Prospects for the development of innovative networks. Innovation networks Types of innovation networks

25.11.2019

UDC 330.3

Innovation networks

The development of the modern economy is associated with the formation of qualitatively new competitive advantages of its subjects. These are the following features:

1. Competitive advantages associated with the movement of interspecific resources do not reflect statics, but dynamics fundamental competencies, relevant technologies. The movement of knowledge in a special intra-company and inter-company information space is characterized by a special synergistic effect. Living knowledge is relative, it involves discussion, respectively, the exchange of information. In the process of this exchange, new knowledge is born. technological and organizational priorities are adjusted. The very movement of a resource is its mutual enrichment. The economy based on this principle develops according to qualitatively new laws. Such an exchange process performs a coordinating function. Communities of professionals participating in the exchange give birth to leaders of transformation (passionaries). Active points of growth of new competencies attract traditional knowledge arrays and enrich them. In these interdisciplinary points, the exchange is intensified, a special intellectual space is being formed, a multidimensional network of moving streams of living knowledge. This is how attractors appear. Here, individual events of the past can get ahead of the present and "trap us from the future." Innovative attractor structures represent the future of complex economic systems. Such systems will not work if they isolate themselves from the outside world with a Chinese wall. The presence of blurred boundaries with the external environment allows an elementary particle of the economy to enter a certain mesocommunity, in which the attractor effect operates. Michael Hammer notes that modern innovative companies in the process of reengineering lose clear boundaries separating them from the external environment. Elements of the external environment are directly connected to the basic processes of the enterprise, becoming their main coordinators and controllers.

2.Domination informal, "intermediate" relations and processes. Much of the knowledge of innovative companies is not documented but resides in the minds of employees. A documented intellectual product is effectively implemented in the presence of developed informal information relations and innovative experience. The movement of technology is optimal in the cloud of side information flows and know-how. The future lives in intermediate worlds, which is why complex innovation systems move along complex trajectories, focus on blurry possible development paths (network effect).

3. Availability of innovative scale effect. What is considered insignificant today may be fundamental tomorrow. Such a transformation of the scale in modern conditions is carried out extremely quickly. The speed of movement of information flows corresponds to the scale of the time vector. The movement of economic resources is subject to this rule. Such irrationality of the movement of resources makes it possible to increase the speed of the movement of resources to the areas of the attractor exponentially. Hence the phenomenological nature of modern financial mechanisms. Attempts at a straightforward explanation of many investment phenomena, events of the movement of resources in the securities markets are associated with a primitive speculative interpretation. In reality, there is a formation of a new substance of money and the movement of capital. Just as technologies are classified as disruptive, new, and modifications of old, stand out innovative networks of three levels. The movement of fundamental technologies is most effectively carried out in global networks (networks of the first level), new ones - national (networks of the second level) and regional (networks of the third level). The presence of three network structures suggests three types of synergistic effects in the economy. Accordingly, each type of network differs not only in the scale of information and resource flows, but also in specific forms of exchange and self-organization, institutional elements, infrastructure and the nature of technology transfer. As the scale decreases, the density of the network increases. With the presence of three levels of networks, the economy of a country or region becomes innovative - a continuous, super-dense space of innovative networks is formed here. Thus, development simultaneously goes both in depth and in breadth. Obviously, the competitiveness of an economy can be determined by the scale and density of the innovation network. The US is in the lead here. The generation of capital in this country is carried out in innovative networks, the richest people on the planet are intensively working in the field of software, the movement of intellectual products. An important role in the networks of the first level is played by American universities, working not only for their own country, but for the whole world. The European community today is forced to create world-class technological universities.

