The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

MD
57,8 The integration between
knowledge management
and dynamic capabilities in
1960 agile organizations
Received 2 July 2018
Revised 28 October 2018
Fábio Lotti Oliva, Marcelo Henrique Gomes Couto and
Accepted 5 November 2018 Ricardo Fernandes Santos
Department of Business Administration, Universidade de Sao Paulo,
Sao Paulo, Brazil, and
Stefano Bresciani
Department of Business Administration,
Universita degli Studi di Torino Dipartimento di Management, Torino, Italy

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyze how the integration between knowledge
management and dynamic capabilities in contexts that demand organizational agility contributes to the
management by objectives.
Design/methodology/approach – To achieve the proposed objective, the present paper adopts the single
case study in the startup Effecti. For data collection, semi-structured interviews were carried out, analyzed
a posteriori through the technique of content analysis. From the loads of evidence observed, a model was
presented that consists of different management theories and that guides the management by objectives
process of a startup.
Findings – The proposed model proves to be able to describe the modus operandi of a startup and enables it
to develop the cycles of testing, measurement and seizure of knowledge, largely stimulated and inherent to the
creation process of new businesses in dynamic and uncertain contexts.
Practical implications – It is expected that the research results presented in details can illustrate concrete
examples of application of the main concepts: agile organization, dynamic capabilities, knowledge
management, performance assessment, enterprise risk management and management by objectives.
Originality/value – The originality of this study is focused on the integration of conceptual triad and its
application in the case study of a startup: agile organization, dynamic capabilities and knowledge management.
Keywords Dynamic capabilities, Knowledge management, Enterprise risk management, Agile organization,
Performance assessment, Management by objectives
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
All organizations exist for a purpose and, to achieve this, senior management plans and sets
common goals and objectives from the vision of its founders and executives. Startups, for
example, are nascent, implementation and organizational institutions that are set up to seek,
test and build a business model that is repeatable, scalable and profitable, but that operate in
highly uncertain ecosystems from diverse perspectives and present limited resources and rapid
growth which are vulnerable to a number of sources of risk, and therefore have high mortality
rates (Blank and Dorf, 2014; Giardino et al., 2014; Haarigan et al., 2012; Ries, 2012; Picken, 2016).
Achieving the goals in a startup’s current business environment can be a difficult task,
however, especially given the current level of uncertainty and rapid transformations.
Management Decision
Vol. 57 No. 8, 2019
pp. 1960-1979 The authors wish to acknowledge Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – CNPq
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0025-1747
Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade – FEA and Universidade de São Paulo – USP for
DOI 10.1108/MD-06-2018-0670 their support.
So how do we manage and achieve the goals of these institutions in their current uncertain Knowledge
and rapid development contexts? management
Thus, due to the risks acquired since its initial conception, the conditions of uncertainty and dynamic
and rapid evolution they are subjected to, new untapped challenges are presented to the
startuppers (Blank, 2013; Giardino et al., 2014; Ries, 2012), requiring rapid transformations capabilities
in their business models as a response to pressures and tensions caused by internal and
external processes. 1961
Thus, although in the business environment and history it is common for managers to be
challenged to produce results in a context of risks and uncertainties, in addition to
delivering them, the management must also be concerned to produce them under a larger
context of uncertainty and rapid technological and social changes and to use these rapid
changes in favor of their businesses, minimizing transaction costs and maximizing
transaction value (Felipe et al., 2016; Schotter et al., 2017; Teece et al., 2016; Thomson, 1998;
Hwang and Gaur, 2009).
From this perspective, therefore, in order to achieve its objectives successfully, a startup
needs to develop individual and organizational learning capacities during the process of
business development (Sosna et al., 2010) and management models that seek to integrate
different management approaches that meet the specificities of managing their context and
minimize the chances of failure.
Thus, given the lack of market mechanisms that protect entrepreneurial innovation from
the uncertainties associated with the reception of an opportunity ( Janeway, 2012), agility
seems to be an important attribute or organizational capability to be developed by current
organizations seeking sustainable development (Baskarada and Koronios, 2018; Felipe et al.,
2016; Ries, 2012; Singh et al., 2013; Teece et al., 2016), considering the increase in the
organization’s ability to proactively respond to unexpected environmental changes,
developed by agility (Appelbaum et al., 2017).
Therefore, the companies that have achieved success are those that, in addition to
meeting latent demands at the right time, are fast and flexible enough in terms of innovation
(Teece et al., 1997), supported by the foreknowledge capability (prescience), and by the tools
used to find out which parts of the business plans are misguided, in order to adapt the
strategies accordingly (Ries, 2012). And it is in this context that some recently popular and
promising methods have emerged and promised to increase agility and reduce risks in the
decision-making process and to achieve the business objectives in uncertain environments
(Blank, 2013; Blank and Dorf, 2014; Ries, 2012; Teece et al., 2016).
Thus, the agility required and inherent to these methods contributes and makes easy the
search and the retrieval of relevant knowledge, allowing companies to rapidly apply such
knowledge to develop high-quality solutions or react to the emergence of new competitors
(Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2016). However, despite the innumerable success stories associated
with agile development, a number of barriers, ranging from technical to perceptual barriers
related to the process of implementing agile development, reveal the importance of the
management commitment in the process of providing the necessary objectives and support
aiming at the successful development of such a process (Boehm and Turner, 2003;
Pikkarainen et al., 2012) as well as the need for a tailor-made, risk-oriented approach so that
projects take advantage of the planned benefits of agile methods while mitigating some of
their disadvantages (Boehm and Turner, 2003).
Being so, strong dynamic capabilities are critical for a company to promote
organizational agility required to operate in an environment of uncertainty, since they
are the ones that define the company’s ability to innovate, adapt and create changes that are
favorable to the consumer market and unfavorable to competitors (Teece et al., 2016).
However, the development of dynamic capabilities depends heavily on the organization’s
knowledge and learning (Easterby‐Smith and Prieto, 2008), which, in turn, is strongly
MD related to the role that key individuals play in the process of knowledge development within
57,8 an organization (Nuruzzaman, Gaur and Sambharya, 2018). For this reason, knowledge
management must be a practice developed in organizational processes and widely
stimulated by governance, in order to take its effectiveness and facilitate its transfer
(Anderson et al., 2015), thus improving organizational processes continuously. In this
way, the knowledge management expands the competitive capacities of the organizations
1962 (Anderson et al., 2015; Nuruzzaman, Gaur and Sambharya, 2018; Nuruzzaman, Singh and
Pattnaik, 2018) and contributes to the achievement of the organizational objectives or
results and value creation potential (Mukherjee et al., 2018; Mukherjee, Gaur and
Datta, 2013), also being measured as an organizational performance measure (Oliva, 2014;
Qi and Chau, 2018).
Despite these developments and the set of pragmatic methods based on lean and agile
principles recently proposed to support entrepreneurs in the evolution and innovation of
their business models, little has been investigated on the theoretical and practical
relationship between these management practices and the evolution and innovation of these
business in dynamic environments, especially under the support and integration of some
traditional and recent approaches to business administration (Ghezzi and Cavallo, 2018;
Oliva et al., 2011).
From this perspective, the objective of the present paper is to describe and analyze how
the integration between knowledge management and dynamic capabilities in contexts of
agile organizational development contributes to the management by objectives.

