Innovation by industry. Are there many innovations in Russia? The size of the innovation sector in Russia

Especially for the portal "Perspectives"

Vladimir Kondratyev

Kondratyev Vladimir Borisovich - Head of the Center for Industrial and Investment Research of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor, Doctor of Economics.

After the global crisis of 2007-2008. innovation has again become the number one priority for companies in almost all sectors of the economy. The greatest growth in interest in innovative investment is noticeable in developing countries, where the share of innovation-oriented companies increased by 30%, while in the United States, for example, the growth was only six percentage points.

Innovation is inherently multifaceted, from incremental changes in existing products and products to entirely new offerings for consumers. In addition, companies are leveraging new knowledge to improve efficiency, comply with established norms and standards, increase sustainability and increase profits. But whatever forms of innovation may be adopted, their goal is to create new value based on new ideas, regardless of whether these ideas are new to the whole world or only to this particular company.

In a volatile economic market environment, innovation is essential to the growth required to generate stable income.

After the 2007-2008 crisis. innovation has again become the number one priority for companies in almost all sectors of the economy. The list of the top 50 innovation companies is again topped by technology and telecommunications firms, including Apple, Google, Samsung, and IBM (Table 1).

Table 1. The most innovative companies in the world

	Company	Industry		Company	Industry
		Technology and communications
		Technology and communications			Technology and communications
		Technology and communications			Financial services
		Technology and communications			Automotive
		Technology and communications		Anheuser-Busch In Bev
		Technology and communications			Technology and communications
		Technology and communications		Fast Retailing Co.	Consumer goods and trade
		Consumer goods and trade			Manufactured goods and processes
		Consumer goods and trade			Automotive
		Automotive			Energy
		Automotive			Technology and communications
		Automotive			Consumer goods and trade
		Automotive			Manufactured goods and processes
		Automotive			Consumer goods and trade
		Technology and communications			Manufactured goods and processes
	General Electric	Manufactured goods and processes			Consumer goods and trade
		Consumer goods and trade			Manufactured goods and processes
		Technology and communications			Technology and communications
		Technology and communications		China Petroleum and chemical	Energy
		Consumer goods and trade			Automotive
		Consumer goods and trade			Manufactured goods and processes
		Automotive			Manufactured goods and processes
		Manufactured goods and processes			Consumer goods and trade
		Technology and communications		Procter & Gamble	Consumer goods and trade
		Automotive			Manufactured goods and processes

A source: 2010 BCG / Business Week Senior Executive Innovation survey; 2012 BCG Global Innovation Survey.

However, the position of the leaders is quite volatile. So, for example, the company "Samsung" has risen in the ranking from 8th place in 2010 to 3rd in 2012, and "Facebook", respectively, from 43rd to 5th place. At the same time, IBM dropped from 2nd to 6th place, Intel - from 7th to 19th place.

Approximately 76% of companies surveyed in 2012 ranked innovation as their top three strategic business priorities, the highest ever recorded by the Boston Consulting Group. Almost 70% of respondents said they are going to increase their investment in innovation (in 2010, this was 61%). At the same time, significant regional differences in these indicators can be noted (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Share of companies that put innovation among their top three priorities,%.

A source: 2009‒2010 BCG / Business Week Senior Executive Innovation Survey; 2012 BCG Global Innovation Survey.

Developing countries were the most aggressive in terms of innovation: the share of innovation-oriented companies increased in India from 73% in 2009 to 90% in 2012, in South America, respectively, from 59 to 89%, in China - from 68 to 81%. At the same time, in the United States, for example, growth was only six percentage points, from 60 to 66%. As for China, the relatively low growth rates of this indicator can be explained, as experts say, by the end of the program to stimulate innovation in state-owned companies, adopted in the country in 2010.

In Western European countries, the innovation picture looked rather heterogeneous. The most active were German and French companies: here the growth of investments in innovations in 2012 was noted by 68% and 65% of companies, respectively. The indicators for Spain (44%) and Italy (39%) reflect the difficult economic situation in these countries, which has not yet been fully overcome (Fig. 2).

Rice. 2. Share of Western European companies that increased investment in innovation in 2012,%

A source: 2012 BCG Global Innovation Survey.

Based on the table. 1, there are six main innovative industries. These are technologies and communications represented by 15 companies, consumer goods and trade (12 companies), the automotive industry (10), industrial goods and processes (10), energy (2 companies) and financial services (1 company) (Fig. 3).

Rice. 3. Main innovative industries and the number of companies in them

A source: 2009-2010 BCG / Business Week Senior Executive Innovation Survey; 2012 BCG Global Innovation Survey.

The technology and telecommunications industry is subject to the greatest fluctuations. The number of leading innovative companies in this industry decreased from 21 in 2010 to 15 in 2012. LG Electronics, Nintendo, Nokia and Research in Motion have disappeared from the list of leaders in two years. On the other hand, this list includes "Samsung" and "Facebook".

It is noteworthy that not a single representative of the pharmaceutical industry was included in the list of the most innovative companies in 2012. Meanwhile, in 2007, a similar list included 5 pharmaceutical companies: Amgen, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Pfizer. By 2009, only one company in this sector remained in it. By 2012, the pharmaceutical industry had sharply increased risks associated with heightened competition in the drug market, increased government regulation of the pharmaceutical industry, and increased commercial uncertainty and difficulties in the treatment of chronic diseases. Unsurprisingly, 42% of pharmaceutical companies cited risk avoidance as the top obstacle to investing in innovation (compared to 28% in other industries).

Companies in the pharmaceutical industry are focusing on increasing the return on investment in R&D rather than increasing R&D costs. Only 56% of companies in the industry plan to increase investment in innovation, while in 2007 this figure was 70%.

Pfizer, one of the world's most innovative pharmaceutical companies, is an example of this trend. During the period from 2007 to 2012, this company increased its R&D expenditures from 8.1 to 9.1 billion dollars. However, in relation to sales, this indicator fell from 16.7 to 13.5%. In 2011, Pfizer took a turn towards maximizing the return on investment in innovation. Changes in approach, as highlighted in corporate documents, included a reduction in the corporate portfolio, the transfer of R&D centers closer to external research organizations, the organization of flexible forms of partnership with such organizations in order to focus on operations with the highest level of added value.

Technology and telecommunications companies, despite the high volatility of their positions, continue to demonstrate remarkable resilience in innovation. Thus, Apple has been ranked first since 2005. Google has been second since 2006. Microsoft, IBM and Sony are among the ten most innovative since 2005.

However, megabits and megabytes are no longer exclusively synonymous with innovation. In 2012, for the first time, traditional industries such as manufacturing of industrial goods and processes and the automotive industry made up 40% of the list of the most innovative companies in the world, approaching the technology and telecommunications sector in this indicator (Fig. 4).

Rice. 4. Sectoral structure of the most innovative companies: the number of companies in each industry

A source: 2005-2010 BCG / Business Week Senior Executive Innovation Survey; 2012 BCG Global Innovation Survey.

There were 22 companies in these sectors in the 2012 list, while in 2005 there were only 12.

In 2012, five automotive companies entered the list of 50 most innovative companies for the first time: Audi, General Motors, Kia Motors, Nissan and Renault. In addition, the list includes five diversified industrial corporations (BASF, Caterpillar, DuPont, Phillips and 3M) along with two aerospace companies (Airbus and Boeing). There was also a shift towards companies operating in several sectors of the economy - the so-called diversified conglomerates. These included 11 of the 50 most innovative companies in the world in 2012: BASF, DuPont, General Electric, Haier, Hyundai, Phillips, Samsung, Siemens, Tata, 3M and Virgin. Four of them entered this list for the first time. For 2010-2012 only one diversified conglomerate ("Reliance") left the list. As noted, purely pharmaceutical companies were not included in the list of the most innovative, but diversified corporations with large pharmaceutical divisions (GE, Phillips and Siemens) were able to do this.

Research shows that diversified companies in 2007-2009. did not cut their innovation budgets as much as their specialized competitors did. Moreover, the leading conglomerates during the crisis, on the contrary, increased investment in innovation, which allowed them to recover quickly and fully. In companies with high earnings per share, R&D spending to total income increased by an average of 6% per year, while in companies with low earnings per share it fell by 3%. Diversified firms appear to be able to generate additional value from innovation through the ability to reallocate R&D investment across different sectors, leverage best practices from the most successful divisions, and distribute talent across a wider range of industries.

It is interesting to compare the innovative practices of companies in different sectors of the economy.

Manufactured goods and processes

From the outside, it may seem that the world of manufacturing industrial equipment and heavy machinery is changing very slowly. However, global competition and technological advances have dramatically accelerated the pace of innovation in this sector as well. Innovation is among the top priorities for 80% of companies in the industry. In 2012, industrial companies ranked second in terms of willingness to increase innovative investments - 74% (with 69% on average across all sectors of the economy). This figure is the highest on record since 2005.

Surveys show that a long-term strategy for increasing the innovative nature of a business is starting to pay off. In 2012, 20% of the most innovative companies were from traditional industrial corporations such as Airbus, BASF and Caterpillar. This is also the highest rate in the entire history of such observations.

Several areas can be identified that industrial companies are focusing on to maximize the impact of their investment in innovation.

Cultivating a deep understanding of consumer preferences... Industrial companies are increasingly trying to hear and incorporate the voice of the consumer into their activities (75%, compared to 66% in other sectors of the economy). They purposefully build such a strategy based on market segmentation and other marketing techniques.

Flexible response to the economic laws of the market... Leading industrial innovation companies are trying to develop a deeper understanding of the specifics of supply and demand, to identify emerging and possible profit centers. Companies are channeling innovation efforts into the most profitable sectors, rather than spreading investments around the entire market perimeter.

Connecting top management to the innovation process. Industrial companies differ from others in their more effective involvement of senior management in the implementation of innovative projects (66% versus 58%).

Creation of teams to support innovative projects... Industrial companies effectively use available resources to implement innovative projects. Technicians are recruited on projects where they can deliver maximum impact. Professionals from other departments of the company are also used - financiers, managers and marketers.

The most marked features are inherent in a diversified chemical corporation BASF... This company, which ranks 23rd in the list of innovation leaders, has a developed innovation network, 70 R&D centers, 10 thousand researchers working on more than a thousand projects. The company recently opened a research center in Shanghai, employing 450 people.

