Industry innovation. Innovative industry. Size of Russia's innovation sector

The development of innovations in Russia is a principled position of the country's leadership. This is one of the few ways to get out of the shadow of the raw-material model of the economy, reducing dependence on the price environment for natural resources. Without increasing the knowledge intensity of production, introducing more efficient management models, and producing unique products, the state will not be able to become one of the locomotives of the world economy.

A look into the future

In Russia, innovative technologies are developing progressively, but noticeably slower than the leaders of advanced development. Considering the importance of the issue, the government has initiated a medium-term development concept known as "Strategy 2020". In particular, it contains implementation scenarios innovative projects.

At the same time, the Russian Federation is closely cooperating with partners from abroad who have useful experience that allows them to introduce innovations in the Russian economy, science, ecology, and the manufacturing sector. In particular, the project of interaction with the European Union, known as Horizon 2020, stands out. Perhaps this is the largest such program with a budget of 80 billion euros.

Today's achievements

Every year, projects of various scales are implemented: from large ones (science cities, the Skolkovo innovation center, technology parks) to local ones (based on unique production facilities, research institutes, universities). Since the early 1990s, more than 1,000 innovative infrastructure facilities have been created throughout the country, including:

• 5 special technology-innovative economic zones;
• 16 testing laboratories, certification centers and other specialized facilities;
• 10 nanocenters;
• 200 business incubators;
• 29 centers of information and consulting infrastructure;
• 160 technology parks;
• 13 prototyping centers;
• 9 territorial innovation clusters;
• more than 50 engineering centers;
• 114 technology transfer facilities;
• 300 centers for collective use.

Innovations are being introduced in Russia that ensure the development of science, including the Advanced Research Foundation, 14 science cities, the Federal Agency scientific organizations, several national research centers, Russian fund scientific research. There is a system of development institutions, including VEB-innovations, Rosnano, Skolkovo, RVC and others.

Statistics

Innovation in Russia requires multibillion-dollar investments. In 2007-2014, 684 billion rubles were allocated for the development of infrastructure and advanced technologies:

• 92 billion rubles were invested from business development reserves;
• 281 billion rubles were allocated from projects for the capitalization of development institutions;
• almost 68 billion rubles were spent on the formation of the innovation infrastructure;
• from guarantee funds - more than 245 billion rubles.

Unfortunately, the efficiency of investments turned out to be low. Firstly, the state initiative was not sufficiently supported by large private business, thereby violating the important principle of public-private partnership. Secondly, few serious innovative projects have reached self-sufficiency.

Funding issues

In the context of the deteriorating macroeconomic situation and serious problems with the filling of the budget in 2014-2015, the identified problems of discrepancy between state support measures for innovation and their contribution to the economic development of the country lay the foundation for reducing or suspending project financing. Innovations in Russia are experiencing financial hunger, because many objects have a high level of dependence on state budgetary support.

In contrast to the situation in 2008-2009, Russia is currently in conditions that do not allow predicting a quick exit from the economic crisis and, accordingly, a quick restoration of budgetary opportunities to finance the innovation infrastructure created and planned to be created. According to the forecast of the Ministry of Economic Development, in 2015 the GDP will decrease by 3%, the World Bank predicts a reduction in GDP by 3.8%. The Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation in March 2015 amended the federal budget, according to which its revenues will be reduced by 16.8% compared to the original draft budget.

Business readiness for innovation

There is another important aspect that indicates the inefficiency of the state policy regarding innovation. Any innovative project must ultimately be profitable. There is a widespread point of view that structural changes in the economy require a "critical mass" of people interested in these changes.

A number of existing indicators assess the number and power of the social layer of innovators in the country at a fairly high level. For example, according to a study by the Martin Prosperity Institute, Russia ranks high in terms of the number of creative class: according to this indicator, the country ranked 13th among 82 countries included in the ranking of countries in the global creativity index.

At the same time, there are other estimates indicating that the "critical mass" of innovators as a sufficient number of physical and legal entities ready to develop innovative technologies has not been formed in Russia: the Russian economy is characterized by high level monopolization - 801 companies concentrate 30% of the country's GDP. At the same time, among small and medium-sized businesses, only 4.8% of enterprises implement technological innovations. About 90% of entrepreneurs said that they do not apply the latest or new technologies in their enterprise. The share of the self-employed population (entrepreneurs) in Russia in 2012 was 5.3%, while the average for 29 European countries was 11.2%. Thus, in Russia, the formation of a "critical mass" of people promoting innovation is proceeding at a slow pace.

