ABSTRACT
Objective: This study aimed to identify scientific evidence concerning the legal dimension of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Brazil, serving as a foundation for guidelines on a new agenda addressing the challenges of operations management with a specific focus on university intellectual property (IP) in the built environment.
Theoretical Framework: Two theoretical axes were addressed: (1) Innovation and the legal dimension of AI and (2) Intellectual property (IP) in the university context.
Method: The research was exploratory and descriptive, employing both qualitative and quantitative approaches, carried out through: (a) a bibliographic review; (b) empirical research, with textual analysis. Voyant Tools software was used for the analysis.
Results and Discussion: The results of the textual analysis, including Cirrus and Link, revealed six scientific pieces of evidence, enabling the development of a robust set of guidelines on the subject.
Research Implications: The research provided insights that supported the proposal of a new agenda, fostering a feedback loop between theory and practice on the topic.
Originality/Value: The interdisciplinary approach to the topic underscores the originality of this research. Its value lies in broadening the debate on management in the built environment, highlighting the role of AI and university IP, topics with great potential to contribute to innovations in the bidirectional flow between academia and the labor market.
Keywords: Operations Management, Built Environment, Interdisciplinary, University Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, Legal Dimension.
RESUMO
Objetivo: O objetivo foi identificar evidências científicas da dimensão jurídica da Inteligência Artificial (IA) no Brasil, como suporte para orientações de uma nova agenda sobre os desafios da gestão de operação num recorte específico, o da propriedade intelectual (PI) universitária relativas ao ambiente construído.
Referencial Teórico: Foram abordados dois eixos teóricos: (1) Inovação e a dimensão jurídica da IA e (2) Propriedades intelectuais (PI) em âmbito universitário.
Método: A pesquisa foi exploratória e descritiva, de natureza qualitativa e quantitativa, executada por: (a) pesquisa bibliográfica; (b) pesquisa empírica, com análise textual. Utilizou-se o software Voyant Tools.
Resultados e Discussão: Os resultados da Análise Textual, Cirrus e Link, revelaram seis evidências científicas, permitindo elaborar um conjunto robusto de orientações sobre a temática.
Implicações da Pesquisa: A pesquisa forneceu insights que subsidiaram a proposta de uma nova agenda que retroalimenta teoria e prática sobre a temática.
Originalidade/Valor: O avanço interdisciplinar sobre a temática marca a originalidade da pesquisa. O valor está em ampliar o debate sobre gestão em ambiente construído, implicando o protagonismo da IA e PI universitária, temas de grande potencial para contribuir com inovações no fluxo bidirecional entre academia e mundo do trabalho.
Palavras-chave: Gestão de Operação, Ambiente Construído, Interdisciplinar, Propriedade Intelectual Universitária, Inteligência Artificial, Dimensão Jurídica.
RESUMEN
Objetivo: El objetivo fue identificar evidencias científicas sobre la dimensión jurídica de la Inteligencia Artificial (IA) en Brasil, como base para orientaciones en una nueva agenda sobre los desafíos de la gestión de operaciones, con un enfoque específico en la propiedad intelectual (PI) universitaria relacionada con el entorno construido.
Marco Teórico: Se abordaron dos ejes teóricos: (1) Innovación y la dimensión jurídica de la IA y (2) Propiedad intelectual (PI) en el ámbito universitario.
Método: La investigación fue exploratoria y descriptiva, de naturaleza cualitativa y cuantitativa, realizada mediante: (a) revisión bibliográfica; (b) investigación empírica, con análisis textual. Se utilizó el software Voyant Tools.
Resultados y Discusión: Los resultados del análisis textual, incluidos Cirrus y Link, revelaron seis evidencias científicas, lo que permitió elaborar un conjunto sólido de orientaciones sobre el tema.
Implicaciones de la Investigación: La investigación proporcionó ideas que respaldaron la propuesta de una nueva agenda, retroalimentando la teoría y la práctica sobre el tema.
Originalidad/Valor: El enfoque interdisciplinario sobre el tema destaca la originalidad de la investigación. Su valor reside en ampliar el debate sobre la gestión en el entorno construido, destacando el protagonismo de la IA y la PI universitaria, temas con gran potencial para contribuir a las innovaciones en el flujo bidireccional entre la academia y el mundo laboral.