4. Cluster intersections networks of the first type are scientific schools. If scientific schools are destroyed (as we did with genetics and cybernetics), the country limits the possibilities of increasing its wealth. The intellectual products of world-class scientific schools can move through global innovation networks. This realizes the competitive advantages of the country of the first level, creates new points of growth, new technological structures, enterprises with a high level of added value and capitalization. At the same time, the country is being integrated into the global innovative value chains. This is done through global innovation networks. "In the beginning was the word." Thus, the closeness of fundamental science, secrecy, judicial actions against leading scientists are a path to disaster. Behind this lies a lack of vision and strategy. In order for a country to involve applied science and an innovative community of entrepreneurs in global networks, it must “open up” to the world. Unfortunately we are closing more and more. This is a big mistake. Russia is losing competitive advantages of the first level. Its fundamental science is not in demand and is doomed to poverty. It is no coincidence that in 2005 Russia took a step back in the world competitiveness rankings. But this is precisely the main parameter that evaluates the work of the President of the Russian Federation. The passage of Russia in the 1990s through the bifurcation point means that a return to the past is impossible. The centralization of the economy, the nationalization of its key sectors, the suppression of dissidents through the use of administrative resources, the judicial system, the revision of history - all this has already happened. As Nikita Belykh said, “the lack of an adequate perception of the past, ... distortion of history, ... leads to the fact that people no longer see the causal relationships of historical events.” Without solving the problems of moving forward, we doom scientific schools to physical extinction. Today they are left without a middle link. The elders dominate here. The new national "project" leaves science and education on the leftover principle - it is the last in line for resources. Many experts believe that irreparable damage has already been done to the RAS, many scientific schools have been destroyed. In order to work in global innovation networks, perfect knowledge of English is required. Here is a new problem. In this regard, we need a national project, we need a federal channel in English, we need a truly open education, the development of educational tourism.

5.Innovative second layer networks subject to global networks. They are focused on national (federal) projects and require the existence of a national innovation infrastructure. The latter is currently missing. No second-tier innovation networks have appeared in Russia. Separate innovation areas are ships in the desert. The exchange of innovative experience is extremely limited, most research teams work behind closed doors. The internships of students and teachers in the largest world and national scientific and engineering centers are reduced to a minimum (which is well established in Eastern Europe, China and India). Intelligent products do not adapt to the needs of the industry. There is no engineering belt of the national economy. The work of enterprises with intellectual products is institutionally difficult. The disunity of the innovation community is a path to a dead end. And we are amazed why the Russian economy rejects innovation and continues to be rent-free.

6.Innovative third level networks are of particular interest in the information society as a manifestation of the highest level of development. Their appearance indicates the presence of a continuous innovation space of the region and the country, in which fundamental competitive advantages are realized at the regional level in the diverse processes of innovation diffusion. In the innovative world, the global effects of attractors are realized in the networks of the third level, attracting innovative arrays of regions and rebuilding them. In the absence of these networks, a collective synergistic process is impossible.

7. Transition through fluctuations from one innovation scale to another, for example, from a first-level network to a second-level network, turns the mobile information field into an energy cluster. As the information flow reaches a smaller scale of the second level, tension accumulates in the transforming innovative network system, so that any small event (fluctuation) can cause a powerful explosion leading to the deployment of a new network. From the field of innovative chaos comes a package of standard products that highlights new technological priorities, defeating chaos and focusing movement and material flows. And vice versa, when moving from the lowest to the highest scale, the energy space for the development of a certain need is realized in the information search movement.

8. The innovation network corresponds to a new reality - a self-organizing information field of competencies and technologies - mesoenvironment. Participants in network cooperation themselves establish the rules and order of relations between themselves in the process of work. Stimulated by external influences, they themselves more or less consciously develop them in the process of collective activity (analysis of the current situation, assessment of alternatives, decision-making, etc.). A fragment of this meso-environment is a modern firm. In a restructuring, highly dynamic environment, a firm is forced to change its outline, to bring its structures and functions, human capital and organizational culture into line. Outsourcing and insourcing are used simultaneously. This allows the complex economic system of the company to spontaneously streamline its structure and the structure of its reactions to external influences of the meso-environment, increasing their certainty in time. Gradually, the firm acquires a network structure that allows it to function as a non-equilibrium system (dissipative structure), often on the border of chaotic states (high degree of uncertainty). The basis of the new synergetic economic methodology is the idea of a wide range of paths of evolution of complex systems, the field of development paths. This means the ambiguity of the future, the existence of moments of instability associated with the choice of ways for further development. It is the network form of organization, self-organization that is most suitable for dissipative structures, since it implies the simultaneous stability and instability, chaos and order, generated by the same factors.

