Impacto no mercado e no desenvolvimento econômico de cooperação tecnológica leiteira de universidades: estudo de casos múltiplos com produtores

Impact of technological cooperation layer of universities on market and economic development: multi-multiple case studies with producers

Daniela Althoff Philippi, Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9772-7753; Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul (UFMS),  Aquidauana (MS), Brasil. E-mail: daniela_philippi@yahoo.com.br
Helena Pereira Fialho de Goes, Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9261-199X1. Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Aquidauana (MS), Brasil. E-mail : heleninhafialho35@gmail.com

Voltar ao Sumário

Abstract 

Cooperation between universities and organizations is important for the development of technologies in agribusiness. In the milk production sector of Mato Grosso do Sul, the Rio de Leite Program (PRL) stands out, in which Technology Transfer (TT) works from universities to properties. This research, based on the strategy of multiple case studies, aimed to identify the adherence to the effects the Rio de Leite Program (PRL), regarding its impacts on the market and economic development, on rural properties in the Pantanal region of Mato Grosso do Sul. The results showed positive evidence on market and economic development, based on a TT model recognized worldwide, from the perspective of the producers interviewed. Convergences and divergences to the model and other studies are presented, considering the evidence of TT to properties, in addition to a new finding related to economic development. Thus, this research contributes to the literature on the topic and highlights positive effects of PRL. 

Keywords: Contingent Effectiveness Model of Technology Transfer. Milk production chain. Properties.

1 Introduction 

Milk production in Brazil has room for improvements in terms of health, herd genetic improvement, pasture management, food supplementation strategies during droughts, milk quality, and administrative and financial management (SIMÕES; DE OLIVEIRA; LIMA-FILHO, 2015, p. 164). 

Data from the Agricultural Census of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE, 2017) indicate that cattle milk production in Brazil (in 1,000 liters) jumped from 20,567,868 in 2006 to 30,100,791 in 2017. The share of Mato Grosso do Sul State, Brazil, in milk production rose from 383,880 in 2006 to 408,557 in 2017, a smaller increase considering the entire country’s production.

In terms of productivity (liter per cow), the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA, 2017), based on the organization of IBGE data, showed a negligible increase of 0.1% in Mato Grosso do Sul State, from 2014 to 2015, with a record of 1,022 liters/cow in 2014 and 1,023 liters/cow in 2015. This means that milk production increase was 5.5% from 2014 to 2016 in comparison to the Brazilian scenario. 

The use of animal breeds that are inefficient for milk production and inadequate management practices for dairy cattle are some factors that hinder the development of the milk production chain in Mato Grosso do Sul State, Brazil (SIMÕES; DE OLIVEIRA; LIMA -FILHO, 2015, p.164). The authors highlight the importance of the role of governments in joining efforts and resources to shift milk farming from a subsistence to a profitable activity for milk producers, expanding their commercialization possibilities, in compliance with hygienic and sanitary standards established by control bodies.

Therefore, milk production in Mato Grosso do Sul State should encompass the creation of partnerships with institutions for scientific and technological development. In this sense, open innovation, a strategy for organizations in search of external sources of innovation (CHESBROUGH, 2003), is achieved by technology transfer (TT) from the university to organizations, which can contribute to improvements of the current situation.

TT has been increasingly recognized as a source of local and regional development (ARMSTRONG, 2009; TENG, 2010; FINI et al., 2011; POGUE et al., 2014) with competitive advantage and market impact (SAVORY, 2006, CLOSS; FERREIRA, 2012; MATULOVA et al., 2018).

The Contingent Efficacy Model by Bozeman (2000) is one of the TT models accepted worldwide. This model allows a better understanding the TT effects in various fields from universities (agents) or research institutes to organizations that receive the knowledge (recipients), determining its effectiveness (BENITO-BILBAO; SÁNCHEZ-FUENTE; OTEGI-OLASO, 2015; BOZEMAN, 2000; BOZEMAN; RIMES; YOUTIE, 2015; PHILIPPI, 2015). 

The Rio de Leite Program (PRL) is carried out in the Pantanal region of Mato Grosso do Sul State (Brazil), aiming to train higher-level labor, specialized in milk production, to transfer modern technologies to milk production systems in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, providing producers with technical and administrative assistance to become rural entrepreneurs (SIMÕES, 2008). 