Skolkovo

Skolkovo is the most famous innovation center in Russia. Presumably, by 2020 it will become a worthy competitor to the famous "Silicon Valley" in California (USA), a place of attraction for scientific, research centers, modern productions using nanotechnology. As planned, it should be an integral ecosystem capable of self-government and self-development.

Investments in the project should amount to 125 billion rubles, about half of the funds are expected to be attracted from private funds. In the future, 25,000 people will work and live here on an area of ​​2.5 million m 2 . The extent to which bold ideas are realized fully depends on the will of the state and innovative leaders who are ready to take the risk of investing significant funds in “futuropolis”, as Skolkovo is also called. The first buildings - "Hypercube" and "Pyramid" - have already been erected.

Conclusion

The reality is that innovation in Russia is being introduced too slowly. Inertia of thinking and fears to invest in bold, but not guaranteed profitable projects hinder the development of the country. Meanwhile, the government is aware of the need for modernization, and it is the innovation centers that can become beacons, magnets around which specific industries will be formed that produce innovative advanced products.

The most complete classification of innovations was developed by the famous Russian scientist A.I. Prigogine based on the following features:

• prevalence;
• place in the production process;
• continuity;
• expected market share coverage;
• degree of novelty and innovative potential.

Within each of the five groups, he proposed the following division:

In industry, it is customary to distinguish between two types of technological innovation - product and process.

Product innovation cover the introduction of technologically new or improved products.

• Technologically New Product (radical product innovation) is a product that technological characteristics which (functional features, design, additional operations, as well as the composition of the materials and components used) or the intended use are fundamentally new or differ significantly from similar characteristics and use of previously manufactured products. Such innovations can be based on fundamentally new technologies or on a combination of existing technologies in their new application (including the use of research and development results). An example of innovations of a radical type (fundamentally new) are microprocessors and video cassette recorders. The first portable cassette player, which combined the essential principles of tape recorders and miniature ear loudspeakers, was a type two innovation. In both cases, not a single finished product was previously produced.
• Technologically advanced product - this is an existing product, the quality or cost characteristics of which have been significantly improved through the use of more efficient components and materials, a partial change in one or a number of technical subsystems (for complex products).

Process innovation include the development and implementation of technologically new or significantly improved production methods, including product transfer methods. Innovations of this kind are based on the use of new production equipment, new methods of organizing production process or a combination of them, as well as on the use of the results of research and development. Such innovations are usually aimed at improving the efficiency of production or transfer of products already existing in the enterprise, but sometimes they are also intended for the production and supply of technologically new or improved products that cannot be produced or supplied using conventional production methods.

A service is considered a technological innovation if its characteristics or methods of use are either fundamentally new or significantly (qualitatively) improved technologically. The use of significantly improved methods for the production or transmission of services is also a technological innovation. The latter covers changes in equipment or production organization associated with the production or transfer of new or radically improved services that cannot be produced or transferred using existing production methods, or with an increase in the efficiency of production or transfer of existing services. The following changes are not technological innovations unless they directly relate to the introduction of new or significantly improved services or the way they are produced (transferred):

• organizational and managerial changes, including the transition to advanced management methods, the introduction of significantly changed organizational structures, the implementation of new or significantly changed directions in economic strategy enterprises;
• implementation of quality standards, such as ISO 9000.

Besides, place in the system(at the enterprise, in the firm) can be distinguished:

• innovations at the entrance of the enterprise (changes in the choice and use of raw materials, materials, machinery and equipment, information, etc.);
• innovations at the output of the enterprise (products, services, technologies, information, etc.);
• innovations of the system structure of the enterprise (management, production, technology).

Depending on the depth of changes distinguish innovations:

• radical (basic);
• improving;
• modification (private).

In the modern world, innovation is a natural and indispensable process for the existence of industry. On fig. 1 shows the distribution of innovation processes by industry. The diagram shows that 10.40% of all innovative projects are directed to industrial technologies. This suggests that industrial technologies are developing well in the field of innovation.

Rice. one. Distribution of innovative projects by industry.