Bibliographic list

1. Gromov, A. The ideological facade of power / A. Gromov // Expert. - 2006. - No. 9. - P. 75.

Network information structure: the concept of an innovation network, the principles of its formation and functioning mechanisms.

Information and network infrastructure of the economy- this is its substructure, part of the information infrastructure created by the association of economic agents in a computer network. This ensures the creation, storage, exchange and consumption of products produced on the basis of information and knowledge and used to achieve the effectiveness of the development of economic relations.

In these conditions, there are three main types of infrastructure entities These are households, firms of various forms of ownership and sizes, the state. The subjects of the information and network infrastructure are economic agents that, by forming or using infrastructure elements, interact in a network with clearly defined goals. Subjects are divided into two main groups:

1) those who take an active part in the development of elements and means of labor infrastructure;

2) those who use them functionally.

The main goal of all actors in the infrastructure– use network resources in the best possible way to make a profit or derive non-material benefits. Each of the subjects performs its functions, which ensures the production of goods and services, the infrastructure is a platform that either contributes to the performance of the necessary functions, or is completely a mechanism for the production of information goods and the provision of services.

Infrastructure facilities create an information-network form of interaction, as they transform the traditional interaction of subjects; here, the functions of providing information and working with it sometimes change. In this case, the objects are Internet resources or individual modules that can be built into sites.

Sites are considered not only as a finished product, but also as work items with which you can perform many work functions. On fig. these infrastructures are placed in the center and marked with pentagons. At present, Internet resources are not only products of labor, but also objects of economic activity, through which many economic agents can interact with each other.

Thus, infrastructure is the basis for economic development. It provides flexibility, reliability, productivity of all processes.

Development of information and network infrastructure of the economy taking into account its specifics and features, it gives more opportunities for economic agents to work efficiently, opening faster and more efficient communication channels between them.

The concept of an innovation network and principles of formation, mechanisms of functioning

innovation network is an open economic system consisting of many independent economic units.

Formation of innovation networks is a process of analyzing factors and circumstances, selecting and connecting suitable economic objects into a single network. Given the ongoing changes associated with changes in technology, information and management, the process of forming innovation networks requires the development of certain principles. The formation of innovative networks takes place in the conditions of the formation and development of a post-industrial society

Innovation subsystem consists of a set of interconnected economic objects that carry out the process of development, creation and production of innovations. This includes enterprises engaged in innovative activities in the development and production of intellectual products. This subsystem ensures the most efficient production of innovative and intelligent products with the optimal use of its resources. The innovation infrastructure as a supporting subsystem is an association of objects that are not directly involved in the creation and production of innovations, but play an important role in ensuring this process. This subsystem provides the innovation network with the necessary resources and services. It includes three parts. The first is scientific and technical support, which includes enterprises operating in the market of technologies, information resources and services. The market of technologies and the market of information resources is the base that forms the level of functioning of the entire innovation network. This includes technology parks, technopolises, techno cities, business incubators and other structures.

The service market includes all external services, such as the provision of transport or storage services, the provision of communication channels, consultations, the construction of non-productive fixed assets, etc. Second, the natural resource market is the primary source of material and raw materials for the production system of the innovation network. These markets determine the natural and climatic conditions for the functioning of the innovation network, depending on the geographical location, seasonal changes and exposure to natural disasters. Third, the service subsystem of self-sufficiency. Service subsystem includes an information system, the purpose of which is to ensure internal communication between all elements of the innovation network, the creation and maintenance of a mechanism for collecting business information. Social infrastructure is associated with the reproduction of the human capital of network participants. The ecological system should ensure the minimization of the harmful effects of economic activity on the environment.

