PRODUÇÃO ACADÊMICA SOBRE INOVAÇÃO FRUGAL: UMA ANÁLISE BIBLIOMÉTRICA EM PERIÓDICOS INTERNACIONAIS NA ÚLTIMA DÉCADA

Objetivo: Analisar a produção científica na área de Inovação Frugal (IF), nas bases de dados Web of Science e Scopus (CAPES, 2021). Metodologia: A pesquisa é caracterizada como descritiva com abordagem quantitativa e aplicação da técnica bibliométrica. Assim, após definir a técnica e tema, a busca foi realizada nas bases WoS e Scopus por tópico, utilizando os termos “frugal innovation”, com intervalo de tempo de 2010 a 2020, resultando em 306 publicações na WoS e 396 na Scopus. Em seguida, os dados foram organizados na Planilha Excel e após, as publicações foram identificadas nas seguintes categorias: evolução temporal, áreas temáticas, publicações por países, autores e frequência de citações. Por fim, utilizou-se o software VOSViewer para a criação de mapas textuais e clusters de co-citação. Resultados: Destaca-se que a temática de Inovação Frugal vem crescendo em frequência de publicações, destacando-se o ano de 2020. Dentre os resultados, a Índia e Estados Unidos encontram-se entre os primeiros que mais publicam e em nona posição encontra-se o Brasil encontra-se em nona posição. Quanto a area, Gestão, Negócios e Contabilidade tem a primeira posição. Entre os anos de 201 a 2020, somando entre as bases, tem-se o total de 5.281 citações. Originalidade/Valor: O uso da técnica de bibliometria apresenta-se como uma ferramenta relevante para a disseminação do conhecimento científico e tecnológico, possibilitando aos pesquisadores a análise quantitativa, descritiva e prognóstica de publicações realizadas em uma determinada área da ciência. Além disso, este estudo contribui com a disseminação do conhecimento sobre a inovação frugal, que é necessária para países que buscam o desenvolvimento econômico a partir da diminuição do uso de recursos e atendendo uma maior quantidade de pessoas, que antes não tinham acesso a determinados mercados e produtos. Palavra-chave: Inovação, Inovação Frugal, Bibliometria. Baptista, R., Escaria, V.& Madruga, P. (2008). Entrepreneurship, regional development and job creation: the case of Portugal. Small Business Economics, 30(1),49-58. Bhatti, Y. A. (2012). What is Frugal, What is Innovation? Towards a Theory of Frugal Innovation. SSRN Electronic Journal, p. 1-45. Bouchery, Y.; Ghaffari, A.; Jemai, Z. & Fransoo, J. (2016). Sustainable transportation and order quantity: insights from multiobjective optimization. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, 28 (3), 367-396. Crossan, M. M.; Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi‐ dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47 (6), 1154-1191. Drucker, P. F. (2016). Inovação e Espírito Empreendedor: (entrepreneurship): práticas e princípios. tradução de: Carlos J. Malferrari. São Paulo: Cengage Learning. Elia, G.; Margherita, A.& Petti, C. (2016). An operational model to develop technology entrepreneurship EGO-system, International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 13 (5),164-182. Hair, J.F.; Tatham, R. L.; Anderson, R. E.& Black, W. C. (1998). Análise multivariada de dados. Tradução Adonai Schlup Sant’Anna e Anselmo Chaves Neto. 5. ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman. Hossain, M.; Simula, H.