The conditions lining up in the market indicate that the further development of the state and the economy cannot do without an innovative development path. Innovation activity industrial enterprise is aimed, first of all, at increasing the competitiveness of products manufactured at the enterprise. Manufacturers become interested in innovation if they are confident that the innovation will improve products, increase their competitiveness and thereby get more profit from innovations introduced into industrial production.

Today, state industrial policy should strive to propel Russia to the top among the world's innovative leaders, including in the technological and scientific fields.

In the future, innovation and industrial policies should not be directed at isolated enterprises, but at promoting them in the organization.

For this, you need:

• Strengthening the motivation to unite and create unified networks, to a clear legal regulation of the movement of intellectual property.
• Getting rid of administrative boundaries in the development of motivation for the integration of the industrial sector and the public sector of research and development.

Innovative industry as it really is

The ultimate goal of innovative programs is to increase the competitiveness of business services and products of an industrial enterprise. This means that the development of industry is accompanied by an improvement in its technological level, an increase in economic efficiency and an increase in employment. The state in the future can receive an economic benefit from the development of industry.

Increasing the competitiveness of industrial production directly depends on the strengthening of innovative processes. Innovation processes include the introduction of high technologies into production (including processes that are aimed at saving resources and expanding the production of innovative products that have the best consumer properties and can compete not only in the domestic but also in the foreign market).

For the innovative development of the Russian economy, it is necessary to create a regulatory and legal framework that will contribute to the effective development of additional motivations for attracting investment in production technologies.

Conclusion

Every day the competition is getting tougher, so the role of innovation is growing. Innovative activity ensures the competitiveness of industrial enterprises. Thanks to the development of new science-intensive technologies, products and services, the volume of production, investment, external turnover and employment is increasing.

Related articles:

Call us by phone and you will receive a detailed free consultation on innovative industry and you can also ask us your other questions!

7 reasons to partner with

The essence of innovation and innovation. Classification of innovations

The term "innovation" has become actively used in the transitional economy of the Republic of Belarus, both independently and to refer to a number of related concepts: "innovative activity", "innovative process", "innovative solution", etc. The English word innovation (innovation) is translated into Russian language as an innovation. Innovation is a new way new order, new phenomenon, invention, discovery. From the moment it is accepted for dissemination, 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, products and services, as well as in management activities in order to address social issues and ensure profits. 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 an innovative activity, embodied in the form of a new or improved product, introduced to the market, new or improved technological process used in practice, or in a new approach to social services. Innovation can be considered 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 dissemination of innovations.

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

Scientific and technical developments and innovations act as an intermediate result of the scientific and production cycle and, as practical application turn into scientific and technical innovations - the end 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 . Indispensable properties of innovation are scientific and technical novelty and industrial applicability. Commercial feasibility in relation to innovation acts as a potential property, which requires certain efforts to achieve. It follows from the above that innovation, as a result, should be considered inseparably from the innovation process. Innovations are 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 may include the following areas:

Fundamental (theoretical) research;

Exploratory research;

applied research;

Development work

Construction;

Industrial development of technology (technology);

industrial production;

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

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

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

Innovative activity is an activity aimed at using and commercializing the results of scientific 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. Innovative activity includes a complex of scientific, technological, organizational, financial and commercial activities.

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 activity has tended to decrease in recent years.

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

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

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 it acts as an innovative project, as a special case of an investment project.

The innovation process includes the following main stages:

At the 1st stage, fundamental research is carried out in academic institutions, universities and branch specialized institutes and laboratories. Financing of fundamental research, as a rule, is carried out at the expense of the state budget.

At the 2nd stage, applied research is carried out. They are carried out in all scientific institutions and can be financed from various sources. Due to the fact that final results applied research are unpredictable, there is a possibility of obtaining a negative result. Therefore, for the investor, it is from this stage that the possibility of losing the invested funds arises. In world practice, these investments are called risky (risk investments), and commercial organizations or funds operating in the innovation market are called venture funds.

At the 3rd stage, development and experimental developments are carried out both in specialized scientific laboratories and in the experimental workshops of large firms. These works can be financed from various sources, including the own funds of enterprises and organizations.