In 2012, BASF invested 1.6 billion euros in R&D, an increase of 50% compared to 2005. The company's management announced ambitious plans to achieve sales of 30 billion euros by 2020 and profit of 7 billion euros due to new products. The ultimate goal of the company is to create a network of chemicals, technology and applied know-how in 13 priority growing business areas, from transportation to biotechnology.

In the transportation sector, BASF has developed and commercialized products that are now widely used in vehicles, helping consumers meet stringent emission standards. Its control filters are capable of operating at high temperatures with minimal weight and dimensions.

In biotechnology, BASF has set a target of € 1.8 billion in sales by 2020 through products such as genetically modified drought-resistant corn (in partnership with Monsanto). BASF management believes that large size and diversification is an important competitive asset in the chemical industry.

Automotive industry

The automotive industry as a whole is gradually recovering from the crisis and a sharp decline in production in 2009-2010, when the industry's sales and revenues fell by $ 50 billion. In the face of the crisis, innovation allows companies to find one or another niche for themselves in this highly competitive market. Competition forces companies to constantly offer additional options at the same price. Automakers are trying to improve the efficiency of their R&D investments without always increasing their volume. Most are seeking to reallocate innovation budgets to the most promising areas with high potential returns, such as fuel efficiency, safety, comfort, and consumer electronics.

There are three distinct strategies for car companies.

Using strategic and financial criteria in choosing ideas for your development... This is applied here much more often than in other industries (78% versus 65%). Currently, after a powerful wave of consolidation and government intervention due to the financial crisis, car companies are aligning their development objectives with long-term corporate and innovation goals, regularly reviewing innovative projects in the direction of their reduction.

Using a standard method for project appraisal... Car companies tend to use the most stringent criteria for evaluating innovative projects, correlating cost issues with the latest technological advances in a new car model.

Verification of innovative projects by real production. Most automobile companies try to involve representatives of production in the innovation process. In an industry with high costs and low margins, such as the automotive industry, this practice is a critical factor in launching a new efficient model and quickly conquering the market.

Such approaches are most typical for the French company Renault, which in 2012 ranked 32nd among the most innovative companies. The company shifted its investment focus from car development to exploratory research, doubling its R&D budget even during the financial crisis. A $ 4 billion innovation budget, an alliance with Japan's Nissan, and a joint project with Germany's Daimler are beginning to bear fruit. By the end of 2012, Renault had four electric vehicle models: the compact Zoe, the Fluence sedan, the Kangoo minivan and the Twizy four-wheeled scooter.

The company launched its EV development and production program in 2007 as a result of a thorough analysis of the environmental, technical, demographic and consumer factors that will influence demand in this segment over the long term. For example, it was found that the daily mileage of 30% of cars in the B segment (this includes, in particular, "Clio") rarely exceeds 150 km. This means that the limited range of a typical EV is not a hindrance for most consumers.

Renault uses five clear criteria for evaluating innovative projects: customer value, impact on brand value, cost-to-value ratio, ease of sale and potential for additional production. In order for an innovative project to enter the development stage, it must achieve the maximum percentage of success in all five criteria. Many projects are suspended to give way to the best projects of the company.

Consumer goods and trade

Consumer companies are generally thought to be making incremental changes to their products as they go to market. In reality, however, the most successful are increasingly focusing on disruptive products and services.

A detailed analysis of innovative companies in this sector made it possible to identify two main innovative strategies.

Deep understanding of consumer preferences... Trade and consumer companies invest heavily in consumer research, including consumer-driven innovation.

Efficient resource allocation... Understanding consumer preferences allows you to optimally combine the infrastructural, management and timing capabilities of companies for the implementation of innovative projects focused on specific consumers.

This practice is most typical for Anheuser-Busch Inbred (AB Inbred), the world's largest brewing corporation. It has over 200 brands in 30 countries around the world. The most famous of them are Budweiser in the USA, Stella Artois and Beck's in Europe, Skolt in Brazil and Harbin in China.

Even in an industry as old as the brewing industry, AB Inbred has managed to revitalize traditional products. The innovations consisted in specific flavors to existing types of beer: Bud Light Lime-A-Rita (Bud beer with lime flavor), Beck's Green Lemon Zero (Beck's beer with lemon flavor in Germany), Klinskoe »With citrus taste in Russia. In addition, the company has launched non-beer products such as Stella Artois Cider Apple (a Stella Artois brand of apple cider in the UK).

Innovation develops in both the type and size of the packages. In China, AB Inbred has created a 150 ml Budweiser can with a fully openable lid, targeting young people who are nocturnal. In contrast, for Brazil and Argentina, glass bottles have been developed with a larger capacity, with a special design to suit local tastes.

The AB InBev company, introducing innovations simultaneously at the global and regional levels, has formed a system of research centers. The central research laboratory is located in the Belgian city of Leuven and is called the Global Innovation and Technology Center (GITeC). He specializes in product development, technology and packaging. There are similar research centers in each of the six key regions for the company.

The company uses so-called renovations, which strengthen the position of existing products with the help of new marketing technologies and minor changes, and innovations that fundamentally expand the product lines. New products and supporting services interact with each other to form the necessary brewing platforms.

In addition, the company clearly identifies the innovation processes of the first and second plans. Foreground processes include identifying consumer preferences, formulating an idea and evaluating it. New products are developed and improved in local markets, close to end consumers. Secondary processes are more related to real production and are planned and implemented more rigidly.

Technology and telecommunications

The product life cycle in this industry is extremely short, and therefore the ability of leading technology and telecommunications companies to innovate continuously determines the ultimate success in the market.

Four innovative strategies are most characteristic here.

Generating breakthrough ideas... In an industry where competition from smartphone and tablet manufacturers is fierce, companies focus more on disruptive products than in other industries (87% versus 76%).

Involvement of consumers in all stages of the innovation process... Tech and telecommunications companies say they draw the insights they need to grow from a wide variety of internal and external sources. But when there is a selection of ideas to turn them into real products on the market, particular importance is attached to the views of key consumers.

Time to market... It plays a decisive role as the products are rapidly becoming obsolete.

Active management of the intellectual property portfolio... Intense competition between tech companies makes them particularly value time and money. Building a leading edge determines everything, from the choice of a partner to the nature of the product introduced to the market.

IBM is a typical representative of this business. According to corporate statistics, in 2012, 60% of the company's research budget went to growth segments such as cloud computing, quantum computing and cognitive systems. The company is developing in the field of artificial intelligence, imitation of the human nervous system, as well as in other fundamentally new areas of knowledge.

IBM works closely with key customers to improve its technologies. For example, the Energy Research Lab announced the opening of a Beijing unit to meet the growing demand for smart grid development in China. In Brazil, a division of this laboratory focuses on the development of efficient technologies in the oil and gas sector. The laboratory has assembled a team of top-notch geologists to help oil companies find deep-sea oil fields.

Services are an important element of the company's innovation strategy. One of the eight key areas of IBM research is Service Research, Management and Engineering (SSME). The company actively collaborates with academics around the world to identify areas of research.

Intellectual property management also plays an important role in enhancing corporate research capacity. According to corporate statistics, in 2011 the company received 6189 patents in the United States and has been at the top of the list of leading patent holders for 19 years. In addition, IBM received $ 1.1 billion from the sale of intellectual property, licenses and royalties.

Innovative companies have billions of dollars at their disposal that can lead to significant competitive advantages. The first steps in this direction are understanding the innovative environment in which the company operates, economically sound decision making, choosing priorities and accelerating their implementation.

Notes:

Determined on the basis of surveys of 1500 leading global corporations, taking into account the indicators of R&D expenditures, the growth rate of profit and income of the company's shareholders over the last three years. - Note. the author.

The Most Innovative Companies 2012. The State of the art in leading industries. December 2012. BCG.

The world of Russia. 2004. No. 3

Innovations in Russian industry: creation, diffusion and implementation of new technologies and social practices *

I.B. GURKOV, B.C. TUBALOV

Several years ago, the “heroic” period of the transition of Russian industry to functioning in a relatively market environment came to an end. All (surviving) enterprises and firms began to use elements of marketing, mastered (often quite creatively) the techniques of financial management, learned new approaches to personnel as a human resource. The goof of the last wave of mass adoption of new management tools, this time corporate, has also passed. Against the general background of macroeconomic stabilization and growth in most industries, routine work begins to improve both production and management methods and the products themselves (goods and services). This article focuses on the problem of creating, distributing and implementing innovations in products and processes. The authors believe that it is the speed and characteristics of the innovative processes taking place in the Russian industry that determine not only the stability of the current parameters of economic growth, but also the prospects for the competitiveness of the national economy in the world arena.

Introduction

The study of innovation processes is fraught with significant difficulties, in particular with the inaccuracy and inconsistency of the definitions of innovation in relation to various areas of enterprise activity. Accordingly, the object of research itself disappears or is camouflaged. Another difficulty in the study is the difficulty of observing innovation. State statistics record only technological innovations [Vasin, Mindeli 2002], innovations in products (goods and services) are obvious to consumers, but are already much less accurately detected by quality control bodies. As for managerial innovations proper, there is no systematic statistics on them at all. Finally, the third difficulty in learning is the lack of

* This work was supported by scientific grants from the State University - Higher School of Economics.

the result of proven reliable models of interrelationships between various forms and parties of both the innovation process as a whole and individual types of innovations.

We set ourselves the following tasks:

to give the most complete set of various manifestations of innovation in relation to the activities of enterprises;

to determine the prevalence of certain types of innovations in the main branches of Russian industry using available methods;

identify internal relationships, moderators and possible external factors influencing the innovation process.

Theoretical prerequisites for the study of innovative processes in industry

Types of innovations in the activities of the company

According to the most general definition, innovation is a change in the established order of things. With regard to the activities of any firm, innovations can be divided primarily into product innovations (changing what is done and offered to consumers) and process innovations (changing how this is done).

