PreprintPDF Available

CORPORATE SCIENCE IN EMERGING COUNTRIES: A STUDY OF PERSONAL, ORGANIZATIONAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL DYNAMICS IN PERU

Authors:
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Abstract

This study examines the dynamics of corporate science in Peruvian companies, analyzing the individual, organizational, and institutional dimensions that influence the decision to invest in this area. It incorporates the role of science, technology, and innovation (STI) intermediaries based on the model of Zahra et al. (2018). Using a qualitative phenomenological approach, interviews were conducted with researchers and managers of Peruvian companies that implement corporate science processes. The data were analyzed using a thematic approach to identify patterns. The results show the interaction between the CEO, the managing scientist, and the innovator. The CEO defines the strategic vision and promotes corporate science. The managing scientist facilitates knowledge transfer between research and business, and the innovator transforms this knowledge into commercial solutions. At the organizational level, factors such as integration, collaboration, funding, networking, and technology transfer are emphasized. At the institutional level, the focus is on intellectual property, government support, and public policy.
CORPORATE SCIENCE IN EMERGING COUNTRIES: A STUDY OF PERSONAL,
ORGANIZATIONAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL DYNAMICS IN PERU
Working Paper 001 - 2022-A-0044 [PI0864]
JUBALT RAFAEL ALVAREZ SALAZAR
Pontifical Catholic University of Peru
Avenida Universitaria 1801. San Miguel, Lima, Peru, 15088
Phone: 51 999 541 054
Email: jubalt.alvarez@pucp.edu.pe
PEDRO MARTÍN BERNAL PÉREZ
Pontifical Catholic University of Peru
Avenida Universitaria 1801. San Miguel, Lima, Peru, 15088
Phone: 51 991 075 293
Email: pedro.bernal@pucp.pe
CORPORATE SCIENCE IN EMERGING COUNTRIES: A STUDY OF PERSONAL,
ORGANIZATIONAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL DYNAMICS IN PERU
ABSTRACT
This study examines the dynamics of corporate science in Peruvian companies, analyzing the individual,
organizational, and institutional dimensions that influence the decision to invest in this area. It
incorporates the role of science, technology, and innovation (STI) intermediaries based on the model of
Zahra et al. (2018). Using a qualitative phenomenological approach, interviews were conducted with
researchers and managers of Peruvian companies that implement corporate science processes. The data
were analyzed using a thematic approach to identify patterns.
The results show the interaction between the CEO, the managing scientist, and the innovator. The CEO
defines the strategic vision and promotes corporate science. The managing scientist facilitates knowledge
transfer between research and business, and the innovator transforms this knowledge into commercial
solutions. At the organizational level, factors such as integration, collaboration, funding, networking, and
technology transfer are emphasized. At the institutional level, the focus is on intellectual property,
government support, and public policy.
Keywords: Corporate science, innovation, technology transfer, emerging economy, STI intermediaries.
The paradox of scientific and technological progress is that despite its recognized contribution
to productivity and economic growth, it often faces uncertainty about its ability to generate successful
innovations (Elzinga & Jamison, 1995; Drucker, 2015). This dichotomy is particularly relevant in
corporate science, where firms seek to balance the risks and rewards of R&D.
This study focuses on Peruvian firms and investigates why they invest in R&D to develop
innovative products despite the uncertainties. This topic has received considerable attention in the
literature, but mainly in the context of developing countries, where private investment in R&D
represents a significant share of GDP (Ahuja et al., 2008; Penders et al., 2009; Pisano, 2010; Simeth &
Cincera, 2016; Zahra et al., 2018; UNESCO, 2022). In contrast, R&D investment is low in emerging
economies such as Peru, raising questions about how and why firms in these contexts engage in R&D.
Research in Peru reveals low recruitment of scientists and limited generation of R&D-based
products in industry (CONCYTEC, 2021), a trend that contrasts with patterns observed in developed
countries (OECD, 2021a). In Peru, the number of firms benefiting from tax incentives for R&D
activities is notably lower than in other Latin American countries (OECD, 2021c, 2021b). This study
seeks to identify the characteristics of Peruvian companies that successfully develop corporate science.
It follows the approach of Zahra et al. (2018), which considers the complexity inherent in
commercializing R&D results. The analysis focuses on elaborating a theoretical model that explains the
causes of successful commercialization of R&D results based on the characteristics observed in the
Peruvian business context.
Corporate science originated in the United States and has evolved from the development of
basic research to closer integration with innovative ventures and universities (Arora et al., 2021; Pellens
& Malva, 2018). Through a phenomenological study with in-depth interviews, we explore how
managers and scientists of Peruvian companies benefited from the Law for the Promotion of Scientific
Research, Technological Development, and Innovation (Law No. 30309, 2015) perceive and approach
R&D as a strategic growth factor.
The research contributes to the literature by focusing on emerging economies such as Peru,
adapting an existing theoretical model to the Peruvian context, and exploring the interaction between
personal, organizational, and institutional dimensions. It highlights the role of critical actors: CEO,
scientist, and innovator, and the importance of Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI)
intermediaries. The analysis is presented in six sections: We begin with the theoretical framework and
the methodology employed. We then offer the results and proceed to a detailed discussion.
Subsequently, the contributions of the study, its limitations, and opportunities for future research are
discussed. Finally, the paper concludes with the main conclusions derived from the study.
FUNDAMENTALS OF CORPORATE SCIENCE
Evolution of corporate science.
The transition from the generation of introductory knowledge to the successful commercialization
of products is supported by developing Research and Development (R&D) capabilities and processes
within companies, complemented by collaboration with universities and research institutions to integrate
scientific advances. This integration results in innovations that drive productivity and business growth
(Deng et al., 1999). R&D processes in companies enable technological leadership, identification of
applicable knowledge, and monitoring of external research, positively impacting even the stock market
value of high-tech companies (Furukawa & Goto, 2006; Simeth & Cincera, 2016).
Corporate science, defined as the generation of scientific knowledge through the R&D resources
and capabilities of companies, emerged after World War II, with a significant shift in the 1970s when
companies began to replace universities as the central labor and funding centers for scientists in the United
States (Rankin, 2010; Penders et al., 2009). Subsequently, Pisano (2010) observed a decline in internal
R&D investment in firms, attributing it to the emergence of high-tech startups and universities'
commercialization of R&D results, which offered more advantageous and cost-effective alternatives for
firms (Arora et al., 2018).
This shift implies a new understanding of corporate science, where research is more focused on
generating measurable impacts and high-value technologies in shorter time frames, which may blur the
distinction between science's economic and social value (Turner & Chubin, 2020). The outsourcing of
corporate science is a growing trend, with a significant increase in the number of R&D professionals
employed in the service sector, especially in affiliates outside the United States. In parallel, the U.S.
government has invested large sums in R&D, exceeding the spending of any single company, although
much of this government knowledge is not translated into commercial technologies (Fuchs et al., 2022;
Bruce & de Figueiredo, 2022).
The definition of corporate science
Based on the previous discussion, we define corporate science as the set of research and
development (R&D) activities funded or supported by corporate resources to generate knowledge that
facilitates introducing new products to the marketplace or implementing technologies that improve
business process efficiency. This definition emphasizes innovation development through corporate R&D
and can include internal development and collaboration with universities, research institutes, and high-
tech startups. This perspective differs from the one proposed by Zahra et al. (2018), focusing more on
business performance than pure discovery. Thus, our definition implies that corporate science is
intrinsically linked to improving business performance.
The transformation of internal R&D to external R&D, according to Arora et al. (2018), suggests
that firms are choosing to outsource research to seek efficiencies and better organizational outcomes. This
is consistent with Mirowski and van Horn's (2005) arguments, which indicate that firms often contract
external research capabilities to leverage scientific and commercial advantages through inter-
organizational agreements.
The corporate science processes.
The conversion of R&D results into marketable products within the framework of corporate
science involves several key organizational aspects, including making managerial decisions, executing
organizational activities, and making inter-organizational agreements (Clayton et al., 2018). According
to Zahra et al. (2018), this process can be divided into four essential stages: (i) Investment Stage, the
budget is determined, and projects to be funded are selected; (ii) Discovery Stage, research activities are
conducted and findings are obtained, including both internal and external R&D; (iii) Transfer Stage:
scientific findings are transformed into applications for commercial purposes; and, (iv) Appropriation
Stage: Commercial applications evolve into products and licenses marketable by the company.
Fini et al. (2018) and Zahra et al. (2018) emphasize the multidimensional nature of this process
and the need to employ multiple theoretical frameworks for its study, given its complexity. Understanding
the firm's internal decisions and interactions with other entities is crucial to absorbing relevant scientific
and academic information (Furukawa & Goto, 2006).
The results of corporate science
Corporate science generates various outcomes, the most prominent being technology licensing,
commercialized products, and cost reduction through knowledge of new technologies (Zahra et al., 2018).
Intermediate products such as patents, which represent inventions protected from use by competitors, are
needed to achieve these outcomes (Ahuja et al., 2008; Pavitt, 1985).
Although scientific publications may reduce stock market value in the short term, they establish
the company as a technological benchmark (Pellens & Malva, 2018; Seijo, 2016; Arora et al., 2018).