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

a) introductions are entrepreneurial activity associated with the distribution of goods and bringing it to the market, requiring high costs and a significant period of time. At this stage, the volume of sales of a new product increases slightly, since it takes time to reconstruct or expand production, develop new technology, sales organization. At the same time, the investor may incur losses due to the still insignificant release of goods and significant costs to stimulate its sale. The cost of bringing a product to market is relatively low. Since the number of producers of goods is limited and consumers are not ready to accept the innovation, their prices are quite high. They are purchased by wealthy buyers;

b) growth - this is the time during which there is an increase in the production and sales of a new product. This stage is characterized by a significant increase in load production capacity, well-established technology, profit maximization. The cost per unit of output and the cost of sales promotion are reduced as the volume of sales increases significantly. In order to strengthen the competitiveness of enterprises, they implement various strategies: they improve the quality of a new product, give it additional properties, organize the release of modifications of the basic sample, and also use various marketing policy options;

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

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

Duration study life cycles innovation is carried out according to following algorithm:

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

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,

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

Depending on the technological parameters, innovations are divided 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 innovations 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 to the industry in the world; new to the industry in the country; new for this enterprise (group of enterprises).

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

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

Innovations at the output of the enterprise (products, services, technologies, information, etc.);

Innovations of the system structure of the enterprise (management, production, technology).

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

Basic;

improving;

Private.

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

The current stage of 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 (the reorganization of atoms to create new molecular structures). For example, the amount of information in 2001 sent over one cable in one second exceeded the entire amount sent over the Internet in one month in 1997. Over the past century, the period of time from the moment an idea was born to the start of operation of the technology based on it decreased by more than 20 times. The time required to master a new technology has been reduced from 6 years to 2-3 months. Scientific discoveries and inventions covered not only technical, but also all spheres of society. Particularly impressive are the achievements in genetics and molecular biology aimed at the sustainable development of mankind.

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

A few years ago, the “heroic” period of the transition of Russian industry to functioning under relatively market conditions ended. All (surviving) enterprises and firms began to use elements of marketing, mastered (often very creatively) techniques of financial management, learned new approaches to personnel as a human resource. The goblin of the last wave of mass development 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 the methods of production and management, and the products themselves (goods and services). This article is devoted to the problem of creating, disseminating and implementing innovations in products and processes. The authors believe that it is the speed and characteristics of the innovation 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 on the world stage.

Introduction

The study of innovation processes is associated with significant difficulties, in particular, with the inaccuracy and inconsistency of the definitions of innovation in relation to various areas activities of enterprises. Accordingly, the object of study itself disappears or camouflages. Another difficulty in the study is the difficulty of observing innovations. 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 identified by quality control authorities. As for the actual managerial innovations, there are no systematic statistics on them at all. Finally, the third difficulty in learning is the lack of

* The work was supported by scientific grants from the State University- high school economy.

the existence of proven reliable models of relationships between various forms and parties of both the innovation process as a whole and certain types innovation.

We set ourselves the following tasks:

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

define available methods the prevalence of certain types of innovations in the main branches of Russian industry;

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

Theoretical prerequisites for the study of innovative processes in industry

Types of innovation in the company's activities

According to the most general definition, innovation is a change in the established order of things. In relation to the activities of any company, innovations can be divided primarily into product innovations (changes in what is done and offered to consumers) and process innovations (changes in how it is done).

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

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

management technologies - changes in the forms of work 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 divided into two subclasses - intra-firm and inter-firm. Intrafirm organizational innovations (call them OI 1 for short) are associated with the creation of

I. B. Gurkov, B. C. Tubalov

new forms of differentiation, integration and control of work within departments or between departments, but within the firm. Interfirm innovation (let's call it BI 2) changes relationships between firms, both within value chains (relationships between suppliers and customers, contractors and contractors) 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 the company allows us to formulate five main classes of innovations: product; technical; management technologies; organizational intracompany (OI 1); organizational intercompany (OI 2).

Let us now consider the typology of innovations in other planes.

Depending on the degree of connection, we can distinguish:

parallel (or independent) innovations - each innovation is designed to solve a clearly defined task, not being an integral part of a system of new forms of activity;

sequential innovations - activities that are a logical continuation of the work already done, but, despite the name, such innovations can be implemented simultaneously;

"Synergistic" (mutually reinforcing) innovations - a set of innovative measures that allows you to achieve the effect of the joint implementation of more than the implementation of any one measure.