Palabras clave: Gestión de Operaciones, Entorno Construido, Interdisciplinario, Propiedad Intelectual Universitaria, Inteligencia Artificial, Dimensión Jurídica.
1 INTRODUCTION
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a term that is both innovative and debatable, as there are researchers who outline that this intelligence is "neither intelligent nor artificial". Nicolelis (2023) explains that no digital system creates, because intelligence is a property of organisms, what there is is a statistic with large databases to generate predictions about the future based on the past). However, regardless of the debate about the origin myth of artificial intelligence, AI is a new paradigm popularizing itself in the second decade of the 21st century in several areas, including innovations in education, as pointed out by Gómez (2023). So this turns education into a kind of "turning point," which is turning it from a teaching and learning perspective. At the most diverse levels, including university - undergraduate and postgraduate - it is to be noted that the role that AI assumes or can assume in the face of the construction of scientific knowledge is a central question in the debate relating to education at the moment.
On the other hand, the university is also called upon to rethink its role in contemporary society in terms of innovation. At this point, the transfers of scientific and technological knowledge to the rest of society, starting from intellectual properties (PIs), take on a leading role. About this role, Fasi (2023) analyzed transfer trends in the context of universities in both the United States and China.
The built environment requires a multidisciplinary and innovative vision, involving not only Engineering, but also other areas of knowledge, and in this sense production engineering with the challenges of operations management is essential for decision making processes in terms of planning and management to be increasingly consistent. AI has been presented across the board as part of data-driven decision-making. On this nerve point, that the university IPs related to the built environment meet the challenges of innovation of AI, including legal debate, originating from the law that must support the new challenges and opportunities of operations management in built environments that stimulate the creation of IP and the transfer of university knowledge to the productive sector of the built environment.
Thus, university graduate education is a barn full of opportunities for innovation that can benefit from a new agenda based on scientific evidence regarding the most contemporary in terms of legal debate regarding AI in Brazil, i.e., the 2023 Bill (PL) (Brazil, 2023). Including in this PL, the IX of Art. 2 underlines that: "the promotion of research and development with the purpose of stimulating innovation in the productive sectors and in the public power", which underlines, even indirectly, the leading role that the University as promoter of research and innovations must assume as to AI in Brazil. Also, in Section III of this document, we have the measures to foster innovations in the context of AI (Brazil, 2023).
In this sense, aiming to give voice and solidify a communication channel on university intellectual property in the scope of innovations in the management of operations in built environments and AI, the general objective was to identify scientific evidence of the legal dimension of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Brazil, as support for orientations of a new agenda on the challenges of operation management in a specific cutting, that of university intellectual property (IP) related to the built environment. The specific objectives were: (a) to understand the legal dimension of AI in the context of innovation; (b) the role of AI in the management of operations, focusing on intellectual property and knowledge transfer in the university context, notably related to postgraduate studies in the built environment in Brazil.
The research is exploratory, descriptive, qualitative and quantitative in nature, being carried out from two stages, which are: conceptual theory, with bibliographic review of the type narrative, and, empirical, with support of the online software Voyant Tools (2024) for the analysis of the Bill of 2023, see Brazil (2023).
The work is organized in three sections in addition to this Introduction and the Final Considerations, one that focuses on theoretical conceptual reasoning (section 2), another that presents the methodology adopted (section 3), and finally, one that presents and discusses the results (section 4).
2 OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT IN BUILT ENVIRONMENT
2.1 INNOVATION AND THE LEGAL DIMENSION OF AI
Analyzing the legal dimension of AI from the perspective of innovations requires evidence of the theoretical conceptual cutting-edge on operations management in the built environment, since the legal dimension of AI is a general theme immersed in the fact that AI is a new paradigm that guides the new paths of humanity in the 21st century. However, before this it is important to understand the difference between different types of innovation. By way of example, incremental innovation corresponds to the improvement of product, service, process that already exists; on the other hand, radical innovation implies profound, structural changes. Christensen (1997) underlined another type of innovation, disruptive. For this author, this type of innovation is about offering something more practical and cheap and generally bringing more benefits to society and not just to specific stakeholders. This is still current, when in the scientific literature Ataman, Myhr and Nistor (2023) treat disruptive innovation to create a conceptual model, for example.
