CC BY
52
УДК 338.4
А. I. Shinkevich, М. V. Leonova, Cees A.M. den Teuling MODERN APPROACHES FOR INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES’ ADMINISTRATION:
THE COMPARISON OF INTERNATIONAL AND RUSSIAN EXPERIENCE BY AN EXPAMPLE OF THE REPUBLIC OF TATARSTAN
Ключевые слова: теории управления, теория «тройной спирали», технологический уклад, качество менеджмента, управленческие стратегии, инновационная политика Республики Татарстан.
В статье обобщены основы теорий управления и «тройной спирали», а также концепция технологических укладов Д.И.Кондратьева. Показана специфика перехода к экономике инновационного типа в России. Проанализированы качество менеджмента и применяемые управленческие стратегии крупных промышленных предприятий в условиях формирования рыночной экономики в РФ. Изучена специфика инновационной политики Республики Татарстан как одного из прогрессивных субъектов РФ.
Keywords: management theories; the “triple-helix” model; a technological wave; management quality; management
strategies; The Tatarstan Republic’s innovation policy.
In this article the bases of management theories, the triple-helix model, and the Kondratiev’s theory are summarized. The specificity of transition to the innovative economy in Russia is demonstrated.
Authors analyzed management quality and management strategies of leading industrial enterprises in terms of the market economy formation in Russia. The specificity of innovation policy of the Tatarstan Republic as one of progressive regions of Russia is studied.
In modern life, many researchers agree that the process of management reminds art, which employs science in practical conditions Since the beginning of development of theory and practice of management in 9-7th millenniums b.c., statehood, slavery, capitalism, industrialism, and the bureaucratic revolution in 20th century were important milestones in progressive societies’ development. Frederick W.Taylor, Frank and Lilian Gilbert, Harrington Emerson, Henry Ford, Henry L.Gantt, Henry Fayol, Max Weber, Elton Mayo, Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor and some others contributed a lot in the theory and practice of management.
Leadership styles theory developed by many scientists as well, particularly Kurt Lewin and Douglas McGregor. Lewin distinguished autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership styles, which are usually observed together in a leader depending on a situation. McGregor developed the “X-Y Theory”, which proposes the subordinates’ views about autocratic and democratic leaders respectively [1].
During the 20th century, evolution of the organization structure observed: from hierarchic to matrix types (pic. 1). After the 80es, the role of virtual structures, chains, unions, internal entrepreneurship has risen, and the formation of so-called an organization’s “internal market” began [2].
Under the D.Kondratiev’s Theory of technological waves change, during the 20th century, 3 cycles passed (i.e. 3rd, 4th, and 5th technological waves) and with the beginning of 21st century the 6th wave has already arisen, which is called as a post-industrial one with knowledge-based or innovative economy. The core of the new cycle is made up by bio- and nanotechnologies, composition materials, “green chemistry”, IT and space technologies [3, 4]. In parallel with the wave’s change and a transition from industrial to innovative economy in developed countries, at the turn of the centuries the rejection of the technocratic, rational management type happened. Therewith, the orientation of management to the material, financial, and, that is important, human capitals was placed at the front position. It triggered corresponding changes within the organizational structure of companies, and applications’ of humanistic approaches in management processes became more frequent [1].
Pic. 1 - Evolution of the organizational structure
Europe is, in many ways, the birthplace of innovation. The industrial revolution, the first major technological developments-such as the railways, the university and the corporate laboratory -were all pioneered in Europe prior to the 20th century. During the 20th century, there was a clear shift of leadership to the US and the rapid development of Japan. Europeans are nevertheless witnessing a renaissance In EU innovation performance in recent years. The 2008 European Scoreboard shows that the EU has been catching up or overtaking the US in most indicators of innovation performance in the last five years, and that European countries such as Sweden and Finland are firmly established as top global innovation performers.