For the latter type of innovation, the opposite cases are also possible: the joint introduction of a certain set of new practices may not only not give any result, but also worsen current position affairs in the enterprise.

According to the nature of the impact, managerial 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 does not meet the efficiency criterion specified at a certain point in time;

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

Novelty of innovation and the problem of diffusion

Innovation is the introduction of something new. Nevertheless, according to the level of novelty, innovations can be divided into:

absolutely new - invention, discovery;

new to 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 not previously used in the industry;

new to the production and marketing network, which includes several firms, for example, supplier ^ intermediary ^ manufacturer;

new to the corporation (systems of firms connected by common systems of ownership and (or) control);

new to the firm.

It is highly significant that, if an innovation is not “absolutely new” or (which in most cases is the same) unique in-house 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, cannot always say with certainty whether he himself invented it or borrowed it somewhere. In practice, there are many such situations. It is not uncommon to observe how a company, sometimes even consciously, “reinvents the wheel” anew. The problem lies in the difficulty of clearly formalizing the source of information (ideas), its availability and its carrier, i.e., 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 social phenomenon nevertheless, it 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 considered innovation as a special type of entrepreneurship, and in many respects the entrepreneur himself, subsequently leaving in theory only the production side - innovation as new way combinations of elements of the production process. The study of the actual diffusion of innovation by sociologists also received an applied character from the very beginning. The first work devoted to the diffusion of innovations was the work of the French sociologist G. Tar-da, who in 1903 empirically established the S-shaped nature of the "diffusion of innovation" curve. After another 40 years, sociologists B. Ryan and N. Gross, investigating the distribution of breeding seeds in the practice of farmers in pcs. Iowa, got a similar result by splitting many individual sections of the curve into groups: innovators, early adopters, early majority, and laggards (laggards). All further development of the problem, one way or another, represented the technological aspect of innovation.

The turning point was the 1960s. The development of research tools - participatory and deep-immersion studies, actively used before, but mainly by anthropologists and sociologists, case study - has determined the fashionable direction of studying enterprises from all sides, without leaving aside the problem of innovation. It was at this time that researchers manage to fix the social aspect of innovation1.

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

1 For an example, see: .

I.B. Gurkov, B.C. Tubalov

understanding of the problem was the result of almost twenty years of work of the scientist (1960-1980s). All subsequent definitions are essentially and in spirit a modified formulation of Rogers's definition. This is explained by a marked shift in research directions and priorities. In the 1960s, the mathematization of accumulated knowledge in the field of diffusion of innovations 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 diffusion curve of innovation, did exist. An example of this is the Bas model - determining the time of the 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 innovations remained in the background, being part of the Knowledge Management and Organizational Theory paradigms. At the same time, the development of management in general and the growing interest in the social aspects of management, including the impact of organizational innovation on competitive advantage and economic indicators companies, aroused the interest of researchers in formalizing the process of adapting the organizational knowledge of the company and the directions of managerial innovations of successful firms in the form of a model of diffusion of managerial innovations2.

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 company's competencies. As you can see, the development of production and management technologies is similar in many respects; Management technologies are a kind of factor in expanding the company's capabilities and thus serve as a kind of superstructure in the overall system of the company's technological development.

Factors or mechanisms for accelerating the transfer of management technologies, as a rule, are:

changes in the economic environment and competitive situation; conscious change in the strategic positioning of the company; inclusion of the firm in new value chains with new standards; incorporating the firm into new ownership systems; achievement of "standardization" of innovation;

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

The meaning of the transfer of organizational innovations largely depends on whether the innovation is intra-firm or whether it is aimed at solving inter-organizational problems, for example, innovation at the corporate level.

2 See, for example: .

Innovations in the 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 the organizational economy, where all the 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 identified by us above in the company's activities is quite unambiguous. Indeed, in pursuit of rent from new products, product innovations are developed and implemented.

Opening market opportunities are realized on the basis of technological innovations, but already in the medium term. Research budgets of firms and commissioned research are concentrated in those areas where technology can provide the creation of new classes of goods and services. Thus, product innovations largely provoke technological ones, although this ratio is not unambiguous in all cases.

The appropriation and sale of large amounts of profit 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 forms of marketing or personnel management. So, here the connection is almost unambiguous.