In this direction, the built environment, as a multidisciplinary area, which involves everything from planning to production management, is inherent to notions about, for example, the cyclical and uninterrupted principles of planning and management. Marshall Jr. et al. (2012) underline, for example, Planning, Doing, Checking and Acting (from the English language, it has the acronym PDCA), as tools of production administration that aim at quality. Therefore, incremental innovations can help in a horizontal perspective that involves those who are already aware of the products, services and processes; radical ones in a vertical perspective, which includes changing the bidirectional relationship between producers and consumers; however, it is noted that disruptive innovation, has a diagonal role and may involve various sectors of society in favor of multidirectional benefits.
In terms of marketing management, Kotler (2000) treated the basis for marketing in the 21st century, highlighting the role that information and communication technologies could play in contemporary society, so that innovations using AI today may have been coined as disruptive, but have over time only been positioned as incremental or even radical. Therefore, perceiving the imbricated life cycle of innovations becomes relevant to understanding part of the complexity in vogue to the problems and solutions of the management of the built environment and the role that intellectual properties via universities can assume in today's society.
The complexity inherent in the planning and management of the built environment, when transverse by Artificial Intelligence (AI), has in law an additional to the debate that is justified not only by the legislation in force or in view of being in force, but what can be understood from the perspective of what is popularly known as the Kelsen Pyramid. For example, Seixas (2022) used the metaphor of the Kelsen Pyramid when dealing with the use of artificial intelligence in court decisions regarding the guarantee of fundamental rights. This is composed of hierarchical levels, from top to bottom of the pyramid there would be an order: Federal Constitution, Constitutional Amendments, Provisional Laws and Measures, Decrees, Resolutions, Normative Instructions and Ordinances. In Brazil, the legal debate on AI runs through the 2023 Bill (PL) (see Brazil, 2023). This article provides for the use of AI in the national territory, the purpose of which is to create a general normalization with the aim of:
(....) development, implementation and responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in Brazil, with the aim of protecting fundamental rights and ensuring the implementation of safe and reliable systems, for the benefit of the human person, the democratic regime and scientific and technological development" (Art 1 of PL 2023, Brazil, 2023).
When analyzing the first article of this Bill, it is understood that the centrality of the same is in the human person, inserting the Brazilian democratic regime and underlining the scientific and technological development In this sense, the transfer of knowledge from the universities, from the creation of IP, to society have extreme relevance. Therefore, we will discuss the university IPs in the context of the built environment, understanding that the national legal dimension has a key role in several levels, whether these constitutional or even in the definition of future ordinances that guided the theory and practice of scientific and technological development related to the built environment, transverse by AI in Brazil.
2.2 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT
In a globalized world, in which innovations (incremental, radical and disruptive) have taken hold from computational data-driven solutions, it can be seen that intellectual property in the university environment is an emerging and socio-economic impact theme affecting several areas of knowledge, including the management of operations in a built environment.
Thus, it is observed that the transfer of scientific and technological knowledge, through IP, to the rest of society, as there are a series of questions when this relates to the advances of Artificial Intelligence. This has required specific legislation in several countries. Fasi (2023) studied the context of the United States and China, two quite distinct economies, and with equally varied ideological bases on law, but competing on a global stage for various economic sectors, including to what concerns construction, as part of the built environment, among others.
Broadly speaking, IP issues in the university environment are analyzed on specific geographical scales, involving countries or blocs of countries, as in the case of the European Union. As well as comparative studies for the exchange of experiences between countries with diverse socio-economic realities (see Fasi, 2023). This occurs, since the creation of IP and the transfer of scientific and technological knowledge from the university to the rest of society is at the center of specific legislation on different geographical scales, ranging from the local to the global. On the other hand, there are scientific and technological areas more prominent in triggering IP, and at this point the built environment can learn from areas that would apparently not be so obvious from the interdisciplinary point of view, such as the IPs of the biotechnology areas.
However, it is precisely some advances in biotechnology that can raise the management of operations in a built environment to another level of designing and managing projects that imply decision-making guided by biological data. The proof of this is the approaches of Neri Oxman when he creates a theoretical model to reflect on the interwoven relationship between science, technology, art and design (Antonelli, 2020).