In parallel, public policies to support innovation in European countries and at the level of the European Union have expended dramatically. Since its inception in the 1980s, the Framework Program for Research and Technological Development has developed into one of the largest international programs in the world with a budget of over € 50bn from 2007 to 2013. Actually, the challenging economic times present extraordinary opportunities for enhancing the competitiveness of organizations that have the ability to be responsive to changes, question certainties, adjust their mindset and re-orientate activities, move physically, find new partnerships, outsource non-core business and the like.
With growing influence of the knowledge-based economy at the beginning of 21th century, the government, business and universities got equal involvement into the process of national innovative system’s development, which is described by The Triple-Helix Theory [5]. Concurrently, the transformation of “government-university”, “university-business”, and “government-business” bilateral bonds into the trilateral ones “government-university-business” has been occurred. The universities, while being responsible for generating of new knowledge, are getting the dominant positions in the system of innovative development. Therewith, the government assumes responsibility for assuring the favorable conditions for innovations’ implementation and providing the effective communication channels between business and universities [6].
With the collapse of USSR and the ruin of communism, the deep transformation of economic affairs happened in Russia; at the same time the number of military R&D decreased. The “army” as a powerful actor was forced out of domination within “government-army”, “army-university”, and “army-industry” pairs [7]. As a result, the ground for building up of innovative economy had been prepared, existing channels transformed, and universities integrated into the “Triple Helix”.
The regime’s change and the transition from administrative command system to market relations triggered the shift inside the management system on Russian industrial enterprises. One of the main problems was insufficient managers’ qualification resulting in the low quality of management. Meanwhile, the big vertically integrated companies and/or ventures with the participation of foreign capital were exploiting a different management strategy, valuing the highly-qualified personnel as an important source of growth for a company [7, 8].
The study [9] shows up the results of investigation of industrial enterprises, made by State University — Higher School of Economics in 2005. The authors found out the high differentiation of management quality for the manufacturing industry enterprises in the middle of 2000s. The group of leading companies excelled by active usage of modern management technologies, involving highly-qualified employees. However, a considerable proportion of leaders did not use up-to-date administration approaches (pic. 2).
Pic. 2 - Distribution of selected enterprises in terms of management quality in Russia, percentage of participants, %
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development undertook a study [10] in 2009 comprising Russia and 9 other countries with transitional economy. Sampled companies were represented by 1669 enterprises, 216 of it were Russian. The obtained results correspond with previous studies showing the direct interrelation between labor productivity, increase in sales, new products development, R&D spending, which characterizes the effectiveness of operation of an enterprise. The data analysis demonstrates the position of Russia among other countries with transitive economy, which is in the “bottom” of diagram, illustrating the management quality level for industrial enterprises. On the top of it are Poland, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Serbia, and Belorussia. The same level of management quality is obtained for Ukraine, Romania, and Kazakhstan; worse results discovered for Uzbekistan.
Studies [8-10] showed up the tendency about management quality; in general, it is better on bigger enterprises, companies with foreign owners and exporters (pic. 3). For Russian enterprises, companies integrated in business groups, and companies, established in 1992-1998, demonstrate better results.
The study [8] represents the new tendency of managerial strategies in Russia, dealing with usage of managerial innovations in parallel with large investments and technological innovations. Such a tendency is a sign of innovative process presence, i.e. innovations are in business models, products and processes. The diagram (pic.4) shows the shares of different managerial technologies in a group of innovative- and investment-active enterprises and without it. Comparison of management quality of enterprises without innovations and investments (or with little investments) and companies
■ 1 - average
■ 2 - significantly below the average
■ 3 -above the average
with “active” innovations and investments, the meaning “above average” is determined for one out of 10 and 3 respectively.