Innovation commercialization subsystem ensures the promotion and implementation of innovations and intellectual products. This subsystem may include such enterprises that operate in the field of innovation marketing, advertising, public relations and, of course, sales. The result of the operation of this subsystem largely determines the effectiveness of the innovation network as a whole. The innovation financing subsystem provides financial support for the innovation network, settlements and distribution of cash flows and funds, uses free cash to develop the innovation network, participates in the credit market and the securities market. The activities of enterprises included in this subsystem are aimed at the efficient use of financial resources and the management of the innovation network in external financial markets. Such enterprises include banks, investment and insurance companies, venture firms and funds, etc. These principles for the formation of innovation networks should be taken into account when building interstate innovation networks, when building national innovation networks, regional and sectoral, as well as at the enterprise level when building innovation teams .

First, the demographic factor. The demographic crisis of the XXI century. manifest itself in two trends. In some countries, the crisis of overpopulation will continue, associated with an increase in the demographic burden on nature and the economy, with the problem of employment, and poverty. In others, it is a crisis of depopulation, causing a deterioration in the age structure of the population and a drop in its innovativeness. The decline in the population, the trend towards the aging of the population are observed in the more developed regions of the world, but later it can cover the entire planet. Even in China, population decline is expected after 2040. This means an increase in conservatism and the difficulty of implementing radical innovations, the possibility of increasing the gap and conflict between successive symbolic generations.

Secondly, the environmental factor. It also manifests itself in two tendencies. On the one hand, the rapid increase in the population and even higher growth rates of its needs and consumption will lead to a significant increase in population density and pressure on natural resources, especially non-renewable ones. Under these conditions, fundamentally new solutions are needed, innovations that drastically reduce the needs of society for fossil fuels and raw materials, forest and water resources, and cultivated land. On the other hand, the growing pollution of the environment. Under these conditions, it is impossible to cross the line when irreversible changes in the natural environment begin, leading to a global environmental catastrophe. This requires the widespread introduction of environmental innovations that reduce and prevent environmental pollution.

Thirdly, the technological factor. It represents the implementation of a wave of epoch-making and basic innovations that will open the way to a post-industrial technological mode of production that will greatly increase labor productivity and absolutely reduce the consumption of natural resources and harmful emissions into the environment.

These development factors create conditions for the formation of innovative networks. These conditions are primarily First of all , the humanization of technological progress, its structure, the orientation of intellectual and engineering forces, discoveries, inventions and innovations to meet human needs for environmentally friendly food, fight disease and promote health, improve education, preserve and enrich cultural heritage in all its diversity. Secondly , greening technological progress, development and dissemination of fundamentally new waste-free technologies, renewable energy sources, environmental monitoring tools, which will reduce the growth rate of consumed resources and emissions into the environment. Thirdly, the demilitarization of science and technology, which is manifested in the use of the conversion potential of the military-technical sector, where a huge amount of dual-use technologies has accumulated. Such technologies can be a source

highly efficient technological systems in the civil sector of the economy, the humanitarian sector. Fourthly, the globalization of the scientific and technological revolution, the rapid spread of its achievements across all countries and civilizations in order to reduce the technological and economic gap between them.

