CC BY
54
Development of Russian innovation system management concept
S. M. Vasin, L. A. Gamidullaeva,
Doctor of Economic Sciences, Candidate of Economic Sciences,
Professor, Department «Economic Theory associate professor
and International Relations», Vice-President [email protected]
for International Affairs
Penza State University
Adhering to the directive that innovations should immanently be a part of economic mechanisms of all business entities and shall encounter no hindrance, a matter of principle here is the determination of key internal motives for production of innovations, the efficient management of which will provide dissemination thereof and self-development of the innovation system. We believe that the principal motive is added value, created by economic counteragents in the process of innovation activity. Therewith, the innovation development management should be embedded into the very managed system in such a manner, that the management mechanisms will agree with mechanisms and regularities of self-organization and self-administration. Innovation process participants should actively collaborate and develop the experience of joint projects on creation and commercialization of innovations. Therefore, a special attention should be paid to the development and implementation of the corresponding strategy that will ensure establishment of attracting structures, which are to draw innovative paths of development and to determine principal areas of promotion of collaboration for innovation activity participants. The latter may be represented by institutions of the innovation field that possess the greatest potential in decreasing of transaction costs of the innovation activity and optimization of the volume and structure of added value, generated by economic counteragents.
Keywords: innovation system; added value; innovation system development; management concepts; self-organization; management methods.
o
CO СЧ
c^
Lf>
s s
J <
CQ О
Problem statement
Modern Russia is in the search of the optimal strategy of economic development of the country. Determined by world commodity price trends, the inertial prosperity does not ensure national security of the country. Russia's entering WTO and the events of Contemporary history have increased risks and ambiguity of development prospects manifold. The escalation of geopolitical tension, objectively determined by structural shifts accompanying the change of technological modes, is aggravated by low functioning efficiency of the Russian economic system. Besides competent political solutions there is a strong need for a new economic policy aimed at consolidation of the economy, the development of which should follow, according to the majority of experts, the innovation path. The geopolitical crisis and the sanction policy towards Russia have revealed multiple implicit problems aggravated by the fall of oil prices as the main source of
revenue, as well as by an extreme deployment of the import substitution and economic modernization policy.
It is worth noticing that the reverse side of the said critical situation may become a powerful impulse of mobilization of hidden reserves of development and implementation of potential capacities of the Russian economic system. Consequently, the current situation should be considered as a real chance of integration into the common international trend of innovative development.
The last year showed us that in order to solve the problem of innovation system management the existing approaches, tools and mechanisms, regardless of features of the modern crisis and the economic behavior of leading actors of the economic system, are insufficient. We have to admit that antimonopoly regulations and competition have played out. There are new challenges requiring a cardinally new methodological approach to the analysis and scientific understanding of principles and mechanisms
of innovation system management at macro-, meso- and microlevels.
In our opinion, the understanding that the introduction of an innovation system model, which has positively proven itself within other socioeconomic systems, will not lead to the desired results is a matter of principle, as the existing institutional field is not ready to adapt the introduced principles and mechanisms of management. The existing theories, conceptions and approaches to establishment and development of an innovative system hardly assist in resolving the given problem and, therefore, in providing manageability of innovation processes and predictability of results of managerial decisions in the present field.
Adhering to the directive that innovations should immanently be a part of economic mechanisms of all business entities and should encounter no hindrance, a matter of principle here is the determination of key internal motives for production of innovations in an economic system, the efficient management of which will provide dissemination thereof and self-development of the innovation system in whole.
Theoretical background
The understanding of the importance of innovations in economic development correlates with a growing interest in the said problem by the academic community. At the same time, the understanding of innovative phenomena and accumulation of empirical data in the given field are also growing. Innovations are more often considered as a process endowed with special features, the combination of which causes a necessity to develop an approach beyond the classical «mainstream», i. e. beyond the paradigm that acknowledges the existence of a representative economic agent featuring full rationality.
The present study has been carried out at the junction of problems, which, in turn, caused a necessity to examine a broad set of works analyzing the subject matter, directly or indirectly connected with the problem of innovation system development. The innovation system is a conception, originally introduced in 1980s-1990s by R. Nelson [36], B.-A. Lundvall [35] and C. Freeman [32]. Freeman was the first who suggested the notion of «national innovation system», implying «a network of institutions in state and private sectors that initiate, import, modify and disseminate new technologies in cooperation» [32].