The need for organizational innovations of the first kind, as a rule, arises as a result of a change in the nomenclature of production, a change in technology, i.e., as a result of the introduction of product and technological innovations. From here, the meaning of the absorption of such innovations becomes clear: this is, first of all, an increase in the intensity of value-added production.

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

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

change in the intensity of technological and product innovations is the basis for increasing the intensity of managerial innovations;

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

innovations in managerial technologies provoke organizational innovations of the first kind (OR 1);

the volume of OR 1 leads to an increase in the probability of organizational innovation of the second kind (OR 2);

Increasing the intensity of OR 2 increases the available funds for product innovation (PI), technology innovation (TI), and management technology innovation (MT).

I. B. Gurkov, B. C. Tubalov

Innovation and institutional context

The hypotheses formulated above are based on the premise of a conscious and free choice by the firm of the directions of innovative activity. In the real world of business, this premise rarely holds. Indeed, in addition to voluntary innovations, a significant part of innovations is forced, produced "under pressure". This is especially true for managerial innovations.

Pressure may come from owners who consciously standardize management processes in controlled enterprises. Pressure can be exerted by economic partners demanding congruent procedures and practices. Pressure may 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 of the authenticity of the innovation itself immediately arises. It is quite probable (and obvious in the practice of Russian business) cases when certain forms of managerial activity are introduced for the sake of appearances, are mimicry in nature: "Let's do it so that they get rid of it." A striking example that has already set the teeth on edge is the development Russian companies quality standards (ISO) - "obtaining a pass to the world of civilized manufacturers."

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

Innovative practices of Russian industrial enterprises

Empirical basis for observing innovative practices

The data of a survey of the directors' corps of industrial enterprises, conducted at the end of 2002, made it possible 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 such enterprises in the domestic industry3.

3 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 the Russian industry...

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

Assuming that product and technical innovations are primary in relation to managerial 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 can be seen from Table. 1, the development of new production and technologies is an integral part of the development of an industrial enterprise and is of a massive nature. In general, more than 70% of all enterprises master both the production of new goods and the introduction of new technologies. Moreover, at 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 test the impact of product and technological innovations on managerial innovations.

Innovative activity is obviously expensive and even with a high-quality pre-project analysis it is always risky. At the same time, the economic situation of most enterprises of 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 probability of unsuccessful innovation remains, but the risk of wasting resources decreases.

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

The leading positions in the field of technology borrowing are occupied by the extractive industry and energy. With regard to innovation in the field of production new products, then the share own developments and borrowing is almost the same for all industries (Fig. 2).

The main sources of innovative ideas, both in the field of new technology and in the development of new products and forms of marketing, 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 own 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 also 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, i.e. the tool, but

I.B. Gurkov, V.S. Tubalov

Table 1 General 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 new sphere activities Mastering new technologies (processes) for the company Mastering new methods of quality control (ISO 9 000 - 14 000)

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

Significantly 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 interconnections between innovative processes. Thus, in the future, it is necessary to take into account not the advantages and disadvantages of diffusion as such, but try to evaluate the quality of the innovations used, 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 the Russian industry..

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

goods and forms of marketing

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 license for production 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 development of new products and forms of marketing, %

Development Source

of goods and forms of marketing 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 level of intensity of use, %

1 Eden in the development of new technology Eden in the development of new products and forms of marketing

imitated developed independently imitated developed independently

Product innovation

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

to some extent 56.4 49.8 51.7 51.5

(activities largely 26.7 31.3 26.7 33.3

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

to some extent 48*2 46.3 45.0 49*4

largely 14.4 23.4 21.0 20.8

Thymol Industrial Innovations

Mastering a new technology (processes) for the company to a minimum extent 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 methods of quality control (ISO 9000-14000) to a minimum extent 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

Minimal adoption of Western accounting standards 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

Development computer systems management accounting minimally 23.6 22.4 22.8 22.9

to some extent 4J.2 44.6 46.3 42*9

largely 31.3 32.9 30.9 _ 34.2 _

Minimal adoption of new project financing methods 44.8 39*4 41.7 39.9

to some extent 42.8 44.7 45.3 43.3

largely 12.4 15.9 13.0 16.8

Isisteoyunme noyl 4yurm and sources of recruitment to a minimum extent 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 assessment (certification) of personnel to a minimum extent 53.3 45.3 44.9 50.0

to some extent 40.0 42*6 43.4 40*4

largely 6.7 12.1 L*7 9.6

Implementation of new payment schemes and minimum bonuses for employees 37.9 28.7 35.5 26*9

to some extent 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 subdivisions (branches) to a minimum extent 35.1 31.0 32.9 3U

to some extent 45.0 44.2 45*7 43.2

largely 19, I 24.8 21*4 25.5

Spin-off of subsidiaries to a minimum extent 47.9 37.4 _ 39.5

to some extent 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

to some extent 27.3 40.0 30.6 43.8

largely 31.8 22.7 22.4 27.1

Organizational innovation of the 2nd kind (OH 2)