& Halme, M. (2016) Can Frugal go global? Diffusion patterns of frugal innovations. Technology in Society, 46, 132-139. Jiménez, D. J.; Costa, M. M. & Valle, R. S. (2014). Knowledge management practices for innovation: a multinational corporation‘s perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18 (5), 905-918. Khan, R. (2016). How frugal innovation Promotes Social Sustainability. Sustainability, 8 (1034),1-29. Kunamaneni, S. (2019). Challenges in moving from incremental to radical low-cost innovation in emerging and transition countries: institutional perspectives based on rechargeable battery innovation in China and point-of-use water purification innovation in India. International Journal of Innovation Management, 23(03), 1-36. Leydesdorff, L.& Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies. Science and Public Policy, 25(3), 195-203. Moustaghfir, K.& Schiuma, G. Knowledge, learning, and innovation: research and perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(4), 495 – 510. Oliveira, J.& Moraes, K. (2016). Produção do conhecimento na universidade pública no brasil: tensões, tendências e desafios. Educação em Revista. Belo Horizonte, 32(4). Prabhu, J. (2017) Frugal innovation: doing more with less for more, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 375 (2095), 375. Quandt, C. O.; Bezerra, C. A. & Ferraresi, A. A. (2015). Dimensions of organizational innovativeness and its impact on innovation performance: proposition and evaluation of a model. Gestão & Produção, 22(4), 873-886. Prahalad, C. K.& Hart, S. L. (2008). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Estratégias e Negócios, Florianópolis, 1(2), 1-23. Radjou, N. & Prabhu, J. (2014). What frugal innovators do. Harvard Business Review, v. 10. Ramos‐Rodríguez, A. R & Ruíz‐Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: a bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal 1980-2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 981-1004. Rao, B. C. (2017). Advances in science and technology through frugality. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 45 (1), 32-38. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). A Teoria do Desenvolvimento Econômico: Uma Investigação sobre Lucros, Capital, Crédito, Juros e o Ciclo de Negócios, Transaction Publishers, Cambridge. Schumpeter, J. A. (1982). Teoria do desenvolvimento econômico: uma investigação sobre lucros, capital, crédito, juro e o ciclo econômico. Abril Cultural. Simula, H.; Hossain, M. & Halme, M. (2015). Frugal and reverse innovations – Quo Vadis? Current Science, 109 (5), 1567-1572. Tiwari, R. & Herstatt, C. (2012). India-a lead market for frugal innovations? Extending the lead market theory to emerging economies. TIM/TUHH Working Paper, n. 67. Torres, T. Z.; Pierozzi, J. I.; Pereira, N. R. & CASTRO, A. de. Knowledge management and communication in Brazilian agricultural research: An integrated procedural approach. International Journal of Information Management. v. 31, p. 121-127. Weyrauch, T. & Herstatt, C. (2017). What is frugal innovation? Three defining criteria. Journal of Frugal Innovation, 2 (1). Zeschky, M.; Widenmayer, B. & Gassmann, O. (2011). Frugal Innovation in Emerging Markets. Research-Technology Management, 54(4), 38-45.