The PRL relies on cooperation between the Animal Science Course of the State University of Mato Grosso do Sul (UEMS) and the Biology Course of the Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul (UFMS) and milk producers in the region. There is also a partnership with other entities, such as funding bodies, UEMS, UFMS, the Ministry of Education (MEC), the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), and the Financier of Studies and Projects (FINEP) (RIO DE LEITE, 2017). In 2013, the PRL won the prize as the 3^rd best program at the IX Sul-Mato-Grossense Public Management Award (O PANTANEIRO, 2014).

Technological Cooperation and Technology Transfer processes have presented great benefits and the PRL has a significant role for the milk production sector in Mato Grosso do Sul State (Brazil); therefore, this study investigated the perception of milk producers (recipients) on the effects of adherence to the Rio de Leite Program (PRL) in relation to the market where they operate and the economic development of their farms. The objective was to identify the effects of joining the Rio de Leite Program (PRL) in terms of its impacts on the market and economic development for dairy farms in the Pantanal region of Mato Grosso do Sul State. The investigation regards milk producers of the municipalities of Aquidauana and Anastácio, in terms of TT based on Bozeman’s Contingent Effectiveness Model (2000). In the model, revisited by Bozeman, Rimes, and Youtie (2015), the market impact and economic development are presented as criteria for TT effectiveness and understood as effects of this process.

Market impact refers to TT influence on product materialization and increases of the market share, sales, and profitability of the recipient (BOZEMAN, 2000; OGUNYEMI, 2013; BORGE; BRÖRING, 2017; BOZEMAN; RIMES; YOUTIE, 2015; PHILIPPI; MACCARI; DA COSTA, 2018). Economic development refers to TT contributions at the regional or national levels, such as income increases and the creation of new jobs or new businesses as a result of TT (HARMON et al., 1997; BOZEMAN, 2000; BORGE; BRÖRING, 2017; BOZEMAN; RIMES; YOUTIE, 2015; PHILIPPI, 2015; PHILIPPI; MACCARI, 2017; PHILIPPI; MACCARI; DA COSTA, 2018). 

Public authorities, universities, and enterprises need to be made aware of the benefits of TT to favor its expansion (CLOSS; FERREIRA, 2012; PHILIPPI, 2015); therefore, it is expected that the research results contribute to both reinforcing previous studies on the subject and mainly improving and propagating the PRL and other technological cooperation projects involving universities in the region.

2 Theoretical Reference

2.1 Technological cooperation and Technology Transfer (TT)

Interaction between universities and organizations generates mutual benefits (ETZKOWITZ; LEYDESDORFF, 2000) while stimulating economic development and competitiveness (BOZEMAN, 2000; SIEGEL; WALDMAN; LINK, 2012; PHILIPPI, 2015). 

Studies indicate that the most significant benefits for universities encompass the possibility to attract additional resources for basic and applied research and to provide technological advances to teaching, with less investment, less time, and lower risks (PUFFAL; TREZ; SCHAEFFER, 2012). 

Rothaermel, Agung, and Jiang (2007) mention complementing academic research by funding graduate students, laboratory equipment, and providing insights into their own research as a relevant benefit for faculty members, in addition to possible business opportunities to arise from the interaction between universities and organizations.

Moreover, organizations (recipients) benefits from access to human or material resources, enabling technological and personal development, administrative support in innovation processes (BENEDETTI, 2011) and access to research and academic discoveries (ROTHAERMEL; AGUNG; JIANG, 2007), in addition to the capacity to develop technology with less investment, less time, and lower risks (PUFFAL et al., 2012).

The society also benefits from TT, as it stimulates economic development (SIEGEL; WALDMAN; LINK, 2003), improving competition among enterprises in the national market (CLOSS; FERREIRA, 2012), while leveraging the country’s technological growth and promoting scientific development in the academic environment, benefiting Brazil (SEGATTO-MENDES; SBRAGIA, 2002). 

2.2 Effects of TT on market impact and economic development 

As for TT from universities or research institutes (agents), Bozeman (2000) lists effectiveness criteria, understood as effects and/or benefits of the TT process, such as market impact and economic development, with possible benefits for TT agents and recipients (milk producers).