Therefore, discussing university PIs in the context of the challenges of managing operations in built environments requires stripping yourself of disciplinary biases. In this neuralgic point, that Law (see section 2.1) and Computing, notably AI, form a key support for creating an orientation in favor of the conceptual theoretical framework on the role of the legal dimension of AI for the specific context of university IP, when the challenges are to stimulate innovations on production management in a built environment in Brazil. Therefore, the next section presents the methodology adopted in this study that appears to be seminal on the intersection between Built Environment, AI and Law.
3 METHODOLOGY
This research is of an exploratory and descriptive nature, since it is a question of the observation of a contemporary phenomenon, what is the role of AI in the context of the management of production in a built environment, notably what implies the creation of IP and the transfer of scientific and technological knowledge from the university to the rest of society.
This interdisciplinary approach to a research object, comprising the interface between Engineering, Computing and Law, demands an equally innovative tactic in terms of data collection and treatment.
By having a qualitative and quantitative nature, the support of the software of textual analysis called Voyant Tools (2024) allowed instrumentalization of the orientations related to the object of study, which is: the Bill of 2023 from the mining of textual data. To this end, it was essential to understand from the narrative review both what is meant by the legal dimension of AI (subsection 2.1) and the university IP (subsection 2.2) in the context of the built environment.
Table 1 details the methodological steps that present a logical ordering of the research:
The adjustments made to the textual corpus were: (a) make the term Law singular; (b) The following, with the implementation of the methodology adopted, are detailed the results and discussions, with guidelines to support the creation of a new agenda on university IP that are in the focus of the management of operations of built environments, in view of the relevance of the legal dimension on artificial intelligence.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This section presents the presentation and results of the processing of textual data of the Bill 2023 (Brazil, 2023) from the online software Voyant Tools (2024), notably the scientific evidence found regarding: (a) Cirrus, limiting it to 25 most frequent terms; (b) Links, limiting the "Art.", "Law" and "Law"; (subsection 4.1). In order to fulfill the general objective of the study, which is to create guidelines, even initial ones, for a future proposal of agenda on the topic (subsection 4.2).
4.1 TEXTUAL ANALYSIS
From Table 2, we have Figures 1 and 2 that respectively visually present the results found from the use of the support tool Voyant Tools (2024). In this direction it is noted that the general context of the PL 2023 governs the relationship on Artificial Intelligence (AI) (f=141) by the perspective of the "system" (f=81).
In addition, the terms risk (f=44) data (f=43) have prominence in the textual corpus, so it is possible to infer that although there is a centrality in people (f=4) as suggested in Art. 1, this occurs because of the risks of data, which implicate people by artificial intelligence systems.
If Figure 1 presents only an overview by frequency of key terms, Figure 2 allows a more critical reading by highlighting the links between specific terms. Thus, the combination of both (Figures 1 and 2) allows to effectively fulfill the general objective of this study. This, because it makes it possible, through these, to contextualize innovations and the legal dimension of AI in Brazil as to its future usefulness in various fields, including the management of operations in built environments.Although the term innovation or innovations are not among the most frequent, it should be remembered, as mentioned in the introduction that in the said document there is section III dedicated to outlining the measures to foster innovation (see Brazil, 2023).
In Figure 2, the links established between the terms can overcome a gap of discussion about innovations and the legal dimension as to the creation of intellectual properties that imply the use of AI, and their respective transfer of knowledge in the university context, notably what concerns the object of interest to postgraduate studies in the built environment in Brazil. Before beginning the critical analysis of Figure 2, it should be clarified that the term innovation and its derivatives such as: innovate, innovate, or innovate is not visible in Figure 2. However, with the careful reading of the 2023 PL document, one observes the cross-cutting of innovations, whether from an incremental, radical or disruptive perspective. These appear to be the targets of the document, notably in the guidelines in Section III dealing with measures to foster innovations, in particular Article 38:
Art. 38. The competent authority may authorize the operation of experimental regulatory environment for innovation in artificial intelligence (regulatory sandbox) for entities that request it and fulfill the requirements specified by this Law and in regulation (Art. 38 of PL 2023, Brazil, 2023).
Therefore, it should be clarified that the regulatory Sandbox is a practice in Brazil, for example the Ministry of Justice and Public Security (Brasil, s.d.) when dealing with data protection and the responsibilities of national authorities detail that:The regulatory sandbox is a collaborative experimentation between the regulator, the regulated entity and other interested parties. (Brazil, s.d.).
