Suchergebnisse

The e-mail allegedly attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto (supposedly a pseudonym) was transmitted 14 years ago, describing the development of an electronic currency (Nakamoto, 2008). The design of this electronic currency represented the solution of the general Byzantine problem, a well-known problem in computing, which, in general terms, defines that one of the parts of a system can intentionally fail, and with that, make the entire network unavailable. Therefore, the premise is that part of the system is corrupt (Dolev et al., 1982). In the few lines of the email, Satoshi Nakamoto described such a solution and published an article with the details made available on the same date. The article describes how to transmit information within a chain of blocks that are: synchronized with date and time (time stamp); combined with code that depends on a previous block (hash code); can be validated with public and private key cryptography framework anonymously and decentrally; but highly resilient to any tampering attempt and with public record. The concept of digital currency, in this case Bitcoin, consisted at that time of a code or token resulting from encryption and that could be included in these blocks. Blocks registered definitively in the ledgers distributed along the blockchain network that could be traced. The digital framework developed by Satoshi Nakamoto, although it emerged to make Bitcoin viable as a digital currency, has been separated over the last 14 years. Blockchain can be understood as a decentralized communication technology that gave rise to a family of other technological structures of encrypted communication such as ecosystems, public blockchain, private blockchain and blockchain networks, mainly (Mazumdar Ruj, 2022). Digital currencies, on the other hand, have also developed in variety and quantity, so much so that as we write this editorial there are over 10,000 digital currencies in operation. The total capitalization value of digital currencies rose from USD 18 billion at the beginning of 2017, surpassing USD 1.4 trillion by mid-2021 (Su et al., 2022). Currently, there is no technological impediment for companies to create their own digital currencies using a Bitcoin network or an Etherium network, for example, as well as many other networks available.Obviously, even today, there are technical challenges related, mainly, to the scalability of these networks and currencies. Bitcoin, when created, had a capacity of 7 transactions per second, currently, as we write this editorial, the transaction capacity of the Bitcoin network (BTS) is 14 transactions per second. The Etherium (ETH) network was born with a capacity of 20 transactions per second and currently has a capacity of 35 transactions per second. For comparison purposes, the VISA network has a capacity of 1700 transactions per second, which shows that there is still some way to make blockchain networks the new communication backbone, scalable for more mass uses (Chauhan Patel, 2022). There are implementations of the Solana network, for example, which promises to reach 50,000 transactions per second, still in the confirmation phase from a practical point of view, which could allow running Internet of Things (IoT) applications on this blockchain network (Duffy et al., 2021).At the same time, since 2013, the reorganization of the TCP IP structure from IPv4 (4.2 billion IP addresses) to IPv6 (79 octillion IP addresses or 7.9 x ) more than the total number of IPv4 addresses) has been implemented. Such implementation made it possible to expand connectivity to a level sufficient for the world demand, which is 56 octillion (56 x ) addresses per human being on earth. In terms of addressing, the possibilities of connecting new and future elements on the internet/blockchain communication network are guaranteed, making the IoT (Internet of Things) a real possibility.In addition to the traditional applications dedicated to making digital currency viable, especially in the last 5 years, certain works resulting from the combination of information technology and human creativity (also known as creative economy) brought NFT (Non-Fungible Token) to the management field. NFT are tokens (produced through encrypted code, subscribed in some blockchain network) that express the ownership of their author. Whoever acquires an NFT, has his/her record recorded in a ledger and, therefore, can exercise the rights or benefits related to the possession of that NFT. There are two main origins of an NFT, digital games and works of art or graphic expressions (Vasan et al., 2022). In the case of digital games, NFT can be used to record permanently and nominally the "achievements achieved" within a given game. Its owner now takes possession of a certain item that, previously, would only exist within the game itself, a virtual (digital) environment. In the case of graphic, artistic expressions, and other works of art, it is possible to make your possession digital. Works from the natural environment (physical), the result of expressions of human creativity, are now registered in an NFT-type token, coming to exist in the virtual world (digital). In this way, the works, and the data of their authorship and ownership, are permanently registered in the ledger of a blockchain network specialized in transacting NFT. As in the game, the possession of an NFT of a work of art allows the author to trade or use the benefits related to the possession of this NFT.From the convergence of connectivity technologies such as cloud computing, the advent of IPV6 and technologies based on tokens (blockchain, crypto assets and NFT not exhaustively) the concept of Web 3.0 becomes viable. Web 3.0 can be understood as a network of people and physical objects, making the integration between the natural world and the virtual world more intense (augmented, virtual and mixed reality). The idea of a Metaverse (Web 3.0 Application) depends on the technological availability that we describe here very succinctly and on the realization of new social behaviors that are underway (Korkmaz et al., 2022).The context described is not new to most practitioners and academics involved with innovation. However, by describing it in general terms, we can identify different research objects that may be of interest to the community working in the field of innovation management. Evidently, within the research perspectives, especially in innovation management, parallel logics can be established with the more established theories or concepts, which allow an approximation with the new technological objects available to people and companies. Such technologies have permeated traditional companies and startups that have a specific focus on these connectivity technologies described as core business or as business support.The idea of this editorial comment is to recognize the possibility of receiving more technological articles or scientific articles, perspectives and book reviews that consider connectivity and tokenization technologies as research objects. Such technologies can be positioned in research both as objects of analysis and as contextual and organizational objects. Whether contextual and organizational can bring research involving routines, capabilities, competencies and business models, whose core business process is innovation at different scales, natures, degrees of novelty, stages of diffusion or adoption. To cite just one possibility, as an example, the model by Tidd and Bessant from 2009, which describes the construct of orientation to innovation strategy, used in several research in the field of innovation since then, can be revised in the new contexts or in the face of new technologies (Ferreira et al., 2015). If such technologies are positioned as objects of analysis, research can involve every part of the innovation management process such as searching for innovations, selecting innovations, implementing innovations, generating value with innovations, and capturing value with innovations in analysis of single level or multilevel. In addition to the direct positioning of token and blockchain-based technologies, as an object or as a contextual aspect, adjacent effects are expected, for instance, involving intellectual property, environmental and social sustainability, technological governance, people management and other consequences that may be the focus of research, considering the emerging technologies mentioned above. There is also the field of research that is dedicated to the development of new products, both defining new models of digital product development and methods derived from these models, without forgetting all the implications related to the issues of information security management involved in these contexts of token transactions (Baudier et al., 2022). Although the possibilities for theoretical and managerial development for the area of innovation research, involving technologies based on tokens and blockchain, are broad, there is research that can be very relevant, but that would be better received in journals in mathematics, computer science or even software engineering and not in journals dedicated to innovation. Research that develops a new way of doing encryption, or even a more efficient algorithm that allows increasing the capacity of transactions per second, the design of a new network or a new ecosystem based on blockchain or even research that develops improvements in consensus protocols of blockchain undoubtedly has great value but would be expected in engineering or math journals. On the other hand, there are studies that bring reports of implementations of a business application on a blockchain basis, either as a business support application, or in the form of designing a blockchain-based product that will be taken to the market (Wan et al., 2022). In these cases, applied research, from the point of view of innovation research, what is expected to be found in the article is the development of knowledge that demonstrates how, why or to what extent the innovation processes were sensitized, or in what way the process of innovation contributed or presented limitations to support the reported implementation. In this way, such research can be received as technological articles, since the theoretical elements that relate the innovation process, or the management of the innovation process with the implementation based on token or blockchain, will be present, which are the bases of analysis used to support the expansion of innovation theories, innovation management or management practices in innovation contexts.Finally, we invite the entire community to submit papers with theoretical discussions related to paradigm shifts, involving the dematerialized nature of new products and their tendency towards a service-oriented view (Jain et al., 2022).As it should be clear, this editorial comment did not explore all the possibilities of research in innovation management involving technologies based on tokens and blockchain, but only a few examples that can help to obtain insights. We intend, in some way, to encourage the innovation community to develop studies considering new technologies, developing, or expanding theories and knowledge of innovation.