2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Management by objectives
The entrepreneur must understand quite clearly his objectives in order to keep an
organization focused on them (Picken, 2016). Thus, initially developed by Peter Drucker in
1954, the approach known as management by objectives has been used in different ways
since then, in order to assist management team in the process of defining and orienting the
specific objectives to be achieved. Besides Drucker, this approach has also been developed
by many other management theorists, including Douglas McGregor, George Odiorne and
John Humble, in which, in essence, who enshrine the process designed to jointly set specific
goals to be accomplished within a defined deadline and followed by the definition of the
responsibilities aiming at reaching the agreed targets and analyzing the process
performance (Campbell, 2015; Thomson, 1998).
Thus, the approach has been widely used as a management system that aligns tangible
objectives with the organization’s vision (Dinesh and Palmer, 1998), based on a set of
strategic planning parameters that seeks to harmonize management objectives with the
employees’ objectives (Islami et al., 2018) and use the objectives achievement as a guide to
assess the performance of the employee and of the organization as a whole (Campbell, 2015).
However, for the management by objectives approach achieves satisfactory results of
productivity and performance, it is necessary that the objectives setting, the participation in
decision making and the objective feedback combine with the top management’s approach
and commitment to it. Top management commitment has to be high, since proper
implementation starts at the top and requires top management support and participation
(Rodgers and Hunter, 1991). Therefore, not by chance, management by objectives has been
translated as a process (Islami et al., 2018; Thomson, 1998) that requires coherence of goals
through collaboration (Dinesh and Palmer, 1998).
Thus, as the market acceptance of management principles has been broadened, a number
of stages have been developed for its implementation, allowing the approach robust
application (Dinesh and Palmer, 1998). These authors also present a six-stage structure that
begins with the strategy identification and the long-term objectives, development of action
plans and allocation of resources up to the performance constant review aiming at Knowledge
assuring the results. management
and dynamic
2.2 Agile organization capabilities
Widely disseminated in the context of software development, the principles announced by
the movement known as agile manifesto encourage practices that allow changes in
requirements at any stage of the solution development process, and actively engage 1963
customers or users in that process, facilitating the feedback and iterativity, which
consequently may lead to more satisfactory results (Dingsoyr et al., 2012).
However, despite the principles that translate themselves as guidelines for the
development of high-quality and agile solutions (Dingsoyr et al., 2012), a more robust
definition based on a comprehensive literature review is presented by Singh et al. (2013). The
authors define the concept as systematic and persistent variations in an organization’s
products, structures or processes that are identified, planned and executed as a deliberate
strategy to gain competitive advantage.
Therefore, in the organizational context, one can understand by agility the ability to
respond flexibly to changes in the environment, adjusting quickly the offerings of products
and services (Felipe et al., 2016; Henderson-Sellers and Serour, 2005; Singh et al., 2013) as
well as redirecting resources, in an efficient and effective way, in order to create, capture and
protect value in higher income activities (Teece et al., 2016). Therefore, in this sense,
organizational agility acts as an organizational capability that facilitates the integration and
organization of resources and knowledge and not only the rapid application of knowledge
(Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2016).
Thus, from this philosophy and based on the principles it communicates, different
methods for creating and developing projects and businesses have become popular in the
organizational context, as a way of developing products or services in an iterative and
incremental way (Blank and Dorf, 2014). Thus, because they deal with the unpredictability
and with the focus on human potential, these methods are characterized by short and
iterative cycles in which there are planning, development, testing and deliveries, and such
cycles are powered by the addition of incremental improvements, periods of reflection and
introspection, rapid feedback incorporation and focus on changes when needed (Campanelli
and Parreiras, 2015; Nerur et al., 2005).
In addition, there should be emphasized that since the commitment to continuous
transformation and agile strategies imply changes at all organizational levels, a number of
factors such as structure, strategy, capabilities, employees and leadership can also, in many
ways, affect the organizational agility (Appelbaum et al., 2017). This, consequently, may
require different organizational configurations leading, for example, a complex mix of
organizational structures and leadership styles (Baskarada and Koronios, 2018).
In a broader context, global organizations are steadily struggling to capture the
changing business environment from their various fronts. Transaction costs arising from
contracting a new global supplier, outsourcing production and services to markets that have
the most competitive comparative advantage, comply with new legislation in the markets
for which it exports, research and development of products to meet the demands sites with
the proper balance with meeting the demands of global standards, upgrading their
systems due to new local or global technology, etc., are some examples by which global
organizations are submitted. An organization that wants to remain competitive in this
global scenario should minimize transaction costs and generate more value in its local and
global transactions. In this sense, the development of relationships with local and global
organizations is an important strategy to meet these goals. In this way, global organizations
must be agile and have the dynamic capabilities to compete in a volatile, uncertain,
complex and ambiguous global environment (Mukherjee et al., 2018; Schotter et al., 2017;
MD Singh and Delios, 2017; Mukherjee, Gaur, Gaur and Schmid, 2013; Mukherjee, Gaur and
57,8 Datta, 2013; Hwang and Gaur, 2009).
Therefore, agile development involves the characteristics of flexibility, speed,
learning and response to changes (Blank and Dorf, 2014; Campanelli and Parreiras, 2015;
Giardino et al., 2014).

1964 2.3 Dynamic capabilities

Originally proposed by Teece et al. (1997), the understanding of the concept found in the
literature, however, is not universal (Ambrosini and Bowman, 2009; Schilke et al., 2018;
Wang and Ahmed, 2007). Featuring some inconsistencies, similarities, differences and
conceptual contradictions (Barreto, 2010), it is observed that sometimes the researchers
direct the emphasis to understanding the concept as an organizational ability (Teece et al.,
1997), and sometimes such researchers direct the emphasis to understanding the concept as
an organizational routine (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000), or as a set of processes (Ambrosini
and Bowman, 2009) or as a behavioral orientation of the company (Wang and Ahmed, 2007).
In spite of the different perspectives for the subject, however, it is common as the general
understanding that the dynamic capabilities result from the combination and
reconfiguration of the management processes developed by the organization over time
through a learning routine that is a result of the organizational trajectory and that allows the
organization to perceive the environmental changes, in order to adapt its activities
according to the established needs (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Teece et al., 1997). Thus,
dynamic capabilities are the managerial capabilities needed to sustain and adjust the
organizational resources basis toward the organizational efficiency achievement
(Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Teece, 2007; Teece et al., 1997) and govern as an integrated
company, and build and reconfigure internal and external competencies (Teece et al., 2016).
In this sense, strong dynamic capabilities are critical for a company to promote the
organizational agility required to operate in an environment of uncertainty, since these
uncertainties are the ones that define the company’s ability to innovate, adapt and create
changes that are favorable to the consumer market and unfavorable to competitors
(Teece et al., 2016; Nuruzzaman, Singh and Pattnaik, 2018). This invariably involves
management’s ability to perceive and then seize opportunities and manage threats by
combining and recombining assets to sustain the development of long-term value (Schilke
et al., 2018; Teece, 2007).
Thus, the dynamic capabilities are the company’s potential to solve problems
systematically, from the perception of opportunities and threats, in order to make timely and
market-oriented decisions (Barreto, 2010) and to ensure competitive advantage and
longevity to the company (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Kumar et al., 2018; Teece et al., 1997,
2016). Therefore, from this perspective, dynamic capabilities can be a source of
competitiveness in face of market demands (Ambrosini and Bowman, 2009; Teece et al.,
1997), which reflect the integration of individuals’ expertise in the organization (Adegbite
et al., 2018), culture, orientation and leadership (Schilke et al., 2018), and the redefinition and
reorganization of corporate strategies in order to meet identified needs (Kumar et al., 2018).