Philippi (2015) conducted a study applying the Bozeman’s Contingent Technology Transfer Effectiveness Model (2000) on the characterization and verification of the TT effects from agriculture schools in the United States and in Brazil and found that the model was adequate to verify the TT effects, considering the macro context, highlighting the impact on the market and economic development

Market impact refers to TT influence on product materialization as well as increased market share and profitability of the recipient (BOZEMAN, 2000; OGUNYEMI, 2013; BORGE; BRÖRING, 2017; BOZEMAN; RIMES; YOUTIE, 2015; PHILIPPI; MACCARI; DA COSTA, 2018; PARK; CHANG, 2020). 

Although Bozeman (2000) reports on a consensus that TT has little potential for economic development, studies show evidence of TT effects, namely the creation of new TT companies (BOZEMAN, 2000; BOZEMAN; RIMES; YOUTIE, 2015) upstream and downstream, including suppliers, start-ups¹, and spinoffs² (HARMON et al., 1997; BOZEMAN, 2000; BORGE; BRÖRING, 2017; BOZEMAN; RIMES; YOUTIE, 2015; PHILIPPI, 2015; PHILIPPI; MACCARI; DA COSTA, 2018) with further creation of new jobs (BOZEMAN, 2000; BORGE; BRÖRING, 2017; BOZEMAN; RIMES; YOUTIE, 2015; PHILIPPI, 2015; PHILIPPI; MACCARI, 2017) and of job positions that did not exist before  (PHILIPPI; MACCARI, 2017). 

Harmon et al. (1997) are careful to not create expectations about the immediate economic impact of TT. Furthermore, studies show that TT has mechanisms that influence economic development. Bravo and Resende (2014) highlight the importance to align the needs of innovation systems, including all stakeholders, such as research and development institutions, business organizations, and intermediaries.

Thus, criteria for market impact and economic development assess the effects of TT on the market (organizational level or regional or national scales), according to the commercial success of the technology (BORGE; BRÖRING, 2017). 

3 Methodology

The research was characterized as eminently qualitative, encompassing a more in-depth and integrated study of relationships, processes, and phenomena than quantitative research (EISENHARDT, 1989; GODOY, 1995; FLICK, 2004).

Regarding objectives, the research is classified as exploratory, as it involves familiarization with a phenomenon that has been little explored and allows new perceptions of the phenomenon and discoveries (BABBIE, 1998). The phenomenon studied “effects of technological cooperation between universities in Mato Grosso do Sul State through the PRL” has not yet been studied with the proposed approach, considering the dairy farms assisted by the program.

The strategy adopted was the study of multiple cases (GODOY, 1995, YIN, 2001), suitable for research to answers questions about “how” and that requires in-depth investigation of the phenomena. Five cases of technological cooperation were then defined, represented by five dairy farms assisted by the PRL, indicated and understood by the PRL leaders as cases that deserved to be studied, adopting the intentional non-probabilistic sample (SCHIFFMAN; KANUK, 2000). 

The multiple case study protocol is essential and guides the researcher to collect data, with relevance for research reliability (YIN, 2001). Thus, the protocol developed presented the following main elements: (a) activity plan, with a research overview, unfavorable scenarios, and possible changes in conduct; (b) cover letter with the research objective and guiding questions; (c) instructions for the ethical conduct of research, including a consent form with the protection of privacy and confidentiality; (d) interview script and recording form; (e) script for a research report, considering its central objective.

Codes were assigned to the cases studied represented by the interviewees to facilitate data organization and the understanding of the results (Table 1).

Table 1 – Coding of cases 

Source: elaborated by the authors

The data collection techniques essentially covered in-depth interviews over the telephone after a previous contact via WhatsApp with an explanation of the research objectives. We also requested a formal consent of research participation and, afterward, we scheduled the interviews. The interviews lasted 30-40 min and were conducted individually with a semi-structured script sent via WhatsApp in advance to the interviewee, prepared with the support of Google Forms. Each interview was recorded on Google Forms. The interviews were carried out in October 2020 with the consent of the participants, established in a specific term.

The categories of the analysis were pre-established in line with Yin (2001), who prescribes analyses of literature review on the subject to develop more assertive research questions in case studies. In addition to the categories established in advance, new categories were created based on data collection (GODOY, 1995; YIN, 2001). Thus, a mixed grid was adopted in which the categories referring to the research objectives were preliminarily defined, but with the possibility of including new categories (VERGARA, 2005).

In the semi-structured script, the questions focused on the effects of adherence to the PRL from the perspective of milk producers. To this end, the theoretical construct was divided into two central criteria: market impact and economic development (Table 2).