The innovation system conception emphasizes a complex web of connections and interactions among various actors focused on establishment, dissemination and application of knowledge. The innovation system approach allows to analyze a critical category of «innovation activity» from a broader point of view focusing on the results of not just innovations themselves, but on the processes that lead to them and the diversity of actors involved in creation of innovations. The innovation system approach is based on the understanding and conceptualization of the fact that the innovative process is not linear; it involves various actors with their interests taking part in co-evolutionary processes.
Reflecting the present state of research on the subject matter, major achievements and approaches of foreign
and Russian economics have been developed within the following principal directions:
• theoretical and methodological issues of functioning and development of national and regional innovation systems ([3, 5, 6, 8-10, 30, 35, 36, 43] and other);
• national innovation strategy development problems, the research of innovations as a factor of stable growth and competitiveness improvement of the country ([16, 20, 22] and other);
• the theory and methodology of economic clustering, a scientific substantiation of clustering mechanisms ([25, 34] and other);
• examination of economic regularities of innovative development within the institutional approach ([16, 17, 20, 21, 25, 35, 37, 43] and other).
Despite an exponentially growing interest of the scientific community in the problem of innovative development efficiency, there still remains an unresolved question — why does the implementation of an innovation system model that has successfully proved itself in actual management in a number of countries lead to negative results within a concrete socioeconomic system. Besides, there is a lack of a system of innovative development management and forecasting, which will promote elaboration of an efficient strategy of innovative development of a concrete country. In Russia the establishment of the innovation system has been in progress for a long time, some significant funding has been spent, however, negative results revealed themselves clearly last year, which turned out to be indicative in view of the developed external-economic and political situation.
Principal research results
We have to admit that antimonopoly regulations and competition, which used to have an effect in the industrial economy, have played out. There are new challenges requiring cardinally new approaches to management. Russia, as well as other countries with similar macroeconomic systems, requires the state to enter the economic and innovative processes as a generator of incentives to innovations, which, as it has been pointed out, can be provided neither by the market nor by the existing poorly developed institutional field. O. G. Golichenko notes that «it is impossible to establish a modern national system within the economy, the institutions of which have been obsolescent for a long time» [8].
In economically developed countries positive consequences of innovations occur when economic development is provided to market subjects, particularly, when company owners face the dilemma of profit distribution between profit reinvestment and profit dividends distribution. On the one hand, it causes short-term investment attractiveness, on the other hand, it provides the foundation for expanded reproduction of an economic system.
It is known that the companies' innovation activity is a commonly recognized indicator of innovation activity efficiency evaluation. We have to admit that within the pattern established by the Russian economic sphere the companies' innovation activity is insignificant (table 1).
ho
CN
CO CN N
Ю
J <
CQ
Table 1
Innovation activity of organizations (specific weight of organizations implementing technological, organizational, marketing innovations in accounting years out of the total examined organizations), by types of economic activities (percentage)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Total 9,5 10,4 10,3 10,1 9,9
Mining operations 7,8 8,4 8,2 7,6 7,5
Manufacturing activity 13,0 13,3 13,4 13,3 13,6
Production and distribution of electric energy, gas and water 5,4 5,6 5,6 5,3 5,1
Communication 15,6 13,8 13,3 14,2 12,2
Activity associated with computer engineering and IT 10,0 9,2 9,4 9,6 8,8
Research and development — 29,8 30,1 31,0 33,3
Rendering of other services 4,9 4,9 4,0 3,5 3,5
Made up on the basis of the Russian Federal State Statistics Service: «Science and innovations» section. http://www.gks.ru.
hO CN
CO CN N
Ю
J <
CQ
Thus, the innovation activity of Russia in recent years has experienced no highs and lows. Meanwhile, the level of the said indicator of the Russian economy is significantly lower than the ones in leading industrial countries (Germany — 70%; Canada — 65%; Belgium — 60%; Ireland, Denmark and Finland — 55-57%), as well as in the majority of countries of Central and Eastern Europe with the indicator being in the range 20-40%. Besides, Russia is dragging behind in exports of high-technology products. The share of Russia in this market is only a quarter of a percent [9]. It is necessary to reveal the causes of such negative economic consequences, the identification of which will make it possible to establish a vector of management for politicians. Simple coping of forms, methods and models of innovation management, successfully implemented by foreign countries, taking place for a long time, doesn't lead to the desired results — it is obvious and proved statistically.