2.4 Knowledge management

Knowledge is the most important resource for innovative organizations (Papa et al., 2018).
Depending on the organization’s objectives, it can be used to develop different
forms of value creation and results, such as refining, renewing, recombining and
replicating a strategy, and, therefore, its management is a practice developed in
organizational processes to bring about its effectiveness and to create further value in
dynamic environment (Mukherjee et al., 2018; Mukherjee, Gaur, Gaur and Schmid, 2013;
Mukherjee, Gaur and Datta, 2013).
 Through the knowledge formalization, therefore, organizational processes are continuously Knowledge
improved. Thus, the knowledge management expands the organizations’ competitive management
capabilities and contributes to the achievement of the organizational objectives, also being and dynamic
considered as an organizational performance measure (Oliva, 2014; Qi and Chau, 2018).
Thus, the lack of knowledge management in an organization can lead to the learning capabilities
degeneration and, consequently, to a reduction in the effectiveness of organizational
processes (Oliva, 2014). 1965
According to Probst et al. (2002), knowledge management is performed through a
schematic process comprising eight key steps to be developed:
• definition of knowledge objectives;
• knowledge identification;
• knowledge acquisition;
• knowledge development;
• knowledge dissemination;
• knowledge use;
• knowledge retention; and
• knowledge assessment.
However, the performance of these steps can be compromised by barriers of several natures.
The main barriers are of human nature and are linked to human and organizational
behavior in the internal context. They occur mainly in the acquisition, dissemination and
assessment of knowledge (Oliva, 2014).
Thus, as the practices of knowledge management are implemented by companies, they
can be characterized in a certain stage of the knowledge management maturity (Oliva, 2014).
The author presents four stages of maturity for knowledge management:
(1) The initial level is characterized by low adherence to the practices related to
knowledge management.
(2) The structured level deals with organizations with some concern about the
importance of knowledge management for the business, in which there is a greater
use of knowledge management practices, supported by the existing information
systems. At this level, the collaborative participation is still low.
(3) The oriented level not only refers to a profile of companies equal to the previous
level, but also presents an orientation for the creation and use of knowledge to boost
the business, in addition to an organizational culture oriented toward innovation.
(4) The last level, integrative, indicates high concern, organization and transparency
regarding knowledge management. There is the use of outside consultants and other
external support aiming at improvements in knowledge management. Finally,
knowledge management goes beyond organizational boundaries, considering the
knowledge dispersed in the intersecting environment of organizations.

2.5 Performance assessment

Performance assessment in new product development involves a number of observations
including: the company’s innovation culture, its strategy, its portfolio management, its
development tools, its metrics and its results (Markham and Lee, 2013). In this sense,
conventional models of the product development process allow an assessment based on
performance and results (Cooper, 2014).
MD However, uncertainty is a matter of course in the context of startups and establishing an
57,8 assessment process is something complex that requires more appropriate observations
about the organizational potential and performance (Ries, 2012). An assessment process
should therefore consider strategic and team issues as well as financial issues such as
capital invested, cash flow, net current value and sensitivity to scenarios. As far as the
startup strategy is concerned, the following must be considered: the value supply, the size of
1966 the explored market, the sustainability of the competitive advantages and the legal issues
that imply the business. As for the professional team’s analysis, it considers characteristics
such as: experience and motivation of the founders, availability of capital and contribution
of investors. This more holistic analysis allows not only to assess a specific project, but also
to understand the entrepreneurship applied to the product development process in a startup
(Csaszar et al., 2006).

2.6 Enterprise risk management

In the current global business context, organizations are immersed in an environment with a
degree of uncertainty related to the external environment market, strategy and planning
issues (Schotter et al., 2017). The solutions to these issues are mostly sized for large
corporations, and because they present a different profile, they are not applicable to the
reality of startups (Ries, 2012). In addition, there is the fact that professionals who
participate since the beginning, from the ideation to the development of technological
solutions are paid a low compensation (Hall and Woodward, 2010). Thus, startups naturally
are more likely to take risks and, consequently, higher failure rates (Giardino et al., 2014).
Enterprise risk management (ERM) plays a facilitating role in preventing negative
outcomes, thus becoming important an accurate phase of identifying risks and threats to
the organization and its projects (Stosic et al., 2016; Singh and Delios, 2017). Some sectors
are most exposed to risks and increased volatility, and this can cause proportional impacts
to organizations, especially in agile development environments (Hall and Hulett, 2002).
Thus, risk management becomes critical to generating gains in these environments
(Teberga et al., 2018).
To guide the implementation of ERM in an organization, Oliva (2016) has structured the
Maturity Model in Risk Management, in which he took into consideration the following
items for determining the maturity level: the processes of planning, organizing,
implementing, risk management, technicity and transparency of these processes, as well
as the organization’s involvement in ERM performance analysis and support. Thus, the
ERM maturity level practiced in organizations can be classified as:
• insufficient: with little awareness about risk management;
• contingency: companies are already aware of the risk management they face and
present a modest use of ERM tools and methods;
• structured: it presents a greater degree of organization of the processes related
to ERM;
• participatory: high level of awareness and some organization of ERM processes; and
• systemic: ERM conscious organized and transparent.

