Classification and types of innovations. Innovative activity of Russian enterprises Innovation by industry

AT modern world innovation is a natural and indispensable process for the existence of industry. On fig. 1 shows the distribution 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 aimed at isolated enterprises, but at promoting them in the organization.

For this, you need:

• Increasing 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 to combine the industrial sector and the public sector of research and development.

Innovative industry as it really is

Final goal innovative programs- increasing 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 economic efficiency and employment growth. The state in the future can receive an economic benefit from the development of industry.

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

For innovative development economy of Russia, it is necessary to create a regulatory legal framework, which 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 innovation activities increases. 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 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 scenarios for the implementation of 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 for 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

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

Unlike the situation in 2008-2009, Russia is currently in conditions that do not allow predicting a quick exit from economic crisis and, accordingly, the rapid restoration of budgetary opportunities to finance the created and planned for the creation of innovative infrastructure. 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: Russian economy characterized by a high level of 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 is 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 . How fully the bold ideas are realized depends on the will of the state and the leaders-innovators who are ready to take the risk of investing significant funds in the "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. The inertia of thinking and the fear of investing in bold but not guaranteed profitable projects are holding back 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.

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 in a relatively market conditions. 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 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 of enterprise activity. 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 effect of proven reliable models of the relationship between various forms and parties of both the innovation process as a whole and individual types of 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;

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

indicate internal relationships, moderators and possible external factors that influence 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 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 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, without being integral part systems 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 the current state of affairs at 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 value chain (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 innovation processes.

Historically, interest in the problem of diffusion of innovations arose in late XIX in. 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 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 a new way of combining elements 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 breaking down 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 Bass 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 common system technological development of the company.

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-company 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 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 company's activities is quite unambiguous. Indeed, in pursuit of rent from new products, product innovations are developed and implemented.

opening market opportunities are implemented 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 changes in the range of production, changes 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) that certain forms of management activities are introduced for the sake of appearances, are mimicry in nature: "Let's make them get rid of it." A striking example that has already set the teeth on edge is the development by Russian companies of 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. 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

Empirical basis for observing innovative practices

The data of a survey of the directors 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. 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 development 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 production of new products, the share own developments and borrowing is almost the same for all industries (Fig. 2).

main sources 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, %

Development of fundamentally new types of products in existing area activities Mastering the production of goods (services) in a new field of activity Mastering a new technology (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 divisions(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 an extent. _ 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, is in no way connected with competitiveness. end products. 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 impact 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 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 various types 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 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). This generally means that the market environment of enterprises emerging from the crisis, i.e. the system economic relations with partners, turns out to be more malleable than intraorganizational.

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 performed showed that the compliance external relations in general, in the Russian industry it turns out to be higher than the compliance

I.B. Gurkov, V.S. Tubalov

Rice. 3 Model of the relationship between production and technological

and managerial innovation 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. Such a gap can be filled economic programs local authorities, restoring local value chains and facilitating the development of the production 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 implementing 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

The firm is an integral part of a 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 does provoke 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 disquieting low level 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 effect of local authorities on different types innovative action.

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.

D. Sirotkin, S. Ivanov, ICF "ALT"

What is the size of the Russian innovation sector? What is the share of Russia's innovation sector in the world? What are the prospects for creating a domestic innovation economy? The article "Are there many innovations in Russia" is intended to answer the questions formulated above.

Discussions about the state and prospects of the innovation sector in Russia have not subsided so far. If we confine ourselves to the business aspect, then the questions of the size and competitiveness of the innovation sector come to the fore:

• The question of the size of Russia's innovation sector is more likely to determine not the absolute size of this sector, which in itself says little, but the relative one - its position in the global innovation economy.
• The question of the competitiveness of Russia's innovation sector basically boils down to what share of innovative products manufactured in Russia can be a real competitor to the best foreign analogues.

Let's try to figure out the answers to these key questions. After all, judging by the ongoing discussions, unambiguous answers have not yet been received.

1. Size of Russia's innovation sector

Let's start with the basic thing - an estimate of the size of Russia's innovation sector. At first glance, we are all right with this: there are a number of methods for direct and indirect assessment of the entire sector, as well as its individual significant parts.

However, a closer look reveals that each of these methods has significant drawbacks (see Table 1).

Table 1. Comparison of methods for estimating the size of the innovation sector

The key problem is that the OECD's main method for directly assessing the innovation sector:

• is a poll, i.e. allows for a sufficient degree of subjectivity in assessing various aspects of the innovativeness of their enterprises by respondents;
• includes fairly detailed questions, some of which the Russian respondents can only answer purely expertly, since they do not have actual data on them.