Manifesting itself in a growth of instability of existing companies' connections and relations and, as a result, in a growth of combined costs at interim stages of the innovative process, the essence of innovations leads to a low innovation activity of economic agents. It is associated with high costs of the innovation activity being mostly not of transformational (dealing with reorganization, changes of initial resources), but of transactional (predominantly caused by a necessity of collaborating and networking) nature. It happens because innovation products are being transferred in to the new B2B (business-to-business) system, however, the implementation thereof takes place in the B2C (business-to-customer) sector, which in turn makes it impossible to use directive methods of innovation system management.
The lack of mutual self-descriptiveness between economic agents leads to permanently high risks of running business in Russia, and, as a result, for instance, — inadequately high credits in banks. Correspondingly, without an access to long-term borrowed funds companies are forced to narrow their innovation activities. Such situation virtually demotivates implementation and realization of innovations. Monopolization has a similar effect leading to the innovation activity being useless at the present level of competition development for company owners and in most cases being implemented only provided for direct financing by the state. As a result, the discrepancy between the state's expenditures
on innovation activity development and the level of innovation activity of domestic enterprises grows. We are to admit that according to the level of budgetary expenditures on research and development Russia is among the leaders outrunning USA, Israel, Japan and China [47]. However, the share of organizations implementing technological innovations suffers a stable fall (table 1). The Russian practice of establishing the innovation infrastructure — the destination of the lion's share of the budgetary resources — has been developed de facto guided by the logic of industrialization mainly based on replication of production and infrastructure projects.
In our opinion, it is essentially important to have a clear understanding of the fact that without the creation of motives to innovative development for economic agents the innovative process will remain an occasional phenomenon in the Russian economic system yielding to the competitiveness decrease and economic growth retardation.
It is impossible to disagree with the view of RAS academician L. I. Abalkin, who formulated the main condition of scientific and technical advance: the scientific and technical advance and the associated standards of industrial and labor organization will be in demand, if they are capable of attracting income that exceeds the labor remuneration economy existing at the moment of time [1]. It logically implies that the general growth of employees' income being a significant part of companies' expenses is inevitable when companies are innovatively active. However, the economic reality testifies that company transformation into an innovatively active enterprise doesn't always lead to positive consequences for business in the form of its economic efficiency growth. All the above mentioned determines the following conclusion: company owners will be motivated to implement innovations provided the efficiency of such innovative projects exceeds the loss of profit from capital savings on qualification and quality of manpower resources.
This, in turn, confirms the following thesis: without the establishment of innovative development motives for market subjects the innovation offer might not find its consumer in the needed scope, and the innovative development will remain local. Thus, it is a matter of principle to determine the key internal incentive to reproduce innovations in the economic system. The
incentive management will provide the diffusion and dissemination of innovations. We believe that the indicator of value added and its structure should be considered as the main element, being reasonable to optimize when pursuing the macroeconomic policy.
Maintaining the importance of the policy in the field of taxation, competition etc., low levels of remuneration and added value established by labor determine the impossibility of mass dissemination of innovation activities within the concrete economic system. To make value added grow it is necessary to use the potential of companies themselves as well as institutional factors of development that appear to be more important and efficient under the economic conditions of Russia in comparison with other, in particular, with factors of demand for innovations. In order for individual companies to get involved in the innovative process of the system, the institutional support is required in the form of establishment of the corresponding institutions at the microlevel. This process can be influenced by the state only indirectly. The initiative must arise from company owners and managers, aspired to remain competitive in the innovation economy conditions. From our point of view, a positive effect of the development and improvement of institutions at meso- and macrolevels of the innovation system will be the institutionalization of the innovation activity at the microlevel of the economic system.
Revealing main barriers towards innovative development of Russia
Considering added value as an object of optimization, we shall first address its structure. As a rule, it includes profit and remuneration intended for managers and wage workers who are the source of its formation at enterprises. Therefore, added value can be maximized through increasing profit and remuneration. An increase of profit from innovation activities, in turn, can be provided by a decrease of costs of transactions associated with innovations, and, accordingly, an increase of labor income — by means of increasing the added value share created by intellectual capital through its motivation to innovation activities.