2.7 Integration of approaches

Managing a business requires the entrepreneur to be clear about their goals and current
situation in order to develop a clear work program and direction to keep an organization
focused on the appropriate goals (Picken, 2016). In other words, an administration by
objectives is applied. In startups, however, given the conditions and characteristics
associated with it, as well as the objectives of rapid growth (Blank and Dorf, 2014; Giardino Knowledge
et al., 2014; Ries, 2012), organizational agility to reach goals and innovate demonstrated a management
valuable attribute due to the constant state of transformation (Ghezzi and Cavallo, 2018; and dynamic
Teece et al., 2016).
However, in order for the organization to achieve the required levels of agility, it must capabilities
develop strong dynamic capabilities to enable it to cope with deep uncertainty and promote
the ability to respond rapidly to market changes (Teece et al., 2016). Thus, given the context 1967
of uncertainties and rapid environmental transformations in which startups are embedded.
it becomes fundamental that collective knowledge be adapted and current enough to
cope with these environmental conditions, or the company’s chances of survival diminish
(Teece et al., 2016; Sosna et al., 2010).
Therefore, a knowledge management mechanism that supports this process and
promotes the ability to perceive and respond rapidly to changes, as well as transform
and adjust strategies (Kumar et al., 2018), resources and parts of the business model (Blank
and Dorf, 2014; Sosna et al., 2010; Teece et al., 2016) becomes a necessity for management, as
well as a control system that measures and evaluates the changes that are addressed to
the development of a sustainable business and the institution’s value delivery objectives
(Ries, 2012).
In this way, as risks are associated with known results and objectives (Teece et al., 2016)
and startups naturally present a greater tendency to take risks and, consequently, higher
failure rates (Giardino et al., 2014), the development of a risk management model may play a
facilitating role in preventing negative outcomes (Stosic et al., 2016), and thus complement
the set of management approaches required to develop a startup.

3. Methodology
3.1 Research design
This research presents a single case study (Yin, 2014) of a qualitative nature (Cooper
and Schindler, 2003; Miles et al., 2014), which seeks to understand in detail the
phenomena approached, its regularities and exceptionalities, through an interview with
five executives of Effecti. The research also has an observatory-experimental character,
since it integrates theoretical concepts related to organizational management with a focus on
agile organizations.

3.2 Conceptual model

Startups are temporary and early-stage development institutions. They are created and
organized to search, test and build a business model that is repeatable, scalable
and profitable, from the initial vision of its founders (Blank and Dorf, 2014; Haarigan et al.,
2012; Ries, 2012). However, in order to achieve this, the entrepreneur needs to be clear
about his objectives and to keep the institution focused on them (Picken, 2016), since, in
addition to exploiting new opportunities under a highly uncertain market environment
(Giardino et al., 2014; Ries, 2012), startups are still characterized by limited resources
and personnel, third-party dependency and time pressure (Giardino et al., 2014) (component
1 – management by objectives).
Therefore, in addition to a management system that can align tangible goals with the
organization’s vision (Dinesh and Palmer, 1998), startups must develop the capacity to react
to environmental changes, grow and expand rapidly (Giardino et al., 2014) in order to meet
the rapid transformation needs of its business models as a response to the pressures and
tensions caused by internal and external processes (component 2 – agile organization).
In this respect, strong dynamic capabilities are thus key to enabling startup to rapidly
develop, adapt and renew its business model in order to create value on a sustained basis
MD (Teece et al., 2016) (component 3 – dynamic capabilities). Thus, since this process results
57,8 from the combination and reconfiguration of the management processes developed over
time, through a learning routine that is a consequence of the organizational trajectory of a
company and that enables it to perceive environmental changes (Eisenhardt and Martin,
2000; Teece et al., 1997; Zollo and Winter, 2002), it is also important to integrate a knowledge
management mechanism to support this process (component 4 – knowledge management).
1968 However, even if these processes are taken care of by the startup, so that it ensures that
previously planned objectives are achieved and, consequently, the chances of failure
decrease, it is also fundamental that the institution develops a holistic analysis that allows it
to evaluate its project and its level of maturity and to understand the entrepreneurial
capacity applied to the startup development process (Csaszar et al., 2006) (component
5 – performance assessment). And in this regard, ERM can play a facilitating role in
these businesses in preventing negative outcomes, since it allows identifying risks
and threats to the organization’s success (Stosic et al., 2016; Teberga et al., 2018),
contributing to better management of the conditions and characteristics of a startup
(component 6 – enterprise risk).
Given the context presented, the phenomenon addressed in this research, as presented in
Figure 1, addresses the processes of management by objectives, agile organization, dynamic
capabilities, knowledge management, performance assessment and enterprise risk
management performed by Effecti.

3.3 Data collection

For data collection, two interviews were conducted, the first of which was an open and
personal script with the founder and CEO of Effecti and the second, with a semi-structured
script through video conference, with the same founder and CEO and four other executives
of Effecti. The interviews, according to Cooper and Schindler (2003) and Yin (2014), involved

Component 1 – Management by Objectives

Component 2 – Agile Organization

Component 3 – Dynamic Capabilities

Component 4 – Knowledge Management

Component 5 – Performance Assessment

Component 6 – Enterprise Risk Management

Figure 1.
Research
conceptual model
Source: Prepared by the authors
issues based on the literature, presented in Figure 1, which guided the dialogue between Knowledge
interviewer and interviewee. Aspects such as neutrality, monitoring of the interviewee’s line management
of reasoning and request for details were considered during interviews. and dynamic
The semi-structured script of the interview was based on the literature review in
management by objectives, agile organization, dynamic capabilities, knowledge capabilities
management, performance assessment and ERM.
During the interview, they were asked about the processes related to the topics discussed 1969
in the literature review. The five executives interviewed were selected, in accordance with
Cooper and Schindler (2003), and according to their experiences and unique perceptions of
the phenomenon analyzed. The interviews took place through a videoconference with an
average length of 200 min. Limiting the number of interviews was due to the facts
confirmation. The main methodological limitation in this study was the impossibility of
carrying out personal interviews.

3.4 Presentation and data analysis

The scope in which the proposal of this paper is presented seeks to integrate management
approaches and, from this, to advance in the understanding of a theoretical management
model applied to the context of startups. Thus, as the objective advances the frontiers of
current knowledge in management, the technique chosen for data analysis was content
analysis; therefore, it allows and applies to studies and interpretations of qualitative data to
develop themes from studies of single case (Gaur and Kumar, 2018).
Thus, data analysis was based on the methodology of Miles et al. (2014). After being
collected, the data were coded, according to the research conceptual model, structured from
the literature review proposed (Gaur and Kumar, 2018; Miles et al., 2014), and jointly
allocated allowing to compare their regularities and exceptionalities. With the data allocated
and codified, the analysis was performed with the internal triangulation of data. Figure 2
schematically shows the developed content analysis process.

4. Analysis of results
4.1 Description of the case
Effecti is a startup that provides technology solutions to bidders. In other words, it provides
digital solutions that connect supplier companies to the government. Found in September
2013, this startup currently serves more than 1,100 companies in all Brazilian states.

