| Summary: | The main objective of the research was to describe the contribution of the audit for the INMETRO innovation process. The intermediate objectives sought to characterize the innovation process INMETRO; identify the procedures and instruments used by the institute in the auditing of the innovation process, and describe the influence of the auditing in the development of two innovations by INMETRO. As a secondary objective the INMETRO innovation process was evaluated by using the evaluation model of Tidd, Bessant & Pavitt (2008).The research method was a single case study with a descriptive purpose. Semistructured interviews with eight employees working with audit and control as well as narratives of two innovations by employees who closely followed the development of innovations were used for data collection. The collected data were treated by means of content analysis. The survey results indicated that neither the innovation process nor the process innovation audit is institutionalized in INMETRO. This makes each main unit of the institute develop innovations according to a viewpoint itself. The absence of reports of audit processes of innovation management with suggestions for improvements in the processes of innovation, and the few references to issues related to audit on the accounts obtained during narratives of development of the innovations surveyed show that the influence of management innovation audit is still small in INMETRO. This is compounded by the fact that management innovation audit is still in its infancy. Paradoxically the legitimate concern of the Institute with normalization may be harming the correct understanding of what would be the appropriate procedures and instruments to an innovation audit. While not referring directly to the question innovation, often appear reports of respondents complaining of excessive standards.
|
|---|