It follows from the above that the main barriers in the internal field of innovations are high transaction costs associated with innovations as well as low companies' staff motivation to innovation activities. It is necessary to specify that under transaction costs minimization one should understand not a process of reduction thereof to zero, but optimization thereof within the norm, as they are objectively required for the economic system functioning. A stable innovative economic growth of the Russian economy may be ensured through achieving the optimal level of transaction costs as it is a requirement for innovative development in the framework of individual regions and the country in whole.
Within the transactional approach the innovation activity of economic subjects is considered as the aggregate of transactions performed in order to gain a temporary advantage over competitors. We agree with the view of the majority of critics of neoinstitutionalism
as well as institutionalism in whole that the main problem of the said theory still remains indistinctness of terms and definitions. At the present moment there is no universally recognized definition of transaction costs. Nevertheless, the supporters of the said theories actively use them in their conclusions and recommendations for political administrations. As a result — the problem of evaluation, as it is difficult to evaluate something that has no unambiguous definition.
The researchers of the said area are deeply convinced about the necessity of taking out the content of transaction costs from the production process exclusively into the field of exchange (costs are strictly divided by them into transformational and transactional). Admitting that such costs are first of all costs for interaction, we assert that they may occur at the pre-market stage as well, at the stage of production (being a part of transformation costs) and consumption. In this case they represent costs for interaction, for example, as a result of integration and cooperation, which are extremely important for innovative processes.
According to A. Shastitko [21] growing transaction costs are compatible with «increasing efficiency and economic growth». A decrease of transaction costs at the mesolevel will theoretically promote a rise of demand for transaction services, and, as a result, an increase of general transaction costs at the mesolevel, determined by the economic system complexity due to intensified cooperation, division of labour etc.
According to the synergic approach, an increase of economic complexity presupposes diversification of interaction types, taking place in cycles and being «a requirement for long-term economic development» [19]. Herewith, the complexity of the system grows simultaneously with the complexity of coordinating the operation of its individual elements, and, as a result, transaction costs also grow.
Thus, we may conclude about the growth of transaction costs in the economic system being a reflection of complication of economic cooperation between business entities and economic agents. At the same time, it is assumed that institutions will decrease not the general transaction costs, but the unit costs, intended for individual transactions. Therefore, transaction costs are an objective indicator of economic system development. The logic of correlation between transaction costs and institutions is presented in fig. 1.
The structure of innovation system management, in our opinion, should include three main aspects:
ho
CN
CO CN N
Ю
J <
CQ
Fig. 1. Correlation of transaction costs and institutions at the micro- and macrolevels of the innovation system
Fig. 2. A model of regional innovation system management on the basis of regulation and self-organization mechanisms
1) innovative potential management (institutional context of regional innovation environment); 2) innovative process management (four sub-systems: production of knowledge, knowledge transfer tools, knowledge mastering tools and commercialization of innovations); 3) innovative development management (using the self-organization and self-development capacities of the innovation system) (fig. 2).
Methodological problems and solutions in the course of innovation system research
£ It should be understood that innovative development
o relates to various aspects of the economy and society in whole. It can be studied only through integration of a number of methodological approaches to the research enabling to use the potential of obtained theoretical results ^ and practical recommendations for innovation system z management as much as possible.
¡E Taking the following thesis as the initial one: the
J macrolevel creates conditions for the microlevel in the innovation system, and the microlevel generates O innovations required by the innovation system in whole; ^ there rises a necessity to combine a «macroapproach» S and a «microapproach». Within the macroapproach the
economic agent is considered as a «hollow» component that reflexively reacts to changing environment. In the microapproach the economic agent acts as a complex multisubject and multilevel organism. A necessity of introducing the research microlevel into the analysis, particularly, the internal motives of companies as main actors of the innovation system, causes a necessity to use narrow scientific methodology — the neoinstitutional approach that, in turn, allows to institutionalize innovative development processes at the micro- and mesolevel, — as a requirement for creation of basic incentives to generate innovations. Thus, the neoinstitutional approach will make it possible to include the research microlevel into the theory of innovation systems and to reduce the research subject to consideration thereof through the prism of categories of neoinstitutionalism — institutions and transaction costs.