Data collection:
Personal Iterview with CEO
Videoconference interview with
CEO and more four executives Data coding:
Definition of the coding scheme
based on the topics of literature
review and coding of all
Interpretation of coded contente:
transcribed texts from interviews
Comparison, internal
triangulation and interpretation
of coded data

Figure 2.
The content
Source: Prepared by the authors based on Gaur and Kumar (2018) and Miles et al. analysis process
(2014)
MD In addition, of the 100 largest solution providers to the Brazilian Federal Government,
57,8 37 percent use Effecti solutions in their operations.
The startup is based in the city of Rio Sul, state of Santa Catarina, and in São Paulo, state
of São Paulo, and it is one of the residents of Banco Bradesco co-innovation space, the
Habitat. Furthermore, Effecti has recently participated in the innovative business
acceleration program carried out by the Brazilian Ministry of Industry, Commerce and
1970 Services (MDIC) and by the Brazilian Service for Support to Micro and Small Enterprises
(SEBRAE), the Inovativa Brasil.
The business initial idea arose from past professional experiences of the founders
in the field and the opportunity to develop a solution for a company that supplied products
to the government. These experiences, added to the opportunity to apply an idea to a
potential customer, enabled them to identify routine difficulties of the supplier companies
associated with the excess of bureaucracy related to this process and the possibility of
developing solutions that automate and reduce the time spent in performing tasks during
the bidding process.
In order to verify the market viability, the solution was presented to other potential
customers who, in part, contracted the technology. The huge and rapid growth of the
solutions, however, is recent, and is due to, in particular to the increase of the technical and
commercial team and the technological resources improvement of the solution needed to
meet a growing demand. Effecti has a current staff of 14 people.
Currently, the startup offers four different systems to assist the phases of the bidding
process. The development of these distinct solutions was a consequence of the focus on
meeting other suppliers’ needs and of the ability to identify other repetitive routines that
could be automated. Moreover, these solutions must meet at least one of two principles:
increase profits or reduce the time to complete the tasks and, hence, reduce costs. They are
offered through free trial versions for a specified period of time and can be purchased by
subscription models.

4.2 Management by objectives

During the startup development process, the entrepreneur must be clear about his objectives
and his current situation in order to establish and communicate a clear direction to keep the
organization focused on the appropriate objectives (Picken, 2016). Thus, the management
strategies in Effecti are always developed as from the main needs inherent to the company’s
development at a certain moment of its evolution and are delineated based on the resources,
capabilities, objectives and main problems to be solved in the current moment. Currently, for
example, the company’s main objectives are related to the process of the vertiginous and
rapid growth of its solutions and seek to solve the company’s growth problems, since the
startup is in this stage.
Therefore, the development process of the startup set of objectives starts from the
identification of the company’s current strategy, followed by the preparation of action plans
and objectives, the provision of resources and assignments of responsibilities (Dinesh and
Palmer, 1998). For Effecti, in this process, a clear understanding of the company’s current
capabilities and resources is also important, given the limitations of a startup and the need
to align tangible objectives with the organization’s vision (Dinesh and Palmer, 1998).
In short, the objectives not only guide the company’s activities but also direct the
focus, the main resources and the development of solutions internally and external to
the organization.

4.3 Agile organization

An agile organization is one that identifies, plans and executes rapid changes in its
solutions, structures or processes (Singh et al., 2013) as a response to the constant
environmental changes (Felipe et al., 2016; Henderson et al., 2005; Singh et al., 2013) and Knowledge
addition of incremental improvements, periods of reflection and introspection, rapid management
feedback incorporation and focus on changes when needed (Campanelli and Parreiras, 2015; and dynamic
Nerur et al., 2005). Thus, seeking to adapt the need to develop a greater capacity to respond
to the required changes in a faster way, one of the processes management methods in capabilities
development is an adaptation of Scrum.
Thus, some assumptions of the method are applied and some are not. This option for the 1971
development and adoption of an adaptation of the method is an evidence of response to the
need for startup in learning how to measure team performance and maximize the fulfillment
of the company’s objectives.
In addition, organizational flexibility is an important feature to stimulate agility
(Campanelli and Parreiras, 2015; Giardino et al., 2014; Teece et al., 2016). For this, the startup
adopts a more horizontal and organic structure with industry leaderships and more flexible
systems that facilitate the apprehension and rapid adaptation in face of the changes.
However, so that the speed is preserved, it is essential that people are committed, the areas
must be developed collaboratively and the organizational objectives, besides being evident,
must be able to guide all the company’s activities.

4.4 Dynamic capabilities

Uncertainty, with regard to business sustainability, is an inherent feature of Effecti’s
environment. Despite having its own technology, the solution requires the operation of
government platforms and the consumption of information arising from third-party
databases, which are beyond the company’s domain and that can compromise the operation.
Moreover, solutions can be heavily influenced by changes in legislation, which highlights
one of the business vulnerabilities.
Thus, seeking to reduce this vulnerability and promote the business sustainability
(Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Picken, 2016; Teece et al., 1997, 2016), the startup has
diversified with regard to the development of new solutions and projects in areas
complementary to its initial proposal, in addition to seeking to approach the key partners in
its operation environment, such as government agencies, for example.
These loads of evidence, in principle, demonstrate the importance of developing
capabilities that enable the organization to realize and then take advantage of opportunities
and manage threats by combining and recombining assets to sustain the long-term value
development (Kumar et al., 2018; Teece, 2007) through the development of an
entrepreneurial management (Teece et al., 2016) and through the ability to identify and
explore emerging opportunities and new sources of competitive advantages (Kumar et al.,
2018; Schilke et al., 2018).

4.5 Knowledge management

Knowledge management occurs when the organization structures a process where steps
such as the definition of knowledge objectives, the identification, acquisition, dissemination,
use, storage and knowledge assessment are performed (Probst et al., 2002). Effecti neither
presents this structure in a formalized way, nor does it perform all stages of the knowledge
management process. However, some practices are performed informally and not
systematized in order to meet the needs for accessing the knowledge whenever necessary.
This lack of formalization of the knowledge management process occurs mainly because
of the organic nature and the lean startup structure, which allows the exchange of
information and knowledge in an easier way (Teece et al., 2016). Thus, even without the
formalization of knowledge management processes, Effecti managers are concerned with
aspects that involve knowledge of the company (Papa et al., 2018), and some practices for
knowledge formation are performed such as: brainstorms and meetings to identify the
MD know-how required to offer new solutions and improvement of the current ones and creation
57,8 of own methods of management and dissemination, for example.
Institutionalization of knowledge management, however, is in process of formation, in
response to the needs inherent to the rapid growth process and to the needs of information
storage. In addition, the increase in the number of employees is an aspect aimed at making
the knowledge management process formalized. Corroborating with Oliva (2014), the
1972 interviewees agree that from this point of the company’s development, the non-formalization
of knowledge management will have negative consequences such as deterioration of
learning and decrease of the effectiveness of organizational processes.
These loads of evidence suggest that Effecti presents a need to overcome the structured
degree of knowledge management and move to the advanced degree presented by Oliva
(2014). They also corroborate the points made by Picken (2016), when suggesting that the
process of large and rapid growth of a startup requires structures, processes and discipline
to sustain the accelerated growth.