Passing the critical analysis of what is in Figure 2, by the textual corpus if it is a Bill on Artificial Intelligence, it is notorious in the image that the link between the central theme of the Bill and the law assume centrality (in blue color, involving terms such as: Intelligence (f=141), Artificial (f=141). Systems (f=81), Article (f=53), Law (f=50), Law (f=38). Reinforcing what was found in Figure 1, in the analysis of the links, visually there is the formation of a powerful thematic triangle that articulates Artificial Intelligence (f=141) and Systems (f=81). In addition, the term Development (f=9) is directly related to Systems (f=91), which demonstrates the relevance of the creation of new scientific and technological knowledge, as mentioned in Art. 1, implying AI, and this includes the intellectual properties coming from universities, which is part of discussing the themes of the built environment in the context of Brazilian postgraduate studies and this Bill, in particular.
On the other hand, still on the Bill, from the analysis of the legal dimension proper, the term "Law" establishes four precious relationships to be scrutinized from a critical perspective, which are: (a) Protection (f=6); (b) Foreseen (f=4); © People (f=4) Freedoms (f=4), which also goes to Article 1, in which there is centrality in the protection of persons. As the terms artificial intelligence (f=141) are linked to the term risk (f=17), it can be observed that the measurement of risk is relevant for the discussion of intellectual properties in the ambit of Brazilian universities that make the move to include artificial intelligence in the debate.
As the management of operations in a built environment demands patents and registrations that are increasingly in dialog with the use of AIs, it is notorious that guidelines on the legal dimension based on the Bill on screen are relevant. Thus, below are detailed a set of guidelines for the creation of a new agenda that emerges from this problematization and initial debates.
4.2 GUIDELINES FOR SETTING A NEW AGENDA
Proposing a new agenda that discusses intellectual property in the bulge of university scientific and technological production and transferring this to the rest of society is a multidisciplinary challenge, independent of the area of university study that appropriates this knowledge. Also, when considering the types of innovations and the legal dimension as an outline, there is a wide theoretical and methodological confrontation that surrounds diverse areas of knowledge, such as Law and in this case Computing. For example, terms such as sandboxes need to be unveiled in order to have a more effective understanding of the challenges inherent to the core of the subject being examined, which is the AI in the intellectual property process in themes correlated to the management of operations in built environments.
Therefore, by narrowing down to a specific area, such as Engineering, and notably the management of operations in a built environment, there has been a double challenge, that of contextualizing these orientations for a specific teaching and student public, which sometimes occupy the position of teaching and learning, or occupy the position of researching and creating. Therefore, Table 3 presents the orientations for a new agenda, being sensitive to the scientific evidence unveiled with the attentive reading of the PL 2023, but is limited to this, being a announced limitation of the present study.
In short, the debate on the legal dimension can not only illuminate this, but scrutinize it in the context of the systemic view on artificial intelligence, this bearing in mind the bosom of a society marked both by complexities and uncertainties, and by an acceleration of technological advances, as seen in the conceptual theoretical grounding. Therefore, the reading of Table 3 must be made in contextualized way to these challenges and limitations of the Brazilian reality (in front of the PL on screen), as well as to the specific clipping of the use of this in the management of operations in an environment built as a target for the creation and transfer of scientific and technological knowledge, imbricated with the advances of artificial intelligence, from the university to the rest of society.
Citing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations 2030 Agenda (UN, 2015) and Acosta (2019) is to ground all the orientation of the debate on the problem posed in favor of something greater, which is the search for sustainable bases (see UN, 2015), other worlds and the well-being, underlined by Acostado (2019). Therefore, discussing innovation and the legal dimension is in line with the exercise of citizenship, human to human, artificial intelligence being a mere mediator that must be thought out and rethought by codes of ethics. On this equally nerve-racking point, Nicolelis (2023) was right, it is organisms, including humans, the holders of intelligence and these that should shape AI, and not the other way around. After all, as this relevant Brazilian neuroscientist explained well, computers have binary logics, that is, zero and one, and the problems of life, including those in the built environment that demand scientific and technological advances from the angle of AI, cannot be limited to binarism, but they can use robust statistics of AI to help, in an ethical manner, in the construction of a better world, in harmony with the precepts of sustainable development, for example.