Table 2 – Theoretical construct

Source: elaborated by the authors based on the theoretical reference 

For Miles and Huberman (1994) and Eisenhardt (1989), the analysis of results in case studies requires establishing the categories of the analysis. The data were analyzed qualitatively, using the content analysis technique by categories in which the presence or absence of content characteristics was verified, identified in fragments of messages. The characteristics are initially represented by the effectiveness criteria regarding market impact and economic development by Bozeman (2000) and by the categories associated to them (Table 2). The phases recommended by Bardin (2011): (1^st) pre-analysis, (2^nd) analytical description, and (3^rd) interpretation were followed to organize the analysis. The phases were used for each case. 

In the pre-analysis phase, the data collected was organized. Data collected from each source was divided according to the general characteristics of the interviewees and of the dairy farms. Next, the data were divided into market impact and economic development as well as in unrelated contents.

In the analytical description phase, the relationships between the contents were identified, divided, and related to the assumptions of the literature consulted, seeking convergences and divergences.

In the referential interpretation phase, connections between ideas were deepened, relating content between sources, in a complementary manner, seeking to identify latent content, such as other market impacts and economic development effects, not present in the literature consulted.

After the phases described, a cross-analysis was carried out (CRESWEL, 2014) to verify convergences or divergences between cases, highlighting the results inherent to each case.

4 Results and Discussion 

This chapter presents the research results. Initially, the interviewees, the dairy farms (recipients), and activities were characterized and then market impact and economic development on the recipients were addressed.

4.1 Characteristics of interviewees, recipients, activities, and history in the PRL 

Table 3 presents characteristics of interviewees, recipients (dairy farms), activities developed, and history of cooperation with universities in the PRL.

Table 3 - Characterization of the interviewees

  Source: primary data (interviews)

Dos cinco produtores entrevistados, dois informaram que possuem ensino médio completo, enquanto os demais possuem ensino fundamental completo. Two of the interviewees reported that they had completed middle school (P1 and P4); one had college education incomplete (P2); one had incomplete middle school (P3), and another had incomplete high school education (P5) All interviewees were male, except for one (P1). Most interviewees (three) are over 50 years of age. Table 4 shows the characteristics of the dairy farms of the recipients.

Table 4 - Characteristics of the dairy farms (recipients)

  Source: primary data (interviews)

Two producers have owned the farm since 2003, one since 1986, another since 1995 and the other (P2), since 2012. P1 farm has 30 ha in total, with 20 ha for milk production, and with 15 cows of Jersey and Girolando breeds. P2 farm has 19.6 ha in total, being 5 ha for milk production with five cows of Girolando and Gir breeds. P3 farm covers 37 ha in total and 30 ha of which are allocated for milk production with 50 cows of Girolando and Tucura breeds. P4 farm covers 22 ha and all area is dedicated to milk production with 36 Girolando and crossbred cows. P5 farm covers 51 ha and all area is allocated to milk production with 30 Girolando cows. Table 5 summarizes the history of the farms in the PRL Program.

Table 5 – History of participation of dairy farms in the PRL Program

Source: primary data (interviews)

Table 5 shows that two farms joined the PRL in 2004, when the program was started, two joined in 2008 and one in 2016. Regarding the end of activities in the program, two farms terminated the activities in 2013, while the other interviewees did not inform exactly the year of termination. The reasons to join the PRL Program were the learning, knowledge, and qualification, in addition to technical assistance, as mentioned by P3.

4.2 Technical implications of the PRL program 

Table 6 presents changes of work processes in terms of genetics, machinery and equipment acquisition, and new procedures for the activities as a function of participation of farms in the PRL.

Table 6 – Main technical implications of the PRL on dairy farms 

Source: primary data (interviews)

Technical implications of adherence to the PRL program in terms of genetics showed that three producers started to adopt artificial insemination after joining the program, one (P3) started using mechanical milking and three adopted herd standardization. As for the acquisition of equipment and machinery, all five producers interviewed purchased machinery: P1 purchased a mechanical milking machine; P2 acquired a mechanical milking machine, a forage harvester and a press machine; P3, purchased a sugarcane crusher and built a covered shed; P4 did not specify the purchases; and P5, purchased a tractor, a truck, a crusher, among others. Considering new ways of carrying out farm activities, P1 acknowledged the adoption of hygienic processes in milking, mastitis testing and cattle management, P2 mentioned changes in management in general, pasture care, reproduction, herd feeding, among others, P3 started using machinery and acquired learning to improve land and cattle management, P4 adopted insemination, pasture management, calf rearing, and P5 implemented changes in the milking process, in genetic and crossing procedures, in pasture management, among others.