□ Below the average
' Average
'“Above the
average
Pic. 3 - Management quality on different enterprises, Russia, 2009, %
Implementation/automation of the management accounting and reporting system
80% i Improvement of
the organizational structure
Involving of cosulting companies specialized in administration
IFRS/GAAPHA reporting
Supply management systems "just-in-time"
Benchmarking with foreign competitors
Diagnostics and restructurisation of business processes
Implementation of source -and energy saving system
Autsourcing of some functions and business-processes
Benchmarking with russian competitors
Companies with active innovations and investments
Sertification in ISO 9000 or other international Developement of the key highlights system for assesment of workers' and departments' efficiency
Promotion of trademarks, brand creation Developement strategy for 3 and more years
Companies without active innovations and investments
Pic. 4 - Usage of various managerial technologies within groups of enterprises differentiated by the level of innovation and investment activities in Russia, %
As previously mentioned, biotechnology is one of the core technologies of innovative economy of 6th technological mode. Currently, the level of development of bioindustry in Russia ranks №70 globally, while Soviet Union was the 5th in the mid-70s of XX century. The Russian Federation’s share in the global overall biotech products delivery is less than 0,2% (about $1 billion), as USSR accounted 5%. While leading countries (USA, Japan, EU, Canada and etc.) tends to redesign their own economic systems in accordance with requirements of 6th technological mode, Russia lags behind. In fact, the state of the art in Russia matches the requirements of 3rd, 4th, and 5th technological modes simultaneously.
The guarantee of stable development of bio-based economy is scientific-experimental base as well as bonds creating and strengthening between science and real economy sector with
governmental support. The strong scientific school is a Russian Federation specificity: Russian universities comprise more than 50 biotechnological schools with “zero” demand on high-qualified specialists in that field [11]. The majority of leading biotech enterprises (NPO “Microgen” is the most important) was found in USSR: the managerial systems of the enterprises shows the features relevant to soviet times.
Among all Russian regions, the policy of Tatarstan Republic differs from others with governmental action to form the regional innovative system and infrastructure u strengthen bonds between government, universities and business as “The Triple-Helix” actors. In March, 2010 the Direct program “Development of biotechnologies in Tatarstan Republic for 2010-2020” [12], the formation of Republic biopharmaceutical cluster started.
Kazan biotechnological school is known for more than two hundred years and represented by Kazan Federal University, Kazan State Technological University, Kazan State Technical University, Kazan Agriculture University, Organic and Physical Chemistry Institute and etc. Industrial enterprises with biotech processes are Tatspirtprom JSC refineries, Krasniy Vostok (EFES) brewery, Vamin-Tatarstan JSC dairies, Tatkhimpharmpreparati JSC pharmacy, and etc.
The governmental support in formation of innovative economy of Tatarstan Republic is provided by creating and stimulating operation of the Investment and Venture Fund of the Republic of Tatarstan, the Technopark “IDEA”, the consulting company with business accelerator functions Pulsar Venture LLC, and some other actors. Since 2005, the contest “The 50 Best Innovative Ideas of Tatarstan” is organized; the winners get financing from the Government and leading corporations of the Republic. In terms of the contest the innovative projects program “IDEA-1000” is realized. The winners (Youth innovative project, Start-1, and Start-2 nominations) attract 400 - 2 000 thousand rubles as a grant from the Investment and Venture Fund of the Republic of Tatarstan for their projects’ development. Branch-wise structure of applications for the contest “The 50 Best Innovative Ideas of Tatarstan” and winners of the innovative projects program “IDEA-1000” are presented in [13].
In fact, the strategic goal for Russia is overwhelming of the technological lag, development and implementation of technologies, which are corresponding to the 6th technological mode as well as accelerated formation of effectively functioning national innovative system. Realization of this strategy supposes the further transformation of bilateral bonds like “government-industry” and “government-university” to the Triple-helix strengthening of the “government-industry-university” bonds. Therefore, assuming the growing influence of universities within the Triple-helix and their exclusive role in the process of new knowledge creation, the regions with strong scientific school (the Tatarstan Republic is a good example) will be the bases for growth.
In terms of dominating of 6th technological mode technologies at the beginning of 21th century, the biotechnologies, energy- and sources saving, IT and nautical technologies are the major trends of innovative development in leading economic systems. Moreover, the further perfection of market relations, including the innovative management technologies, is crucial for Russia. While saving definitely out-of-date manufacturing technologies and “soviet-typed” schemes of administration at the main key enterprises, the most effective administration models with modern managerial strategies should be combined and implemented. The most effective enterprises’ structure , based on the prospective innovative development, in Russia is found at companies with “above average” management quality, i.e. large companies; companies with foreign owners; exporting companies; companies within integrated business groups; established in 90s of 20th century companies.