In tune with this general orientation on ethics, although Table 3 does not exhaust evidence and guidelines, it promotes the opening of a communication channel to stimulate the creation of a network of wide debate on AI in interface with the challenges involved in the creation and transfer of scientific and technological knowledge from Universities, notably through intellectual properties, to the rest of society, fostering an innovation ecosystem that is self-critical and reflective on ethical aspects.
To observe in depth a Bill that parametrizes the discussion on the regulation of AI in Brazil is the beginning of a long trajectory in the history of Brazilian science and technology. On the other hand, to do this in the light of the thematic focus on Engineering, and especially that of the Built Environment - as a multidisciplinary area of knowledge - makes it possible to take a safe step towards the future of intellectual properties. This is possible from the methodology adopted that underlines the scientific evidence (see Table 3) from the highest legally available to date in Brazilian legislation, namely the PL of 2023, being a differential of the work carried out in this article.
4 CONCLUSION
It became evident that dealing with the management of operations in a built environment is not only through the theoretical, scientific and technical bulge of its specificities, but also that there is a need to debate something broader and dialog, in an interdisciplinary manner, with what establishes governance and the public policies that guide the various stakeholders, that is, stakeholders in the debate. In the meantime, one has the University, as part of the society that seeks to innovate (in an incremental, radical or disruptive way), producing and transferring scientific and technological knowledge about operations management in a built environment, implying the various forms of intellectual property (IP) such as patents, registrations etc., and that invariably lacks a legal debate to support the ongoing and/or future innovations in the area of Engineering.
In this sense, the adoption of an exploratory and descriptive research fulfills a primordial role, since it is an approximation with a dense and complex theme, which demands a theoretical conceptual framework of at least three distinct areas of knowledge, which are: the Built Environment (notably from the perspective of Engineering), Law and Computing. Therefore, although the theoretical conceptual foundation is concise, it has forged the theoretical conceptual categories essential to the empirical analysis of the 2023 Bill on AI regulation in Brazil. This, starting from an understanding of the types of innovations, intellectual property in the university environment and the legal dimension of AI, all of this imbricated in the management of operations in built environments.
Although there are several software programs that promote textual analysis, such as Iramuteq, see Salviati (2017), it should be noted that the selection of Voyant (2024) occurred, as this allowed to insert the text of PL 2023 in full. This, from the source's own address page, let's say Brazil (2023). Furthermore, it made possible a specific analysis of "Links", which clarified nuances of the interdisciplinary relations that the legal debate and innovation assume, or may assume in the ambit of the management of operations of the environment built in terms of intellectual property in Brazilian universities. Therefore, Figures 1 and 2 were the input of textual visualization to create the proposal for a new agenda with six (n=6) scientific evidence, which allowed five (n=5) robust guidelines for the future debate that must be engendered by a network of interested parties, implying universities, notably graduate courses in Engineering that focus on innovation in the built environment, adhering to the use of AI.
A methodological limitation of the present study was the lack of in-depth derivations of the term "person", for "persons" and "personal", which would broaden the analysis according to the centrality of the person highlighted in Article 1 of PL 2023. Consequently, future studies can deepen this sensitive issue by broadening the proposal of this new agenda with a focus on issues such as well-being and sustainability, with AI being human-driven and not the reverse, as Nicolelis (2023) pointed out.
Future studies may move towards the collection of primary data, assisting in the consolidation of what has been treated up until now. Therefore, it is suggested to consult experts from the areas cited (Engineering, notably Built Environment, Law, notably focused on the Built Environment and AI; Computing, aimed at AI) to identify the adherence of university intellectual properties (PI) on operations management in built environment that use AI as per the precepts of PL 2023.
It is recommended to use the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a methodology widely used in organizational studies, see Saaty (1991). Also, it is recommended to use the free software Superdecisions (2024) that is based on Saaty, and that will allow to do analyzes of the normative scenario, how much of sensitivities, What helps greatly to understand the judgment of intellectual properties from future scenarios, decisively amplifying the efforts started in this article. Thus, the innovation ecosystem of organizational engineering, especially regarding the built environment, may strengthen its technological, ethical and humanistic scope. Advancing on other fronts that entailed the construction or maintenance of innovation environments (technology parks etc.) that are prized by AI as a significant part and allied to the new paradigm leaps that the 21st century will require on different geographical scales, i.e. from local to global, and vice versa.