The next level of separation of process innovations is the separation between technical and managerial (administrative) innovations. The distinction between administrative and technological innovation reflects a more general distinction between social structure and technology. Technical innovation includes products, processes and technologies used to produce goods or provide services. We can say that technical innovation reflects changes in actions in relation to inanimate matter. Administrative innovation refers to changes in organizational structures and administrative processes and is usually directly related to the management of the firm. These innovations always reflect changes in the relationships between people. Thus, we can say that administrative (managerial) innovations are always changes in social practices and we will apply all the accumulated tools of the social sciences to their study.

Another division concerns management innovations proper. So, according to the content or area of ​​application, management innovations can be divided into two main types:

management technologies - changes in the forms of work execution in the field of finance, marketing, personnel management, etc .;

organizational innovation - new forms of differentiation, integration and control of work.

Finally, organizational innovation can also be broken down into two subclasses — intra-firm and inter-firm. In-house organizational innovation (let's call it OI 1 for short) is associated with creating

I.B. Gurkov, B.C. Tubalov

new forms of differentiation, integration and control of work within divisions or between divisions, but within the firm. Interfirm innovation (let's call it OI 2) changes the relationship between firms, both within value chains (relationships between suppliers and consumers, contractors and contracting parties) and within groups of firms linked by relationships of common ownership and control.

The construction of such a tree of classes of innovations in the activities of a firm allows us to formulate five main classes of innovations: product innovations; technical; management technologies; organizational in-house (OI 1); organizational interfirm (OI 2).

Let us now consider the typology of innovation in other dimensions.

By the degree of connectivity, one can distinguish:

parallel (or independent) innovation - each innovation is designed to solve a clearly defined problem, without being an integral part of the system of new forms of activity;

consistent innovations - events that are a logical continuation of the work already done, but, despite the name, such innovations can be implemented at the same time;

“Synergistic” (mutually reinforcing) innovation is a complex of innovative measures that allows to achieve the effect of joint implementation more than from the implementation of any one measure.

For the latter type of innovation, the opposite cases are also possible: the joint implementation of a certain set of new practices may not only fail to produce any result, but also worsen the current state of affairs at the enterprise.

By the nature of the impact, management innovations can be divided into three classes:

adding innovation - the result of the introduction of innovation expands the existing practice;

replacement innovation - a new practice replaces one or more existing ones, but they do not meet the efficiency criterion set at a certain point in time;

eliminating (previous form or practice) innovation - refusal (withdrawal) of a separate function or a number of functions from the practice of management (exnovation).

Novelty of innovation and the problem of diffusion

Innovation is bringing something new. Nevertheless, in terms of the level of novelty, innovations can be divided into:

absolutely new - invention, discovery;

new for the country - an innovation can be either a local discovery (development) or a direct transfer or adaptation of an innovation implemented in another country;

new to the industry - innovations that were not previously used in this industry;

new to a production and marketing network that includes multiple firms, such as supplier ^ reseller ^ manufacturer;

new for the corporation (systems of firms linked by common systems of ownership and (or) control);

new to the firm.

Quite indicative is the fact that if an innovation is not “absolutely new” or (which in most cases is the same thing) a unique proprietary development, its implementation should be the result of transfer - diffusion. However, this is where certain difficulties begin, since even the “inventor”, if he is honest with himself, can not always say with certainty whether he invented it or borrowed it from somewhere. In practice, there are many such situations. It is not uncommon to observe how a company, sometimes even deliberately, "reinvents the wheel". The problem lies in the difficulty of clearly formalizing the source of information (idea), its availability and its carrier, that is, the method of entering the enterprise - the transfer channel. Thus, the problem of diffusion (voluntary or involuntary imitation of practices) arises as an independent problem in the analysis of innovative processes.

Historically, interest in the problem of diffusion of innovations arose at the end of the 19th century. However, the attitude to innovation as a social phenomenon still did not receive significant distribution at that time and was reduced to the most detailed development of theories of its technical aspects. So, initially I. Schumpetter believed innovation to be a special type of entrepreneurship, and in many respects the entrepreneur himself, later leaving in theory only the production side - innovation as a new way of combining elements of the production process. The study of the actual diffusion of innovation by sociologists also acquired an applied character from the very beginning. The first work devoted to the diffusion of innovations was the work of the French sociologist G. Tarde, who in 1903 empirically established the S-shaped character of the “innovation diffusion” curve. After another 40 years, sociologists B. Ryan and N. Gross, studying the distribution of selection seeds in the practice of farmers in the piece. Iowa, got a similar result, breaking many of the different sections of the curve into groups: innovators, early adopters, early majorities, and laggards. All further development of the problematic in one way or another represented the technological aspect of innovation.

The 1960s were the turning point. The development of research tools - the study by the method of active participation and deep immersion, actively used in the past, but mainly by anthropologists and sociologists, research by the method of cases - has determined the fashionable direction of studying enterprises from all sides, not leaving aside the problem of innovation. It was at this time that researchers succeeded in fixing the social aspect of innovation1.

The classic definition of the diffusion of innovations was the definition proposed by E. Rogers: "the diffusion of innovation is the process by which innovation passes through communication channels in time and space among the participants in the social system." In this case, communication channels should be considered as innovative infrastructure, including scientific literature, exhibitions, fairs, etc.

1 For an example, see:.

I.B. Gurkov, B.C. Tubalov

understanding the problem was the result of almost twenty years of work of the scientist (1960-1980s). All of the following definitions are in essence and in spirit a transformed formulation of Rogers' definition. This is explained by a noticeable shift in research directions and priorities. In the 1960s, the mathematization of accumulated knowledge in the field of innovation diffusion became characteristic. There was an active modeling process. Attempts at an alternative explanation, which were the development of an initial understanding of the problem with an emphasis on the established S-shaped nature of the innovation diffusion curve, did exist. An example of this is Bas's model - determining the time of initial purchase of a new product and the speed of its distribution - an algorithm borrowed from physicists. And yet, today, the preference is still given to models and theories based on the developments of Rogers.

Until the mid-1990s, the diffusion of organizational innovation remained in the shadows, being part of the Knowledge Management and Organizational Theory paradigms. At the same time, the development of management in general and an increasing interest in the social aspects of management, including the impact of organizational innovation on the competitive advantage and economic performance of a company, aroused the interest of researchers in formalizing the process of adapting organizational knowledge of a company and directions of management innovation of successful firms in the form of a diffusion model. management innovation 2.

In accordance with our classification, the diffusion of managerial innovation is the transfer of managerial technology and organizational innovation. Let's consider each of them separately.

The essence of the transfer of management technologies is to increase the number of users of this technology, for example, a new method of personnel selection. The meaning of such events is to expand the resource base and / or increase the competencies of the company. As you can see, the development of production and management technologies is largely similar; management technologies are a kind of factor in expanding the capabilities of the company and thus serve as a kind of superstructure in the overall system of technological development of the company.

As a rule, factors or mechanisms for accelerating the transfer of management technologies are:

changes in the economic environment and competitive situation; deliberate change in the strategic positioning of the company; inclusion of the firm in new value chains with new standards; incorporation of the firm into new ownership systems; achieving “standardization” of innovation;

opening ("clearing") a new channel for the dissemination of innovation.

The rationale for transferring organizational innovation depends largely on whether the innovation is intra-firm or is aimed at solving inter-organizational problems, such as innovation at the corporate level.

2 See, for example:.

Innovations in Russian industry ...

Despite the fact that in both cases innovations are organizational, their purpose, place and “beneficiary” are different.

Relationships Between Types of Innovation: Initial Hypotheses

In an organizational economy, where all relationships between subjects are reduced to exact formulas and functions (preferably differentiable at any point up to the second derivative), the relationship between the five types of innovations we have identified above in the activities of a firm is quite unambiguous. Indeed, in the pursuit of rents from new products, product innovations are being developed and implemented.

The emerging market opportunities are realized on the basis of technological innovations, but already in the medium term. Firms' research budgets and commissioned research are concentrated in areas where technology is capable of providing the creation of new classes of goods and services. Thus, product innovations are largely provoked by technological innovations, although this ratio is not unambiguous in all cases.

The appropriation and implementation of large volumes of profits from product innovations provokes changes in management technologies (primarily in financial management and accounting systems). In addition, the production and sale of new products may require changes in the form of marketing or personnel management. So, here, too, the connection is almost unambiguous.

The need for organizational innovations of the first kind, as a rule, arises due to changes in the nomenclature of production, changes in technology, i.e., as a result of the introduction of product and technological innovations. Hence, the meaning of the absorption of such innovations becomes clear: it is, first of all, an increase in the intensity of production of added value.

The transfer of organizational innovations of the second kind is largely based on the appropriation of a larger share of the added value in the value chain. Thus, organizational innovations, as it were, envelop innovations in management technologies, are a connecting link for management innovations of the first type - management technologies.

All of the above relationships can be reduced to five hypotheses:

changes in the intensity of technological and product innovations are the basis for increasing the intensity of managerial innovations;

an increase in the intensity of innovation in management technologies stimulates an increase in the intensity of organizational innovation.

innovations in management technologies provoke organizational innovations of the first kind (OI 1);

the volume of OI 1 leads to an increase in the likelihood of organizational innovations of the second kind (OI 2);

increasing the intensity of OI 2 increases the amount of funds available for product innovation (PI), technological innovation (TI) and innovation in management technologies (UT).

I.B. Gurkov, B.C. Tubalov

Innovation and the institutional context

The hypotheses formulated above are based on the premise of the firm's conscious and free choice of directions for innovation. In the real world of business, this premise is extremely rare. Indeed, in addition to voluntary innovation, a significant part of innovation is forced, produced "under pressure". This is especially true for management innovation.

Pressure can come from the owners, who deliberately standardize management processes in controlled enterprises. The pressure can come from business partners requiring the same procedures and working methods. Pressure can also come from other stakeholders, such as consumers, who demand that the firm operate like everyone else.

As soon as we find ourselves in a situation of forced innovation, the question immediately arises about the authenticity of the innovation itself. It is quite probable (and obvious in the practice of Russian business) cases when certain forms of management activity are introduced for the sake of visibility, are of a mimicry nature: "We will do to get rid of." A striking example, which has already managed to set the teeth on edge, is the development of quality standards (ISO) by Russian companies - “getting a pass to the world of civilized manufacturers”.