The use of the system approach will make it possible to correctly structure and interrelate the elements and factors of development, as well as to reveal «bottlenecks» in the innovation system development. The synergic approach will enable to take into account a dynamic aspect of the innovation system development, such categories as gain of complexity, ambiguity etc., which are integral features of innovation activities.
Thus, we believe that the most preferable path of the innovation system research is the use of a neoinstitutional system-synergic methodological approach that represents a constructive instrument allowing to describe and to simulate regional innovative development management.
On the basis of the above-stated, we think that the conception of innovation activity management should implement integrated approaches: the neoinstitutional, system and synergic ones, and be focused on creating mechanisms for elimination of internal environment barriers in the companies' innovation activity. Such barriers are represented in our opinion by high transaction costs associated with innovations and low company staff motivation to innovation activities. Therefore, the main element to be optimized in the course of the innovation policy conduct is the volume and structure of added value, established by companies.
We believe that the innovative development management should be embedded into the very managed system in such a manner, that the management mechanisms will agree with mechanisms and regularities of self-organization and self-administration. Innovation process participants should collaborate without hindrance and develop the experience of joint projects on implementation of innovations. Therefore, the innovation system management should be focused on the development and implementation of the corresponding strategy that will ensure establishment of attracting structures, which are to draw innovative paths of development and to determine principal areas of development and promotion of collaboration for innovation activity participants. The latter may be represented by institutions of the innovation field that possess the greatest potential in decreasing of transaction costs of the innovation activity and optimization of the volume and structure of added value, generated by economic counteragents.
Future research prospects
We suggest the following hypothesis for future research: there exists a bilateral dependency between the level of transaction costs, added value and innovation activity, which has qualitatively- and quantitatively-defined boundaries of optimality. Beyond these boundaries, the economic system functioning efficiency decreases. A stable innovative economic growth of the Russian economy may be ensured through achieving the optimal level of transaction costs as it is a requirement for innovative development in the framework of individual regions and the country in whole.
Conclusion
The analysis carried out has helped to reveal the dual nature of innovations, manifesting itself in a growth of instability and ambiguity of existing companies' connections and relations and, as a result, in a growth of transaction costs at interim stages of the innovative process, which leads to a low innovation activity of economic agents in conditions of the Russian economy. It has been determined that it is the increase of the value added share in the structure of general income that should motivate business owners and wage workers to implement innovations. The said increase is possible to achieve provided proper development of interaction and cooperation of main participants of the innovation system, accumulation of the experience of joint projects, which take place, as a rule, coherently with a gain of credibility (both interpersonal and towards the authorities). Therefore, it becomes a conceptual objective for the state to create a favorable institutional environment for development of such processes through establishing the mechanisms that reduce transaction costs of innovation activities. The said objective should be implemented on the basis of integrated approaches (neoinstitutional, system and synergic), which in the aggregate represent an efficient mechanism for regional innovation system management and development forecasting. It is important to conclude that in order to efficiently manage innovation systems it is necessary to use their self-organization and self-development capacities. At this point it becomes crucial to reveal attracting structures in conditions of the Russia's economic reality, which may be represented by certain institutions of the innovation field that possess the greatest potential in decreasing of transaction costs of economic agents and optimization of added value, generated by them. Such institutions should, supposedly, attract innovative paths of regional development.
References
1. L. I. Abalkin. The logic of economic growth. M.: Institute of Economics of the RAS. 2002. 228 p.
2. S. A. Aronova. The institutionalization of the relationship between the level of employment, labor incomes and the scientific and technical changes: St. Petersburg. Russia, 2008. 41 p.
3. V. A. Vasin, L. E. Mindeli. National Innovation System: background and functioning mechanisms. Moscow, 2002. 363 p.
4. S. M. Vasin. The nature and essence of the concept of management system effectiveness. Vector of science of Togliatti State University, 2012, 4: 229-233.