4.2 Effects of the PRL Program on dairy farms – efficiency criteria

Next, the effects of cooperation with universities through participation in the PRL are presented, focusing on the farms participating in this research, mainly in terms of market impact and economic development.

4.2.1 Market impact 

Initially, it is presented differences in productions of farms and a possible increase in the production volumes of milk and dairy products as a result of the adherence to the PRL. Table 7 presents aspects about products and production volume.

Table 7 – Products and production volume

Source: primary data (interviews)

*Annual average considering seasonality between year periods 

Table 7 shows that only two producers did not start production of other products, only milk, after joining the PRL Program. Of those who diversified production, one producer started producing sugar cane and Napier grass³, another started producing cheese and the other invested in cheese production alongside agricultural production.

Significant increases were observed in relation to the volume of production (liters per day) and P5 presented the most significant increase by tripling its production after joining the PRL. On the other hand, P4 showed much smaller production increase than the others, in proportional terms. Similar to the analysis to Table 6, P4 was the same interviewee who did not specify the investments made in machinery and equipment), did not mention changes regarding production processes and did not diversify its production with dairy products.

Regarding the increase in the volume of dairy products, only two producers started producing dairy products (P2 and P3), with P2 increasing cheese production from 20 to 80 rolls and P3 increasing cheese production, but did not specify the quantity.

Table 8 shows the impact of adherence to the PRL Program on market share, considering the increase in sales, profitability, and market share.

Table 8 – Market impact – commercialization and profitability 

Source: primary data (interviews)

Three of the five producers interviewed stated that milk sales increased and one producer (P3) and one of them acknowledged an increase in cheese sales. As for business stimulus for upstream trade (supplies), only one producer (P3) reported no changes, while the others reported increased purchase of inputs and P4 highlighted a larger number of suppliers thus diversifying the supplier market. Regarding increased sales and increased sales downstream (resellers), all producers acknowledged a higher volume of sales after joining the PRL Program. P3 reported that their farm does not operate in the resale sector. P1 and P2 recognized that improved milk quality due to adherence to the PRL Program boosted milk sales, while P4 and P5 attributed increased sales to the higher volume produced, with P5 highlighting the direct incentive of the PRL to open a market niche with sales to a dairy factory.

All producers interviewed reported a positive influence of the PRL Program to increase profitability. P1 and P3 linked higher profits to the increased volume of milk produced, while P1 also mentioned process changes. P4 attributed herd improvement favored cost reduction. P5 mentioned that improvements of pastures promoted yield gain. P2 and P4 stated that profit increases were attributed to value added to the product and P4 mentioned that this aggregation of value allowed for increased product prices and thus higher profitability.

Therefore, regarding market impact, the PRL Program allowed for product materialization by improving existing products due to process improvements, in addition to the creation of new products, with an increase in sales for three of the milk producers interviewed. It is observed that one of these three farms entered a new market with sales to a dairy company and all properties reported an increase in the volume produced and greater profitability. Thus, the results converge, for the most part, with the studies by Bozeman (2000) Ogunyemi (2013), Borge and Bröring (2017), Bozeman, Rimes, Youtie (2015), and Philippi, Maccari, da Costa (2018). Figure 1 summarizes the market impact due to adherence to the PRL Program from the perspective of recipients (dairy farms).

Figure 1 – Synthesis of market impact evidences of PRL Program on dairy farms 

Source: elaborated by the authors based on research evidences 

Figure 1 briefly presents the research results regarding the effects of the PRL Program on market impact from the perspective of recipients (dairy farms).

4.2.2 Economic development

Table 9 presents the effects promoted by adherence to the PRL on dairy farms in terms of local economic development.

Table 9 – Local economic development – jobs and income

  Source: primary data (interviews) 

Table 9 shows that, regarding the income generation due to adherence to the PRL, of the five producers interviewed, only P1 reported that joining the program did not affect income generation. The remaining respondents reported an increase in business income (P4 and P5) and others also reported increases in income from external activities related to the farms: service providers (P2), local labor (P3), and university students (P5) that currently work in milk prodution, after qualifying in the RPL Program. One of the interviewees also reported income increase even from competition (P4).