Thus, the role of the institutional context, that is, the degree of dependence of the firm on the main stakeholders, becomes very important. In view of this, the hypotheses of the innovative relationships of an absolutely independent firm formulated above can be refuted when tested by practice. The following sections of this article are devoted to the presentation of the results of the review of innovative practices of Russian enterprises.

Innovative practices of Russian industrial enterprises

An empirical basis for observing innovative practices

The data of a survey of the directors' corps of industrial enterprises, conducted at the end of 2002, allowed us to test our hypotheses, to assess whether the current practice of transferring managerial innovations is natural and how it can affect the future of innovative development of domestic industry. The sample includes data on almost 1.5 thousand medium and large industrial enterprises in most industries, which is 5-6% of the total number of similar enterprises in the domestic industry3.

3 The details of the sample and the study itself, as well as a number of other studies of innovative development, can be found in: [Gurkov 2003].

Innovations in Russian industry ...

Overall intensity and ratio of "originality" and imitation of product and technical innovations

Assuming that product and technical innovations are primary in relation to management innovations (hypotheses 1 and 2), we began our analysis by determining both the overall intensity of innovations and the ratio of our own and borrowed ideas and solutions in these areas.

As you can see from the table. 1, the development of new production and technologies is an integral part of the development of an industrial enterprise and is massive. In general, more than 70% of all enterprises master both the production of new goods and the introduction of new technologies. Moreover, in about half of the surveyed enterprises, innovation activity is far from being carried out in the background. All this once again confirms the need to check the impact of product and technological innovations on managerial innovations.

Innovative activity is obviously expensive and always risky even with a high-quality pre-project analysis. At the same time, the economic situation of the majority of enterprises in the domestic industry leaves much to be desired, which to a certain extent imposes restrictions on their innovation budgets. It is possible to significantly reduce and, most importantly, secure innovative investments by imitating the successful practices of other enterprises. The likelihood of unsuccessful innovation remains, but the risk of losing resources decreases.

Hence, it becomes clear why borrowing (imitation) of innovations is one of the main tools for the innovation activity of most enterprises. In general, in the sample, ideas in the development of a new technology are borrowed in every third case, and in the development of new goods and forms of sale - in every second. The same picture emerges when analyzed by industry (Fig. 1).

The leading positions in the field of technology borrowing are occupied by the extractive industry and energy. As for innovations in the production of new products, the share of in-house developments and borrowings is almost the same in all industries (Fig. 2).

The main sources of innovative ideas, both in the field of new technology and in the development of new goods and forms of sale, are not very diverse and are largely similar (contracts with research institutes and design bureaus, information from exhibitions and fairs, communication with colleagues and foreign partners). Note that in-house developments are not the only source of innovation production: to one degree or another, all enterprises adapt or transfer innovative products in general. At the same time, the coincidence of sources and the very structure of innovative ideas in the case of borrowing are identical (Table 2).

At the same time, the general practice of using innovations does not differ either in the areas of innovation activity, or in the level of intensity of their implementation. All this indicates that enterprises borrow only the innovation itself, often without taking into account its specifications, that is, a tool, but

I.B. Gurkov, B.C. Tubalov

Table 1 Total intensity of innovations in technologies and products,%

Mastering fundamentally new types of products in the existing field of activity Mastering the production of goods (services) in a new sphere of activity Mastering a new technology (processes) for the company Mastering new quality control methods (ISO 9000 - 14000)

None 22.7 38.6 21.2 41.3

Minimally 14.6 19.9 23.0 19.2

To some extent 39.0 29.4 40.9 22.5

Largely 23.6 12.2 15.0 17.0

not a system. It can also be assumed that a high share of borrowing will disrupt the system of interrelationships of innovation processes. Thus, in the future, it is necessary to take into account not the advantages and disadvantages of diffusion as such, but try to assess the quality of the used innovations depending on the source of their origin.

Innovation and competitiveness

The quality of innovation is determined by the effect of its commercialization, the level of which can be determined by assessing the competitiveness of products. The parameter was chosen as an indicator of competitiveness

Innovations in Russian industry ..

Fig. 2 Distribution of the share of borrowings in the production of new

goods and forms of sale

Table 2 Distribution of sources of borrowing innovative ideas in the field of mastering new technologies,%

Mastering new technology Source

agreements with research institutes and design bureaus for the development of technologies; purchase of a production license; cooperation with manufacturers of similar products; foreign partners

Imitation 20 7 15 16

Own development 22 6 10 13

Table 3 Distribution of sources of borrowing innovative ideas in the field of mastering new goods and forms of marketing,%

Mastering Source

goods and forms of sale attraction of new employees attraction of consultants consumers use of information from exhibitions and fairs contacts with manufacturers of similar products foreign partners

Imitation 10 7 31 35 25 12

Own development 9 6 30 43 22 10

I. B. Burkov, V. S. Tubalov

Table 4 Distribution of innovations by the level of intensity of use,%

1 Eden in the development of new technology Eden in the development of new goods and forms of sale

imitated developed self-imitated self-developed

Product innovation

The development of fundamentally new types of products in the existing area to a minimum 17.0 18 * 9 21.7 (5.1

somewhat 56.4 49.8 51.7 51.5

(activities to a large extent 26.7 31.3 26.7 33.3

Mastering the production of goods (services) in a new field of activity to a minimum 37 * 4 29.8 34 * 0 29.7

somewhat 48 * 2 46.3 45.0 49 * 4

largely 14.4 23.4 21.0 20.8

Timol kypcheskyaye innovations

Mastering a new technology (processes) for the company to a minimum 30.2 28.6 28.7 29.2

to some extent 49.2 52.3 49.8 53.1

largely 20.7 19.1 21.5 17.7

Mastering new quality control methods (ISO 9000-14000) to a minimum 36.4 30.9 32.7 32.0

to some extent 37.2 37.2 38.6 36.0

largely 26.4 31.8 28.6 32.0

Management technologies

Mastering Western accounting standards to a minimum 43 * 7 50.2 50 * 0 46 * 6

to some extent 37.8 38.5 37.1 39 * 3

largely 18.5 11.3 12.9 14.1

Mastering computer management accounting systems to a minimum 23.6 22.4 22.8 22.9

somewhat 4J.2 44.6 46.3 42 * 9

largely 31.3 32.9 30.9 _ 34.2 _

Mastering new methods of project financing to a minimum 44.8 39 * 4 41.7 39.9

somewhat 42.8 44.7 45.3 43.3

largely 12.4 15.9 13.0 16.8

Isisstoyunmennoeil 4yurm and recruitment sources to a minimum 39.2 55.3 54.8 57.6

to some extent 36.7 37.7 38.3 36.8

largely 4 * 1 7.0 6., 9 5.6

Use of new methods of personnel assessment (certification) to a minimum degree 53.3 45.3 44.9 50.0

somewhat 40.0 42 * 6 43.4 40 * 4

largely 6.7 12.1 L * 7 9.6

The introduction of new payment schemes for bonuses to employees at a minimum level 37.9 28.7 35.5 26 * 9

somewhat 46.2 48.3 45.5 50 * 3

largely 15.9 23.0 19.0 22.8

Organizational innovations of the 1st kind (OH 1)

Creation of new structural divisions (branches) to a minimum 35.1 31.0 32.9 3U

to some extent 45.0 44.2 45 * 7 43.2

pretty much 19, i 24.8 21 * 4 25.5

Spinning off subsidiaries to a minimum 47.9 37.4 _ 39.5

somewhat 33 * 8 41.3 37.6 41.1

largely 1U 21.2 21.6 19.4

Purchase of new enterprises (firms) and minimum degree 40.9 37.3 46.9 29.2

somewhat 27.3 40.0 30.6 43.8

largely 31.8 22.7 22.4 27.1

Organizational innovations of the 2nd kind (OH 2)

Minimal acquisition of new Russian business partners 38.8 23.6 31.1 24.8

somewhat 46.8 55.5 50.5 55 * 6

largely 14 * 4 20.9 f 8 * 5 19.6

Minimal acquisition of new foreign business partners 43.6 44.8 37.6 50.2

somewhat 42.6 45.5 48.3 41.7

largely 13.9 9 * 7 14 * 0 8.1

Minimal use of new forms (channels) of sales 40.4 37.5 39.2 37.6

to an extent. _ 5.,. _ 48.6 47.5 50.9

largely 8.4 and, 9 13 * 4 11.5

Innovations in Russian industry ...

"Quality minus costs". A high value of this parameter indicates a higher quality at a relatively low cost, and vice versa. As a result of scaling the parameter values, three control values ​​were formed:

high costs and low quality - a “bad” rating;

average quality at average unit costs - “average” rating;

high quality at low costs - "good" rating.

It turns out that the current relationship “borrowing - development, especially in the field of mastering new technologies, has nothing to do with the competitiveness of the final product. The only losers are those enterprises whose imitation share in the development of new products reaches 60% or more, since in our case we managed to establish a statistically significant difference only in terms of the “bad” control parameter, corresponding to the share of in-house developments at the level of 40%.

At the same time, there is a clear connection between the intensity of the implementation of various innovative processes and the competitiveness achieved through it. At enterprises with a higher intensity of innovation, the parameter of competitiveness is higher. Whether this is an indicator of the quality of the innovation activity of an individual enterprise remains a big question, but it indicates a low elasticity of competitiveness. In other words, a slight increase in competitiveness can be achieved only as a result of a significant increase in the innovative activity of an enterprise. The latter, in turn, is possible with an increase in the share of funding for innovative activities. In addition, innovation requires not only money but also time.

Unfortunately, the data we have do not allow us to assess the impact of the growth in the intensity of innovative activity on the parameter of competitiveness, taking into account time lags. However, we can try to determine the relationship between the existing development-imitation relationship on the dynamics of changes in the economic position of the firm, in a sense, to understand its potential for increasing the innovation budget in the future.

From table. 7 it can be seen that the lower the share of imitation of innovative processes in the field of technology was, the more it influenced the positive economic effect.

Another confirmation of the importance of the influence of the low share of imitation of production technology on the change in the economic situation at the enterprise was the data on the distribution of the share of imitation of ideas in enterprises that managed to significantly improve their economic position and overcome the threat of bankruptcy. For comparison, we also used data on steadily developing enterprises and “failing enterprises” (Table 8).

