members or partners. The French environment uses only external resources while the Brazilian environment has an internal structure adapted to most of its needs.

Regarding the point of maintaining their infrastructure and carrying out their activities, both environments depend on public assistance. This dependency is significant for both (between 50 and 80% of the investments are public in both cases), and are mostly from municipal and regional entities.

The strategy dimension points out the objective or mission of the studied environments and the actions it adopts in the short, medium and long term to meet its objectives. Table 5 summarizes the similarities and differences identified.

Table 5
Table 5: Summary of convergences and divergences in the Strategy dimension of the studied environments

Source: Developed by the authors

In terms of objective, although they act differently, both environments have the same mission: to promote innovation and research and development, helping to develop the region which they are part of by joining different actors.

They are also similar in terms of the geographical market: most of them work with local and regional institutions. However, they act differently. The principle of the pôles de competitivité is their specialization in strategic themes to develop the country. They are established according to the competences of the region, aiming at their development. Therefore, the studied pole only has one theme (water), working with companies of the sector. However, the TechPark is multi-thematic and multisectoral, and takes advantage of the same technological base regarding various sectors.

Regarding the services provided, both of them present common elements, such as holding events and following/guiding members. However, HYDREOS works more actively in developing technology, creating a favorable environment of interaction. It encourages innovative projects, participates in and promotes workshops and group studies, seeks funding sources, encourages certifications, manages projects and disseminates information. The level of maturity of both environments is clear when comparing this dimension. The TechPark is still in the process of developing and building a proposal for specialized services, following HYDREOS line of action.

In terms of long-term actions, the most significant difference is that the HYDREOS strategic plan is linked to a general guideline of all the Competitive Poles (Les Pôles de Compétitivité) of the country. The TechPark acts strategically to meet the local government’s demands (Prefeitura Municipal de São José dos Campos), but does not have a direct relation with a national innovation development strategy.

Finally, the strategy to attract institutions is similar: posting activities on their own website, participating in events and visiting institutions. Although the emphasis on disclosure is not the same: the Pole involves design institutions while the Park develops a selection program to use the structure and services.

External Relationships

This dimension entails understanding the types of external relationships carried out by the environments, as well as the different types of actors involved on local, regional, national and international levels. Table 6 summarizes the results of this dimension.

Table 6
Table 6: Table summarizing the convergences and divergences of the External Relations dimension of the studied environments

Source: Developed by the authors.

Both environments are similar in terms of their relationship with universities and research centers. For both these are strategic actors, and therefore, they focus on making partnerships for strategic projects. However, the pole differs by presenting a formal and closer relationship with laboratories and researchers.

As for the public-private interaction, the two environments have a close relation with local entities. The pole, unlike the park, has contact with a larger body – the Federal Government – reflecting a national strategy of competitiveness of the country’s companies. There is also a stronger public-private relationship due to the cooperative participation in projects and working groups organized and managed by the pole and its partners.

There is a huge difference regarding the relationship with other innovation environments. In France, as the NIS is "mature", the poles are part of the Les Pôles de Compétitivité program. Thus, it is natural that there is a bonded interaction and interchange, as the participating environments have the same origin and global development strategy. In addition to this fact, the poles are clustered into topics of interest to exchange experiences and methods. Moreover, in the same region there is a close contact – although informal – between poles for benchmarking. In Brazil, there is no entity that directly follows the Technological Parks. ANPROTEC (Associação Nacional de Entidades Promotoras de Empreendimentos Inovadores – National Association of Entities Promoting Innovative Enterprises) and IASP (International Association of Science Parks and Areas of Innovation) promote national and international meetings between the parks to exchange experiences.

In this dimension, the sources of assets were identified which were used by the environments to maintain and develop their projects, beneficiaries and procedures involved for finding and using them. Table 7 summarizes the results of this dimension.

Table 7
Table 7: Table summarizing convergences and divergences in the Funding Mechanisms dimension of the studied environments

Source: developed by the authors

The two studied innovation environments have public and public institutions as a source of resources, in addition to their own funds. In both, the public financial resources are very representative and significant. Most of them are from local entities (city or region). In addition, they use resources from foundations, financing bodies and other public entities that leverage and invest in research and development, supported by the national strategy. Another point of similarity that should be highlighted is that part of the resources comes from member institutions or residents. It means that there is a “fee” paid by the institutions to be associated. In addition, another source is the events organized by the environments.

In both cases, when there is public funding there is public procurement, in which the process and procedures are established by each institution. As a result, when the public notices are announced, both innovation environments follow the deadlines, sending the necessary documentation. However, HYDREOS stood out as it advised companies to send documentation to the funding process, making this activity part of its portfolio of services.

Finally, following the objectives of innovation institutions, the direct beneficiary of all investments and actions is the population of the region. Investments generate employment and local development. In the TechPark and the pole, some specific resources are meant only for a few companies. This is because they might participate in specific projects that receive investments or because they are benefiting themselves. When companies invest themselves, it is natural that the assets and return of investments belong to them.

In this dimension, the impacts of geographic environment and the context in which the environment is inserted are discussed. It includes government policies, local actors and cultural values. Table 8 summarizes the results identified.

Table 8
Table 8: Table summarizing convergences and divergences in the External Environment dimension of the studied environments

Source: developed by the authors

The two innovation environments are influenced by regional and national policies, and less influenced by international ones. These policies influence and impact the investments applied to the environments. This can be considered as a problem, as any change affects them directly. The Tech Park suffers less impact, because it has assets and infrastructure that belongs to private institutions. On the other hand, the pole does not have its own infrastructure, and therefore it does not survive without public investments (it explains its current strategy to reduce public assets and increase private ones). Thus, it can be said that there is less dependence on policies that directly affect the Brazilian environment compared to the French one, but in both cases they are sensitive to policy variations.

In both of them, the choice of the physical installation of the environment was analyzed and studied. Both regions present favorable conditions to develop innovation (concentration of universities, research centers, enterprises, etc.). However, the creation of the pole came from a demand from national agencies, creating opportunities to develop all regions.

In this dimension, we identify the main legal aspects related to the performance of innovation environments, especially concerning patents and intellectual property. Table 9 summarizes the similarities and differences identified.

Table 9
Table 9: Table summarizing the convergences and divergences in the Legal Context dimension of the studied environments

Source: developed by the authors

In both cases, the patents generated in the projects belong to the institutions involved and not to the Technical Park or Pole. However, in the long term, the Park plans to have the know-how to create technological development for generating patents because it does not have technical staff that can do this. The pole has the scientific competence to generate patents, but it has no interest in implementing it.

In terms of collaborative projects, the studied environments resemble each other. It is not common to carry out projects in the TechPark, but when this happens, there is an agreement among the participating institutions on intellectual property rights, and the park does not interfere in this negotiation. In the pole, it is common to have collaborative projects, but the park does not participate in the negotiation between the involved parts. It recommends and guides specialists in intellectual law.