Resumo

Several scholars have suggested that “one fits all” approach is limited to address innovation process. In complex projects, as in the aircraft developing, this is also true. Complex product systems (CoPS) can be defined as high cost, engineering and information technology intensive customized products and systems (Hobday, 1998). This paper suggests that the same company might use different innovation processes when dealing with complex projects. And even at the same project, different process could be used at different times and / or with different objectives.

The traditional innovation process does not seem appropriate to describe the complexity of an aircraft with its systems and subsystems, customers and suppliers. This paper seeks to investigate which innovations processes are applied to manage the development of an airplane. The following research question guides our research: which are the innovation processes employed for managing a complex project?

Although CoPS are typically purchased by a single user, the vast knowledgebase needed to develop and manufacture these products often exceeds the engineering capacity of a single firm (Hobday, 1998; Davies & Brady, 2000). The creation of a major CoPS often involves extreme production and innovation complexity, not only because they embody a wide variety of distinctive components, skills and knowledge inputs but also because a large number of companies or different organizational units of the same company often have to work together in their production (Hobday, Rush, & Tidd, 2000).

To approach our research question, a field research has been conducted with two innovation projects, the executive jets Phenom 300 and Legacy 450, in one company, Embraer. People from different areas, engineering, customer support, program administration, industrial designer, market intelligence and R&D, have been interviewed. In this way, different approaches for the same project have been covered. The eight types of innovation processes suggested by Salerno et al. (2014) were used to classify the identified processes.

Seven from the eight different processes of innovation suggested by Salerno et al. (2014) could be used to classify the innovation processes applied to Phenom 300 and Legacy 450, depending on the stage it is in, depending on the aspect focused and depending on the group of people involved. Are they: Traditional, Anticipating sales: the tailor-made approach, Anticipating sales from a given client specification, Started by a public or private call, Process with a stoppage: waiting for the market, Process with a stoppage: waiting for the advance of technology and Process with parallel activities.

This study shows that, in some cases of CoPS, different innovation process are applied to the same product, some simultaneously and others in different stages. The dominant process "from idea to launch" is not enough. The Salerno et al. classification is more complete and appropriate. It is necessary to understand that a complex project is managed in a network of innovation processes. Such innovation processes can have different logics, demanding different competencies being articulated in parallel for the success of the project. This was not predicted by Salerno.

Davies, A., & Brady, T. (2000). Organisational capabilities and learning in complex product systems: towards repeatable solutions. Research Policy , 29 (7), 931-953. Hobday, M. (1998). Product complexity, innovation and industrial organisation. Research Policy , 26 (6), 689-710. Hobday, M., Rush, H., & Tidd, J. (2000). Innovation in complex products and system. Research Policy , 29 (7), 793-804. Salerno, M. S., Gomes, L. A., da Silva, D. O., Bagno, R. B., & Freitas, S. L. (2015). Innovation processes: which process for which project? Technovation , 35, 59-70.