Except for P1, all other producers reported job creation due to joining the PRL Program, especially considering training. One of the interviewees (P4) also reported that the change in the way of carrying out the activities internally also led to similar changes in the competition.

Therefore, there were increases related to the income generation categories and new job opportunities in most properties. Furthermore, the answers showed that there were no implications of adherence to PRL on opening new businesses or creating new jobs, either upstream or downstream.

Regarding economic development, the study highlighted only local development, in line with Bozeman (2000) about the timid potential of TT to foster economic development. Except for P1, income generation is evident on the dairy farms, on the own farms and suppliers and even the agent (university students who actively participated in the PRL on the farms). Future studies may indicate this fact on regional development and other regions, depending on the geographic area where they operate.

Regarding job creation upstream and downstream (BOZEMAN, 2000; BORGE; BRÖRING, 2017; BOZEMAN; RIMES; YOUTIE, 2015; PHILIPPI, 2015; PHILIPPI; MACCARI, 2017), only four farms revealed job creation internally; however, a new finding is highlighted with the generation of job opportunities in competition. The cases studied did not show the creation of a new job position (PHILIPPI; MACCARI, 2017).

Furthermore, there is no evidence about the opening of new businesses, as Harmon et al. (1997), Bozeman (2000) and Bozeman, Rimes, Youtie (2015) point out that the creation of new businesses is possible, differently from Borge and Bröring (2017), Bozeman, Rimes and Youtie (2015), Philippi (2015), Philippi, Maccari and Da Costa (2018). Figure 2 summarizes the effects of the adherence to the PRL Program on economic development from the perspective of recipients (dairy farms).

Figure 2 – Synthesis of economic development evidences of the PRL Program on dairy farms 

Source: elaborated by the authors based on research evidences

The circle highlighted in gray in the figure (job creation in the competition) deals with a new finding of this research, something not evidenced in the studies on economic development presented in subchapter 2.1 and, consequently, in the theoretical construct presented in chapter 3.

5 Final remarks  

Technology Transfer (TT) from the university to the PRL Program in the five cases studied showed effects on market impact and economic development, although in a less pronounced way than in other studies, due to the scope of TT, as the study is characterized as informal and the small number of the recipients in the PRL Program.

Market impacts occurred with increases in both the production and commercialization of milk and dairy products, as well as in profitability, and in some cases the diversification of the array of products and, particularly in expanding the market share, as a direct consequence of the PRL performance.

In terms of economic development, the effects were at a local level, with greater income generation and job opportunities identified, mostly limited to farms and opportunities for work in competition, differently from what was pointed out in the theoretical framework and in the research construct. Thus, further studies should investigate economic development of TT from universities.

The evidences largely confirm the assumptions highlighted in the literature review, with emphasis on a new finding: the generation of job opportunities in the competition, which can be investigated in further studies.

As for study limitations, it was intended to also use non-participant observation as a data collection instrument to complement data collected in the interviews; however, the COVID-19 pandemic was an obstacle. The pandemic also limited the number of research participants, since one more producer could have been interviewed, but it did not have the technological resources necessary to carry out the interview in the developed modality. The case study research strategy, given the established depth, was ideal for studying the proposed topic; nevertheless, it does not present the possibility of generalization, as it occurs in survey studies.

Similar studies should be carried out in other TT programs, involving milk and dairy production and even in other production chains, such as fruits, vegetables, and green leafy vegetables, also involving universities as “agents” and dairy farms as “recipients”. Studies involving other dimensions of the Bozeman Model (2000), such as policies and human, scientific and technical capital, can also be carried out with the same interviewees, as well as in other cases of cooperation, considering TT agents and recipients, as also evidenced in the Bozeman Model (2000).

Furthermore, the importance of the role of other actors is reinforced, such as governments, involving the federal, state, and municipal spheres, as well as class entities in promoting programs that boost technological cooperation and the provision of subsidies to strengthen dairy production. It is understood that, in the context of the dairy farms studied, the role of universities is relevant; however, market impact and economic development can be even more significant when joint, orderly, and continuous actions are implemented.

For the PRL Program, it is recommended to use the results revealed here to join more farms thus strengthening the local and regional milk production chain, as well as technological cooperation processes that highlight contributions of science and technological research developed at universities as partners in solving society’s problems.

References 

ARMSTRONG, T.O. Technology transfer and the keystone innovation grant initiative. West Chester, Pennsylvania, USA: Pennsylvania Economic Association, 2009.