Strategic knowledge disclosure benefits companies by strengthening their links with other researchers
and enhancing their reputation, reflected in their stock value, especially for those without productive
operations (Simeth & Cincera, 2016; Pellens & Malva, 2018).
In addition, the publication of research results by companies contributes to the state of the art in
a field of knowledge and may prevent competitors from patenting related inventions (Deng et al., 1999;
Malva & Hassinger, 2012). However, the knowledge generated by corporate science does not always
result in patents or publications. Information that flows from interaction with other research entities is
equally valuable, although less tangible (Penders et al., 2009). According to Cassiman et al. (2008), the
commercial application of this fundamental knowledge requires significant investment but prepares the
company to develop higher-value innovations. Simultaneously developing basic and applied knowledge
is equivalent to developing ambidextrous capabilities, balancing exploring future applications with
exploiting already marketable knowledge (Sheer, 2022).
THE DIMENSIONS OF CORPORATE SCIENCE
Understanding corporate science marketing is a complex field that, according to several studies,
benefits from the use of multiple theoretical frameworks to capture its full extent and diversity (Pellens
& Malva, 2018; Penders et al., 2009; Pisano, 2010; Zahra et al., 2018). This complexity stems from the
multifaceted nature of organizational strategic decisions, which are influenced by several factors. In
corporate science, these factors include personal, organizational, and environmental elements. Integrating
these elements is crucial to using science to generate business outcomes effectively (Ansoff et al., 2019;
Drucker, 2015).
The personal dimension
The personal factors refer to the manager who makes strategic decisions and is decisive in the
investment stage, the scientists who carry out R&D activities in the discovery stage, and the innovators
in the different functional areas who intervene in the transfer and appropriation stages.
The Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Personal factors are crucial in corporate science, especially managers' strategic decision-making.
CEOs, for example, lean toward R&D investment motivated primarily by the benefit of scientific
advancement, evidencing their long-term strategic vision (Ahuja et al., 2008; Simeth & Cincera, 2016;
Murat & Baki, 2011). However, these decisions are often conditioned by short-term performance
expectations imposed by boards of directors, except in some family firms (Ward, 1997). Zahra et al.
(2018) highlight that the divergence between the interests of managers and owners can constrain the
development of corporate science, leading managers to focus on quick-return strategies. However, an
ambidextrous managerial approach, combining innovation by imitation with the pursuit of discovery, can
create value in the short and medium term (Moon & Acquaah, 2020; Dranev et al., 2020).
The manager's characteristics also define their approach to corporate science. Prior experience,
knowledge of scientific processes, and vision for ownership of results are critical factors. A manager with
these qualities can significantly improve the chances of commercial success of R&D initiatives (Zahra et
al., 2018).
With the trend to outsource R&D, managers need to develop relationships beyond the traditional
business environment, interacting with specialized startups and universities to complement internal R&D
capabilities (Pisano, 2010; Alvarez-Salazar, 2021). In emerging countries such as Peru, this type of
interaction, especially technology transfer, still needs development (Arenas & Gonzalez, 2019). Efficient
managers in corporate science must be able to articulate these relationships and leverage external R&D
capabilities. Finally, investing in corporate science carries inherent risk due to research uncertainty (Ahuja
et al., 2008). Managers making this decision act as corporate entrepreneurs, balancing risks and resource
allocation to maximize profits without compromising business operations (Cruz-Gonzalez et al., 2014;
Grant, 2016).
The Scientist
Scientists are fundamental in generating knowledge and, therefore, in corporate science
(Armstrong & Green, 2022). Their role transcends technical expertise and the social interaction necessary
for successful research, especially in corporate environments where science must be integrated into
business processes (Ritchie, 2020).
The motivation of scientists in corporate environments differs from that of business. While
businesspeople seek profitability and growth, scientists focus on discovery and recognition (Pisano, 2010).
In corporate settings, scientists must align their research interests with the needs of the business, which
often compromises the drive for pure discovery (Rankin, 2010).
Corporate scientists must also function as "disseminators" of their work, explaining in business
language the advantages of investing in R&D in the long term (Wynn, 2011). Their work combines
academic and corporate, requiring continuous interaction with other scientists and maintaining personal
projects, even within a corporate structure (Pisano, 2010; Seijo, 2016).
In the context of the search for balance between short- and long-term results, corporate scientists
seek rapid applications of internal and external knowledge while developing new knowledge (Dranev et
al., 2020). This duality implies constantly exploring new ways for the firm to create value from existing
knowledge (Arora et al., 2018).
Moreover, the corporate scientist's involvement is not limited to the discovery stage; they also
play a crucial role in the transfer and appropriation stages, where they use didactic skills to transform
abstract knowledge into practical applications that engineers, managers, and marketers can turn into
concrete technologies and innovations (Zahra et al., 2018; Pithan, 2021).
The Innovator
In corporate science, innovators are crucial for transforming knowledge into commercial
opportunities. They take discoveries beyond publications, patents, and licensing, which may not always
be the most advantageous way to extract value from R&D for a company (Ahuja et al., 2008; Pavitt,
1985). These professionals are found in all organizational structures, including the strategic top, where
the CEO invests in corporate science with the vision of generating competitive advantage, knowing that
the results may not be immediate (Arora et al., 2018). Although CEOs may be recognized as innovators
when their companies are successful with these innovations (Grant, 2016), their time devoted to transfer
and appropriation activities is limited, leading them to delegate these tasks to other employees to integrate
scientific knowledge into innovative products and services (Mintzberg, 2010; Murat & Baki, 2011).
Innovators not only react to corporate scientists' discoveries but are also an essential source of
information about customer problems and market opportunities. They use creative and imitative
innovation strategies, generating superior firm performance (Moon & Acquaah, 2020). In the transfer
stage, innovators must understand the abstract knowledge developed by scientists, and, in turn, scientists
must understand the market needs identified by innovators.
Innovators also influence the research agenda of corporate science, aligning it with the company's
positioning in introducing innovative products. This means that corporate scientists must adapt their
research programs and select R&D projects that align with the market opportunities identified by
innovators (Albors-Garrigós et al., 2011). Therefore, innovators must empathize with scientists, aligning
their expectations without affecting their motivation, since the latter value autonomy in the choice of
research topics and, in many cases, prefer to fund their research (Ahuja et al., 2008).
The organizational dimension
Companies are organized according to the tasks they perform and their growth stage.
(Galbraith, 1982). The variables the literature has identified concerning organizational factors are
specified below.
Integrating corporate science
The organizational structure directly impacts the nature and research results in the company,
influencing how the knowledge generated by corporate science is integrated to create innovations (Sheer,
2022; Pisano, 2010). In consolidated companies with hierarchical structures, integration, transformation,
and appropriation processes can be more complex (Pithan, 2021). This phenomenon is due to the non-
linear nature of corporate science, which implies uncertainty and the need to coordinate objectives and
agendas across organizational units (Seijo, 2016). A lack of integration can result in knowledge remaining
simply as discovery without reaching its commercial potential (Wynn, 2011).
The effectiveness of integration depends on the structuring of plans and the existence of a
manager to lead the processes and coordinate execution among the organizational units involved (Albors-
Garrigós et al., 2011). In addition, this manager must recognize resistance to innovation, especially when
it may significantly affect resources allocated to operations (Ahuja et al., 2008).
To maximize impact, the unit responsible for knowledge generation must attract senior scientists,
have an internal structure that facilitates integration with innovators and other employees, and be closely
aligned with the company's top management (Zahra et al., 2018). These R&D units can take various
forms, such as centers of excellence, X-Works teams, or partnerships with other research entities, each
requiring a differentiated integration approach (Juma, 2020; Murat & Baki, 2011).
Despite the importance of R&D units, they do not always receive privileged treatment from top
management. However, they tend to favor multidisciplinary teams with extensive networks and highly
qualified scientists (Ortín & Santamaria, 2009; Pellens & Malva, 2018; Rankin, 2010; Furukawa & Goto,
2006). Integrating these R&D units transforms internal knowledge into innovations and increases the
firm's absorptive capacity to identify and use external knowledge and technologies (Sheer, 2022). The
geographical location of R&D units affects their absorptive capacity, being more effective when located
in places that facilitate interaction with other research entities (Grabowska, 2021).
Finally, integration also involves managing knowledge to avoid its use outside the company's
scope. Corporate scientists may have personal motivations that differ from organizational interests,
leading to knowledge management challenges and agency issues (Zahra et al., 2018).
Synergizing for corporate science
Companies invest in corporate science and often collaborate on R&D projects, sharing
complementary funds and capabilities to generate knowledge and deliver higher-value results (Ahuja et
al., 2008). These collaborations may include partnerships with universities and high-tech startups,
leveraging their specialization in scientific discovery (Arora et al., 2018). Transaction cost theory explains
this efficiency, suggesting that the specialization of these entities results in greater efficiencies that firms
could not achieve alone (Coase, 1937; Mirowski & van Horn, 2005).
Knowledge intermediaries, such as Technology Transfer Offices and incubators, play a crucial
role in facilitating the flow of information and resources to support research and innovation (Clayton et
al., 2018; Cruz-Gonzalez et al., 2014). These intermediaries are essential for high-tech startups and linking
companies with universities and other knowledge-generating entities (Fini et al., 2018).