IntroductionThe International Journal of Innovation – IJI, since 2020, opened a section for publications of technological articles. From then on, we have been receiving articles to go through the blind double-review editorial process. Our intention with this editorial comment is to make the academic community, especially authors who consider the IJI for their submissions, have one more document option to assist in the elaboration and structuring of their technological research.In 2021, we published the editorial commentary entitled "What we expect from articles submitted to the IJI" which briefly addressed technology articles (Scafuto et al., 2021). Now, in this new editorial comment, we intend not only to bring the information previously discussed, but we want to deepen the discussions with other important elements to contribute to the development of technological articles.We understand that technological articles are assuming an increasingly important role within the academic community, as it is a way to bring together the challenges of organizations with academic research. It is worth remembering that the technological article is one of the twelve technical and technological products that are proposed and evaluated by CAPES (a Brazilian entity for higher education personnel improvement coordination). They are especially important for professional graduate programs in management and related fields. We, the editors of the IJI, recognize the importance of the contribution of professional programs. The IJI is a vehicle for the dissemination of this production to both members of the academic community and practitioners.In this editorial commentary we provide some suggestions for authors who may be interested in submitting their technological articles for evaluation at the IJI. We want to encourage this type of submission, but always in search of articles with quality and relevance for readers. Guidelines for building relevant technological articlesThe technological article is a form of publication that presents and discusses ideas, methods, techniques, processes, and results focused on solving practical problems (Motta, 2017). The technology article generally describes experiences in organizations. Despite describing these experiences, researchers must follow scientific and methodological rigor in writing (Biancolino et al., 2012). The technological article has an elaboration process similar to any other scientific process. We reinforce this scientific and technological rigor due to the nature of the IJI.In 2022, the editorial commentary of Business Horizons Magazine, by Greg Fisher, presents some interesting ideas in line with our perspective on technological articles (Fisher, 2022). Fisher presents three categories that technological articles generally fall into: past; present and future:Past-oriented articles use academic research already carried out and translate into ideas and practical applications for use, facilitating the understanding of practitioners.Present-oriented articles detail the challenges faced by companies, seeking solutions through the application of existing academic theory. They highlight issues have not solved yet.Future-oriented articles are those focus on emerging phenomena providing practical and forward-looking perspectives on possible business applications. Authors who write a technology article should make clear the problem, contextualizing when, where, why, and how the problem occurs. The idea is to highlight the issue or negative impact that the problem creates, or if it provides any opportunity. When approaching the problem, it should try to present something new. It is desirable provides easy way to use and remember the proposed solutions and the path used to find the solution illustrating how it works.Visual resources such as figures and graphs may facilitate for readers the process of comprehension about the problem. Some prescription on how to use the solution is important for those who may want to use it, as well as discussing what can go right or wrong. Leaving a final message serves as action-focused learning is always desirable (Business Horizons, 2018).Our suggestion is that the authors submit applied research in the technological article section that prioritizes the description of learning and practical results experienced in organizations. The CIMO logic is another way of thinking about the organization in a technological article. CIMO is an acronym for (Van Aken, 2007):Context (problem situation);Intervention (proposed intervention to solve the problem);Mechanisms (description of how handle problem solution);Outcomes (describes objectively the results).Technological articles should emphasize reports of solutions already implemented and obtained results. Even if it is a forward-looking study, it should provide practical and forward-looking perspectives on possible applications for solving business problems. Therefore, it is expected from technological articles submitted to the IJI may offer contributions to knowledge, as an example (Gregor and Hevner, 2013):· Focus on innovation: new solutions to new problems;· Focus on improvement: new solutions to known problems;· Focus on extrapolation: known solutions to new problems.Formatting a Technological Article for the IJIAnother point is about the size of a technological article, we suggest that the submission made by the authors is for articles with at least 6000 (six thousand) words for a more academic approach for the IJI. In addition, authors must follow the format available in the guidelines for the author, contemplating the structured abstract, as well as adopting the structure[1] presented below.Introduction: it aims to briefly present what the technological article is about, and the intervention carried out, making problem situation clear. Informing quickly how the data