Acquisition of new Russian economic partners to a minimum extent 38.8 23.6 31.1 24.8

to some extent 46.8 55.5 50.5 55*6

largely 14*4 20.9 f 8*5 19.6

Acquisition of new foreign business partners to a minimum extent 43.6 44.8 37.6 50.2

to some extent 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 a certain degree. _ 5.,. _ 48.6 47.5 50.9

largely 8.4 and.9 13*4 11.5

Innovations in the Russian industry...

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

high costs and low quality - rating "bad";

average quality at average unit costs - "medium" 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. Only those enterprises lose, the share of imitation of which in the development of new products reaches 60% or more, since in our case it was possible to establish a statistically significant difference only according to the assessment of the “poor” control parameter, corresponding to the share of own 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. In enterprises with a greater intensity of innovation, the parameter of competitiveness is higher. Whether this is an indicator of the quality of innovative activity of a single enterprise remains a big question, but it indicates a low elasticity of competitiveness. In other words, it is possible to achieve a slight increase in competitiveness only as a result of a significant increase in the innovative activity of the enterprise. The latter, in turn, is possible with an increase in the share of financing of 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 innovation activity on the competitiveness parameter, taking into account time lags. However, we can try to determine the relationship between the existing ratio of "development-imitation" on the dynamics of changes in the economic situation of the company, in a sense, understand its potential for increasing the innovation budget in the future.

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

Another confirmation of the significance of the influence of a 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 situation and overcome the threat of bankruptcy. For comparison, we also used data on steadily developing enterprises and “failed enterprises” (Table 8).

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

I.B. Gurkov, B.C. Tubalov

Table 5 Share of own developments in the field of innovation production by competitiveness parameter, %

Parameter “quality minus costs” Share of in-house developments in the field of new technologies Share of in-house developments in the development of new products and forms of marketing

Bad 66.7 41.3

Medium 70.5 46.9

Good 70.2 58.3

Significance of differences, % 18.2 98.4

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

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

Poor 2.15 1.86 5.84 1.56 3.19

Medium 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 between the enterprise policy regarding the diffusion of innovation processes and the dynamics of changes in the economic enterprise regulations, %

Dynamics of changes in the economic situation

became became became became

significantly somewhat unchanged somewhat significantly

worse worse better better

Ideas to master 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 to master 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 innovation ideas on overcoming crisis situations, %

Crisis at the time of the survey Overcome the crisis state Consistently 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 products and forms of marketing imitation 53.3 61.7 53.8

own development 46.7 38.3 46.2

Innovations in the Russian industry...

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

Relationships between different types of innovation

The connection between innovations in production technology and directly innovations in production itself is very high and quite obvious. At the same time, a new way of production and new technologies require a 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 managerial innovations, as we know, is sometimes facilitated by a 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 innovative activities, etc.

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

Enterprises that made a breakthrough in the economic situation primarily relied on 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) thanks to the implementation of innovations in management technologies. In addition, the relationship between technological innovations and interorganizational innovations shows that the change of technologies and the change of economic partners are extremely interconnected (changes in these areas occurred simultaneously 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 (simultaneous 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 examined were derived from a fairly small subclass of enterprises that showed a sharp improvement in their economic situation. Such a situation is not typical and, as we have already noted, has the right to exist only at certain stages of the development of the enterprise. Thus, a detailed analysis of the situation requires consideration of the general (characteristic of the majority) scheme of relationships.

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

The analysis carried out showed that the pliability of external relations in general in the Russian industry is higher than the pliability

I.B. Gurkov, V.S. Tubalov

Rice. 3 Model of the relationship between production and technological

and managerial innovations of anti-crisis enterprises

intraorganizational routines. This may indicate both a high inertia of intra-organizational relations, and a rather high dynamism external environment. Firms do not hold on to their economic partners. With a more thoughtful analysis, however, the high assessment of the dynamism of the external environment should be changed to a diametrically opposite one. Any major 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 to make significant changes in technology, while 36% of firms changed their assortment significantly in the last period.