These factors and conditions give rise to the need to form a new innovative paradigm for the development of mankind and all countries, and to develop methodological principles for the formation of innovative networks. The principles of building innovative networks include the following.
First principle is the voluntariness of the participants in their actions. This principle is reflected in the process of making decisions about participation in the network. Innovation Network is an association of independent objects on the basis of partnership and contract, therefore, the voluntary participation of all its members in joint innovation activities is of paramount importance. Without this, it is impossible to form a viable economic network. Each potential candidate for an innovation network must independently conduct a comprehensive analysis of internal and external conditions, without assistance from the organizers of the network, and voluntarily decide on their participation in this system. In this case, it is necessary to take into account the characteristics and own goals. Voluntariness involves acting on one's own will. In this case, in accordance with the task of this work, voluntariness is the own desire of each member of the network, which is reflected in the relationship of all members of the network to the problem posed. According to the degree of this relationship, one can single out the general and strategic voluntariness of the innovation network.
Universal voluntariness assumes that the decision made by one of the participants in the innovation network corresponds to the wishes of all or most of the participants in the network. This is the ideal state to which all participants in the innovation network should strive. Practice has already proven that if the agreement in an organization reaches 65% of the total number of its members, then this is already a great guarantee of the success of the decision.
Strategic voluntariness reflects the own desire of each member of the innovation network that makes the decision. Such voluntariness gives an idea of the degree of psychological and economic readiness of each participant in the network, and also warns the parties making decisions about future responsibility.
The main mechanisms that ensure the voluntariness of the decision to participate in the innovation network include:
- an accurate description of the situation, necessary in order to convey to each participant information about the current situation;
- a clear formation of the essence of the proposed solution, which describes in detail the structure of the proposed solution, including the reasons, goals, principle of action, expected result;
- comprehensive information support, is to create a mechanism that provides high-quality, objective and complete information;

Large-scale discussion aimed at creating a platform for entry and setting the different points of view of all participants;
- final analyzes and conclusions, give a deep understanding of the problem, and the conclusions play the role of a guideline for the correct decision-making, help to have a general picture of the position of the network members, their main reactions and actions before the proposed decision;
- openness of the result of decisions made.

The voluntariness of the innovation network in its actions is reflected in the understanding of the voluntariness of each of its members when participating in the process of discussion, analysis of the emerging issue, in the ability to draw their own conclusions and express their point of view.
The second is the principle of unity. As you know, any organization or system works effectively only if it respects the principle of unity. In the process of forming innovative networks, the basis of which is the connection of independent innovative enterprises and organizations, it is of particular importance. The unity of the innovation network is expressed in different aspects: in common goals, common development strategies, a single structure. It is possible to single out the main types of unity that should be paid attention to when forming innovation networks.
Legal unity . Despite the fact that each participant in the innovation network can have full legal independence, when it is formed, it is necessary to determine in advance the form of the future organization. Having a certain legal status, the innovation network asserts its existence in the overall socio-economic system. The organizational and legal forms of innovation networks can be different (partnerships, cooperatives, JSCs, unitary organizations and institutions, etc.), but the essence of their choice is to maximize the efficiency of each participant individually and the network itself as a whole.
economic unity creates the conditions by which all members of the innovation network can contribute constructively to each other in order to achieve common goals. Each member of the innovation network has its own goals and resources. In the process of forming a single economic space, each participant is provided with the maximum possible benefit with a minimum use of common and individual resources. Economic unity is formed taking into account economic, legal and social factors. Such unity is formed on the basis of the concept of sustainable development of the network.
Targeted strategic unity is that when developing a plan for the strategic development of an innovation network, it is necessary to consider the network as a single organization or system. General strategies, missions, goals, tasks always have priority over any member of the system. In general, the process of forming a single targeted strategic development of an innovation network, as for other organizations, includes a set of standard managerial actions proposed in the works of Mescon M, Albert M., Hedouri F, Ansof I., Thompson A., Strickland A. . These include:
- formation, justification and choice of the mission;
- formation of a strategic concept, doctrine;
- definition of goals (goals);

Comprehensive analysis at micro and macro levels;
- identifying the characteristics of the organization, its strengths and weaknesses in the current conditions;
- development of alternative opportunities, development models;
- selection of the best option corresponding to the set goals;
- the process of implementing the chosen strategy, program;
- monitoring and evaluation of the strategy;
- making necessary adjustments.
The use of this set of management actions will allow the created innovation network to function as a single system moving towards a specific goal under a clear mission statement.
The third is the principle of determining the scope of the participants, their significance and place in the future network. All participants in the innovation network can be conditionally divided into four groups. The diagram of the relationship between the participants in the innovation system is shown in Figure 1.