was collected and interpreted. Literature review: it must be related to the intervention in the organization. The theoretical framework will serve to provide theoretical support to the findings and will contribute to the outcomes discussion. Method of technical production: even being a technical production, the technological article must follow a well-detailed method with a description of the procedures used in the data collection and relevant information about procedures to perform the research such as a direct observation or direct participation of the authors among other examples. Context and problem situation: the authors must present the problem or opportunity, as well as characterize the organization.Types of intervention and mechanisms adopted: the authors must analyze the problem situation and discuss the possible alternatives for its resolution: innovation, improvement, or extrapolation; in addition to describing the activities developed to solve the problem situation.Outcomes and analysis: the authors should bring the most relevant contributions from the outcomes according to the subjects dealt with. It should be raised the relevance to similar cases with lessons learnt derived from the reported experience.Discussions and final considerations: Discussion is also welcome. It is time to confront the results with the researched theory, reinforce the objectives of the research. The authors can comment on the limitations for the research and propose new ideas for future studies of a technical nature that can advance about what was presented. References: it should include at the end all the authors cited in the theoretical framework, according to APA standards found in the IJI guidelines. Final considerationsWe except this editorial comment on technological articles can guide and encourage to submit to the IJI. Our wishes are for the academic community to produce more and better technological articles to solve problems and contribute to the practical community. We are grateful to all authors and readers who consider the IJI for the dissemination of their research, as well as a source of scientifically proven information. [1] Adapted from Biancolino et al. (2012).

Collaborative innovation become one of the most strategy decision across firms and a well-defined phenomenon that became popular among practitioners and researchers (A. S. Cui O'Connor, 2012; Liu et al., 2017). Many theories were considered to explain collaboration phenomena such as resources-based view, organization theory, strategy, information processing theory, the economic theory of complementarities among others (Barney, 1991; Cassiman Veugelers, 2006; Daft Lengel, 1986; Milgrom Roberts, 1995; Tushman Nadler, 1978). However, technology advances provide new variations in collaboration to innovativeness. For example, collaborative activities with suppliers and customers (Karhade Dong, 2021), community source projects (Liu et al., 2017) or collaboration with distant partners (T. Cui et al., 2020), corporate engagement with startups (Shankar Shepherd, 2019), innovation networks (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2017), and innovation ecosystems (Granstrand Holgersson, 2020).Collaborative innovation takes over the existence of an inter-organizational activities executed by people that together perform with high level of interdependence something innovative (T. Cui et al., 2020; Davis Eisenhardt, 2011). Some authors (Adner Kapoor, 2010; T. Cui et al., 2020; Rico et al., 2008) highlight that this interdependence is characterized along two dimensions: technological and behavioral. Technological interdependence is linked to knowledge and the exchange of resources for research and development, and behavioral interdependence is associated with the field of communication, social interaction between collaborative actors and the coordination of these relationships to innovate.Other perspectives in the literature explain and theorize about collaborative innovation as knowledge-sharing trajectories (Majchrzak Malhotra, 2016; Trkman Desouza, 2012), or multi-actor collaboration (Torfing, 2019), or building collaborative capabilities (Swink, 2006) among other approaches. In this editorial, we bring some thoughts and idea about collaborative innovation under a technological perspective to incentive researchers to go beyond in innovative technologies research embedded in collaboration.Collaboration efforts also became a common way of firms to enhance innovations and its technological development with clear determinants about their beneficial effects, and therefore, the literature is well stablished in this subject (Pereira et al., 2018). However, collaboration only succeeds when technological resources and capabilities are combined, and parties define jointly how to enhance and use them accordingly (Snow, 2015).Collaborative innovation as a new technological paradigm refers to a network innovation model supported by interactions of multiple parties such as enterprises, universities and research institutions as core elements and government, financial institutions, nonprofit organizations, intermediaries as auxiliary elements (W. Zhang et al., 2021). Notwithstanding, collaboration networks operating in different organizational levels are present in various patterns and characteristics of evolution, they require different actors and capabilities in the network composition to become a remarkable asset in developing technologies to be patented afterwards in some cases (Gomes et al., 2017).In facing of risks of failures during innovative trajectories, firms invest in collaborative initiatives as an attempt to mitigate cost impacts, share responsibilities and greater technical performance in the process of technology lifecycle development. Thus, technological alliances are useful means to attend these goals (Kim Song, 2007). Technological alliances are critical to enable digital transformation and innovation. Briefly, Zhang et al. (2021) highlight technological alliance as a voluntary interfirm cooperation involving codeveloping technologies through sharing and exchanging of these technologies to meet business needs (W. Zhang et al., 2021).The collaborations in various technological domains help to bring heterogenous knowledge, complementary resources, and capabilities for a better innovation performance (Swink, 2006; W. Zhang et al., 2021). Under the perspective that innovation is essentially knowledge creation (Nonaka, 1994), collaborative innovation through a technological perspective may be configured by different activities, processes, or routines of generation, sharing, integration, and utilization of knowledge produced during the innovation process lifecycle (Nonaka, 1994; W. Zhang et al., 2021). Further, this configuration of activities, processes, or routines support the development of evolutionary technological capabilities (Sampson, 2007).In the field of technological innovations, the evolution now is more collaborative in nature (J. Zhang et al., 2019). Collaboration is a trend for technological prosperity. Analyzing collaborative innovation in the literature is a great challenge even if the focus on technologies is defined because various aspects and applications of collaboration to innovate invade the academic literature in many forms. For instance, Zhou and Ren (2021) analyzed low-carbon technology collaborative innovation in industrial cluster; Shen et al. (2021) studied collaborative innovation in supply chain systems; Wan et al. (2022) highlight that blockchain application intensify collaborative innovation through distributed computing, cryptography and game theory; Li and Zhou (2022) researched on the mechanism of Government–Industry–University–Institute collaborative innovation in green technology; and Fan et al. (2022) pointed out that collaborative innovation also may act as a driver to mobilize and coordinate scientific and technological resources within a city, further promoting innovative development among cities.On the other hand, technological collaborative innovations has its own dark side for firms: it has been costly, it demands money, efforts, and time (Torugsa Arundel, 2016; Wegrich, 2019), and, further, it provokes operational adjustments, technological reconfiguration, and legal barriers to overcome to be effective for innovation (McGuire Agranoff, 2011; Vivona et al., 2022). To address this side of collaborative innovation, Vivona et al. (2022) developed the cost theory to systematize all insights from the literature in four main factors: governance, compactness, reliability, and institutionalization to shed light on a broader range of costs for innovation incurred by collaborative arrangements. Governance refers to relationships in hierarchical level and the number of collaborators involved, reliability refers to relationships' quality; compactness is about the degree of formality in relationships that connect collaborators; and institutionalization that measure what the extent the relationships in practice have been pre-established. This cost perspective may be explored empirically.The decentralization of technological collaborative innovation, its nonlinear, globalized, and networked form transformed its process to more collaborative approaches among entities (Fan et al., 2020). Lopes and Farias (2022) showed that technology tools support the establishment of relationships of trust promoted by leaders committed to well-established goals, being a characteristic of governance that has a positive influence on collaborative innovation processes. Hwang (2020) mentioned that several countries have implemented policies to facilitate technological convergence by supporting collaborative innovations. The author also mentions that collaborative innovation is a crucial strategy to facilitate technological convergence. In sum, firms have been increased collaboration in technological activities and collaboration works as an enabling to learn about turbulent technological change and uncertainties to enhance the ability to deal with innovations (Dodgson, 1993).Technological collaborative innovation is considered essential to promote the flow of resources, knowledge, and technology among entities, considering that innovation is no longer a closed and isolated system. The main premise is technologies do not exist in isolation. Only by exchanging materials, energy, and information with the environment the innovation system be renewed and developed. Therefore, the integrator condition of technological collaborative innovation is also conducive to a more comprehensive disclosure of the collaborative mode and overall performance of technological innovation activities (Fan et al., 2020).Technological collaborative innovation is not a merely coordination of an orderly arrangements of efforts to pursue a common technological purpose (Mooney, 1953), or a merely cooperation to join agreed-on goals into a share comprehension about design systems or reconfigure technological resources (Gulati et al., 2012). It merges cooperation (commitment towards same end) with coordination (complexity to work together effectively) (Vivona et al., 2022). This view may be much more explored by the researchers to enhance the practical aspects of this perspective.In general, collaboration itself does not survive in the face of inevitable behavioral problems which requires an establishment of trust characterized by receptive organizational cultures, community of interest, and continually supplement knowledge for the purpose of collaboration in highly successful technological innovations (Dodgson, 1993). Thus, this can be a new chapter for technological collaborative innovations.