The enterprises that managed to overcome the crisis situation differ greatly in the structure of sources of innovative ideas, especially in the field of mastering new technologies. The high share of in-house developments, apparently, has become a certain competitive advantage, a kind of non-standard work scheme, which made it possible to overcome the threat of bankruptcy. In all other cases, the proportions of borrowing and own development

I.B. Gurkov, B.C. Tubalov

Table 5 The share of own developments in the field of production of innovations by the parameter of competitiveness,%

Parameter "quality minus costs" The share of own developments in the field of new technologies The share of own developments in the development of new products and forms of sale

Poor 66.7 41.3

Average 70.5 46.9

Good 70.2 58.3

Significance of differences,% 18.2 98.4

Table 6 Distribution of the intensity of innovative activity in innovative areas depending on the parameter of competitiveness, the average score by the level of intensity

Parameter "quality plus costs" PI TI UT OI 1 OI2

Poor 2.15 1.86 5.84 1.56 3.19

Average 2.78 2.65 7.69 2.00 3.87

Good 3.21 3.03 8.87 2.16 4.23

Significance of differences,% 99.9 99.9 99.9 95.5 99.9

Table 7 Relationship of the enterprise policy in relation to the diffusion of innovation processes with the dynamics of changes in the economic situation of the enterprise,%

Dynamics of changes in the economic situation

became became became became

significantly somewhat unchanged somewhat significantly

worse worse better better

Ideas in mastering imitation 40.0 32.1 30.8 29.5 22.1

new own 60.0 67.9 69.2 70.5 77.9

technology development

Ideas in mastering imitation 61.2 55.6 47.7 48.3 55.8

new products and sales forms own development 38.8 44.4 52.3 51.7 44.2

Table 8 Influence of the structure of borrowing ideas of innovations on overcoming crisis situations,%

Crisis at the time of the survey Overcome the crisis state Steadily good

Ideas in the development of new technology imitation 31.1 19.1 40.4

own development 68.9 80.9 59.6

Ideas in the development of new goods and forms of marketing imitation 53.3 61.7 53.8

own development 46.7 38.3 46.2

Innovations in Russian industry ...

correspond to the data presented at the very beginning of the section. The most resilient firms have demonstrated a balanced mix of imitation and in-house development in both product and technological innovation.

Interrelationships between different types of innovations

The connection between innovation in production technology and innovation in production itself is very high and quite obvious. At the same time, the new mode of production and new technologies require different management, for example, changes in the forms of marketing or personnel management, and hence, innovations in the field of management technologies. An increase in the need for new management innovations, as we know, is sometimes facilitated by the change in the strategic positioning of the company, provoked by the production and technological policy of the enterprise, the inclusion of the company in new value chains with new standards, the achievement of standardization of innovation, etc.

To illustrate this, we have built a model of the relationship between technological and managerial innovations using the example of the already analyzed situation with enterprises that have overcome the economic crisis (Fig. 3).

The companies that made a breakthrough in the economic situation, first of all, relied on the imitation of the assortment tested by other firms, but on the basis of their own technologies. The introduction of new technologies required (or became possible) due to the implementation of innovations in management technologies. In addition, the relationship between technological innovation and interorganizational innovation shows that the change in technology and the change in business partners are highly interrelated (changes in these areas simultaneously occurred in 47% of the enterprises of the selected group). At the same time, the relationship between innovations in management technologies and in interorganizational relations is even higher (at the same time, changes occurred in 56% of cases). On the whole, this means that the market environment of enterprises that have emerged from the crisis, that is, the system of economic relations with partners, turns out to be more malleable than the intraorganizational one.

The relationships we have considered were derived on the basis of a fairly small subclass of enterprises that demonstrated a sharp improvement in their economic situation. This situation is not typical and, as we have already noted, has the right to exist only at certain stages of enterprise development. Thus, a detailed analysis of the situation requires consideration of a general (typical for the majority) scheme of relationships.

The analysis carried out for the entire array of surveyed enterprises fully confirmed the existing relationships. The conjugation of product and technological innovations turned out to be even higher (the correlation coefficient is 0.481 versus 0.411), that is, the innovation policy is more balanced. And in general, the inertia of external organizational innovations (OI 2) turned out to be lower than intra-organizational organizational innovations (OI 1).

The analysis showed that the compliance of external relations in general in Russian industry is higher than the compliance

I.B Gurkov, B.C Tubalov

Rice. 3 Model of interconnection of production and technological

and management innovations of anti-crisis enterprises

intra-organizational routines. This may indicate both a high inertia of intraorganizational relations and a rather high dynamism of the external environment. Firms do not hold on to their business partners. With a more thoughtful analysis, however, a high assessment of the dynamism of the external environment should be replaced by a diametrically opposite one. Any serious improvement in technology inevitably pulls the Russian firm out of the circle of traditional partners who can no longer provide supplies or marketing services that meet the new quality standards of the firm's own work. Such inertia is objectively a serious obstacle to radical technological innovation. Indeed, only 15% of the firms we surveyed decided on significant changes in technology, while 36% of firms have significantly changed their assortment over the last period.

Institutional pressures: incentives and barriers to enterprise innovation

We said that the institutional environment can seriously affect innovative development. We were able to empirically verify this statement (Table 9).

Innovations in Russian industry ...

Rice. 4 Model of interconnection of production, technological and

management innovations (all enterprises)

Table 9 Correlation between the institutional parameters of the firm's environment and the intensity of innovation activity (correlation coefficients)

PI TI UT OI 1 OI 2

The influence of the government's economic policy -0.026 0.018 0.079 * 0.024 0.001

Impact of local government policy 0.090 ** 0.099 ** 0.041 0.032 0.085 **

Influence of competition 0.080 ** 0.049 0.114 ** 0.042 0.060 *

The presence of the state in the role of a large owner -0.053 -0.040 0.009 -0.049 -0.088 **

The presence of foreign individuals or legal entities in the role of a large owner 0.021 0.163 ** 0.172 ** 0.062 * 0.073 *

The presence of a large share of ownership in the hands of employees of the enterprise 0.047 -0.024 -0.054 0.003 0.029

* The presence of a statistically significant relationship at the level of 95%.

** The presence of a statistically significant relationship at the level of 99%.

I.B Gurkov, B.C Tubalov

The influence of the government's economic policy leads to changes in management technologies, for example, leads to the development of new financial schemes and forms of personnel management; otherwise, economic policy is neutral in relation to innovation processes. The participation of the state in the composition of the owners of the enterprise generally nullifies interorganizational innovations. A similar gap is being filled by local government economic programs that rebuild local value chains and promote manufacturing base development and technology adoption.

The influence of competition brings us closer to world practice. Increased competition leads to the intensity of product innovation and management technologies. Competition also leads to a revision of interorganizational relations. At the same time, the development of technology has not yet become a method of active competition.

The retention of significant blocks of shares in the hands of the employees of the enterprise does not affect the intensity of innovation activity. The presence of state property is also not very significant. The situation is different with the fact that significant blocks of shares belong to foreign owners. The relationship between the presence of foreign ownership and the high intensity of innovation processes is obvious. Unfortunately, correlation analysis cannot postulate causal links. The generally accepted explanation is the recognition of the fact of the transfer of management technologies and other innovations under the pressure of foreign owners, but the opposite explanation is also possible: foreign owners show interest in enterprises that have demonstrated high dynamism, including in the innovation sphere.

Since we were talking about pressure on an enterprise, we were able to identify the influence of external owners in a different way - through determining the interrelationships of innovation processes and the density of control over the activities of the enterprise (Table 10).

The presence of an external owner capable of influencing the development prospects spurs the development of technological innovations. At the same time, the intensity of managerial innovations does not change. Perhaps a clearer perspective of action is an incentive for more ambitious projects. If the density of control rises to the level of control over operating activities, then the innovativeness of enterprises decreases sharply. This manifests itself not only in the area of ​​products and economic ties, but also, which is more dangerous, in the area of ​​technological development. It is likely that the rigidity of external relations inhibits the introduction of breakthrough technologies (we noted that these parameters are closely interrelated). Another explanation for the observed phenomenon: the strengthening of operational control is accompanied by the complication and deceleration of decision-making required to launch innovations.

Results of testing the formulated hypotheses

The formed system of hypotheses was partially confirmed. In most cases, changes in the intensity of technological and product

Innovations in Russian industry ...

Table 10 Influence of corporate dependence on the intensity of innovation processes (average values ​​of intensity parameters for individual groups)

Independence of the company PI TI UT OI 1 OI2

The firm is completely autonomous in its actions 3.12 2.70 7.33 1.94 3.97

The firm is a member of an informal group of enterprises coordinating certain economic issues 3.04 2.83 8.06 2.44 4.29

The firm is an integral part of a large business structure that determines development prospects 2.94 3.18 8.25 1.91 4.14

The company is an integral part of the economic structure that determines the future and current development 2.39 2.50 8.17 1.91 3.55

Significance of differences,% 99.9 93.3 94.6 63.6 99.3

innovation really provokes an increase in the intensity of managerial innovation (hypothesis 1). At the same time, innovations in management technologies at the firm level, as a rule, are brought to their logical conclusion, since in most cases they end with appropriate organizational measures (hypothesis 3).

An increase in the intensity of innovation in management technologies stimulates an increase in the intensity of organizational innovation, but within certain limits. The volume of organizational innovations of the first kind does not always lead to a proper increase in the likelihood of organizational innovations of the second kind (hypotheses 2 and 4).

The disconnection at the level of OI 1 - OI 2, however, does not affect the receipt of the necessary funds for the introduction of product and technological innovations, as well as innovations in management technologies (hypothesis 5).

Instead of a conclusion

General state and prospects of innovation processes in Russian industry

The picture we have drawn of innovation processes in Russian industry is rather complex and contradictory. Let's note, first of all, the main anchor points:

1. Innovation processes continue in the main branches of Russian industry. They are more intense when changing the assortment of products and not too intense when mastering new technologies.

2. The development of new products is largely based on competitive imitation. In the field of technology transfers are much less, firms are trying to go their own way.

3. The assimilation of new technologies often conflicts with the existing market infrastructure of the enterprise (suppliers and other partners).