Informality and openness of networks generate early warning system with which the company can identify pain points and possible hostile steps of suppliers, shareholders, bankers and even consumers. This information helps you avoid problems before they occur. The information networks also function as a broadcast system through which a company can test its plans and actions before they are formally announced.

The most striking change in the transition from a functioning to a growing organization is the change in people's attitudes towards the activities of the organization, both inside and outside the organization. A "volunteer" spirit emerges and spreads among employees and other people involved in the company, their behavior becomes based on shared values. Employees often go much further than what is expected of them.

The change in the behavior of workers is their response to the destruction of their "boxes" - the boundaries that isolated them within certain functions. By becoming involved in various activities of different teams, employees have the opportunity to learn from others and practice new skills - to become multifunctional and play leadership roles. Some feel for the first time in their careers that they are making a real difference to an organization that really needs them. People are asked to think, to be fully involved in the problems of the organization, and they respond with enthusiasm.

A functioning organization has a formal compensation system that is based on performance and includes significant bonuses for achieving goals. The level of the basic salary was determined after summing up the formal results of the activity for the year. This system of compensation is quickly destroyed during the crisis period. Summing up the functioning is suspended but the entire company, base salaries are often frozen, and in some cases reduced. Perhaps because freezes and cuts apply to everyone, including the board of directors, employees have a sense of joint contribution to solving the problems of the organization.

Many employees in the process of organizational renewal feel they are part of an important venture. Every day, every employee keeps track of how events unfold. There is a shared recognition that this is an extraordinary time and that everyone is learning, both individuals and the organization as a whole.

An organization usually finds itself in a crisis "without warning". As the working groups progress, it becomes clear that there are unforeseen, unexpected sources of change that significantly affect what happens. As the situation is discussed with all parties involved, a strategy begins to take shape.

Thus, the characteristic features of the transition from a functioning to a developing organization, i.e. key features of the process of organizational renewal, are the following.

Crisis: the loss of the status quo can no longer be denied. The organization can no longer support itself financially, function effectively without radical changes.

Departure of old leaders: Former top managers who dominated and maintained the organizational hierarchy often leave the company during a crisis, which disrupts the established order in the central office and stimulates the introduction of new processes.

Contingent Leadership: The new leadership is authoritative (built on authority), not authoritarian. During the teamwork that follows a crisis, such leaders appear at all levels of the organization.

Open communication: if communications in the hierarchy of a functioning organization are vertical and very limited, and a lot of confidential information is kept at the top level of the hierarchy, then the situation changes dramatically due to the need to entrust the development and adoption of urgent management decisions to many working groups in the process of transition to a growing organization.

Shared Mission: Through intense communication and collaboration In teams, there is a deep sense of shared purpose for all involved in the organizational renewal process. No one doubts the mission - to save and restore the company's business.

Flexibility and adaptability of workers: people who are central to the process of organizational change have multifaceted skills and abilities to solve various problems. When they don't have the necessary knowledge and skills, their flexibility allows them to collaborate and work with those who do, handing over leadership to those better equipped to handle the situation. Without losing motivation, they are able to pass on leadership and follow others.

Cross-functional teams: to solve pressing problems, they are formed from people of different levels of the formal hierarchy and with different functions. The widespread use of such commands has the effect of "delayering" the hierarchy, merging layers. Together with broad communication, this means that many more decisions are made at the lower levels of the formal organization.

Blurring Boundaries: A key element of the organizational renewal process is the blurring of boundaries both inside and outside the organization. Groups that would otherwise follow their own, often mutually exclusive, goals are now committed to a single goal.