These shortcomings are recognized by the developers of the methodology themselves. However, in practice there is no alternative to this technique. By the way, in other countries too. Therefore, we will rely on the results of the HSE study for 2009, conducted in accordance with international methodology. This ensures the comparability of these results with the results of the study for other countries.

It should be noted that most of the methods measure the “average innovativeness in a hospital” rather than the size of the actual innovative business in Russia. Therefore, we decided to collect data on the total revenue of companies specializing in the commercialization of innovative developments. More than 150 such Russian companies. Of course, there are significantly more such companies, although we are unlikely to have missed any large innovative companies.

Below are the results of the assessment by the main methods we have selected:

Scheme 1. Matrix of methods for assessing the innovation sector of Russia

Thus, the size of Russia's innovation sector (output of innovative products) in 2009 was estimated by the HSE at $30 billion, or 4.6% of industrial output. In general, this assessment looks quite plausible. Certain doubts arise when comparing the data for Russia with the data of the OECD study for a number of other countries, cited in the SU-HSE material.

For example, in Europe, the largest share of innovative goods (works, services) newly introduced or subjected to significant technological changes in the total volume of shipped services, works performed, services of industrial production organizations is in Malta and Greece, and the smallest share is in Russia (minimum share), Latvia and Norway. And we are talking about innovations new to the market, and not just to the company. The situation with Malta looks curious. Indeed, who has heard that Malta is a significant innovative power?

However, this can be explained by the relatively high concentration of high-tech companies such as Methode Electronics Inc. - an electronic components manufacturer from Chicago, or the Italo-French semiconductor manufacturer ST Microelectronics, which provide Malta with several tens of millions of euros of innovative production and high-tech exports. Quite enough to take the lead in relative performance. In contrast, in the case of Greece, ALT's analysts are powerless to come up with plausible interpretations.

According to ALT calculations, the total revenue of more than 150 Russian companies specializing in the commercialization of innovative developments amounted to about $3.5 billion. , innovation as a separate business. As expected, the dominant contribution to the total revenue is made by less than 20% of such companies (Yandex, Kaspersky Lab, Transas, Mikran, EleSy, Diakont, etc.). It was these companies that managed to prove that it is possible to develop innovative business in Russia just as successfully as in other countries.

On the whole, it turns out that the innovative business itself ensures the production of less than 20% of all innovative products in Russia ($4-6 billion out of $30 billion). The main part of the products classified as innovative according to the OECD methodology falls on the automotive, defense, nuclear industries, etc. As a rule, these are products that are not related to the level of world developments, but to the level of innovations new to the local market or to the company.

2. About the place and competitiveness of the innovation sector of Russia in the world

The disadvantage of the figures presented above is that they say little about the place of Russia's innovation sector in the world. In this regard, we have tried, where possible, to correlate these figures with the total figures for the world. Here's what happened:

Scheme 2. Place of Russia's innovation sector in the world

So, according to rough estimates, the share of Russia's innovation sector in the world is about 0.34%. How to evaluate whether it is a lot or a little? If we correlate this figure with the share of Russia's GDP in the world - 1.8%, then it becomes obvious that it is not enough. So far we have a modest place in the innovative world.

Based on the figures presented, a number of remarks can be made about the competitiveness of the Russian innovation sector:

• Comparison of the share of the Russian innovation sector in the world (0.34%) and the share of Russian R&D costs in the world (3.77%) indicates the inefficiency of spending on research and development in Russia. The analysis shows that in the area of ​​R&D costs, we differ in three ways:
• the prevalence of state funding for R&D (first place in the world in terms of its share in total R&D costs);
• the largest share of spending on basic research (4.3% in the world) compared to the share of spending on other types of research and development;
• The main share of R&D costs is the cost of new imported equipment, and not on the actual research work, as in the leading innovative powers of the world.
• Comparison of the share of the Russian innovation sector in the world (0.34%) and the share of Russian triad patents in the total number of triad patents in the world in 2009 (0.1%) indicates the lack of competitiveness of Russian innovative products in the world market.

Experts also note the problem of limited domestic demand for Russian innovations and insufficient efforts to promote them on the world market.

3. Prospects for creating an innovative economy in Russia

Most recently, Russia adopted the “Strategy for Innovative Development Russian Federation for the period up to 2020”. The feasibility of the rates of growth of the innovation sector laid down in it and the effectiveness of the planned activities raise certain questions. Nevertheless, a quite strategic question arises: if the indicators planned for 2020 are met, can this be considered a transition to an innovative economy?