5. L. A. Gamidullaeva. Modernization of the economy as an imperative of innovative development of Russia//Economy and management. 2014. No 1 (99), pp. 45-52
6. N. V. Gaponenko. National Innovation System of Russia: problems of formation and regulatory mechanisms. Moscow, 2002.
7. S. Yu. Glazyev. Theory of Long-Term Technical and Economic Development. Moscow, 1993. 310 p.
8. O. G. Golichenko. Key factors of national innovation system development. RAS. Moscow, 2011. 603 p.
9. L. M. Gohberg. Russian innovation index. Moscow, 2011. 84 p.
10. L. M. Gohberg. National innovation system//Russian Journal of Economics. 2003. No 3, pp. 26-44.
11. A. G. Granberg. Basics of regional economics. Moscow: Higher School of Economics, 2006.
12. J. K. Galbraith. Economic theory and goals of society. Moscow, 1973. P. 155.
13. S. A. Diatlov. Information and network economy: structure, dynamics and regulation. St. Petersburg. Russia, 2008, pp. 135-136.
14. N. Ivanova. National innovation systems//Russian Journal of Economics. 2001. No 7, pp. 59-71.
15. O. V. Inshakov, E. A. Stepochkina. Routine and innovation: institutional, organizational and evolutionary aspects of the interaction. Volgograd, 2003.
16. H. Etzkowit. Triple Helix. Universities-enterprises-state. Innovation in action. Tomsk. 2010, 238 p.
17. G. B. Kleiner. The evolution of economic institutions in Russia. 2003. Moscow.
18. E. Mansfiel. Economics of scientific and technical progress. M.: Progress. 1970, 171 p.
19. P. P. Saviotti. A variety of growth and demand//Growth in consumption and diversity factor: the latest studies of Western and Russian evolutionists. Moscow. 2007. P. 61.
20. A. I. Tatarkin. Innovative management of technological development of region's industry. Ekaterinburg. 2009.
21. A. Shastitko. Transaction costs (content, evaluation and interconnection with the problems of transformation)//Russian Journal of Economics. 1997.
22. D. Archibugi, M. Pianta. The Technological Specialization of Advanced Countries (Kluwer, Dordrecht). 1992.
23. B. Carlsson, S. Jacobsson, M. Holmen, A. Rickne. Innovation Systems: Analytical and Methodological Issue, Research Policy. 2002. V. 31, pp. 233-45.
24. B. Carlsson, R. Stankiewicz. On the nature, function and composition of technological systems//Journal of Evolutionary Economics. 1991. V. 1. I. 2, pp. 93-118.
25. J. R. Commons. Institutional Economics. New York, 1934. P. 634.
26. P. Cooke. Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy//Industrial and Corporate Change. 2001, V. 10. I. 4, pp. 945-974.
27. P. Cooke, K. Morgan. The Associational Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1998.
28. B. Coriat, O. Weinstein. Organizations, Firms and Institutions in the Generation of Innovation//Research Policy. 2002, V. 31, pp. 273-290.
29. E. Dahmen. Entrepreneurial Activity and the Development of Swedish Industry, Stockholm. 1950.
30. C Edquist.. Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organization. Cassel, London, 1997.
31. V. P. Feldman, D. B. Audretsch. Innovation in Cities: Science based Diversity//Specialization and Localized Competition-European Economic Review. 1999. V. 43, pp. 409-429.
32. C. Freeman. The National System of Innovation in Historical Perspective//Cambridge Journal of Economics. 1995. V. 19, pp. 5-24.
33. G. Hamel. Leading the Revolution. Harvard Business School Press. 2002.
34. E. E. Leamer. Sources of international Corporative Advantage: Theory and Evidence. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1984
35. B. A. Lundvall. National System of Innovation. Towards the Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter Publishers, 1992. 388 p.
hO CN
CO CN N
Ю
J <
CQ
36. R. Nelson. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
37. J. Nill, R. Kemp. Evolutionary approaches for sustainable innovation policies//Research Policy. 2009, V. 38, pp. 668-680.
38. J. A. Schumpeter. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row, 1942.
39. T. Shinn. The Triple Helix and New Production of Knowledge Prepackaged Thinking in Science and Technology//Social Studies of Science. 2002. V. 32, pp. 599-614.
40. D. Soulie. Filieres de Production et Integration Vertical//Annales des Mines, Janvier, 1989. P. 21-28.
41. J. A. Tolenado. Propjs des Filires Industrielles//Revue d'Economie Industrielle. V. 6. I. 4. 1978. P. 149-158.
42. S. M. Vasin, L. A. Gamidullaev. Methodical Approach and Tools to Improve the Efficiency of Managing of the Innovation Potential in the Context of Economic Globalization//Review of European Studies. No. 3. 2015. P. 124-139.