I.B. Gurkov, B.C. Tubalov

A major change in technology is leading to a revision of the composition of the economic chain.

4. The institutional environment has a very moderate impact on the innovation activity of enterprises. The impact of state economic policy on the intensity of innovation processes in industry as a whole is weakly traced. At the same time, the centralization of economic activity often impedes innovation, especially in the technological sphere.

In the course of our research, we made sure that the management technologies of Russian enterprises remain a dynamic area, steadily following product and technological innovations. Thus, we cannot say that the lag in management technologies in itself is the reason for the preservation of a low level of technological innovation. The low level of technology borrowing is more alarming. This means that the technology transfer system that existed with all its shortcomings in Soviet times has been completely eliminated, and modern forms of technology transfer have not been created. The transfer of technologies remains point-to-point, covering in most cases only one enterprise, which is forced to change economic partners. At the same time, skillful use of technology transfer mechanisms characterizes the most sustainable enterprises. The influence of institutional conditions is small and cannot be considered a significant brake on the innovation process. We have seen that at the regional level, the beneficial effect of local authorities on different types of innovative actions is quite tangible.

The above facts allow us to draw a seemingly unexpected conclusion: the way to increase the intensity of innovation processes in Russian industry lies through a reduction in inventions and an increase in the role of technology transfer. This means recreating the technological diffusion system in its modern forms. The experience of countries that have made serious technological breakthroughs shows that their national innovation systems rely not on a pile of bureaucratic offices that stimulate innovation, but on facilitating inter-firm cooperation and insuring the risks of technology transfer. This is also due to the transformation of large integrated economic structures from systems for controlling financial flows into technology transfer systems. We hope that research on innovation processes will make it possible to quickly formulate the structures and principles of the institutions of the re-emerging national innovation system.

Literature

Vasin V.A., Mindeli L.E. National innovation system: preconditions and functioning mechanisms. Moscow: TsISN, 2002.

Gurkov I.B. Innovative Development and Competitiveness: Essays on the Development of Russian Enterprises. M .: TEIS, 2003.

Innovations in Russian industry ...

Alange S., Jacobson S., Jamehammar A. Some Aspects of an Analytical Framework for Studying the Diffusion of Organizational Innovations // Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 1998. Vol. 10. No. 1.

Bass F. A new product growth model for consumer durables // Management Science. 1969. No. 15.

Daft R.L. A Dual-Core Model of Organizational Innovation // Academy of Management Journal. 1978. No. 21.

Damanpour F., Evan W.M. Organizational Innovation and Performance: The Problem of "Organizational Lag" // Administrative Science Quarterly. 1984. No. 29.

Damanpour F. The Adoption of Technological, Administrative and Ancillary Innovations: Impact of Organizational Factors // Journal of Management. 1987. No. 13.

Delmas M.A. Innovating Againts European Rugidities: Institutional Environment and Dynamic Capabilities // Journal of High Technology Management Research. 2000. No. 13.

Edquist S. Technological and Organizational Innovations, Productivity and Employment // World Employment Program Research Working Paper. 1998. WEP 2-22 / WP.

Evan W.M. Organizational Lag. Human Organizations. 1966. No. 25.

Freman C, Young A., Fuller J.K. The Plastic Industry: a Comparative Study of Reasearch and Innovation // National Institute Economic Review. 1962. Vol. 26.

Lewis M. W. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide // Academy of Management: The Academy of Management Review, Mississippi State, 2000. Oct.

Nelson R. National Systems of Innovation: A Comparative Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993;

Penrose E. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford University Press, 1959.

Rogers, E.M. Diffusions of Innovations. 3rd ed. N.-Y .: The Free Press, 1983.

Rycroft R. W., Kash D.E. Steering complex innovation // Research Technology Management. Washington, May / Jun 2000;

Sawheney M., Prandelli E. Communities of Creation: Managing Distributed Innovation in Turbulent Markets // California Management Review. 2000. No. 42 (2). Summer.

Suh J. Rorea's Innovation System - Challenges and New Policy Agenda: INTECH Discussion Paper. No. 2004. Maastricht, 2000.

Symeonidis G. Innovation, Firm Size and Market Structure: Schumpeterian Hypotheses and Some New Themes // Organization for economic cooperation and development: Working Paper. 1996. No. 161. P., 1996.

Key indicators of innovation

1. Dynamics of the main indicators of innovation activity

1.1. Innovative activity of organizations
1.2. The share of organizations engaged in certain types of innovative activities in the total number of organizations carrying out technological innovations
1.3. Research and development units in organizations carrying out technological innovations
1.4. The volume of innovative goods, works, services
1.5. Export volume of innovative goods, works, services
1.6. The share of innovative goods, works, services in the volume of sales in the domestic and foreign markets
1.7. Export structure of innovative goods, works, services
1.8. Rating of the results of innovative activities
1.9. Share of organizations participating in technological exchange in the total number of organizations implementing technological innovations
1.10. Distribution of organizations that carried out technological innovations and participated in technological exchange, by country and region
1.11. Joint projects for the implementation of research and development of organizations carrying out technological innovations
1.12. Cost of technological innovation
1.13. Cost of technological innovation by source of funding
1.14. Share of costs for certain types of innovative activity in the total cost of technological innovation
1.15. Ranking of information sources for technological innovation
1.16. Rating of methods for protecting scientific and technical developments in organizations that carried out technological innovations
1.17. Rating of factors hindering technological innovation

2. Innovative activity of organizations

2.1. Innovative activity of organizations by type of economic activity
2.2. Distribution of organizations that carried out technological, marketing, organizational innovations by type of economic activity
2.3. The aggregate level of innovative activity of organizations by type of economic activity
2.4. Innovative activity of organizations by size
2.5. Distribution of organizations that carried out technological, marketing, organizational innovations, by size
2.6. Innovative activity of organizations by type of ownership
2.7. Distribution of organizations that carried out technological, marketing, organizational innovations by ownership
2.8. Costs of technological, marketing, organizational innovations by type of economic activity
2.9. Costs of technological, marketing, organizational innovation by size of organization
2.10. Costs of technological, marketing, organizational innovations by ownership of organizations
2.11. Cost structure for technological, marketing, organizational innovations by type of innovation
2.12. Distribution of costs for technological, marketing, organizational innovations by types of innovations and types of economic activity
2.13. Distribution of costs for technological, marketing, organizational innovations by type of innovation and size of organizations
2.14. Distribution of costs for technological, marketing, organizational innovations by types of innovations and forms of ownership of organizations
2.15. Intensity of costs for technological, marketing, organizational innovations by type of economic activity
2.16. Intensity of costs for technological, marketing, organizational innovations by size of organizations
2.17. Intensity of costs for technological, marketing, organizational innovations by ownership of organizations
2.18. Assessment of the results of innovative activities: 2012-2014

3. Technological innovation

3.1. Share of organizations implementing technological innovations in the total number of organizations by type of economic activity
3.2. Share of organizations that carried out product and process innovations, in the total number of organizations that carried out technological innovations, by type of economic activity
3.3. Share of organizations carrying out technological and marketing innovations at the same time, in the total number of organizations carrying out technological innovations, by type of economic activity
3.4. Distribution of organizations that carried out simultaneously technological and marketing innovations by type of economic activity
3.5. Share of organizations carrying out technological and organizational innovations at the same time, in the total number of organizations carrying out technological innovations, by type of economic activity
3.6. Distribution of organizations that carried out simultaneously technological and organizational innovations by type of economic activity
3.7. The structure of organizations that carried out technological innovations by type of innovation activity
3.8. Share of organizations engaged in certain types of innovation activities in the total number of organizations carrying out technological innovations, by type of economic activity: 2014
3.9. Distribution of organizations carrying out technological innovations by type of innovation and economic activity: 2014
H.10. The share of organizations that had research, design and engineering departments, in their total number by type of economic activity
3.11. The number of departments that carried out research and development, and the number of their employees in organizations by type of economic activity
3.12. The share of employees who performed research and development in the total number of employees of organizations that carried out technological innovations, by type of economic activity
3.13. Cooperation in the development of technological innovations: 2014
3.14. The share of goods, works, services of organizations that carried out and did not carry out technological innovations, in the total volume of goods shipped, work performed, services by type of economic activity: 2014
3.15. Volume of innovative goods, works, services by type of economic activity
3.16. The volume of innovative goods, works, services by the level of novelty and types of economic activity
3.17. Share of innovative goods, works, services in the total volume of goods shipped, works performed, services by the level of novelty and types of economic activity: 2014
3.18. Newly introduced or undergone significant technological changes innovative goods, works, services, new to the sales market of the organization, by type of economic activity
3.19. Newly introduced or undergoing significant technological changes innovative goods, works, services that are new to the world market, by type of economic activity
3.20. Newly introduced or undergoing significant technological changes innovative goods, works, services that are new for the organization, but not new for the market, by type of economic activity
3.21. Volume of innovative goods, works, services under state and municipal contracts by type of economic activity: 2014
3.22. Export of innovative and not subject to technological changes goods, works, services by type of economic activity
3.23. Export of innovative goods, works, services by country and type of economic activity
3.24. Share of organizations participating in technological exchange in their total number by types of economic activity
3.25. Share of organizations participating in technological exchange in the total number of organizations carrying out technological innovations, by type of economic activity: 2014
3.26. Technology imports by organizations carrying out technological innovations, by type of economic activity
3.27. Export of technologies by organizations carrying out technological innovations, by type of economic activity
3.28. Forms of technology acquisition by organizations implementing technological innovations, by type of economic activity: 2014
3.29. Forms of technology transfer by organizations implementing technological innovations, by type of economic activity: 2014
3.30. New technologies (technical advances) acquired and transferred by organizations implementing technological innovations: 2014
3.31. Participation of organizations in joint research and development projects: 2014
3.32. Organizations participating in joint research and development projects by type of economic activity
3.33. Organizations that carried out technological innovations and participated in joint research and development projects, by partner country and type of economic activity
3.34. Organizations that carried out technological innovations and participated in joint research and development projects, by type of partner and type of economic activity: 2014
3.35. Organizations that carried out technological innovations and participated in joint research and development projects, by type of cooperation ties and types of economic activity
3.36. Joint projects for the implementation of research and development of organizations carrying out technological innovations, by type of economic activity
3.37. Joint research and development projects of organizations carrying out technological innovations by types of partners and types of economic activities: 2014
3.38. Joint projects for the implementation of research and development of organizations carrying out technological innovations, by types of cooperation ties and types of economic activity
3.39. Technological partnership in the implementation of research and development of organizations carrying out technological innovations: 2014
3.40. Costs of technological innovation by type of economic activity
3.41. Cost of technological innovation by type of innovation and economic activity: 2014
3.42. Distribution of costs for technological innovation by type of innovation and economic activity: 2014
3.43. Cost of technological innovation by source of funding and type of economic activity: 2014
3.44. Distribution of costs for technological innovations by sources of financing and types of economic activity: 2014
3.45. Intensity of spending on technological innovation by type of economic activity
3.46. Patent Organizations: 2014
3.47. Share of organizations that have patented inventions in the total number of organizations that have carried out technological innovations, by type of economic activity: 2014
3.48. Availability of intellectual property objects in organizations: 2014
3.49. Patents for inventions in organizations carrying out technological innovations, by type of economic activity: 2014
3.50. The proportion of organizations that rated individual sources of information for technological innovation as the main ones, in the total number of organizations
3.51. The proportion of organizations that rated certain methods of protecting scientific and technical developments as the main ones, in the total number of organizations that carried out technological innovations
3.52. The proportion of organizations that rated certain factors hindering technological innovation as the main ones, in the total number of organizations