Financing of corporate science
Investment in corporate science carries an elevated risk and can be financed in several ways,
including venture capital, public resources, and knowledge monetization (Pisano, 2010). Established
companies rarely use venture capital due to short-term return expectations and required amounts, which
are more common in startups (Vinturella & Erickson, 2013; Alvarez-Salazar, 2021). Public policies often
fund companies to reduce the risk of the discovery, transfer, and appropriation, strengthening universities'
and intermediary entities' research and innovation capabilities (Kang & Park, 2012).
Monetization of knowledge through licensing or commercialization of innovations is a common
source of funding (Pisano, 2010; Osterwalder, 2016). In addition, intrapreneurship in established firms
emerges as another way of financing corporate science, where firms reinvest surpluses to sustain growth
and foster value creation (Churchill & Lewis, 1983; Helfat et al., 2007; Ries, 2017).
Corporate Science Networks
Companies integrate into networks to address common problems and take advantage of
opportunities in corporate science (Coleman, 1990; Knoke, 1999). These networks facilitate the exchange
of specific knowledge between companies and the benefits generated by the interaction (Ahuja et al.,
2008). Participation in these networks may include scientific outreach activities, but some companies may
limit disclosure to keep their findings secret (Simeth & Cincera, 2016; Penders et al., 2009). In addition,
corporate scientists may face stigmatization by their academic peers due to the commercial orientation of
their research.
Technology transfer
Technology transfer is crucial for transforming knowledge from the discovery process into
innovations (Zahra et al., 2018; Perini et al., 2020). Universities are a primary source of expertise for
technology transfer, although the perceived economic interest of the university can lead to tensions
(Hockaday, 2020; Rudy et al., 2007). Successful technology transfer requires a balance between the
autonomy of academic research and firms' commercial interests.
Science-technology parks favor technology transfer, connecting firms' knowledge needs with
universities' research capabilities (Olvera et al., 2020; Arauzo-Carod et al., 2018). The geographical
location of these parks influences the performance of research and innovation capabilities of firms, with
a positive impact on high-growth firms and a negative impact on those with medium or low growth
(Davidsson, 1991; Diez-Vial & Fernández-Olmos, 2017; Helfat et al., 2007).
Integration is critical to the success of technology transfer, allowing companies to leverage
knowledge generated by universities to innovate (Sheer, 2022). Companies with an established corporate
science process have the advantage of having developed absorptive capacity, which is critical for
successful technology transfer (Albors-Garrigós et al., 2011).
The institutional dimension
From a macro approach, the generation, dissemination, and commercialization of science is of
interest to the State, which generates the conditions for the emergence of institutions that facilitate the
invention, adoption, and adaptation of organizational structures and practices that support scientists and
innovators (Pisano, 2010). (Pisano, 2010). According to Zahra et al. (2018), institutional forces affect the
process of corporate science. These authors highlight the effectiveness of intellectual property instruments,
the absence or excess of laws and regulations for the use of knowledge generated to develop technologies
and innovations, and the support of the State for the development of basic, applied research and
innovation itself.
Intellectual Property in Corporate Science
Protecting discovery results in corporate science through intellectual property instruments can be
challenging (Arora et al., 2018). Not all research results can be patented, sometimes leading to scientific
publication as the best option to establish precedents for future developments that can be patented (Malva
& Hassinger, 2012). Companies developing frontier technologies often collaborate to generate public
knowledge (Li et al., 2015).
In the transfer and appropriation stages, companies seek practical applications for knowledge,
developing new technologies and inventions that can be protected by intellectual property (Simeth &
Cincera, 2016). However, in countries with weak enforcement of intellectual property rules, some
companies choose not to use patent systems, resorting to informal mechanisms, which may affect their
motivation to invest in corporate science (Hall et al., 2014; Heredia et al., 2018).
Government's Role in Shaping Corporate Science
Although committed to scientific research, companies may need to prioritize research with faster
returns, which may lead to the omission of longer discovery projects (Sheer, 2022). This may result in
missed opportunities to generate knowledge that improves living conditions and creates economic value.
The state often funds this type of research, subsidizing companies and universities for essential knowledge
development (Kang & Park, 2012) or conducting research in state institutions to create knowledge that
companies can use to develop innovative products (Mazzucato, 2018).
Variables related to personal and organizational factors are internal to the company and can drive
or constrain the corporate science process in its four stages. On the other hand, institutional factors
represent external variables over which the firm has no direct control. Managers develop strategies to
adapt the organization and respond contingently to these external variables (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967).
Internal and external variables interact to determine the effectiveness of the corporate science process.
METHOD
Research Design
Given the limited previous corporate science studies in emerging countries, this research adopts
an exploratory qualitative approach, focusing on Peru. Most of the existing research has focused on
countries with more developed National Science and Technology Systems, so it is crucial to
contextualize the findings of this research to the reality of an emerging country (Kornblit, 2007).
In terms of interpretive framework, pragmatic realism was chosen. This choice implies using
methods that best respond to the research objective, prioritizing practicality and utility over stricter
theoretical or methodological considerations (Miles et al., 2019). The phenomenological approach has
been selected as the research strategy in this case. This approach allows studying the process of
corporate science through the experiences of scientists and managers involved in generating knowledge
promoted and used by companies, offering a deep and contextualized view of corporate science in Peru
(Creswell & Poth, 2018).
Data Collection
Two categories of participants were selected to explore corporate science in Peru: scientists
directly involved in corporate science processes and managers of corporate science projects funded
under the Peruvian Tax Benefits Law. A convenience sample was chosen, selecting accessible
participants for in-depth interviews, in line with the exploratory qualitative approach of the study
(Williamson, 2018). The objective was not a statistical generalization but to delve deeper into the
phenomenon of corporate science in an emerging country (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
To collect data, semi-structured interview question guides were designed based on a
preliminary model derived from the literature review. This approach sought to assess the applicability of
the variables of the model in the Peruvian context, using the experiences and knowledge of the selected
scientists and managers (Keats, 2009). The interview protocol was developed following Wengraf
(2001) and Castillo-Montoya (2016).
Thirteen interviews, totaling 587 minutes of recording, were conducted to verify the saturation
point. An innovative method was employed using Natural Language Processing with the R package
UDPIPE (Straka & Strako, 2017). The corpus of words from each interview was analyzed, focusing
on nouns and adjectives to identify emerging themes. Words were lemmatized, and their frequencies
standardized for comparison across interviews. The fifty most frequent words from each interview were
selected, and correlations were calculated to quantify similarities between the themes discussed in the
interviews (see Table 1). As each interview was conducted, average correlations were found, which
ranged from 0.52 to 0.62. As the number of interviews increased, a lower level of correlation was
found, suggesting that this is a topic with heterogeneous opinions. This finding confirms what
Onwuegbuzie and Collins (2007) proposed, who indicated that saturation can be reached with at least
ten interviews in phenomenological studies.
Table 1. Correlation between the frequency of occurrence of interview words.
Interviewee
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
D8
D9
D10
D11
D12
D13
Average
D1
0.62
0.56
0.53
0.38
0.68
0.56
0.73
0.52
0.51
0.65
0.52
0.43
0.56
D2
0.62
0.56
0.58
0.49
0.55
0.59
0.57
0.58
0.5
0.58
0.52
0.53
0.56
D3
0.56
0.56
0.65
0.59
0.75
0.64
0.47
0.66
0.5
0.35
0.54
0.42
0.56
D4
0.53
0.58
0.65
0.54
0.61
0.59
0.43
0.52
0.5
0.4
0.49
0.42
0.52
D5
0.38
0.49
0.59
0.54
0.55
0.48
0.36
0.52
0.34
0.28
0.42
0.28
0.44
D6
0.68
0.55
0.75
0.61
0.55
0.68
0.61
0.69
0.43
0.41
0.53
0.47
0.58
D7
0.56
0.59
0.64
0.59
0.48
0.68
0.59
0.61
0.52
0.57
0.61
0.55
0.58
D8
0.73
0.57
0.47
0.43
0.36
0.61
0.59
0.51
0.49
0.67
0.54
0.52
0.54
D9
0.52
0.58
0.66
0.52
0.52
0.69
0.61
0.51
0.43
0.45
0.54
0.45
0.54
D10
0.51
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.34
0.43
0.52
0.49
0.43
0.47
0.47
0.5
0.47
D11
0.65
0.58
0.35
0.4
0.28
0.41
0.57
0.67
0.45
0.47
0.53
0.43
0.48
D12
0.52
0.52
0.54
0.49
0.42
0.53
0.61
0.54
0.54
0.47
0.53
0.49
0.52
D13
0.43
0.53
0.42
0.42
0.28
0.47
0.55
0.52
0.45
0.5
0.43
0.49
0.46
Average
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.52
0.44
0.58
0.58
0.54
0.54
0.47
0.48
0.52
0.46
0.52
Note: Consider each interview's fifty most frequent words (169 words listed).
There were thirteen participants, whose characteristics are shown in Table 2. Invitations were
sent to twenty-five scientists registered in public databases of Peruvian companies that benefited from
transfers of public funds through government programs, of which thirteen accepted to participate. Most
participants have backgrounds in STEM areas (Science et al.) and have managed or participated in
science and technology projects promoted or financed by Peruvian companies.