The conclusion of an article should summarize the main findings of the study succinctly, highlighting the significant contributions to the field of research. It should reiterate the objectives of the study and summarize the most important findings, emphasizing their relevance and practical or theoretical implication.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Natália Fernandes da Motta, thanks the Research Support Foundation of the State of Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) for the scholarship in the Master's Course of the Post-graduate Program in Built Environment (PROAC) of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF).
REFERENCES
Acosta, A. (2019). O bem viver: uma oportunidade para imaginar outros mundos. Editora Elefante.
Antonelli, P. (2020). The natural evolution of Architecture. In: Antonelli, P. Burckhardt, A. The Neri Oxman. Material Ecology Catalogue. Museum of Modern Art, New York. Nova York: Artbook.
Ataman, K., Myhr, N.; Nistor, C. (2023). Disruptive Innovation as a Network Dilemma: A Conceptual Model. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 23(2), 104-113.
Brasil (2023). Projeto de Lei Inteligência Artificial. Senado. Disponível em <https://encurtador.com.br/EzfJO> Acesso em: 16 de junho de 2024.
Brasil (s.d.). Ministério da Justiça e da Segurança Social. Autoridade Nacional de Proteção de Dados. Sandbox. Disponível em <https://www.gov.br/anpd/pt-br/sandbox/o-sandbox-regulatorio> Acesso em: 16 de junho de 2024.
Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator's dilemma. Harvard Business School Press.
Gómez, W. O. A. (2023). La inteligencia artificial y su incidencia en la educación: Transformando el aprendizaje para el siglo XXI. Revista Internacional de Pedagogía e Innovación Educativa, 3(2), 217-229.
Kotler, P. Administração de marketing: a edição do novo milênio. 10. ed. São Paulo: Prentice Hall, 2000.
Marshall Jr., I. et. al. Gestão de Qualidade e Processos. Rio de Janeiro: FGV, 2012.
Nicolelis, M. (2023). Programa 20 minutos. Youtube. Publicado em: 12 de junho de 2023. Disponível em: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb4b4_MlNwo> Acesso em: 16 de junho de 2024.
Salviati, M. E. (2017). Manual do Aplicativo Iramuteq. Planaltina, DF. Março de 2017. Disponível em <https://encurtador.com.br/T1DR7> Acesso em: 16 de junho de 2024.
Seixas, P. H. P. O uso da inteligência artificial em decisões judiciais e o paradigma do estado democrático de direito: compatibilidade teórica e metodológica na garantia dos direitos fundamentais. 111 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Direitos e Garantias Fundamentais) - Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direitos e Garantias Fundamentais, Faculdade de Direito de Vitória, Vitória, 2022.
Superdecisions (2024). Superdecisions CDF. Disponível em <https://www.superdecisions.com/> Acesso em: 16 de junho de 2024.
UN (2015). SDGS. Disponível em <https://sdgs.un.org/goals> Acesso em: 16 de junho de 2024.
Voyant Tools (2024). Voyant Tools. Disponível em <https://voyant-tools.org>. Acesso em: 16 de junho de 2024.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2024. This work is published under https://rgsa.emnuvens.com.br/rgsa/about/editorialPolicies#openAccessPolicy (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to identify scientific evidence concerning the legal dimension of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Brazil, serving as a foundation for guidelines on a new agenda addressing the challenges of operations management with a specific focus on university intellectual property (IP) in the built environment. Theoretical Framework: Two theoretical axes were addressed: (1) Innovation and the legal dimension of AI and (2) Intellectual property (IP) in the university context. Method: The research was exploratory and descriptive, employing both qualitative and quantitative approaches, carried out through: (a) a bibliographic review; (b) empirical research, with textual analysis. Voyant Tools software was used for the analysis. Results and Discussion: The results of the textual analysis, including Cirrus and Link, revealed six scientific pieces of evidence, enabling the development of a robust set of guidelines on the subject. Research Implications: The research provided insights that supported the proposal of a new agenda, fostering a feedback loop between theory and practice on the topic. Originality/Value: The interdisciplinary approach to the topic underscores the originality of this research. Its value lies in broadening the debate on management in the built environment, highlighting the role of AI and university IP, topics with great potential to contribute to innovations in the bidirectional flow between academia and the labor market.