In this study, we explore how institutional theory and its many subareas contributes, are utilized and applied to the area of higher education management's research by their scholars. For this purpose, we performed a bibliometric analysis on 659 papers extracted from Web of Science database. As results we indicate five main clusters as foundation to the field: institutional theory; economic impact of entrepreneurship and universities; competitiveness of universities as businesses; service quality and; measurement and development of models for higher education. And 7 main clusters as subfields of research: Institutional Multiplicity; Institutional pressures on Higher Education; Higher Education Efficiency; Leadership in Higher Education; Entrepreneurial Higher Education; Academy & Professional relations and; Quality and Satisfaction in Higher Education.

As universidades públicas com importante atuação na pós-graduação stricto sensu têm, ao longo dos anos, procurado definir estratégias para alavancar o desempenho dos seus programas por meio de ações internas que os fortaleçam diante dos critérios exigidos na avaliação periódica realizada pela CAPES. Este estudo pretende analisar como as pró-reitorias de pós-graduação de universidades federais alocaram recursos institucionais em busca do desenvolvimento de seus programas de pós-graduação stricto sensu, no período de 2008 a 2017. Nesse sentido, foi realizado um estudo de caso múltiplo, utilizando como unidades de análise a Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso/UFMT, a Universidade Federal do Amazonas/UFAM e a Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul/UFMS. Os dados primários e secundários, respectivamente, foram obtidos por meio de entrevistas com as pró-reitoras de pós-graduação stricto sensu das universidades investigadas e em sites e documentos oficiais disponibilizados pelas instituições, observando os preceitos da teoria Resource Based-view/RBV. Com os resultados da pesquisa, concluiu-se ser imprescindível para a expansão e/ou consolidação da pós-graduação stricto sensu, ofertadas pelas universidades federais, o seu reconhecimento pela administração superior como estratégica para o desenvolvimento institucional, fazendo-a constar no PDI e, respectivamente, nos planejamentos estratégicos de curto/médio prazos propostos pela gestão. Esse registro asseguraria a alocação de seus recursos institucionais utilizando sua experiência acumulada e de acordo com as políticas institucionais definidas em seu planejamento estratégico.