Actually, global experience, i.e. Europe, US, and Japan, in the process of innovative technologies adoption is useful for Russia as a country with growing economy. Standing alone is not an option, neither for entrepreneurs, nor for researchers. Clusters, joint projects, common technology platforms, and shared application facilities, developers communities, there is an incredible number of European and global initiatives and tools, an incredible change in the real entrepreneurs behavior, and a promising growth of open and collaboration based new ventures. In Europe, cooperation is the “buzz” word in modern and innovative economic development.
Литература
1. Чередниченко, И. П. Психология управления / И. П.Чередниченко, Н. В. Тельных / Ростов-на-Дону: Феникс, 2004. - б08 с.
2. Мильнер, Б.З. Теория организации / Б.З.Мильнер. - 2-е изд., перераб. и доп. - М: Инфра-М, 1999. -ЗЗб с.
3. Глазьев, С.Ю. Теория долгосрочного технико-экономического развития / С.Ю.Глазьев. - М.: ВлаДар, 1993. - 30 с.
4. Кузык, В.Н. Как успешно реализовать стратегию успешного развития России / В.Н. Кузык // Мир России. - 2009. - №4 - С. 3-18.
5. Шинкевич, А.И. Управление инновационным развитием мезосистем в условиях кризиса: монография / А.И. Шинкевич и др.; под ред. А.И.Шинкевича. - Казань: Изд-во КГТУ, 2010. - ЗЗб с.
6. Дежина, И.Г. Государство, наука и бизнес в инновационной системе России / И.Г. Дежина, В.В. Киселева. - М.: ИЭПП, 2008. - 227 с.
7. Чеглакова, Л.М. Изменения в практике управления персоналом на современных промышленных предприятиях / Л.М. Чеглакова // Социологические исследования. - 2007. - № 5. - С. 4б-52.
8. XI международная научная конференция по проблемам развития экономики и общества: в 3 кн. / отв. редактор Е.Г. Ясин. - М.: Издательский дом Высшей школы экономики, 2011. - С.434-443.
9. Гончар, К.Р. Российская промышленность на этапе роста: факторы конкурентоспособности фирм: монография / Под ред. К.Р. Гончар и Б.В. Кузнецова. - М.: Вершина, 2008. - 480 с.
10.Transition report 2009. Transition in crisis? / European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. - 2009. - 255 с.
11.Синявская, С.Б. Биотехнологии напоминают о революции / С.Б.Синявская // Электронное издание
«Наука и Технологии России» (STRF.ru): Наука и техника: Живые системы. 2008
(http://www.strf.ru/science.aspx?CatalogId=222&d_no=1б889).
12.Постановление Кабинета Министров Республики Татарстан от 24 марта 2010 г. № 180. об утверждении Целевой программы «Развитие биотехнологии в Республике Татарстан на 2010 - 2020 годы». - Казань: Министерство Промышленности и Торговли Республики Татарстан, 2010. - 184 с.
13.Шинкевич, А.И. Обеспечение инновационного развития химии и технологии полимерных и композиционных материалов и энергоресурсосберегающих технологий перспективных материалов в Республике Татарстан / А.И. Шинкевич, М.В. Леонова // Вестник Казан. технол. ун-та. - 2011. - Т.14, №2. - С. 280-285.
© А. I. Shinkevich - д-р экон. наук, зав. каф. логистики и управления КНИТУ, ashinkevich@mail.ru; М. V. Leonova - асп. каф. логистики и управления КНИТУ, leona_21@mail.ru; Cees A.M. den Teuling -слушатель программы DBA/ Ph.D. (2005-2011гг.): BSN / Sheffield Hallam University, United Kingdom, cees@orange-business-improvement.com.