Networks: Broad communication networks are being created based on shared goals and reciprocity. They promote a spirit of cooperation and trust. An essential contribution to the development of trust is the destruction of secrecy.

AT what are the features of crisis management in the context of the theory of organizational renewal?

Thus, the process of organizational renewal involves a transition from functioning within a rigid hierarchy to flexible innovative management. While the changes seem as much spontaneous as they are planned, the key is the fact that the company's management responds to a crisis by creating a new context for action, and top management models the desired new organizational behavior.

The company emerges from the crisis with a sense of connectedness and identity that none of the team members have experienced before. All managers have a shared sense of mission and purpose that infects everyone who comes into contact with the organization. A new corporate culture is being legitimized. New ways of behavior are legitimized by the behavior of the top management team, supported conceptually by the development of a new language of communication. Informal processes develop that contrast with formal hierarchical relationships. Now, in trying to reach consensus on difficult issues, managers often find that they must wait to allow key players to emerge. When there are some extraordinary, breaking the usual rules and ideas, innovative proposals in the working group, managers discuss these proposals for a long time to give the idea a chance to evolve. The management style becomes, as it were, peripatetic; “management by walking around” is introduced into practice.

In other words, in response to the crisis, the company creates a new "microclimate" - a context in which a new organizational culture thrives. There are new norms of behavior, new ways of understanding what is happening in the world. The new culture does not replace the old hierarchical one, but is closely intertwined with it.

At the same time, organizational changes occur naturally, organically. As soon as an adequate climate is established, the system organizes itself. This is especially noticeable when events proceed without the intervention of top managers. In the old days, through plans and rigid deadlines, the "power-led herd" carried out projects on time. Now, in the new climate, it appears that everything is carried out without the intervention of top managers. In fact, in the process of organizational renewal, the properties of self-organization of human systems are clearly manifested.

The process of organizational change, the evolution of the organization, the author of the theory of organizational renewal D.K. Hirst schematically represented it as consisting of two loops, which, intersecting, form the symbol of infinity (Fig. 5.24).

The part of the loop depicted by the solid line is the traditional S-shaped (logistics) life cycle curve. The dotted line - the reverse 5-shaped curve represents the process of renewal (return to life), re-creation of the organization.

Rice. 5.24. Organization evolution model

Stage 1 In the early years, there is a simple business purpose that, together with the culture and environment of the company, encourages ad hoc behavior and development (innovation). The activity appears to be random, not planned.

Stage 2 The business grows and prospers, becoming more structured in the process. After several years, a new logic is introduced by top managers (from top to bottom) - a deliberate strategy of diversification and growth. This is followed by a significant growth in revenues and profits, along with a constant growth in the scale of the organization. In fact, this leads to a loss of control over part of the management.

Stage 3 The company is facing challenges attributable to the uncompetitiveness of many of its operations and the general economic downturn. This leads to a financial crisis that poses a threat to the life of the organization.

Stage 4 The crisis destroys all kinds of restrictions for actors: the hierarchical structure in the organization becomes flat; unions decide to support managers in their efforts to save the company; new information channels are opened, etc. This is accompanied by a radical "downsizing" as "non-core" operations (structural divisions) are either closed or sold, and "key" operations are reduced in size.

Stage 5 As a result, it seems that the actions of managers acquire a random (unforeseen) character again. Much is again reminiscent of the early years, although the business is much larger now than it was in those days.

During the renewal (re-creation) cycle - the dotted part of the loop - there is little hierarchy and no collaborative logic to coordinate the organization. Why are people together during the painful transition from stage 3 to stage 5? The short answer is leadership and shared values.

Consider the actions of managers during the renewal cycle. From a systems perspective, during the renewal cycle, managers manage the organization's ability to change rather than change itself. At the same time, the role and position of managers are similar to the gardener: the gardener cannot make plants grow, he can only create optimal conditions under which the natural self-organizing tendencies of plants can be realized. The gardener must let them grow.