Frugal Knowledge Sharing for Frugal Innovation Diffusion in Africa

This study explores mechanisms of frugal knowledge sharing for frugal innovation diffusion drawing upon concepts from social capital and diffusion of innovation theories. Three frugal innovations projects from Uganda, Malawi, and Ethiopia are used to undertake a preliminary appraisal of a proposed theoretical model. The study identifies a frugal knowledge sharing mechanism based on “The Church lady model”. From a practice perspective, the study informs how to leverage social capital to facilitate frugal knowledge sharing. Insights drawn from this study cover the surrounding network structure, mode of communication, frugal knowledge sharing modalities, and the opportunity for combination and exchange to spark varied frugal IS innovation projects. From a research point of view, it serves as a basis for frugal knowledge management for frugal innovation diffusion in an African context.

Performance analysis of Reverse and Frugal Innovations in Nigeria A Case Study of IVM automobile company

Nigeria which is considered as the ‘giant’ of Africa and is currently the largest economy in West Africa is also fast becoming the largest economy in the entire Africa. The country is in the process of developing a broader base for her economy which for many years has been reliant on oil and gas and non-renewable fossil fuels which are already saturated. However, the country has many other natural resources, and one of the major companies in the “non-oil” economy is the Innoson Vehicles and Motors (IVM) in Nigeria. In recent decades, many West African companies, including IVM, have begun to accept the need for innovation if they are to sell their products to a wider market and to increase exports. Noteworthy to companies in West Africa are Reverse Innovation and Frugal Innovation. This research observes the interaction these two forms of innovation adopts, innovation, and the ways in which they have been accepted by the IVM and their supply chain. There are three stages of management considered in this research (Macro; Directors and Educational Advisors Managers, members of this level precipitate policies that advance the economy and business inside the company. Meso; Senior Management at the production unit in the IVM, and Micro; The Organizational Supervisors of manufacturing and distribution). To achieve the purpose of this research, several personnel’s at the three different levels of management were interviewed about their understanding of the terms and the application of Reverse and Frugal innovations in their experience. A total of 20 interviews (each lasting 15-20 minutes) were carried out, 8 at the Macro level, 5 Meso level and 7 at the Micro level. This led to a discovery that West African businesses found Reverse Innovation and Frugal very satisfactory, and inherent, should it be that the economic proliferation designed is continued. The study, by analyzing their opinions concerning the drivers and limitations of Reverse Innovation and Frugal Innovation, has successfully generated a framework for R&F innovations which establishments in other developing economies seeking to proliferate their exports back to the developed countries might find beneficial. Finally, sustainability is also seen as an underlying influencing factor throughout the research.

Frugal Innovation Hijacked: The Co-optive Power of Co-creation

In this paper we investigate how different discourses on frugal innovation are articulated, and how the dynamics between these different discourses have led to a certain dominant understanding of frugal innovation today. We analyse the dynamic interactions between three discourses on frugal innovation: (1) innovations for the poor, (2) grassroots innovations by the poor, and more recently (3) co-creating frugal innovations with the poor. We argue that this latter discourse is articulated as a hegemonic project as it is designed to accommodate demands from both business and poor communities. We draw on Laclau and Mouffe’s concepts of ‘chain of difference’, ‘empty signifier’ and ‘floating signifier’ to explain the advent of the hegemonic discourse on co-creating innovations with the poor. We show how a floating signifier with radical potential, frugal innovation, has been hijacked and co-opted in a hegemonic project that has leveraged powerful ambiguous signifiers, with co-creation acting as an empty signifier. To clarify what is problematic in this hegemonic intervention, we expose how contemporary frugal innovation discourse contributes to a project of governing and exploiting rather than helping the poor, in ways that benefit formal economic actors while further worsening global inequalities.

Determinants of consumers’ frugal innovation acceptance in a developed country

Purpose This study aims to understand why young people are interested in buying frugal innovations. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected with a survey administered to 534 university students enrolled in various fields of study (e.g. sciences, technology, economics and fine arts). Using the Tata Nano car as an example of frugal innovation, a model based on the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology was developed using partial least squares structural equation modeling. Findings The model’s results reveal that effort expectancy, performance expectancy and facilitating conditions are critical factors that explain university students’ intention to buy Tata Nano. Originality/value Although frugal innovations are often introduced first in developing countries, frugal innovations could be highly relevant to users in developed nations as these innovations can provide market opportunities in terms of cost-conscious, relatively low-income and sustainability-conscious consumers.

Innovation in the subsistence marketplace: an analysis considering multiple concepts and approaches

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the different concepts of innovation in the subsistence marketplace from top-down and bottom-up approaches. This study analyzes the literature on the theme and identified research gaps by constructing a framework based on approaches and innovation concepts, which can guide future research efforts. Additionally, this paper presents two case studies, which can improve the way innovation is developed and diffused in the subsistence marketplace. Design/methodology/approach Through a literature review, this study develops a framework by analyzing innovation concepts in the subsistence marketplace (i.e. base of the pyramid innovation, disruptive innovation, frugal innovation, reverse innovation and inclusive innovation) in light of subsistence marketplace approaches (top-down and bottom-up). Findings The analysis showed critical research gaps, especially a lack of studies involving disruptive and frugal innovations from a bottom-up approach. This paper also concludes that the top-down approach is more common than the bottom-up one. To fill these gaps, this study presents two business plans by illustrating disruptive innovation vs bottom-up approach and frugal innovation vs bottom-up approach. Originality/value The use of real business plans to illustrate proposals having an actual impact on subsistence marketplace regions sheds light on how to address these challenges. By doing so, this paper intends to fill the theoretical gap in disruptive and frugal innovations within a bottom-up approach to promote the development and diffusion of different types of innovation in the subsistence marketplace, and thus provide solutions to alleviate poverty.