BABBIE, E. The practice of social research. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998. 

BARDIN, L. Análise de conteúdo. São Paulo: Edições 70, 2011.

BENEDETTI, M.H. A contribuição das universidades para as empresas que adotam o modelo de inovação aberta. Tese de Doutorado. São Carlos-SP: Universidade Federal de São Carlos, 2011.

BENITO-BILBAO, J., SÁNCHEZ-FUENTE, F.; OTEGI-OLASO, J. R. Mapping the connection between knowledge transfer and firm competitiveness: An empirical research in the Basque country. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, v. 10, n. 4, p. 45–56, 2015.

BORGE, L. ; BRÖRING, S. Exploring effectiveness of technology transfer in interdisciplinary settings: the case of the bioeconomy. Creativity and Innovation Management, v. 26, n. 3, p.311-322, 2017.

BOZEMAN, B. Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy, v. 29, n. 4-5, p. 627–655, 2000.

BOZEMAN, B.; RIMES, H. N.; YOUTIE, J. The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model. ResearchPolicy, v. 44, n. 1, p. 34-49, 2015.

BRAVO, M.; RESENDE, D. University technology enterprise network in Portugal: a bottom-up approach to improve regional innovation ecosystem, International cases on innovation, knowledge and technology transfer, Łódź University Press, Center for Technology Transfer. Łódź, Poland, p.1–16, 2014.

CHESBORUGH, H. W. Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston- Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press, 2003.

CLOSS, L. Q.; FERREIRA, G. C. A transferência de tecnologia universidade-empresa no contexto brasileiro: uma revisão de estudos científicos publicados entre os anos 2005 e 2009. Gestão e Produção, v.19, n. 2, p. 419-432, 2012.

CRESWEL, J. W. Investigação qualitativa & projeto de pesquisa: escolhendo entre cinco abordagens. Porto Alegre: Penso, 2014.

EISENHARDT, K. M. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, v. 14, n. 4, p. 532–550, 1989.

EMBRAPA. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária. Indicadores: leite e derivados. Boletim eletrônico mensal. Ano 8, n. 69. Juiz de Fora: Embrapa Gado de Leite, 2017.

ETZKOWITZ, H.; LEYDESDORFF, L. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘‘Mode2’’ to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, v. 29, n. 2, p. 109-123, 2000.

FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome: Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2019.

FINI, R.; GRIMALDI, R.; SANTONI, S.; SOBRERO, M. Complements or substitutes? The role of universities and local context in supporting the creation of academic spin-offs. Research Policy, v. 40, n. 8, p.1113-1127, 2011.

FLICK, U. Uma introdução à pesquisa qualitativa. Bookman: Porto Alegre, 2004.

FLOROS, N.; NEWSOME, R., N; FISCHER, W. Feeding the World Today and Tomorrow: The Importance of Food Science and Technology. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, v. 0, p. 1-28, 2010.

FONSECA, F. DE S. M.; BARBOSA, R. R.; PEREIRA, F. C. M. Uso de fontes de informação por gestores de startups. Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação, v. 24, n. 1, p. 84-102, 2019.

GODOY, A. S. Pesquisa qualitativa: tipos fundamentais. Revista de Administração de Empresas, v. 35, n. 3, p. 20-29, 1995.

HARMON, B. et al. Mapping the university technology transfer process. Journal of Business Venturing, v. 12, n. 6, p. 423-434, 1997.

IBGE. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Censo Agro 2017. Disponível em: https://censos.ibge.gov.br/agro/2017/. Acesso em: 10, set. 2018. 

MATULOVA, P.; MARESOVA, P., TAREQ, M.A.; KUČA, K. Open innovation session as a tool supporting innovativeness in strategies for high-tech companies in the Czech Republic. Economies, v. 6, n. 4, p. 69-82, 2018.

MILES, M.B.; HUBERMAN, A.M. Data management and analysis methods. In: NK Denzin and YS Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1994. 

OGUNYEMI, A. A. Towards an achievement of successful technology transfers. In: AN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, EDUCATION, ARTS, MANAGEMENT & THE SOCIAL SCIENCES (ISTEAMS), 2013, Ibadan. Nigeria. Anais […]. Ibadan. Nigeria: University of Ibadan - iSTEAMS Research Nexus, 2013. 