4. Marketing innovation

4.1. Share of organizations engaged in marketing innovations in the total number of organizations by type of economic activity
4.2. Cooperation in the development of marketing innovations: 2014
4.3. The volume of goods, works, services produced using marketing innovations, by type of economic activity
4.4. Marketing innovation costs by economic activity
4.5. Share of organizations that have carried out certain types of marketing changes, in the total number of organizations that have had ready-made marketing innovations over the past three years, by type of innovation and economic activity: 2014

5. Organizational innovation

5.1. Share of organizations that carried out organizational innovations in the total number of organizations by type of economic activity
5.2. Cooperation in the development of organizational innovations: 2014
5.3. Organizational innovation costs by economic activity
5.4. Share of organizations that have carried out certain types of organizational changes in the total number of organizations that have had ready-made organizational innovations over the past three years, by type of innovation and economic activity: 2014

6. Innovative activity in the regions of the Russian Federation

6.1. Organizations that carried out technological, marketing, organizational innovations
6.2. The share of organizations that carried out certain types of innovative activities, in the total number of organizations that carried out technological innovations: 2014
6.3. The volume of innovative goods, works, services
6.4. Participation of organizations in joint research and development projects
6.5. Cost of technological innovation
6.6. Distribution of costs for technological innovation by type of innovation activity: 2014

7. Environmental innovation

7.1. Share of organizations that have implemented environmental innovations in the total number of organizations with ready-made innovations in the last three years: 2014
7.2. The share of organizations that carried out innovations to improve environmental
safety in the production process of goods, works, services, in the total number of organizations that carried out environmental innovations: 2014
7.3. The share of organizations that carried out innovations that ensure an increase in environmental safety as a result of the consumer's use of innovative goods, works, services, in the total number of organizations that carried out environmental innovations: 2014
7.4. Distribution of organizations carrying out environmental innovations by goals and types of economic activity: 2014
7.5. Share of organizations using the environmental pollution control system in the total number of organizations: 2014
7.6. Special costs associated with environmental innovation: 2014

8. International comparisons

8.1. The aggregate level of innovative activity of organizations
8.2. Share of organizations implementing technological innovations in the total number of organizations
8.3. Share of organizations implementing technological innovations in the total number of organizations by countries outside the European Union: 2014
8.4. Share of organizations engaged in marketing innovations in the total number of organizations: 2014
8.5. Share of organizations implementing organizational innovations in the total number of organizations: 2014
8.6. Key indicators of innovation activity in the CIS countries: 2014
8.7. Share of organizations that received funding from the budget, in the total number of organizations that carried out technological innovations
8.8. Technological innovation cost intensity
8.9. The share of innovative goods, works, services in the total volume of goods shipped, works performed, services
8.10. Share of organizations participating in joint research and development projects in the total number of organizations implementing technological innovations
8.11. Share of organizations participating in joint research and development projects, in the total number of organizations carrying out technological innovations, by partner countries
8.12. Share of organizations that rated individual sources of information as the main ones in the total number of organizations that carried out technological innovations: 2014

Methodological comments

• Pavlycheva Alena Vladislavovna,
• Volga State University of Service

• INNOVATION
• INNOVATIVE FIRMS
• INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY

The article discusses the nature of innovation activities of Russian firms. Examples of the functions of innovative firms are given, and the innovative activity of companies by industry is considered. It is concluded that the cost of organizational, managerial and technological innovation, personnel development, change management has a positive effect on the competitiveness of enterprises.

• Increasing the innovative activity of young professionals
• Research of problems and analysis of new possibilities of logistics of the Republic of Crimea
• Innovative methods of intangible incentives: gamification

The topic of enhancing the innovative activity of Russian enterprises in recent years has become more and more relevant. This is a reflection of the growing understanding of society that the renewal of Russia, all spheres of its life is impossible without innovations in production, management, and finance. It is innovations that lead to a renewal of the market, an improvement in the quality and expansion of the range of goods and services, the creation of new methods of production, sales of products, and an increase in management efficiency.

In the literature, innovation is understood as "an innovation in the field of technology, technology, labor organization or management, based on the use of scientific advances and best practices, providing a qualitative increase in the efficiency of the production system or product quality."

Innovation is the result of investing in the development of obtaining new knowledge, an innovative idea for updating the spheres of people's lives and the subsequent process of introducing production, with a fixed receipt of additional value.

If innovation leads to increased productivity, then it is the basis for increasing profitability in the economy.

Innovation is carried out in various fields: in engineering, in technology, in organizational matters and in management areas. In this regard, innovations are of the following types:

• Technological... Technological innovation is the end result of innovation, embodied in the form of a new or improved product or service introduced on the market, a new or improved process or method of production (transfer) of services used in practice.
• Organizational and managerial... Changes in the company's management system to achieve the goals of its functioning and development, i.e. changes in the company's management system in order to improve the efficiency of the company's functioning and competitiveness.
• Economic... This innovation is associated with improvements in the payment, financial, accounting areas.
• Marketing... Marketing innovation is the introduction of ways and methods that improve the result and efficiency of an organization, as well as a process that includes new ideas, products, services for successful promotion and competition in the market.
• Social... Innovations in the social management of the company, contributing to the resolution of contradictions that arise in the conditions of heterogeneity of personnel and instability of the external environment.
• Environmental... Associated with new products, new technologies that ensure the interaction between economic development and environmental conservation.

In modern conditions of the formation of the "knowledge economy" innovative firms perform the following functions:

• Promote the development of innovative infrastructure: An example is such companies as JSC "SO UES" - Open Joint Stock Company "System Operator of the Unified Energy System" or JSC Russian Networks is a power grid company.
• Stimulates the creation of the latest technologies: For example, Yandex is a search engine and IT company that develops various services for Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Turkey and Ukraine. Yandex is one of the few companies included in the rating of the most innovative companies in the world. Or the state industrial corporation OJSC Rostec, created to promote the development, production and export of high-tech industrial products.
• Consumers of new products: An example is companies like Lukoil, a Russian oil company.

These companies operate steadily on the Russian market, serving as an example of innovative activity for other firms.

According to statistics, the share of innovative products in the Russian Federation in the total output is still only 8-9%. In 2005-2010 the share of organizations implementing technological innovations remained at the level of 9.3–9.4%, and the share of innovative products in the total output did not exceed 4.6–5.5%, and there were no prerequisites for the growth of these indicators.

The innovative activity of enterprises differs depending on the region of their activity (table 1)

Table 1. Regions - leaders in the share of innovative firms in 2013.

The eastern part of Russia is in the lead, due to the innovative firms of the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug and Magadan Oblast.

It should be noted the classification of high-tech industries, which is adopted The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The following groups of industries are leading in terms of innovation in the sectoral structure of the economy:

• Chemical-pharmaceutical
• Radioelectronic
• Office equipment and computers
• Aerospace
• Medical technology and optoelectronic technology

Table 2 shows the amount of funding for these sectors by region.

Table 2. Funding in High-tech industries in Russia

		R&D expenditures, billion rubles
Pharmaceutical products (16%)	Moscow region, Republic of Bashkortostan, Kursk region, Tomsk region
Electronic components, equipment for radio, television and communications (22%)	Kaluga region, St. Petersburg, Kaliningrad region, Udmurtia and Moscow region
Office equipment and computers (3%)	St. Petersburg, Moscow region and the Republic of Bashkortostan
Aircraft, including spacecrafts (35%)	Republic of Bashkortostan, Republic of Tatarstan, Rostov Region, Khabarovsk Territory, Moscow Region
Medical devices, measuring instruments, optical instruments, cinema equipment, watches (24%)	Moscow region, St. Petersburg, Sverdlovsk and Ryazan regions

Thus, high innovation potential and funding are concentrated in three regions: the Moscow region, the Tomsk region and the Leningrad region (Saint Petersburg).

The competitiveness of innovative companies in Russia depends on a combination of internal and external factors. These factors are:

• The presence of a large consumer
• Market innovation with new products
• R&D investment and technological innovation costs
• Availability of patents, brands
• Partnership (government; research institutes (SRI); universities, etc.)

Increasing competitiveness is the goal of firms' innovation, but few firms are pursuing the goal. At the same time, companies from knowledge-intensive and high-tech sectors of the economy have an advantage. For the overwhelming majority of Russian companies, investments in research and development projects are unprofitable, while, on average, only 20% of Russian enterprises view the introduction of innovations as strengthening their own competitive advantages.

Figure 1 shows the sectoral structure of innovatively active enterprises in 2013.

Firms of mechanical engineering, instrument-making and electrical engineering are highly competitive, and the food industry has the lowest competitiveness indicator in Russia.