The participants represent a variety of critical sectors in Peru's economy and productivity,
including mining, agribusiness, and energy, reflecting the diversity of economic activities in the country
(OECD, 2023). In addition, manufacturing sector participants have a significant presence, highlighting
this industry's importance in the Peruvian context (Ministerio de la Producción, 2020). Government and
service sectors, fundamental to the development and management of the country, are also included
(Alvarez Salazar, 2021; Nayyar et al., 2021).
A critical aspect is the low representation of women in the sample, with only two female
participants, reflecting the underrepresentation of women in the scientific field in Peru (Rodriguez et al.,
2020). To ensure confidentiality and anonymity, all interviews were coded, following the guidelines of
the Ethics Committee that approved the study.
Table 2. Sample Composition
Code
Nationality
Bachelor
Master's Degree
PhD
Teaching or Research
Sector
D1
Brazil
Mechanical Engineer
STEM
Yes
No
Mining
D2
Peru
Pharmaceutical chemist
STEM
No
No
Manufacturing
D3
Peru
Systems Engineer
STEM
No
Yes
Education
D4
Spain
Biologist
STEM
Yes
No
Manufacturing
D5
Peru
Environmental Engineer
STEM
No
Yes
Energy
D6
Peru
Fishing engineer
No
No
No
Government
D7
Peru
Electronics Engineer
Management
No
Yes
Services
D8
Peru
Civil Engineer
Management
No
No
Mining
D9
Peru
Biotechnologist
STEM
Yes
Yes
Manufacturing
D10
Peru
Economist
No
No
No
Manufacturing
D11
Peru
Agricultural Engineer
No
No
Yes
Agribusiness
D12
Peru
Animal Science Engineer
No
No
No
Agribusiness
D13
Peru
Administrator
Management
No
Yes
Services
Data Analysis
The analysis of the collected data began with a content analysis using the R package UDPIPE
(Straka & Straková, 2017). This initial analysis made it possible to generate corpora and determine the
frequency of occurrence of words in the different interviews, providing a preliminary view of the main
themes addressed (Neuendorf, 2017). This step was crucial to validate the codebook used in the first
coding cycle (Saldaña, 2021).
Subsequently, ATLAS.ti was used as a support tool for data analysis. All interviews were
transcribed to facilitate this process (Friese, 2019). Concepts that emerged most frequently in the
interviews were identified and categorized, leading to a second approach in identifying codes for
analysis (Miles et al., 2019).
Two coding cycles were carried out, following the procedure of Saldaña (2021). In the first
cycle, hypothesis coding was applied based on the variables of the preliminary theoretical model,
categorizing the concepts identified in the interviews. The second cycle involved axial coding,
integrating the codes into the dimensions defined by the theoretical model.
The resulting codebook comprises three dimensions, eleven sub-dimensions, fifty-seven
deductive, and seventeen inductive codes. With the help of ATLAS.ti, recurrent patterns and co-
occurrences were analyzed. Code-document frequency tables were produced to prioritize the most
relevant variables for a successful corporate science process (Friese, 2019).
Three prioritization criteria were established: the frequency of occurrence of each code, the total
number of codes, the relevance of the codes within their respective dimension (personal, organizational,
institutional), and the inclusion of those codes mentioned by at least 50% of the participants. This
approach made it possible to highlight aspects fundamental to corporate science's success in an
emerging country context.
RESULTS
Content analysis of the interviews in the study revealed critical themes associated with the
interaction between business and academia in Peru (see Figure 1). Words such as "business," "project,"
"innovation," "research," "university," and "scientist" stood out as the most mentioned, indicating a
strong connection between business projects and academic research and underlining the importance of
collaborations between these two sectors.
Figure 1. Content Analysis
During the interviews, specific terms were frequently mentioned by the interviewees. These
terms included time, knowledge transfer, and team dynamics. The interviewees emphasized the
importance of knowledge sharing, team collaboration, and time management in corporate science
projects. On the other hand, there were fewer mentions of business management and strategy topics,
such as business operation, market dynamics, and leadership. This suggests the interviewees do not
consider these topics critical to corporate science.
The least used terms related to areas of expertise included "agriculture," "carbon," "electricity,"
"biotechnology," and "mining." This reflects that participants addressed a variety of sectors or case
studies, showing the diversity of applications of corporate science in different fields.
To complement the analysis based on word frequency, a recurrent pattern analysis was
performed after the coding process to prioritize the variables that significantly impact the success of
corporate science investments. The detailed results of this analysis can be found in Appendix A. The
main results emerging from this analysis are presented below.
Corporate Science Players
The study on corporate science in Peru highlights the importance of three key players: the CEO,
the corporate scientist, and the innovator. These individuals, each with unique skills, responsibilities,
and perspectives, are essential in the interaction between science and business. The CEO is the primary
sponsor and advocate for corporate science, driving investment and fostering an environment conducive
to research and innovation. As the generator of practical knowledge, the corporate scientist is the pillar
of the discovery process, providing technical and specialized insight. On the other hand, the innovator
plays a critical role in transforming scientific knowledge into tangible and marketable solutions,
necessary in the transfer and appropriation stages. This triad of actors forms a synergistic system where
science and business are intertwined, and each contributes significantly to the various phases of the
corporate science process, from investment to the materialization of knowledge in the business
environment.
The CEO as a Corporate Science Sponsor
The CEO stands out as the primary sponsor of corporate science and is instrumental in making
decisions on research and development investments. This privileged position allows them to
significantly influence the direction of the organization's scientific and technological efforts. However,
the CEO's decisions are not independent but shaped by multiple factors identified in the interviews.
These factors, detailed in this section of the report, provide a comprehensive view of the CEO's role in
fostering corporate science within the company.
Strategic Vision (cfs = 18%; s = 92%)
1
: The CEO's strategic vision in the context of corporate
science is characterized by a mix of intuition, knowledge, anticipation, and leadership and is
1
Cumulative frequency in the subdimension (cfs) and saturation (s) are indicators collected for each variable related to corporate science
identified through the interviews. The prioritization for the detailed variable section as part of our results can be found in Appendix A.
fundamental to driving corporate science within the organization. D1 (2023) emphasizes that
innovation, an essential component of this vision, must fully align with the company's strategy.
Effective communication between the CEO and areas such as R&D is vital to this alignment since,
according to D2 (2023), the CEO's lack of belief in innovation can impede progress in that direction.
This vision is based on intuition, a deep understanding of the market, and the ability to explore
new areas, as indicated by D3 (2023). D4 (2023) and D5 (2023) highlight that behind a leader with a
strategic vision, there is a team that supports and shares this perspective. According to D7 (2023) and
D8 (2023), looking beyond the present and adapting to market changes is crucial. D9 (2023) adds that
strategic vision draws on intuition as well as knowledge and evidence, while D10 (2023) and D11
(2023) emphasize the importance of looking to the future. D12 (2023) stresses that the ability to
anticipate and lead, rooted in corporate science, distinguishes companies with strong strategic vision.
CEO involvement (cfs = 12%; s = 62%): CEO involvement is a factor in corporate science,
ranging from support for innovation to commitment to research and development, which is essential for
the company's advancement and competitiveness. The CEO is not just a manager but a key visionary in
driving innovation and adapting to current trends. This vision is reflected in creating, structuring, and
financing areas dedicated to innovation (D1, 2023). In addition, it is noted that a successful CEO values
teamwork and is receptive to innovative ideas from the team (D4, 2023).
The CEO's commitment and confidence in research and technological development are crucial
to the progress of innovation projects (D6, 2023). This includes an open mind to adopt new
methodologies and approaches to innovation, especially those that emerge from scientific and
technological development processes (D8, 2023). It is emphasized that the CEO must have a clear
vision and a defined purpose inspired by the experience of other business leaders and an aspiration to
drive technology-based innovation (D7, 2023). This long-term vision, technological skills, and desire to
innovate position the CEO as a leader prepared to face challenges and challenges (D12, 2023). Finally,
it is highlighted that to remain competitive in the market, the CEO must show strong confidence and
commitment to technological research and development, recognizing its value for the company's future
(D3, 2023).
CEO Knowledge of the Scientific Process (cfs = 12%; s = 69%): CEO knowledge of the
scientific process is more related to attitude and general understanding of the innovation process than
formal scientific education, emphasizing the importance of curiosity and strategic vision in innovation
leadership. What is critical is curiosity, vision for the future, and the ability to identify and seize
opportunities for innovation (D1, 2023; D2, 2023). This understanding is extended by linking with other
companies and understanding the process from research to market introduction (D3, 2023).
Although having an academic background in science can be helpful, what matters is the
attitude, curiosity, and knowledge accumulated over time by the CEO (D9, 2023). Finally, it is
highlighted that having a technological background and an innovative spirit is crucial to fostering
corporate science and innovation within the company (D12, 2023).
CEO Business Networks (cfs = 10%; s = 46%): Respondents note that CEOs extend their
networks beyond traditional business circles, actively engaging with technology communities and
startups. This network expansion is not only limited to learning and gaining new experiences but also
facilitates collaborations and the exchange of innovative and sustainable ideas (D7, 2023; D9, 2023).