O PANTANEIRO. Programa Rio de Leite da UEMS completa 10 anos. Disponível em: http://www.opantaneiro.com.br/aquidauana/programa-rio-de-leite-da-uems-completa-10-anos/118471/. 21/09/2014. Acesso em 22, out, de 2019. 

PARK, M.S. ; CHANG, S.D. Evaluating a technology transfer and commercialization support program: a Korean case study. Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy, v. 9, n. 3, p.257–280, 2020.

PEREIRA, V. V.; FONSECA, D. M. DA.; MARTUSCELLO, J. A.; BRAZ, T. G. DOS S., SANTOS, M. V.; CECON, P. R. Características morfogênicas e estruturais de capim-mombaça em três densidades de cultivo adubado com nitrogênio. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v. 40, n. 12, p. 2681–2689. 

PHILIPPI, D. A. O Modelo de Eficácia Contingente de Transferência de Tecnologia Bozeman: Estudo da Experiência de Escolas de Agricultura de Universidades no Brasil e nos Estados Unidos da América. Tese de Doutorado. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração. São Paulo: Universidade Nove de Julho, 2015.

PHILIPPI, D. A.; MACCARI, E. A. The potential of radical innovation via TT U-I in the food industry. In: 26 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE (IAMOT), 26., 2017, Vienna. Anais […].  Association for Management Of Technology Conference (IAMOT) Conference proceedings, 2017.

PHILIPPI, D.A.; MACCARI; DA COSTA, P. R. Object and means of university-firm technology transfr. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, v. 13, n. 3, p.54-63.

POGUE, G.P.; LORENZINI, F.; THOMSON, K. Technology transfer and the innovation reef, International cases on innovation, knowledge and technology transfer. Center for Technology Transfer, University of Łódź, Łódź, Poland, p.13–37, 2014.

PUFFAL, D. P., TREZ, J. R.; SCHAEFFER, P. R. Características da interação universidade-empresa no Brasil: motivações e resultados sob a ótica dos envolvidos. In: ANAIS DO SIMPÓSIO DE GESTÃO DA INOVAÇÃO TECNOLÓGICA, 18., 2012, Anais [...]. Belo Horizonte: MG, Brasil, 18, 2012, Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração (ANPAD), 2012.

RIO DE LEITE. Rio de Leite. Disponível em: http://www.riodeleite.com.br/ Acesso em: 10 jan. 2017.

ROTHAERMEL, F.T.; AGUNG, S. D. ; JIANG, L. University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, v. 16, n. 4, p. 691-791, 2007.

SAVORY, C. Does the UTTO model of technology transfer fit public sector healthcare services? International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, v. 3, n. 2, p.171-187, 2006.

SEGATTO-MENDES, A.P.; SBRAGIA, R. O processo de cooperação universidade-empresa em universidades brasileiras. Revista de Administração, v. 37, n. 4, p. 58-71. 2002.

SIEGEL, D. S.; WALDMAN, D.; LINK. A. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy, v. 32, n. 1, p. 27-48, 2003.

SIMÕES, A. R. P. Profissionalismo na produção de Leite. Boletim Técnico Serrana Nutrição Animal, v. 88, p. 1-2, 2008.

SIMÕES, A. R. P.; DE OLIVEIRA, M. V. M; LIMA-FILHO, D. de O. Tecnologias sociais para o desenvolvimento da pecuária leiteira no Assentamento Rural Rio Feio em Guia Lopes da Laguna, MS. Interações, v. 16, n. 1, p. 163-173, 2015.

TENG, H. University-industry technology transfer: framework and constraints. Journal of Sustainable Development, v. 3, n. 2, p.296-300, 2010.

TORRES, C. A. R.; INVERNIZZI, N. Spin-offs acadêmicas e seus determinantes exógenos: uma revisão sistemática da literatura recente. Revista Brasileira de Inovação, v. 21, e022021, p. 1-38, 2022.

VERGARA, S. C. Métodos de pesquisa em administração. São Paulo: Editora Atlas, 2005.

YIN, R. K. Estudo de caso. Planejamento e métodos. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2001.

------------

¹ Small start-up companies with innovative business models and high scalability potential, but highly susceptible to risks (FONSECA, 2019).

² Enterprises that commercialize research results and scientific knowledge from universities (TORRES; INVERNIZZI, 2022).

³ Grass known as elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum). Type of pasture species used on dairy farms with favorable characteristics to animal production (PEREIRA et al., 2011).