Institutional Pressure: Incentives and Barriers to Enterprise Innovation

We said that the institutional environment can seriously influence innovation development. We were able to empirically test this statement (Table 9).

Innovations in the Russian industry...

Rice. 4 Model of the relationship between production and technological and

managerial innovations (all enterprises)

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

PI TI UT OI 1 OI 2

Impact of government 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**

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

Presence of the state as a major owner -0.053 -0.040 0.009 -0.049 -0.088**

Presence of foreign individuals or legal entities as a major owner 0.021 0.163** 0.172** 0.062* 0.073*

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, V.S. 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 with respect to innovation processes. The participation of the state in the composition of the owners of the enterprise generally nullifies interorganizational innovations. This gap can be filled by economic programs of local authorities that restore local value chains and promote the development of the industrial base and the absorption of new technologies.

The influence of competition brings us closer to world practice. The growth of competition leads to the intensity of product innovations 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.

Preservation of significant stakes in the hands of employees of the enterprise does not affect the intensity of innovation. 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 relationships. The generally accepted explanation is the recognition 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 are talking about pressure on the enterprise, we were able to identify the influence of external owners in a different way - through determining the relationship between innovative 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 vision for action is a stimulus 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 is manifested not only in the sphere of products and economic relations, but also, more dangerously, in the sphere of technological development. It is likely that the rigidity of external relations hinders 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 slowing down of the decision-making necessary to launch innovations.

Results of testing the formulated hypotheses

The formed system of hypotheses found partial confirmation. In most cases, changes in the intensity of technological and product

Innovations in the Russian industry...

Table 10 The impact 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 activities 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

Firm - component large economic structure that determines development prospects 2.94 3.18 8.25 1.91 4.14

The firm is an integral part of the economic structure that determines the long-term 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 indeed 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).

Increasing 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 probability of organizational innovations of the second kind (hypotheses 2 and 4).

The disconnection at the level of OR 1 - OR 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 innovative processes in the Russian industry

The picture we have drawn of innovation processes in Russian industry is quite complex and contradictory. First of all, we note the main reference points:

1. Innovative processes continue in the main branches of Russian industry. They are more intense when changing the range 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 development of new technologies often conflicts with the existing market infrastructure of the enterprise (suppliers and other partners).

I. B. Gurkov, B. C. Tubalov

A serious change in technology leads to a revision of the composition of the business chain.

4. The institutional environment has a very moderate impact on the innovative activity of enterprises. The impact of the state economic policy on the intensity of innovation processes in the industry as a whole is poorly traced. At the same time, centralization economic activity often hinders innovation, especially in the technology sector.

In the course of our research, we were convinced 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 managerial technologies in itself is the reason for the persistence of a low level of technological innovation. More alarming is the low level of technology borrowing. This means that the system of technology transfer, which existed with all the shortcomings in the Soviet era, has been completely eliminated, and modern forms of technology transfer have not been created. The transfer of technology remains targeted, covering in most cases only one enterprise, which is forced to change economic partners. At the same time, the 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 impact of local authorities on various types of innovative activities is quite tangible.

The above facts allow us to draw a seemingly unexpected conclusion: the way to increase the intensity of innovation processes in the Russian industry lies through the reduction of inventions and the increasing role of technology transfer. This means recreating the technological diffusion system in its modern forms. The experience of countries that have made major technological breakthroughs shows that their national innovation systems are based not on a heap of bureaucracies that stimulate innovation, but on facilitating inter-firm cooperation, insurance of technology transfer risks. This is also connected with the transformation of large integrated economic structures from financial flow control systems into technology transfer systems. We hope that research into innovation processes will make it possible to quickly formulate the structures and principles of the institutions of the recreated national innovation system.

Literature

Vasin V.A., Mindeli L.E. National innovation system: prerequisites and mechanisms of functioning. M.: TsISN, 2002.

Gurkov I.B. Innovative development and competitiveness: Essays on the development of Russian enterprises. M.: TEIS, 2003.

Innovations in the 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/June 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.