43. S. M. Vasin, L. A. Gamidullaeva. Development a Basic Model of the Innovation System//Review of European Studies.Vol. 7. No. 11. 2015 P. 175-183.
44. S. M. Vasin, L. A. Gamidullaeva. Innovation potential of modernization of Volga Federal District//Theoretical and Applied Economy. 2015. I. 3 (3), pp.16-42.
45. S. M. Vasin, L. A. Gamidullaeva. Russian Journal of Management. 2015. I. 3 (4), pp. 342-351.
46. T. Veblen. The Leisure Class Theory. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1984. 367 p.
47. OECD. (2013). Maximising the benefits of R&D tax incentives for innovation. OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry.
Разработка концепции управления инновационной системой России С. М. Васин, д. э. н., профессор, кафедра экономической теории и международных отношений, проректор по международной деятельности, Пензенский государственный университет.
Л. А. Гамидуллаева, к. э. н., доцент, научный сотрудник, Пензенский государственный университет.
Придерживаясь установки, что инновационная деятельность должна имманентно присутствовать в экономическом механизме всех хозяйствующих субъектов, а также осуществляться беспрепятственно, принципиальным моментом становится определение ключевых внутренних мотивов для воспроизводства инноваций, эффективное управление которыми будет способствовать их распространению и саморазвитию инновационной системы. Считаем, что главным таким мотивом является добавленная стоимость, создаваемая экономическими агентами в процессе инновационной деятельности. При этом, управление инновационным развитием должно быть встроено в саму управляемую систему так, чтобы механизмы управления согласовывались с механизмами и закономерностями самоорганизации и самоуправления. Участники инновационного процесса должны интенсивно взаимодействовать, наращивать опыт осуществления совместных проектов по созданию и коммерциализации инноваций. Поэтому особое внимание должно быть направлено на разработку и реализацию соответствующей стратегии, обеспечивающей формирование структур-аттракторов, притягивающих инновационные траектории развития и определяющих основные направления стимулирования взаимодействия участников инновационной деятельности. В качестве последних могут выступать институты инновационной среды, обладающие наибольшим потенциалом по снижению трансакционных издержек инновационной деятельности и оптимизации объема и структуры добавленной стоимости, генерируемой экономическими агентами.
Ключевые слова: инновационная система; добавленная стоимость; развитие инновационной системы; концепция управления; самоорганизация; методология управления.
IKEA Centres Russia продолжает поиск инновационных технологий и решений и объявляет о старте приема заявок во второй МЕГА Accelerator для стартапов в сфереритейла. В акселератор компания приглашает стар-тапы, предлагающие решения для трансформации торговых центров МЕГА в пространство для встреч и отдыха, улучшения покупательского опыта и оптимизации бизнес-процессов.
h-
о
CN
В этом году география проекта расширяется - теперь подать заявку могут не только стартапы из России, но и из других стран. Регистрация кандидатов продлится до 27 июля 2017 года, после чего начнется оценка и отбор команд, которые пройдут дальше в предакселератор и акселератор.
В сентябре 2017 года из числа стартап-команд, прошедших в предакселератор, будут выбраны наиболее успешные, которые попадут в очную программу акселерации, где в течение 3 месяцев они будут работать над интеграцией своего решения в экосистему МЕГА под руководством опытных менторов и экспертов. Победитель проекта будет выбран экспертным жюри и объявлен в декабре 2017 года.
Стартапы, прошедшие отбор и попавшие в акселератор, получат по 350 000 рублей на тестирование своего проекта, а победитель МЕГА Accelerator - денежный приз в размере 2 000 000 рублей.
К участию в проекте приглашаются стартапы по трем направлениям:
сЗ • МЕГА — пространство для встреч,
МЕГА — взаимодействие с посетителями, МЕГА — автоматизированный бэк-офис.
J АО «Технопарк Санкт-Петербурга», пр. Медиков, д. 3, лит. А, Санкт-Петербург.
Тел: 8 (812) 670-10-85, e-mail: [email protected].