Thus, innovation is the basis for increasing the competitiveness of individual enterprises and the economy as a whole. Innovation is carried out in various fields: in engineering, in technology and organizational and management issues. According to statistics, the share of innovative products and innovatively active enterprises in the Russian Federation is extremely small, significantly lower than in developed countries.

The share of innovatively active enterprises varies significantly across regions, decreasing from the center to the periphery.

The innovative activity of Russian enterprises, which includes the costs of organizational, managerial and technological innovations, personnel development, change management, has a positive effect on their competitiveness, this is especially noticeable in science-intensive and high-tech industries.

Bibliography

1. Zemtsov S. P. Russian firms as subjects of innovative activity [Electronic resource]: scientific article / S. P. Zemtsov. - Gaidar Forum, 2015. - Access mode: http://www.iep.ru/files/Gaidarovskij_Forum2015/zemtsov-16.01.15.pdf
2. Zemtsov, SP Assessment of the rate of diffusion of innovations and innovativeness of regions of Russia [Electronic resource]: scientific article / SP Zemtsov. - XV April International Scientific Conference "Modernization of Economy and Society", 2014. - Access mode: https://istina.msu.ru/media/conferences/conferencepresentation/899/c67/9308035/Zemtsov_S.P._Innovativnost_prezentatsiya.pdf
3. Ivanov D.S., Kuzyk M.G., Simachev Yu.V. Stimulating the innovation activity of Russian manufacturing companies: new opportunities and limitations [Electronic resource] // Foresight. 2012, no. 6, p. 18-41. Access mode https://publications.hse.ru/articles/70282849
4. Korneeva E.N. Management of changes in modern conditions [Text] // Bulletin of the Volga State University of Service. Series: Economics. 2014. No. 6 (38). S. 117-120.
5. Korneeva, E.N. We create it ourselves, we promote it ourselves. Creation of small innovative firms based on economic universities [Text] // Creative Economy. 2010. No. 6. S. 86-90.
6. Korchagin P., Korneeva E., Nikitina N. Factors that influence the effectiveness of Russian telecommunication companies // Economics & Sociology. 2015.Vol. 8.No. 3.P. 119-130.
7. Kraineva R.K. Modern approaches to the management of organizations in the knowledge economy [Text] // Bulletin of the Volga State University of Service. Series: Economics. 2013. No. 1 (27). S. 122-126.

The essence of innovation and innovation. Classification of innovations

The term "innovation" began to be actively used in the transitional economy of the Republic of Belarus both independently and to denote a number of related concepts: "innovation activity", "innovation process", "innovative solution", etc. The English word innovation (innovation) is translated into Russian as an innovation. An innovation is a new method, a new order, a new phenomenon, an invention, a discovery. From the moment it is accepted for distribution, an innovation acquires a new quality - it becomes an innovation or an innovation.

Innovation refers to the use of innovation in the form of new technologies, types of products and services, as well as in management activities in order to address social issues and ensure profit. Sometimes innovation is seen as a process. This concept recognizes that innovation develops over time and has distinct stages.

In accordance with international standards, innovation is defined as the end result of innovation, embodied in the form of a new or improved product introduced on the market, a new or improved technological process used in practice, or in a new approach to social services. Innovation can be viewed both dynamically and statically. In the latter case, innovation is presented as the end result of the research and production cycle.

The terms "innovation" and "innovation process" are close, but not unambiguous. The innovation process is associated with the creation, development and diffusion of innovations.

The creators of innovations (innovators) are guided by criteria such as product life cycle and economic efficiency. Their strategy aims to outperform the competition by creating an innovation that is recognized as unique in a specific area.

Scientific and technical developments and innovations act as an intermediate result of the scientific and production cycle and, as they are practically applied, they turn into scientific and technical innovations - the final result. Scientific and technical developments and inventions are the application of new knowledge for the purpose of its practical application, and scientific and technical innovations are the materialization of new ideas and knowledge, discoveries, inventions and scientific and technical developments in the production process with the aim of their commercial implementation to meet certain consumer needs. ... The indispensable properties of innovation are scientific and technical novelty and industrial applicability. Commercial feasibility in relation to innovation is a potential property that requires some effort to achieve. It follows from the foregoing that innovation, as a result, should be considered inseparably with the innovation process. Innovation is inherent: scientific and technical novelty, industrial applicability, commercial feasibility. The commercial aspect defines innovation as an economic necessity, realized through the needs of the market.

The innovation process can include the following areas:

Fundamental (theoretical) research;

Exploratory research;

Applied research;

Development work

Construction;

Industrial development of technology (engineering);

Industrial production;

The initial stage of the innovation process is fundamental research (theoretical) related to the concept of scientific activity.

Scientific work is research activity aimed at obtaining and processing new, original, evidence-based information and information. Any scientific work must have novelty, originality, evidence. The amount of new information and information decreases from the stage of fundamental research to the stage of industrial production.

According to statistical data in the Republic of Belarus in 2001, 21% was spent on fundamental research; applied research - 22%; for scientific and technical development-48%; for scientific and technical services - 9% of the total costs.

Innovation activities are activities aimed at using and commercializing the results of research and development to expand and update the range and improve the quality of products, improve their manufacturing technology with subsequent implementation and effective implementation on the market. Innovation activities include a range of scientific, technological, organizational, financial and commercial activities.

The innovation activity is based on scientific and technical activity, which is associated with the creation, development, dissemination and application of scientific and technical knowledge. This activity is carried out in scientific institutions, universities, as well as innovative enterprises.

The potential for innovation has tended to decline in recent years.

The innovation process consists in obtaining and commercializing inventions, new technologies, types of products and services, management decisions of production, financial and other types of intellectual activity. This concept can be viewed from various perspectives. So the innovation process is considered as the implementation of research, scientific and technical, innovation, production and marketing.

It can be viewed as the temporary stages in the life cycle of an innovation from the emergence of an idea to its distribution.

In addition, the innovation process can be thought of as the process of financing and investing in the development and distribution of a new type of product or service. Here he acts as an innovative project, as a special case of an investment project.

The innovation process includes the following main stages:

At the first stage, fundamental research is carried out in academic institutes, universities and industry specialized institutes and laboratories. Funding for fundamental research, as a rule, comes from the state budget.

At the second stage, applied research is carried out. They are carried out in all scientific institutions and can be financed from various sources. Since the end results of applied research are unpredictable, there is a possibility of getting a negative result. Therefore, it is from this stage for the investor that the possibility of losing the invested funds arises. In world practice, these investments are called risky (risky investments), and commercial organizations or funds operating in the innovation market are called venture investments.

At the third stage, experimental design and experimental developments are carried out both in specialized scientific laboratories and in experimental workshops of large firms. These works can be financed from various sources, including own funds of enterprises and organizations.

At the 4th stage, the process of commercialization of innovations takes place, that is, the life cycle of the product begins. This is the process of selling a product and making a profit, which includes the following sub-stages:

a) introduction is an entrepreneurial activity associated with the distribution of a product and its introduction to the market, requiring high costs and a significant period of time. At this stage, the volume of sales of a new product increases insignificantly, since it takes time to reconstruct or expand production, master a new technology, and organize sales of products. At the same time, the investor can incur losses, which are due to the still not significant production of goods and significant costs to stimulate their sale. Marketing costs are relatively low. Since the number of manufacturers of goods is limited and consumers are not ready to accept the innovation, their prices are quite high. Wealthy buyers buy them;

b) growth is the time during which there is an increase in production and sales of a new product. This stage is distinguished by a significant increase in the utilization of production capacities, a well-adjusted technology, and profit maximization. The cost of producing a unit of production and the cost of sales promotion are reduced as the volume of sales increases significantly. In order to strengthen the competitiveness of the enterprise, they implement various strategies: they increase the quality of a new product, give it additional properties, organize the release of modifications of the basic model, and also use various options for marketing policy;

c) a slowdown in growth is characterized by a slowdown in sales growth. This period, as a rule, is longer than the previous one. With a slowdown in growth rates, enterprises accumulate stocks of unsold goods, which intensifies the competition between firms.

d) the recession is characterized by a fall in the sale of goods, a sharp decrease in capacity utilization, and a curtailment of production.

The study of the duration of the life cycles of innovations is carried out according to the following algorithm:

The total duration of the cycles of innovative products of a given type (family) for the entire period of their existence is determined in order to establish a stable value of the cycle of a given type of technology or technology;

The distribution of the duration of life cycles and their stages relative to the central trend is determined, since this analysis allows us to make a forecast for future innovative projects;

The development of a strategy and tactics for the growth of production in accordance with the duration of the stages of the life cycles of innovations,

The distribution of the probabilities of the duration of the cycles of future samples of new equipment or technology, as well as the amount of required investments by stages of the life cycle.

Depending on the technological parameters, innovations are subdivided into product and process innovations.

Product innovations include the use of new materials, new semi-finished products and components; obtaining fundamentally new products. Process innovation means new methods of organizing production (new technologies). Process innovation can be associated with the creation of new organizational structures within the enterprise (firm).

According to the type of novelty for the market, innovations are divided into: new for the industry in the world; new to the industry in the country; new for the given enterprise (group of enterprises).

By place in the system (at the enterprise), one can distinguish:

Innovations at the entrance of the enterprise (changes in the selection and use of raw materials, materials, machinery and equipment, information, etc.);

Innovation at the exit of the enterprise (products, services, technologies, information, etc.);

Innovation of the system structure of the enterprise (management, production, technological).

Depending on the depth of the changes introduced, innovations are distinguished:

Basic;

Improving;

Private.

Taking into account the spheres of activity of the enterprise, innovations are distinguished: technological; production; economic; trading; social; in the field of management.

The current stage in the development of the world economy is determined by the acceleration of innovation. The most significant results have been achieved in information and communication technologies, biotechnology and nanotechnology (reorganization of atoms to create new molecular structures). So, for example, the volume of information in 2001 sent through one cable in one second exceeded the entire volume sent via the Internet in one month in 1997. Over the past century, the period from the moment the idea was born to the start of the operation of the technology based on it has decreased by more than 20 times. The time required to master the new technology has been reduced from 6 years to 2-3 months. Scientific discoveries and inventions covered not only technical, but all spheres of social life. The advances in genetics and molecular biology aimed at the sustainable development of humankind are particularly impressive.