Building these networks can be organic and serve as a meeting point for innovative ventures,
fostering collaboration and the exchange of ideas. This networking aspect is crucial for CEOs looking to
drive innovation. These networks allow them to corroborate information, access valuable data, and
connect with other essential players in the industry (D11, 2023).
The Entrepreneurial Trait (cfs = 8%; s = 54%): According to interviewees, an entrepreneurial
CEO refers to a leader who transcends traditional management and is characterized by an innate
restlessness to develop, innovate, and found companies. This figure is distinguished by a vision beyond
day-to-day operations, often fueled by international experiences (D3, 2023).
An entrepreneurial CEO demonstrates curiosity and an ability to identify opportunities, even
outside their area of academic training. This ability to detect and pursue new possibilities defines their
approach to innovation (D9, 2023; D11, 2023). While an educational background may be part of their
profile, what truly sets them apart is an innate "innovative DNA" crucial to their success (D12, 2023).
In addition to a research mindset, an entrepreneurial CEO also possesses an entrepreneurial
spirit, enabling them to recognize the practical value of science and research. This combination of
characteristics enables them to see and exploit the potential for practical applications in science and
technology (D12, 2023).
Science-focused CEO (cfs = 8%; s = 46%): The science-focused CEO is a leader who, beyond
their education, considers science and research as critical elements for innovation and growth. An
interesting aspect is that this vocation does not necessarily depend on an academic background in
science; many CEOs with this inclination do not have studies related to science but do have the ability
to "think outside the box" and anticipate market needs (D3, 2023; D4, 2023).
These business leaders are also characterized by their willingness to take risks, often above
average, based on their understanding and confidence in research and science (D7, 2023). Their
curiosity transcends their formal education, allowing them to identify opportunities in fields unrelated to
their training (D9, 2023). This open-mindedness enables them to dream big and recognize that
possibilities expand by combining ambition and science (D10, 2023).
These CEOs' ability to spot opportunities, especially in global or industry-wide problems, and a
"hunger for change" are hallmarks (D11). They possess an investigative spirit and an entrepreneurial
approach, allowing them to see the practical value of science and research (D12).
CEO Experience in Technology Companies (cfs = 7%; s = 46%): Experience in technology
companies, according to the interviewees, does not require the CEO to have been a researcher or part of
a research team. However, they must have some proximity to or understanding of areas related to
research or innovation. This proximity facilitates the understanding of new knowledge needs that are
atypical in the daily operation of a company (D1, 2023).
Technology experience may also be reflected in the founding and sale of technology
companies, offering the CEO a valuable perspective on successful strategies and practices in other
countries (D3, 2023). This background provides significant weight to the CEO's decisions, given that
while everyone in the organization may have opinions, the responsibility for guiding the company's
direction falls more heavily on them (D4, 2023).
Academic background does not necessarily indicate a CEO's ability to address science or
technology issues. CEOs with backgrounds in technological areas and those from unconventional fields
have shown an innate capacity for innovation and technological development (D5, 2023; D12, 2023).
What matters is the CEO's experience and scientific curiosity beyond their academic background (D13,
2023).
CEO motivation (cfs = 7%; s = 54%): CEO motivation is identified as a crucial element in
determining the direction and success of a company. According to interviewees, a motivated CEO is
characterized by a focus on more profound and sustainable goals, going beyond traditional
management. D5 (2023) highlights that these leaders are distinguished not only by their numerical
results but also by their long-term purpose, focusing on impact and sustainability.
Innovation is a critical component of its motivation, but it is not aimless innovation. It is
conceived as an innovation aimed at staying ahead of the curve, leading the market, and differentiating
itself from the competition. D7 (2023) describes these CEOs as people with the aspiration and purpose
to create meaningful technology companies.
Curiosity and openness to change are also central to their motivation. D8 (2023) describes its
CEO as progressive and responsive to change, demonstrating an ability to adapt and evolve with
changing market and industry dynamics.
In addition, teamwork and collaboration are essential aspects for these CEOs. D11 (2023)
underlines the importance they give to collaboration and co-creation in the innovation process. This
view is reinforced by D12 (2023), who mentions the positive influence of a CEO with technological
skills and a courageous approach to facing challenges.
Calculating CEO (cfs = 7%; s = 92%): This characteristic highlights the CEO's ability to take
calculated risks, vital to promoting innovation and business growth. Respondents agree that these
leaders make decisions based not only on intuition but also on prior market and industry knowledge and
experience. D3 (2023) stresses that industry knowledge and expertise provide the confidence to make
risky, informed decisions.
D7 (2023) complements this view, describing his company's CEO as someone who "takes more
risks than average," indicating a willingness to explore the unknown, always with a solid foundation of
knowledge and experience. This risk-taking tendency is not reckless but calculated. D10 (2023)
highlights the importance of "thinking big" and facing challenges rationally and safely.
In the context of innovation, where uncertainty is high, D11 (2023) highlights that the objective
is to reduce risk throughout the project by continuously validating and adjusting assumptions and
hypotheses.
Finally, D12 (2023) notes that CEOs who take calculated risks are "extraordinary people,"
possessing not only traditional managerial skills but also a deep "thirst for knowledge" in specific areas.
This blend of management and specialized knowledge enables them to navigate the uncertain
innovation landscape successfully.
The corporate scientist as a pillar of corporate science
Corporate scientists are instrumental in integrating science with business objectives. They
possess a solid technical and scientific background, complemented by management skills and a strategic
vision. Their role includes balancing short- and long-term projects and specializing in critical areas to
drive innovation and corporate growth. They excel in effectively managing and communicating their
findings, which is essential for interdisciplinary collaboration and integrating science into corporate
strategies. Based on the interviewees ' perspectives, this section will detail their characteristics and roles.
Alignment of the scientist with the organization (cfs = 35%; s = 92%): Alignment of the
scientist with the organization's objectives is crucial for research and development (R&D) to result in
practical and beneficial solutions. D1 (2023) stresses that R&D projects must be distinct from the
company's regular operations, requiring personnel with specialized knowledge and business acumen,
which, according to D1, only 10% of scientists possess. This business perspective is vital to align
research with the company's strategic needs.
D2 (2023) emphasizes the importance of scientists possessing both technical and managerial
skills. Innovation must be adapted to market demands and meet the company's strategic objectives,
which requires a precise alignment between research and these objectives.
D3 (2023) notes that while companies are concerned with profitability, scientists must view
research as a long-term investment that transcends academic publications and has a tangible impact on
the market. D4 (2023) agrees that research should be directed and practical, guided by transparent
budgets and objectives to align with company goals.
D5 (2023) highlights the value of mutual respect between researchers and entrepreneurs,
suggesting that when both groups recognize each other and collaborate, they can work together towards
common goals. D13 (2023) adds that, although curiosity can drive projects, analyzing their profitability
and value to the organization is crucial.
High level of scientist specialization (cfs = 20%; s = 77%): Advanced specialization of
corporate scientists is crucial to address unique challenges within companies. According to D1 (2023),
it is imperative to have personnel with "new and specific expertise" to handle these challenges. D5
(2023) coined "boutique researcher" to describe scientists specializing in under-explored areas, giving
them a distinctive and valuable character in the marketplace. This specialization not only makes them
stand out in their fields but also allows them to offer innovative and high-value solutions.
The ability to adapt to changing market needs is fundamental to these scientists. D7 (2023) and
D8 (2023) emphasize combining in-depth knowledge with the flexibility to adjust to business
requirements. D10 (2023) stresses that specialization allows scientists to delve deeper into specific
problems relevant to the organization, keeping current with trends and advances in the field. D11 (2023)
considers specialization to generate value through innovative and practical solutions.
Finally, D12 (2023) and D13 (2023) highlight the importance of collaboration between
specialized scientists and companies to create value. These professionals bring experience and
knowledge that can be aligned with firm objectives, significantly impacting the market and society.
The managing scientist (cfs = 12%; s = 54%): The figure of the managing scientist stands out
as a professional with skills in project management, administration, and communication, in addition to a
solid scientific background. D2 (2023) and D3 (2023) highlight that these individuals lead research
projects, understanding both technical and administrative aspects, which is crucial for the project's
success.
The ability of the managing scientist to effectively communicate their findings to a broad
audience, including those without scientific training, is vital, as D8 (2023) and D11 (2023) indicate.
This ability enables them not only to conduct pure research but also to translate and present their
findings in a way that is accessible and relevant to various stakeholders.
These professionals are defined not only by their academic background but also by their ability
to integrate technical knowledge with management skills. D3 (2023) emphasizes that the managing
scientist applies financial and administrative concepts in research, including indicators such as Net
Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), and Return on Investment (ROI).
The role of the managing scientist is crucial in the corporate innovation process. They act as an
intermediary between the scientific team and the corporate environment. While scientists may focus on
more academic and technical roles, the managing scientist can translate and communicate scientific
findings to the business world, facilitating the implementation and transfer of knowledge to generate
innovations, as D11 (2023) points out.
Scientist with short- and long-term projects (cfs = 9%; s = 38%): Corporate scientists play a
critical role in balancing projects with short- and long-term goals. As D3 (2023) points out, these
professionals need to work on initiatives that produce immediate and tangible results while engaging in
research that offers sustained and far-reaching benefits to the company.