As a criterion for the transformation of the Russian economy into an innovative one, one can consider that the share of Russia's innovative products in the world volume of innovative products will become higher than the share of Russia's GDP in the world gross product.

Based on the current forecasts of the World Bank for the growth of gross product by 2020 and extrapolating the calculated data on the volume of output of innovative products in 2009 to 2020 (in accordance with the data on the growth rate of gross product), we arrive at an encouraging result: by 2020 the share innovation sector of Russia in the world (2.4%) could significantly exceed the share of Russia's GDP in the world (1.8%).

Our forecast for the creation of an innovative economy in Russia is moderately optimistic:

• It is hardly worth expecting the successful implementation of a complex of intensive systemic changes laid down in the “Strategy for Innovative Development of the Russian Federation”. Unfortunately, one gets the impression that the task of creating an innovative economy is inferior to a number of other priorities of the Russian authorities.
• Hope rather that successful implementation sufficiently numerous innovative projects already financed by RUSNANO, RVC, Skolkovo, will cause a significant increase in the volume of innovative business and the initiation of new innovative projects. This will not ensure the transformation of the entire economy into an innovative one, but will allow the innovative business to become a real engine for the growth of the Russian economy.

Main conclusions:

Assessment Methods

1. There are no reliable direct methods for estimating the size of the innovation sector in both Russia and other countries. Much depends on the quality of expert assessments.

2. However, the combination of direct and indirect assessment methods makes it possible to estimate the size and structure of the innovation sector in a larger scale.

3. The method of direct assessment of the revenue of innovative companies that we used is not perfect, but it gives a certain estimate of the size of the innovative business.

Key numbers

1. The size of the core of the Russian innovation sector (innovation business itself) is $4-6 billion.

2. The total volume of innovative products of Russian companies is about $30 billion.

Place of Russia's innovation sector in the world

1. In the current period, the Russian innovation sector occupies a rather modest position in the world (less than 1% of the global innovation sector).

2. Key disproportions in the development of the innovation sector in Russia:

• inefficiency of commercialization of research and development results (especially budget ones);
• insufficient number of innovative world-class products;
• insufficient activity to promote them on the world market;
• limited domestic demand for innovative products.

3. It is unlikely that by 2020 the Russian economy will turn into an innovative one. However, the successful implementation of a significant number of already funded innovation projects can lead to the fact that the innovation business will become a real engine of the Russian economy.

Key indicators of innovation activity

1. Dynamics of the main indicators of innovation activity

1.1. Innovative activity of organizations
1.2. The share of organizations that carried out certain types of innovative activities in the total number of organizations that carried out technological innovations
1.3. Research units in organizations that have carried out technological innovations
1.4. Volume of innovative goods, works, services
1.5. The volume of exports 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. The structure of exports of innovative goods, works, services
1.8. Rating of results of innovative activity
1.9. The share of organizations involved in technological exchange in the total number of organizations engaged in technological innovation
1.10. Distribution of organizations that carried out technological innovations and participated in technological exchange, by countries and regions
1.11. Joint research and development projects of organizations that carried out technological innovations
1.12. Technological innovation costs
1.13. Technological innovation spending by funding source
1.14. The share of costs for certain types of innovation activities in the total cost of technological innovation
1.15. Ranking of Information Sources for Technological Innovations
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. 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 forms of ownership
2.7. Distribution of organizations that carried out technological, marketing, organizational innovations, by form of ownership
2.8. Costs for technological, marketing, organizational innovations by type of economic activity
2.9. Costs for technological, marketing, organizational innovations by size of organizations
2.10. Costs for technological, marketing, organizational innovations by type of ownership of organizations
2.11. Structure of costs for technological, marketing, organizational innovations by types of innovations
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 types of innovations 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 expenses for technological, marketing, organizational innovations by the size of organizations
2.17. Intensity of expenses for technological, marketing, organizational innovations by forms of ownership of organizations
2.18. Evaluation of the results of innovation activity: 2012-2014