4.6 Performance assessment

Effecti’s performance is assessed by metrics related to the degree of task execution,
adhesion of new user to testing, retention, and conversion of test users into customers.
Effecti’s management uses few metrics for performance assessment but such metrics reveal
process effectiveness, employee performance and customer satisfaction, going against what
Ries (2012) calls accounting for innovation and actionable metrics for development and
learning measurement.
Furthermore, metrics for the performance assessment of employees and of the company
as a whole are monitored daily and discussed at regular meetings, where cases of
underperformance are addressed. It is highlighted the agility and integration of the
managers team for monitoring and decision making in the performance assessment. Thus,
Effecti’s performance assessment is carried out in a holistic way, seeking the effectiveness of
the company as a whole (Csaszar et al., 2006).

4.7 Enterprise risk management

Given the nature of the uncertainties in Effecti’s business environment, one may notice that
these uncertainties can strongly influence the agility of its organizational processes
and impact on results (Giardino et al., 2014). So, given its uncertain environment related to
the public sector, the startup has developed a system of mapping agents and risk,
monitoring the main risks involved in its business, especially those related to public
management, that have greater impact on its strategies and solutions offered to corporate
customers (Teberga et al., 2018).
Less comprehensive risks, such as those associated with customer data security and loss
of market share for new competitors, are mitigated when the company seeks to minimize the
possibility of such occurrence, with concrete actions for data security, market monitoring
and improvement of the solutions offered.
Thus, as the startup moves toward high growth objectives, more attention is given to the
maturation of more proactive risk management processes, since fast-growing companies are
particularly vulnerable to many sources of risk (Picken, 2016). Thus, ERM provides direct
support in the identification, assessment and monitoring of risks so that organizational
objectives are not impaired and, consequently, the delivery of company value is not
compromised (Oliva, 2016; Oliva et al., 2014).
Therefore, in general, Effecti presents a structured ERM, according to Oliva (2016),
highlighting the considerable degree of awareness about the risks related to the business
and the considerable structuring of risk management processes.
4.8 Integration of approaches Knowledge
Due to the dynamic environment in which startups are embedded, it is observed that the management
constant planning of activities required during the business evolution needs to be fast and dynamic
enough to keep up with the organizational agility required to operate, innovate and adapt to
the constant changes required by these businesses context (Teece et al., 2016), as well as capabilities
achieving the objectives related to its development.
Therefore, strong dynamic capabilities are fundamental to this process (Teece et al., 1973
2016), since they enable the company’s ability to configure and reconfigure its basis of
organizational resources toward organizational efficiency (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000),
Teece et al. (1997) and toward the solution of the operational and managerial challenges
inherent to the startup maturity process (Picken, 2016).
Thus, the dynamic capabilities are added to the agile development to play an important
role in the process of not only quick planning required for these businesses, but also of
organization and allocation of organizational resources in order to eliminate waste and
create value (Ries, 2012). In other words, this integration contributes to the encouragement
of experimentation process largely stimulated by emerging agile methods (Blank and Dorf,
2014; Ries, 2012; Teece et al., 2016), enabling the startup to not only learn with the obtained
results but also with the process itself and how to run it best.
Thus, the learning process can be facilitated by the agility, since agility contributes in a
way that the knowledge search and recovery process can enable the company to adjust
(Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2016) and regroup itself (Ries, 2012; Teece et al., 2016) in a fast way,
so as to meet not only the demands required by the external environment, but also the
organization’s own needs in its evolution. However, to do so, this validated learning needs to
be managed.
So knowledge management, although empirical and not completely structured, can
support the execution of these processes in the startup, since from its practice the
organizational processes are continually improved, and its competitive capabilities are
expanded, allowing that its organizational objectives are achieved, as well as its effectiveness
(Anderson et al., 2015; Nuruzzaman, Gaur and Sambharya, 2018; Nuruzzaman, Singh and
Pattnaik, 2018; Oliva, 2014; Qi and Chau, 2018). However, learning can only be validated if the
startup develops assessment measures that allow it to understand its entrepreneurial
capability applied to the development process of its solutions (Csaszar et al., 2006) and to
measure accurately its current position and which advances were obtained after running an
experimental process (Ries, 2012).
Furthermore, in order to move toward its objectives, a startup still needs to develop a
proactive risk management system, since fast-growing companies are particularly
vulnerable to risk sources (Picken, 2016). Thus, ERM provides support to the startup
control process in order to reduce the risks that could prevent the startup from achieving its
organizational objectives and, consequently, compromise the delivery of business value.
These loads of evidence, therefore, draw up the company’s behavior and show how
goal-oriented management of a startup can be adapted to the dynamic context of startups
and strengthened by the agility in the planning process by the dynamic capabilities in the
organization process, by the knowledge management in the execution process and by the
performance assessment processes and ERM in the control process (Figure 3). This model is
also able to demonstrate in theory how the cycle developed by Eric Ries (2012), known as
build-measure-learn, is managerially structured in startups.

5. Conclusions
5.1 Attendance the research objectives
In general, as well as in corporations, the organizational objectives of a startup vary in the
course of its evolution. This variation describes the business orientation to the solution of
MD
57,8 Agile Organization
Planning
M
A
N
A
G
Organization
1974 E Dynamic Capabilities
M
E
N
T
B Execution
Knowledge Management
Y
O
B
J
E Control
C Performance Assessment
T
I
V
E
S Enterprise Risk Control
Figure 3. Management
Objective-driven
behavior model
Source: Prepared by the authors

the main operational and management challenges inherent to a particular time of the
business development. Thus, the objectives of a startup not only make up its organizational
trajectory but also guide the activities and processes to be developed by it, and therefore, the
way the company is conducted, the measure that shapes its activities and priorities, as well
as directs the necessary resources and efforts.
In addition, the development of a startup is an experimental and iterative process,
and therefore, during its history, the startup empirically develops its own routines and
organizational processes, according to the learning it acquires from its mistakes and
successes and the established objectives. So, therefore, the learning generated by a startup is
a set of knowledge and capabilities that enable the business to reach its established
objectives with the agility required in the dynamic context in which it is inserted, reducing
risks and preserving scarce resources.
In this sense, the objective of describing and analyzing how the integration between
knowledge management and dynamic capacities in contexts of agile organizational development
contributes to the management by objectives was care, by presenting from the empirical
evidences the way in which the management approaches proposed by the study are integrated.

5.2 Attendance to methodological procedures

The methodological procedures were met by integrating the qualitative approach of the
study to the single case study method and the content analysis technique for data analysis.
In addition, the semi-structured script of the interview was based on the literature review
in management by objectives, agile organization, dynamic capabilities, knowledge
management, performance assessment and ERM, and the five participating executives
were selected according to their experiences and perceptions of the phenomenon analyzed.
5.3 Contributions to the theory Knowledge
The main theoretical contribution of the study is the presentation of a theoretical framework management
of startup management that integrates different management approaches necessary for and dynamic
business development characterized by scarce resources, fast transformation environments
and uncertainties, and accelerated growth. capabilities
In this sense, therefore, the study advances the proposed theoretical limits by integrating
the approaches of management by objectives, agile organization, dynamic capabilities, 1975
knowledge management, performance assessment and ERM, contributing to the
understanding of a theoretical management model applied to the context of startups.