The implementation of innovation areas in companies, as mentioned by D1 (2023), can be an
example of this duality. These areas may respond to current business needs, but their evolution and
effectiveness may span a decade or more. This long-term perspective requires continued investment and
a firm commitment to aligning research objectives with broader corporate strategies (D8, 2023).
Moreover, as D4 (2023) highlights, corporate scientists do not limit themselves to pure research
but constantly seek how their discoveries can be turned into valuable products or services for society or
the market. This orientation toward practical, actionable results underscores the need for a balanced
approach considering short-term and long-term scientific research goals.
Innovators as value capturers.
Innovators are crucial in transforming scientific knowledge into commercial applications and
products in the corporate science process. Working at the intersection of science and business, these
individuals facilitate the transition of research findings into practical value for the company. The
interviews revealed that innovators implement innovations and influence the strategic direction of
research, ensuring that it aligns with the company's long-term goals. This analysis highlights how
innovators balance immediate research demands with broader business goals, thus contributing to the
overall success of corporate science.
Bidirectional Coordination (cfs = 28%; s = 100%): Bidirectional coordination between
innovators and other business stakeholders is critical to the success of innovation projects. According to
D1 (2023), regular communication between R&D, the CEO, and other business leaders is essential to
discussing progress and results. D1 (2023) also stresses the importance of forming multidisciplinary
teams from the start of projects. D2 (2023) highlights the need to combine technical-scientific
knowledge with management and administrative skills to align research with business objectives. D3
(2023) emphasizes that research should have a practical impact on the market, not just be limited to
academic publications.
D5 (2023) introduces the concept of the "translator," which is essential to facilitate
communication and mutual understanding between the scientific and business worlds. D6 (2023) and
D7 (2023) stress the importance of trust and effective communication between researchers and
innovators. D8 (2023) and D9 (2023) point to the importance of presenting and evaluating ideas at
diverse levels of the organization, while D10 (2023) and D11 (2023) address the importance of
diversity and collaboration in research and innovation teams.
Proactivity and Opportunity Seeking (cfs = 18%; s = 85%): Innovators, according to D1
(2023), must have an organized structure for project ideation and financing, which allows them to
participate in conferences and seek innovation opportunities actively. D2 (2023) describes innovators as
proactive and visionary, able to quickly identify problems and solutions. This proactivity includes a
solid connection to market needs. D2 (2023) and D4 (2023) emphasize the importance of focusing on
the end user, while D3 (2023) and D9 (2023) highlight curiosity and the active search for new business
opportunities, either through direct interaction with customers or trend analysis.
D4 (2023) and D12 (2023) point out that experience and academic or research knowledge are
advantages to be applied in the business world. D10 (2023) and D12 (2023) mention that innovation
implies taking risks and facing challenges, which is crucial in good times and crises. Finally, D10
(2023) and D13 (2023) underline the need for a long-term vision and anticipation of future market
needs, enabling companies to develop relevant technologies and solutions.
Market Orientation (cfs = 14%; s = 77%): Market orientation is a crucial capability for
organizations and their innovators, focused on identifying and responding to market needs. D2 (2023)
stresses the importance of focusing on the end user and using digital tools to understand market trends
and behaviors. D3 (2023) and D6 (2023) focus on market orientation and developing products with
market potential.
D4 (2023) encourages thinking "outside the box," anticipating market needs and practically
applying science. Innovation must be applicable, and getting to market first can be a competitive
advantage. D7 (2023) and D9 (2023) highlight the generation of new products based on market needs
and demands.
D10 (2023) and D11 (2023) emphasize interaction with the market and customers, seeing
proximity to customers to anticipate future demands and develop appropriate technologies. D12 (2023)
and D13 (2023) emphasize adaptability and adoption of successful solutions. When an innovation is
adopted, it is integrated into the organizational culture, reflecting a market orientation in identifying
opportunities and adapting and evolving in response to changing market demands.
Research Agenda Orientation (cfs = 12%; s = 69%): Research agenda orientation is crucial for
innovators, and interviewees offer perspectives on implementing this orientation in practice. D2 (2023)
emphasizes research specialization, such as in the field of ophthalmic pharmaceuticals, tailoring the
research agenda to the company's commercial focus and focusing on end-user needs.
D4 (2023) highlights how academic expertise can inform and guide research in the private
sector. D6 (2023) and D7 (2023) focus on the importance of leadership and intention to innovate, with
companies identifying problems or needs to develop relevant research projects.
D8 (2023) and D9 (2023) describe dedicated innovation teams within companies, working to
identify and solve specific problems and aligning research with market needs. D10 (2023) stresses the
importance of taking challenges and risks, with companies investing in R&D to meet market needs and
remain competitive.
D11 (2023) highlights the importance of prioritization in research, where it is decided which
projects are a priority and which should be postponed. D12 (2023) points out that circumstances, such
as crises, can influence the direction of the research agenda, with innovations becoming necessary to
respond to current challenges.
Knowledge Transformation (cfs = 10%; s = 62%): From the interviewees' perspective,
knowledge transformation is a multifaceted process essential for the success of innovations. D2 (2023)
stresses the importance of adaptability and application of knowledge, focusing on the end user to ensure
the relevance of innovations.
D3 (2023) introduces the figure of the technology manager, who facilitates the transition
between research and its application in the business environment. This interaction between generating
and applying knowledge is crucial for the effectiveness and impact of innovations in the market. As D4
(2023) highlighted, communication also plays a key role, emphasizing the innovator's ability to
communicate and disseminate knowledge in the private sphere, ensuring that innovations are
understood and valued. D6 (2023) and D7 (2023) emphasize the importance of applying knowledge,
taking ideas from theory to practice, and materializing practical and tangible innovations.
Finally, the innovator's mindset is critical, as indicated by D8 (2023) and D10 (2023), who
highlight the need for an open and adaptable mindset, always looking for new technologies and
opportunities. This proactive and visionary mindset allows innovators to stay ahead of the curve and
ensure that their innovations are relevant now and in the future.
Internal Articulation (cfs = 9%; s = 69%): Interviewees believe internal articulation is crucial
in innovation. D3 (2023) emphasizes the need to translate the complexity of research and science into
concepts understandable to the public, thus ensuring that scientific advances are effectively integrated
into relevant products and services. D4 (2023) highlights the importance of having a clear objective
guided by budget and organizational goals and values lateral networks and collaborations to provide
valuable insights. D6 (2023) highlights the importance of close cooperation and communication
between researchers and innovators, suggesting a "match" for effective collaboration.
This internal collaboration is reinforced by D8 (2023) and D10 (2023), who describe how
different teams work together to identify problems and develop solutions. D9 (2023) and D11 (2023)
stress the importance of communication and the ability to translate scientific knowledge into practical
solutions, emphasizing the role of innovation managers as critical mediators between the scientific and
business worlds. D12 (2023) and D13 (2023) provide a vision of the evolution of innovation in
organizations, highlighting the adoption of more structured and methodological approaches and the
importance of education and training in innovative methodologies. The promotion of internal
collaboration is vital to face future challenges and maintain competitiveness in the market.
Empathy and Alignment: (cfs = 8%; s = 62%): Empathy and alignment between innovators
and scientists are highlighted as critical elements for effectively integrating scientific knowledge into
practical solutions. D3 (2023) and D4 (2023) emphasize the importance of translating research into
realistic applications with market impact, which requires a deep understanding and empathy for the
work and motivations of scientists.
D6 (2023) and D7 (2023) address the differences between innovators and scientists,
highlighting how empathy and alignment help both groups to collaborate effectively and produce
beneficial results for the company. D8 (2023) and D9 (2023) focus on the organizational structure and
processes that promote innovation within companies, highlighting that empathy and alignment are
critical to the effective functioning of these teams.
D11 (2023) points to the crucial role of the innovation manager as a "translator" between the
scientific and corporate worlds, emphasizing the need for empathy and alignment in this role to ensure
the effective translation of scientific knowledge into actionable solutions. Finally, D13 (2023) advocates
the importance of curiosity and exploration in innovation, arguing that empathy and alignment are
essential to understanding the importance of autonomy and discovery in choosing research topics.
Business Capabilities for Corporate Science
In the context of corporate science, companies need to develop specific key organizational
capabilities to drive innovation and technological development successfully. These capabilities include
integration, which efficiently combines internal and external knowledge and resources. Collaboration is
also crucial, emphasizing the importance of forming effective partnerships within the company and with
external entities to foster innovation. Funding is vital in ensuring the availability of financial resources
needed for research and development. Networking is equally important to support and facilitate
innovation opportunities. Finally, technology transfer is how companies commercialize and apply the
knowledge and technologies developed. These capabilities are essential to optimize R&D efforts and to
collaborate effectively with universities and research centers.
Integration capability
The integration capability in companies focuses on combining and coordinating internal
resources and competencies to drive innovation and knowledge generation. This skill is vital for
aligning research and development (R&D) activities with the company's overall strategy, optimizing the
value of corporate science projects. Effective integration goes beyond internal coordination between
teams and departments and involves collaborating with external entities such as universities and
research partners. In a dynamic business environment, this capability becomes crucial in maintaining
competitiveness by integrating R&D with other business functions and operations. The following
segments will detail essential aspects of this capability.