3. Technological innovation

3.1. The share of organizations that carried out technological innovations in the total number of organizations by type of economic activity
3.2. The 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. The share of organizations that simultaneously carried out technological and marketing innovations in the total number of organizations that carried out technological innovations, by type of economic activity
3.4. Distribution of organizations that simultaneously carried out technological and marketing innovations by type of economic activity
3.5. The share of organizations that carried out technological and organizational innovations at the same time, in the total number of organizations that carried out technological innovations, by type of economic activity
3.6. Distribution of organizations that simultaneously carried out technological and organizational innovations by type of economic activity
3.7. The structure of organizations that carried out technological innovations, by types of innovative activities
3.8. Share of organizations engaged in certain types of innovative activities in the total number of organizations engaged in technological innovations, by type of economic activity: 2014
3.9. Distribution of organizations that carried out technological innovations by types of innovative and economic activities: 2014
Z.10. The share of organizations that had research and development departments in their total number by type of economic activity
3.11. The number of divisions 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 total strength 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, works performed, services by type of economic activity: 2014
3.15. The 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. The share of innovative goods, works, services in the total volume of shipped goods, work performed, services by level of novelty and types of economic activity: 2014
3.18. Newly introduced or subjected to significant technological changes innovative goods, works, services, new organizations for the sales market, by type of economic activity
3.19. Newly introduced or subjected to significant technological changes innovative goods, works, services, new to the world market, by type of economic activity
3.20. Newly introduced or subjected to significant technological changes innovative goods, works, services, new to the organization, but not new to the market, by type of economic activity
3.21. The volume of innovative goods, works, services for 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 types of economic activity
3.23. Export of innovative goods, works, services by countries and types of economic activity
3.24. The share of organizations participating in technological exchange in their total number by type of economic activity
3.25. The share of organizations involved in technological exchange in the total number of organizations engaged in technological innovation, by type of economic activity: 2014
3.26. Technology imports by organizations engaged in technological innovation, by type of economic activity
3.27. Export of technologies by organizations that carried out technological innovations, by type of economic activity
3.28. Forms of technology acquisition by organizations that carried out technological innovations, by type of economic activity: 2014
3.29. Forms of technology transfer by organizations that carried out technological innovations, by type of economic activity: 2014
3.30. New technologies (technical advances) acquired and transferred by organizations that carried out technological innovations: 2014
3.31. Participation of organizations in joint projects for research and development: 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 projects for the implementation of research and development, by partner countries and types of economic activity
3.34. Organizations that carried out technological innovations and participated in joint research and development projects, by types of partners and types of economic activity: 2014
3.35. Organizations that carried out technological innovations and participated in joint research and development projects, by types of cooperation ties and types of economic activity
3.36. Joint projects for the implementation of research and development of organizations that carried out technological innovations, by type of economic activity
3.37. Joint research and development projects of organizations that carried out technological innovations, by types of partners and types of economic activity: 2014
3.38. Joint projects for the implementation of research and development of organizations that carried out technological innovations, by types of cooperation ties and types of economic activity
3.39. Technological partnerships in the implementation of research and development organizations that carried out technological innovation: 2014
3.40. Technological innovation expenditures by type of economic activity
3.41. Costs for technological innovations by types of innovative and economic activities: 2014
3.42. Distribution of costs for technological innovations by types of innovative and economic activities: 2014
3.43. Expenditures on technological innovations by sources of financing and types 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 expenditures on technological innovations by type of economic activity
3.46. Organizations carrying out patent activities: 2014
3.47. Share of organizations that patented inventions in the total number of organizations that carried out technological innovations, by type of economic activity: 2014
3.48. Presence of intellectual property objects in organizations: 2014
3.49. Patents for inventions in organizations that carried out technological innovations, by type of economic activity: 2014
3.50. The share of organizations that rated individual sources of information for technological innovation as the main ones, in the total number of organizations
3.51. The share of organizations that evaluated 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 share of organizations that assessed certain factors hindering technological innovation as the main ones in the total number of organizations

4. Marketing innovation

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

5. Organizational innovation

5.1. The 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 spending by type of economic activity
5.4. The share of organizations that carried out certain types of organizational changes in the total number of organizations that 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 engaged in certain types of innovative activities in the total number of organizations engaged in technological innovation: 2014
6.3. Volume of innovative goods, works, services
6.4. Participation of organizations in joint research and development projects
6.5. Technological innovation costs
6.6. Distribution of costs for technological innovations by types of innovative activities: 2014

7. Environmental innovation

7.1. The share of organizations that carried out environmental innovations in the total number of organizations that had ready-made innovations over the past three years: 2014
7.2. The share of organizations that carried out innovations that increase the environmental
safety in the process of production 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 use by the consumer of innovative goods, works, services, in the total number of organizations that carried out environmental innovations: 2014
7.4. Distribution of organizations that carried out environmental innovations by goals and types of economic activity: 2014
7.5. Share of organizations using a pollution control system environment, in the total number of organizations: 2014
7.6. Special costs associated with environmental innovation: 2014

8. International comparisons

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

Methodological comments