5.4 Management implications

From these observed loads of evidence, an applicable management theoretical framework
was presented which consists of several management approaches and that guides the
management by objectives process of a startup. So, when used in an integrated manner, this
model is able to describe the startup modus operandi and enable it to develop the cycle of
experimentation, measurement and knowledge apprehension, widely stimulated and
inherent in the process of creating new business in dynamic and uncertain contexts. In other
words, it contributes to a better understanding of the management model that meets the
conditions and development needs of a startup, minimizing risks and chances of failure.

5.5 Limitations and future study opportunities

Future studies that seek to investigate the application of the theoretical model proposed in
other startup cases in order to promote comparisons and validation are welcome. The use of
a single case is a limitation of this study, but the method was justified by the search for the
depth of results. Other case studies in different business environments at different times
may contribute to the improvement of the proposed integration model between knowledge
management and dynamic capabilities in agile organizations. In addition, quantitative
approach studies that identify the main variables of each construct of the theoretical
framework will also be fundamental for the solidification of the model.

References
Adegbite, O.E., Simintiras, A.C., Dwivedi, Y.K. and Ifie, K. (Eds) (2018), “Dynamic capabilities: drivers
of organisational adaptations”, in Organisational Adaptations: A Pluralistic Perspective, Springer
International Publishing, Cham, pp. 81-94.
Ambrosini, V. and Bowman, C. (2009), “What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct
in strategic management?”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 29-49.
Anderson, U., Gaur, A.S., Mudambi, R. and Persson, M. (2015), “Inter-unit knowledge transfer in
multinational enterprises”, Global Strategy Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 241-255.
Appelbaum, S.H., Calla, R., Desautels, D. and Hasan, L. (2017), “The challenges of organizational agility
(part 1)”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 6-14.
Barreto, I. (2010), “Dynamic capabilities: a review of past research and an agenda for the future”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 256-280.
Baskarada, S. and Koronios, A. (2018), “The 5S organizational agility framework: a dynamic
capabilities perspective”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 331-342.
Blank, S. (2013), “Why the lean start-up changes everything”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 91 No. 5,
pp. 63-72.
Blank, S. and Dorf, B. (2014), Startup: Manual do Empreendedor, Alta Books Editora, Rio de Janeiro.
MD Boehm, B. and Turner, R. (2003), “Using risk to balance agile and plan-driven methods”, Computer,
57,8 Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 57-66.
Campanelli, A.S. and Parreiras, F.S. (2015), “Agile methods tailoring – a systematic literature review”,
Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 110, December, pp. 85-100.
Campbell, D.J. (2015), “Management by objectives”, in Cooper, C.L., Guest, D.E. and Needle, D.J. (Eds),
Wiley Encyclopedia of Management.
1976 Cegarra-Navarro, J.G., Soto-Acosta, P. and Wensley, A.K. (2016), “Structured knowledge processes and
firm performance: the role of organizational agility”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 5,
pp. 1544-1549.
Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S. (2003), “Métodos de pesquisa em administração”, Bookman,
Porto Alegre.
Cooper, R.G. (2014), “What’s next?: after stage-gate”, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 57 No. 1,
pp. 20-31.
Csaszar, F., Nussbaum, M. and Sepulveda, M. (2006), “Strategic and cognitive criteria for the selection
of startups”, Technovation, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 151-161.
Dinesh, D. and Palmer, E. (1998), “Management by objectives and the balanced scorecard: will Rome
fall again?”, Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 363-369.
Dingsoyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V. and Moe, N.B. (2012), “A decade of agile methodologies: towards
explaining agile software development”, The Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 85 No. 2012,
pp. 1213-1221.
Easterby‐Smith, M. and Prieto, I.M. (2008), “Dynamic capabilities and knowledge management: an
integrative role for learning?”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 235-249.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000), “Dynamic capabilities: what are they?”, Strategic Management
Journal, pp. 1105-1121.
Felipe, C.M., Roldán, J.L. and Leal-Rodríguez, A.L. (2016), “An explanatory and predictive model for
organizational agility”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 10, pp. 4624-4631.
Gaur, A.S. and Kumar, M. (2018), “A systematic approach to conducting review studies: an assessment
of content analysis in 25 years of IB research”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 53 No. 2,
pp. 280-289.
Ghezzi, A. and Cavallo, A. (2018), “Agile business model innovation in digital entrepreneurship: lean
startup approaches”, Journal of Business Research, June 23, 2018 (in press).
Giardino, C., Unterkalmsteiner, M., Paternoster, N., Gorschek, T. and Abrahamsson, P. (2014), “What do
we know about software development in startups?”, IEEE Software, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 28-32.
Hall, D. and Hulett, D. (2002), “Universal risk project – final report (rep.)”, February, available at: www.
risksig.com/ (accessed August 25, 2017).
Hall, R.E. and Woodward, S.E. (2010), “The burden of the nondiversifiable risk of entrepreneurship”,
American Economic Review, Vol. 100 No. 3, pp. 1163-1194.
Harrigan, P., Ramsey, E. and Ibbotson, P. (2012), “Entrepreneurial marketing in SMEs: the key
capabilities of e-CRM”, Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 40-64.
Henderson-Sellers, B. and Serour, M.K. (2005), “Creating a dual-agility method: the value of method
engineering”, Journal of Database Management ( JDM), Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 1-24.
Hwang, P. and Gaur, A.S. (2009), “Organization efficiency, firm capabilities and economic organization
of MNEs”, Multinational Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 143-162.
Islami, X., Mulolli, E. and Mustafa, N. (2018), “Using management by objectives as a performance
appraisal tool for employee satisfaction”, Future Business Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 94-108.
Janeway, W.H. (2012), Doing Capitalism in the Innovation Economy: Markets, Speculation and the State,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kumar, V., Gaur, A., Zhan, W. and Luo, Y. (2018), “Co-evolution of MNCs and local competitors in Knowledge
emerging markets”, International Business Review, August 25 (in press). management
Markham, S.K. and Lee, H. (2013), “Product development and management association’s 2012 and dynamic
comparative performance assessment study”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 408-429. capabilities
Miles, M.B., Huberman, M.A. and Saldaña, J. (2014), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook,
SAGE Publications, London. 1977
Mukherjee, D., Gaur, A.S. and Datta, A. (2013), “Creating value through offshore outsourcing:
A resource management framework”, Journal of International Management, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 377-389.
Mukherjee, D., Gaur, A.S., Gaur, S.S. and Schmid, F. (2013), “External and internal influences on R&D
alliance formation: evidence from German SMEs”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 11,
pp. 2178-2185.
Mukherjee, D., Lahiri, S., Ash, S.R. and Gaur, A.S. (2017), “Search motives, local embeddedness and
knowledge outcomes in offshoring”, Journal of Business Research, October 22 (in press).
Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R. and Mangalaraj, G. (2005), “Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies”,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 72-78.
Nuruzzaman, N., Gaur, A.S. and Sambharya, R. (2018), “A micro-foundations approach to studying
innovation in multinational subsidiaries”, Global Strategy Journal.
Nuruzzaman, N., Singh, D. and Pattnaik, C. (2018), “Competing to be innovative: foreign
competition and imitative innovation of emerging economy firms”, International Business
Review, December 18 (in press).
Oliva, F.L. (2014), “Knowledge management barriers, practices and maturity model”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 1053-1074.
Oliva, F.L. (2016), “A maturity model for enterprise risk management”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 173, March, pp. 66-79.
Oliva, F.L., Sobral, M.C., Santos, S.A., Almeida, M.I.R. and Grisi, C.C.H. (2011), “Measuring the
probability of innovation in technology-based companies”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 365-383.
Oliva, F.L., Sobral, M.C., Damasceno, F., Teixeira, H.J., Grisi, C.C.H., Fischmann, A.A. and Santos, S.A.
(2014), “Risks and strategies in a Brazilian innovation – flexfuel technology”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 916-930.
Papa, A., Dezi, L., Gregori, G.L., Mueller, J. and Miglietta, N. (2018), “Improving innovation performance
through knowledge acquisition: the moderating role of employee retention and human resource
management practices”, Journal of Knowledge Management (in press).
Picken, J.C. (2016), “From founder to CEO: an entrepreneur’s roadmap”, Business Horizons, Vol. 60
No. 1, pp. 7-14.
Pikkarainen, M., Salo, O., Kuusela, R. and Abrahamsson, P. (2012), “Strengths and barriers behind the
successful agile deployment – insights from the three software intensive companies in Finland”,
Empirical Software Engineering, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 675-702.
Probst, G., Raub, S. and Romhardt, K. (2002), Gestão do Conhecimento: Os Elementos Construtivos do
Sucesso, Bookman, Porto Alegre.
Qi, C. and Chau, P.Y.K. (2018), “Will enterprise social networking systems promote knowledge
management and organizational learning? An empirical study”, Journal of Organizational
Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 31-57.
Ries, E. (2012), A Startup Enxuta: Como os Empreendedores Atuais Utilizam a Inovação Para Criar
Empresas Extretamente Bem-Sucedidas, Leya, São Paulo.
Rodgers, R. and Hunter, J.E. (1991), “Impact of management by objectives on organizational
productivity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 322-336.
MD Schilke, O., Hu, S. and Helfat, C.E. (2018), “Quo vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review
57,8 of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research”, Academy of
Management Annals, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 390-439.
Schotter, A., Mudambi, R., Doz, Y. and Gaur, A.S. (2017), “Boundary spanning in global organizations”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 403-421.
Singh, D. and Delios, A. (2017), “Corporate governance, board networks and growth in domestic
and international markets: evidence from India”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 52 No. 5,
1978 pp. 615-627.
Singh, J., Sharma, G., Hill, J. and Schnackenberg, A.K. (2013), “Organizational agility: what it is,
what it is not, and why it matters”, Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, Vol.
2013 No. 1, p. 11813.
Sosna, M., Trevinyo-Rodríguez, R.N. and Valamuri, S.R. (2010), “Business model innovation through trial-
and-error learning: the Naturhouse case”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 43 Nos 2-3, pp. 383-407.
Stosic, B., Mihic, M., Milutinovic, R. and Isljamovic, S. (2017), “Risk identification in product innovation
projects: new perspectives and lessons learned”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,
Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 133-148.
Teberga, P.M.F., Oliva, F.L. and Kotabe, M. (2018), “Risk analysis in introduction of new technologies
by start-ups in the Brazilian market”, Management Decision, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 64-86.
Teece, D., Peteraf, M. and Leih, S. (2016), “Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: risk,
uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy”, California Management Review, Vol. 58
No. 4, pp. 13-35.
Teece, D.J. (2007), “Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable)
enterprise performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 13, pp. 1319-1350.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533.
Thomson, T.M. (1998), “Management by objectives”, Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, available at: http://home.snu.
edu/jsmith/library/body/v20.pdf
Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2007), “Dynamic capabilities: a review and research agenda”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 31-51.
Yin, R.K. (2014), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publication, London.
Zollo, M. and Winter, S.G. (2002), “Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities”,
Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 339-351.