Coordination and Alignment (cfs = 17%; s = 85%): Coordination and alignment within
companies for integration capabilities are crucial. Organizations emphasize the need for specialized
innovation and research teams that synergize with the company strategy. This alignment ensures that
resources are used efficiently, maximizing the impact of innovation projects (D1, 2023; D2, 2023).
Effective communication between R&D teams and other departments is vital. "Translators" or
intermediaries are crucial in transmitting information between these groups, ensuring that projects align
with the company's strategic objectives (D2, 2023; D5, 2024). In addition, adapting quickly to market
opportunities and challenges provides a competitive advantage, highlighting the importance of an agile
and goal-oriented response (D10, 2023; D12, 2024).
Finally, coordination and alignment involve effective communication with external
stakeholders, such as customers and partners. This is crucial to ensure that innovation projects meet
market needs and remain relevant and applicable (D9, 2023; D13, 2024).
Types of R&D Units (cfs = 16%; s = 92%): The types of R&D units in companies vary
according to size, available resources, and innovation strategy. Large companies tend to have well-
established R&D centers capable of handling complex and large-scale projects (D1, 2023; D4, 2023).
On the other hand, smaller companies or those with limited resources tend to adopt an open innovation
approach, collaborating with universities and other institutions to complement their lack of in-house
R&D infrastructure (D1, 2023; D3, 2023).
Some companies employ a hybrid approach, combining a formal R&D unit with teams
dedicated to specific innovation projects or areas (D7, 2023; D8, 2023). The presence of an innovation
leader is crucial to ensure that these teams work cohesively and in alignment with the company's
strategic objectives (D2, 2023; D9, 2024). A company's innovation culture also plays a significant role.
Those with a strong innovation culture tend to be more agile and open to new ideas and opportunities,
integrating R&D as an essential part of their daily operation rather than considering it a separate
function (D5, 2023; D11, 2023).
Integration Management (cfs = 15%; s = 85%): Company integration management focuses on
how leadership, coordination, organizational structure, and adaptability influence the effectiveness of
R&D activities. The CEO or leader of the company plays a crucial role, providing resources and
structure to support the R&D area (D1, 2023). Although the CEO does not have research experience,
they must understand the importance of R&D and be willing to invest in it.
Effective coordination between the different teams and areas of the company is vital to ensure
the successful implementation of innovations (D3, 2023; D6, 2023). Clear and open communication is
essential in this process. In addition, perseverance and commitment are necessary to overcome
challenges and resistance that may arise during the integration process (D2, 2023).
Organizational structure and policies are also critical in managing integration. Companies can
adopt various structures, from formal R&D to flexible innovation teams (D7, 2023; D8, 2023).
Regardless of the structure, it is crucial to have clear policies and procedures to guide R&D activities
and ensure they become practical innovations (D2, 2023; D8, 2023).
Finally, the ability to adapt and evolve is a critical aspect of integration management.
Companies must be open to reviewing and adjusting their R&D strategies as circumstances change and
new opportunities emerge (D9, 2023; D10, 2023).
Knowledge management (cfs = 14%; s = 69%): Knowledge management in companies is
fundamental to preserving and effectively using the knowledge acquired throughout various projects.
According to interviewees, sharing and documenting knowledge, including learned from failed projects,
is vital so that lessons are not lost and can benefit future initiatives (D1, 2023).
Tools and methodologies such as design thinking are crucial to structuring and guiding
knowledge generation (D2, 2023; D7, 2023). However, a mindset and organizational culture that values
continuous learning is essential beyond tools. According to D2 (2023), even unsuccessful projects offer
valuable lessons.
Accessibility of knowledge is also crucial. Companies employ various strategies, such as cloud
storage systems or physical folders, to ensure that knowledge is available to those who need it (D8,
2023; D13, 2023). Systems and processes must be in place to capture and store knowledge in a
systematic and accessible way.
In addition, knowledge management involves strategic decisions about when and how to share
knowledge. In some cases, it may be a competitive advantage that must be protected (D4, 2023); in
others, sharing it may benefit the organization and its partners (D10, 2023).
Finally, organizations must be willing to review and adapt their knowledge management
approaches as circumstances change and new opportunities arise. D10 (2023) emphasizes that the
innovation cycle is "super cyclical," where previously generated knowledge can inform and guide
future innovation efforts.
R&D Unit strength (cfs = 14%; s = 85%): The strength and structure of R&D Units are crucial
for driving innovation and knowledge generation in companies. According to D1 (2023), it is essential
to have personnel mainly dedicated to innovative projects, which facilitates undertaking transformative
initiatives. In addition, the internal structure must be capable of handling multiple projects
simultaneously.
The innovation strategy of each company will influence the need for its R&D centers. Large
companies usually have laboratories and research centers (D1, 2023). However, the size of the unit is
not the only important thing; it is crucial to have a constant agenda and a well-organized structure.
Team organization and structure are critical to the success of an R&D unit. Depending on the
project's needs, teams may vary in size, but they must be well organized and adapted to the project's
demands (D2, 2023). The experience and structure of the company are also necessary. Companies
without experience or established R&D units may face challenges in adopting innovations, although
collaboration with universities is possible in the case of smaller companies (D3, 2023; D4, 2023).
D5 (2023) notes that, in many companies, R&D areas are not formally structured, making
coordination and implementation of innovative projects difficult. However, adaptability and evolution
are essential; R&D units must adapt to changing market demands and emerging opportunities, evolving
to meet the company's and the market's needs (D11, 2023).
Organizational Complexity (cfs = 7%; s = 54%): Organizational complexity significantly
affects how innovation processes are managed in companies. Integrating and adopting innovative
approaches can be challenging in consolidated organizations with hierarchical and centralized
structures. D1 (2023) observed that, in one company where he worked, the existing internal structure
was inadequate to handle multiple innovation projects, leading to open innovation adoption.
A simple classification of innovation, such as incremental and transformational innovation, can
help companies prioritize and align their projects with corporate strategies (D1, 2023). However,
confidence and long-term vision are critical to overcoming slowness and challenges in the innovation
process (D3, 2023). For smaller companies, the costs and risks associated with research are
considerable challenges (D4, 2023).
Effective collaboration and communication between different areas within the company are
essential. The absence of an established R&D office in some organizations can complicate alignment
and cooperation with external entities, such as universities (D3, 2023). Additionally, organizational
culture and how innovation is perceived and approached influence the effectiveness of R&D efforts.
For example, in specific companies, innovation may be dispersed across multiple levels and
departments rather than centralized in a particular unit of R&D (D11, 2023).
Collaboration capability
Collaborating with companies is crucial to establishing and maintaining fruitful relationships
with external entities such as universities, research centers, startups, and other companies. This ability
allows companies to access additional resources, knowledge, and technologies, improving their
innovation capacity and generating higher-value results. In today's business interconnectedness and
globalization, collaborating effectively with external partners has become a critical competitive
advantage. Collaboration can take various forms, including joint projects and adopting open innovation
approaches. The following will detail the essential aspects of this collaborative capability.
External Collaboration (cfs = 44%; s = 92%): External collaboration is vital to companies'
innovation strategy. This collaboration leverages specialized knowledge and resources from external
entities, such as universities and other companies. For example, D1 (2023) mentions that, in his
company, the adoption of open innovation was crucial due to the limitations of its internal structure to
manage all innovation projects. This approach is not exclusive to large corporations; smaller companies
also look to open innovation to utilize the infrastructure and knowledge of universities.
Collaboration with universities is critical but must be well-defined regarding the type of
innovation sought. In this regard, D1 (2023) suggests that a university researcher is unlikely to engage
in incremental innovation. In addition to universities, companies also seek partnerships with other
companies, participating in innovation networks and hubs to share solutions and learn from each other's
experiences, as indicated by D8 (2023).
D2 (2023) highlights the importance of humility and openness to accept external support, and
D3 (2023) stresses that collaboration can lead to concrete results such as patents and joint projects.
However, D11 (2023) warns that local competition can sometimes be outdated, leading companies to
look abroad for knowledge. Open innovation and the search for global solutions are becoming the
norm, especially for those companies looking for quick and efficient solutions, according to D12
(2023). Finally, D13 (2023) mentions that this openness to external collaboration can result in joint
projects, research breakthroughs, and academic publications.
Collaborative R&D projects (cfs = 27%; s = 85%): Collaborative R&D projects are crucial in
companies' innovation strategies, facilitating access to complementary resources, knowledge, and
technologies. D1 (2023) highlights the importance of staff dedication and specialization in new projects.
Collaboration extends beyond the boundaries of the company, involving other companies, universities,
and technology centers that contribute additional capabilities, as noted by D2 (2023), D4 (2023), and
D6 (2023).
D5 (2023) emphasizes that these collaborations open up opportunities that would not otherwise
be available. However, challenges such as corporate jealousy and lack of mutual understanding can
hinder practical cooperation, as D11 (2023) points out. Despite these difficulties, there are success
stories. For example, D8 (2023) mentions that mining companies have created institutions to share and
discuss solutions and projects, fostering a collaborative environment.