The pandemic that transformed our lives in 2020 brought important reflections on way of seeing the world demanding new skills and behaviors to interact in an environment so common to innovation - virtual environment. In innovation processes, digital transformation that modifies, alters and creates ways of doing things, declares itself and presents itself as facilitating vehicle, also of interpersonal relationships, requiring us to learn to relate in different ways through digital world, using creativity to overcome social, institutional, political, religious, economic obstacles, among others.In science, researchers strive to understand or explain some transformational impacts and seek a perfect adaptation for transferring and exploitation of appropriate knowledge for each eminent need. However, we are still halfway there.Some relevant topics in academia also explored by IJI - International Journal Innovation, such as, innovative entrepreneurship, innovation and learning, innovation and sustainability, internationalization of innovation, innovation systems and digital transformation are now undergoing a new sieve, a new look at understanding of disruptive effects inherent to this theme on transformation and knowledge. A new window has opened in digital age, provided by new world context.In the past, a commonly observed resistance to including innovation in daily processes, and not only in organizational sphere, are now mandatory and our survival in society depends on them. So, what do we see? We can simply call it transformation, but if we broaden a perspective of events in the year 2020, we risk saying that we do live a cotransformation, that is, a rhythmic and continuous, joint and effective learning in creation of value in all global social spheres. It is no longer about transforming a process or creating a system to achieve desired performance, it is about integrating collective, learning by sharing, changing to be able to transform and, all of this, through an increasingly disruptive world.We highlight Moreira, Teixeira and Locatelli (2020) about influences of motivational goals, confirming Schwartz's (2005) theory that groups differ significantly in relative importance they attach to their values, that is, individuals and groups have priorities or axiological hierarchies different from values (Calvosa, Serra, Almeida, 2011). This understanding must support our challenges regarding how to address a co-transformation and transmission of knowledge to future generations, prioritizing care for preservation of our planet, human relations, adaptation of knowledge to current realities and, above all, ability to innovate at any time.As presented by Falaster et al. (2020) it is not for us to assign a mathematical value to life and health or to guide our research by addressing political agendas, nor to distort theory, method and argumentation to suit any situation. What should motivate us, especially in scientific research, is the understanding and strategic responses in times of crisis: our adaptation and compliance, stress with its effects on decision-making on acquisition of knowledge to co-transform and innovate. For this reason, we emphasize that we are in the middle of road because there are still notorious forces that demand permanence of more stable and static social models. Innovation takes on another level. With its disruptive character, it will continue to build future scenarios in improving performance of society's demands (Pol Ville, 2009) through process of cotransformation emphasized here.Efforts and studies aimed at innovation point to relationship networks as important channels for increasing efficiency (Pio, 2020). This is one of evidence regarding the need for a rhythmic and continuous, joint, and effective interconnection for cotransformation. We are not only pointing to innovation as a support for cotransformation, but as something inevitable in practical life of future generations.We must advance how to promote improvements that bring productivity and effectiveness to social relationships through innovation. This will facilitate our insertion in this "new normal" presented in almost all groups of society. We already know that we need to change at a fast pace, but we often get lost in timing of things, that is, the right time for change. Therefore, we must learn to work among diversity, producing new values that take our society to a new level of civility. And all of this translates into different ways of knowing and learning, transmitting, and assimilating, stretching, and making flexible.In fact, it is necessary to identify elements that determine existence of more dynamic capacities, such as, for example, set of behaviors, skills, routines, processes and mechanisms of learning and knowledge governance aimed at cotransformation. Articulation of these elements can result in varying degrees of innovation and dynamism and can manifest themselves in a more intense or more traditional way, where virtual can be more consolidated. Anyway, this is just an indication that, in a cotransformation model, all indicators are reflective (Meirelles Camargo, 2014).Innovations can lead us to co-transformation, reconfiguring activities requiring a greater evolutionary flow of existing capacities and requiring new experiences and management of these more dynamic capacities. Therefore, research must change its perspectives by establishing links between these capacities, to identify and react to innovations that are a contemporary landmark in recent history.The extent of cotransformation depends on some factors, such as perceived environmental pressure (Helfat et al., 2007) and adaptability (Madjdi Hüsig, 2011) that vary in degree, from small adaptations to major revisions or even a reconfiguration (O'Reilly Tushman, 2008). Generally, we know they are interconnected components that specify how we can survive all dynamism and disruption that exists in the world.In this context, the most important thing is not to know what will be the results of what you want, but to intensely take advantage of construction path of what you can have with appropriate use of capabilities to co-transform and innovate.We hope that in this editorial we have promoted important reflections on understanding of cotransformation, inspiring our readers about new knowledge and expanding a debate for better direction of academic and business society. The role of knowledge and transformation awakens a world of possibilities to be explored, which is why we are still halfway there.