About the authors

Fábio Lotti Oliva holds Bachelor Degree in Computer Science from University of São Paulo, and a
Masters and PhD Degree in Business Administration from University of São Paulo. He is currently
Associate Professor at the School of Economics, Business and Accounting at the University of
São Paulo. He is Visiting Professor at the Université Pierre-Mendès-France and the Shanghai
University. His main publications include: Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Journal
of Knowledge Management, International Journal of Production Economics, Journal of Organizational
Change Management, Management Decision and Benchmarking: An International Journal, and so on.
Fábio Lotti Oliva is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Marcelo Henrique Gomes Couto holds Master’s Degree in the Postgraduate Program in
Administration of the Faculty of Economics, Administration and Accounting of the University of São
Paulo (FEA-USP) and Participant in the Research Group on Enterprise Rich Management (FEA/USP).
He holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Biological Sciences from the Federal University of Lavras (UFLA-MG)
and from the Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Minas Gerais (IFMG-Bambuí).
He also holds a Postgraduate Degree in Marketing Management from the SENAC University Center
(SENAC-SP). His academic experiences are related to research areas in entrepreneurship, innovation,
risk management and strategy.
Ricardo Fernandes Santos has Master’s Degree in the Postgraduate Program in Administration of the
Faculty of Economics, Administration and Accounting of the University of São Paulo (PPGA/FEA/USP)
with CNPq scholarship. He participates in the Group of Research in Enterprise Rich Management Knowledge
(FEA/USP) where he develops research on the subject. He Graduated in Business Administration from management
the Federal University of Grande Dourados (UFGD), and has scientific articles published in national
congresses and magazines. He was a CNPq grant holder in the Local Agents of Innovation Program and dynamic
(SEBRAE & CNPq), in which he worked with small business innovation advisory and research. capabilities
Stefano Bresciani, PhD in Business Administration, is Full Professor in Business Management at the
School of Management and Economics, University of Torino, where he teaches Innovation management,
and he is the Coordinator of PhD program in Business & Management. He undertakes research 1979
integrated with the Department of Management of the University of Torino; his main areas of research
include innovation management, international business and open innovation. He is Vice President of the
EuroMed Research Business Institute (EMRBI) and Chairman of the EMRBI Research Group on
“Multinational enterprises and corporate governance”. He has published in many refereed journal
articles, contributed chapters and books and presented papers to conferences on a global basis.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]