The search for co-financing and strategic alliances, mentioned by D7 (2023) and D10 (2023), is
becoming common to alleviate financial burdens and access specialized skills. Open innovation and
collaborations with universities and startups represent a growing trend, as D12 (2023) noted, allowing
companies to access new perspectives and technologies, enhancing their innovation capabilities, and
generating more incredible value.
Absorption Catalysts (cfs = 11%; s = 31%): Absorption catalysts are key intermediaries that
connect companies and knowledge-generating entities, such as universities and research institutes.
Although some companies, as indicated by D6 (2023), have not yet established direct connections with
universities, they turn to innovation centers and other entities for advice and technical support in their
R&D projects. These centers are crucial in project formulation and management, facilitating
collaboration and knowledge absorption. As D10 (2023) mentioned, companies sometimes present
specific challenges to external companies seeking innovative solutions. Those who accept and
overcome these challenges can forge long-lasting and mutually beneficial relationships.
The trend towards open innovation is becoming increasingly apparent, as D12 (2023) points
out, with companies seeking active collaborations with startups, developers, and other players in the
global innovation ecosystem. This strategy allows access to solutions and knowledge that would
otherwise be inaccessible. However, collaboration and absorption of external knowledge are not
without challenges. D13 (2023) notes that companies sometimes face difficulties in finding suitable
partnerships or moving forward on specific projects. Despite these challenges, the importance of these
absorption catalysts is widely recognized, and companies are proactively seeking to establish
connections with knowledge-generating entities.
Financing capability
The ability to finance is a crucial skill for companies, enabling them to acquire and manage the
financial resources needed to drive their innovation and technological development projects. In a highly
competitive and dynamic market, securing adequate financing is vital for conducting effective research,
developing new products and services, and maintaining a leading position in the industry.
Beyond just obtaining funds, financing capacity also involves making strategic decisions about
how to invest those resources. This includes assessing and managing risks associated with science,
technology, and innovation (STI) activities. Companies must carefully consider where and how to
allocate funding to maximize return on investment and support sustainable growth and innovation. In
the following, we will examine various aspects of this capability, including strategies for obtaining
funding, managing resources efficiently, and assessing STI opportunities and risks.
Public funding (cfs = 33%; s = 85%): Public resources refer to companies using government
funding to strengthen innovation projects. D1 (2023) suggests that, although some companies already
have budgets for specific projects, public funds allow them to realign resources toward other initiatives.
The perception of these resources varies: while some companies see them as a complement (D1, 2023),
others consider them crucial to demonstrate the viability and profitability of their projects (D2, 2023).
These funds provide financial resources, structure, and framework for project management,
benefiting companies with less experience in this area (D6, 2023; D9, 2023; D12, 2023). In addition,
access to public funds can encourage companies to collaborate with academic entities and publish their
findings, thus validating the relevance of their projects (D4, 2023; D10, 2023).
However, accessing these funds also brings challenges. Managing publicly funded projects
requires a high level of organization and coordination, often perceived as an additional bureaucratic
burden by some companies (D7, 2023). These challenges underscore the importance of careful planning
and management to maximize the benefits of public resources in R&D projects.
Intra-entrepreneurship (cfs = 23%; s = 62%): Intra-entrepreneurship focuses on how
companies invest in innovation and development, looking for clear opportunities for return on
investment. D5 (2023) suggests that, although companies do not yet collaborate, this could change
when resources become scarce. D6 (2023) emphasizes the importance of generating employment and
value through innovation.
D7 (2023) relates the experience of an innovative product developed internally that became a
successful spin-off, demonstrating a willingness to reinvest in innovation and explore new market
opportunities. D9 (2023) and D10 (2023) highlight the importance of top management commitment and
the availability of resources to fund innovation projects, with D10 (2023) revealing that his company
invests a significant portion of its sales in R&D.
D11 (2023) and D12 (2023) address how companies seek to minimize risks associated with
innovation. D12 (2023) describes the search for non-reimbursable funds to reduce financial risk in
innovative projects, a strategy that combines external financing with internal investment to undertake
more ambitious projects. Finally, D13 (2023) mentions several attempts at creative projects, some
financed independently and others with support from public institutions, highlighting the diversity of
financing approaches in technological innovation.
Investment under uncertainty (cfs = 22%; s = 69%): Investment Under Uncertainty highlights
the complexity and risks involved in financing innovation within companies. D1 (2023) highlights the
need for a structured process for creativity and innovation funding projects, recognizing that not all
projects will succeed, which adds uncertainty.
The role of the CEO is crucial in this context, as their support and commitment provide the
resources and confidence needed to advance projects despite uncertainties. As D2 (2023) indicates, a
CEO who supports innovation facilitates teams' progress on their projects.
Minimizing the risk associated with innovation is a constant concern. Companies seek ways to
mitigate this risk, such as obtaining non-reimbursable funds or forming partnerships with institutions
that offer financial and technical support (D12, 2023). These strategies not only reduce financial risk but
can also provide external validation for the project.
Finally, the uncertain nature of innovation requires companies to be willing to adapt and evolve.
D11 (2023) emphasizes the complexity of the innovation process based on multiple hypotheses and
highlights the importance of advancing projects, validating assumptions, and discovering viable
solutions.
Venture capital (cfs = 14%; s = 31%): Venture Capital focuses on the importance of this source
of financing, especially for startups and high-tech companies. D3 (2023) stresses the relevance of
seeking international venture capital to finance long-term projects, highlighting the need for external
funding to transform research into marketable products.
D4 (2023) highlights the importance of evaluating various financing options, especially for
projects starting from scratch. Due to uncertainty in the early stages, attracting investors can be
challenging, as early investment is considered riskier. However, once the project demonstrates its
viability, it becomes easier to obtain more significant investments.
D9 (2023) offers an exciting perspective on the relationship between publishing research and
attracting investors. Although their company is not focused on publishing scientific papers, they have
been advised to print and patent research that is not crucial to their core business. These publications
and patents can prove your technological and scientific capabilities, making them attractive to investors.
Networking capability.
Networking capability in companies implies creating and nurturing connections with key
players in their fields of interest. This includes other companies, universities, research centers, and
suppliers. These connections are fundamental for knowledge sharing, collaborations in R&D projects,
and access to diverse resources and opportunities. In an increasingly globalized and connected business
context, networking has become indispensable for companies seeking to innovate and stay competitive.
Networking allows companies to keep abreast of the latest trends, share experiences, and access new
technologies and markets. In the following paragraphs, we will discuss the various aspects and benefits
of networking for corporate science.
Dissemination activities (cfs = 49%; s = 85%): Companies that are important for exchanging
knowledge and research results between scientists and companies are viewed differently in the business
sector. D2 (2023) considers disclosure as a marketing tool to improve the company's image, while D5
(2023), D10 (2023), and D11 (2023) express reluctance due to confidentiality and intellectual property
concerns. However, D4 (2023) and D9 (2023) recognize the potential benefits of disclosure in attracting
funding and collaborations.
Participation in conferences and other events is a common form of dissemination, as noted by
D3 (2023), D4 (2023), D7 (2023), D8 (2023), and D12 (2023), offering researchers the opportunity to
share findings and establish connections. However, D4 (2023), D9 (2023), and D11 (2023) emphasize
that the decision to publish must balance intellectual property protection with the benefits of knowledge
sharing. D11 (2023) stresses that the inability to print can be frustrating for researchers, although it
suggests that companies could allow the publication of non-confidential information.
Finally, D12 (2023) emphasizes the importance of networking in outreach activities, enabling
companies and scientists to access a more comprehensive network of knowledge and resources, which
is crucial to their research and innovation efforts.
Participation constraints (cfs = 25%; s = 54%): The participation of companies in
disseminating knowledge and research results is marked by the need to balance confidentiality and the
protection of intellectual property. D4 (2023) highlights the importance of carefully managing
knowledge, given its potential to translate into economic benefits and competitive advantages. On the
other hand, D8 (2023) and D9 (2023) point to the need to "compartmentalize" information within
projects, differentiating what can be public from what should remain private.
In addition, the incentive for scientists to publish their findings is highlighted by D11 (2023),
who mentions that the possibility of publishing can be more motivating than monetary incentives.
However, this aspiration must be balanced with the needs of the company. D10 (2023) adds that,
despite the generation of vast knowledge in Peru, it is not always shared due to vulnerability concerns.
D12 (2023) mentions that limitations on disclosure do not always come from the companies
themselves but may also be imposed by international collaborations and funding bodies. In summary,
companies seek a delicate balance between sharing and protecting their knowledge, recognizing the
importance of disclosure and sharing while protecting intellectual property and keeping specific
findings secret, an essential duality for scientific progress and market competitiveness.
Networking (cfs = 24%; s = 38%): Networking is critical in corporate science, facilitating
collaboration and knowledge sharing between companies, universities, and other key players. D4
(2023) stresses the importance of public-private relationships and notes that success often depends on
establishing influential contacts in science and business. These networks enable addressing common
problems and taking advantage of collective opportunities.
Although the interaction between researchers and companies is not always direct, according to
D5 (2023), there is an exchange of knowledge even when researchers work indirectly with companies.
D6 (2023) highlights collaboration with universities, emphasizing that such in