That is why managers during the renewal process should not have unequivocal technical answers; they only need to understand social contexts in which organizational renewal, revival of the organization is possible. Thus, during the period of organizational renewal, the main focus of managers is to create contexts for action. At the strategic stage of the performance curve, managers usually think about ways (methods) of a better way of doing things. In the process of organizational renewal, managers think all the time, but this requires systems thinking, not instrumental rationality.

The purpose of creating a crisis is to break the harmful constraints that bind the organization in the final phase of the traditional life cycle. A serious internal problem is that, over a long period of successful operation, people who fit into and contribute to an organization are almost certainly selected for their ability to maintain the organization's status quo rather than disrupt it.

The renewal process requires continuous constructive destruction of the status quo at all levels of the organization. If managers themselves do not create crises (disturbances of the status quo), then something else will create them.

Despite the fact that "light a fire" within a conservative organization, this is the very first and simplest stage of any renewal effort, yet this often requires help from outside sources.

Managers face control process paradox: the process of renewal of the organization cannot begin before the failure of the old order is proclaimed; but, on the other hand, this renewal process is more successful if it is started before too much damage has been done. For example, general economic downturns, changes in political course, the appointment of new leaders who have no interest in maintaining the status quo, and so on, help resolve this paradox.

Internal sources can also provoke a crisis, but they may not be intentional, but a by-product of other actions. More interesting are the "deliberate" actions taken within the organization that can open up "tears" in the organization.

For example, 3M uses the following institutionalized method to systematically set fire to mature business units. The company has introduced a requirement that all 50 of its divisions receive at least 30% of the income from the sale of their products introduced within the last 4 years.

Managers often talk about making their business "fireproof," a metaphor for protecting against environmental influences. But at the same time, business is not able to change, it loses its innovativeness. Opening a 3M business for the external environment has allowed the company to upgrade. Innovative activity acts as a fundamentally important source of organizational renewal.

Organizational renewal is different from reengineering (see Chapter 5.2). The classic definition of reengineering is: "fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes in order to achieve dramatic improvements in key performance indicators such as cost, quality, service, and speed."

In an emphasis on achieving radical, dramatic change, the two approaches have much in common. But their similarities are superficial, while their differences are deep. While reengineering is an instrumentally rational management method, the concept of renewal is clearly less instrumental, it is focused more on the organizational context and culture.

The requirement that organizations think both about operation and development means that managers must “think twice” about structure and processes. In this case, one cannot deal either only with the vertical structure of functioning, or only with the now popular horizontal structure. It is necessary to think about both structures, considering their interweaving in space and time.

During periods of crisis in the organization, two clusters can be distinguished into which all issues fall apart. These clusters can be called "horizontal" initiatives and "vertical" issues (or "functioning" issues). The structure created by superimposing “flexible” developmental initiatives on a “rigid” structure of functioning is like a woven fabric and is called flexible matrix.

Horizontal working groups and teams are temporary and self-managed. Each employee has a boss in a "permanent" vertical hierarchy and is part of a self-managed group in an evolving system. Temporary horizontal working groups can either make changes to the permanent vertical structure, or cease to exist.

It has been found to be extremely important to keep these two directions of weaving the "management fabric" of the flexible matrix separate. Since functioning and development are intertwined in space and time, great vigilance is needed to keep them separate.

In the physical world, there are two ways of navigating a person in unfamiliar territory - using a map and using a compass. Often these two methods are complementary (it is not uncommon for a person to use a compass to navigate a map). Sometimes they cancel each other out (when the compass is affected by a magnetic field, or when the map shows that in order to get around an obstacle, you need to go in a different direction than the compass points).

When the area is open with clear signs and no dangerous areas, then any of these methods is applicable and sufficient. But sometimes only one of them can be used effectively: a compass is essential if you are lost at sea, but only a map will help in the center of a large unfamiliar city.

A map, by definition, can only help in the known world that has been schematically mapped before. The compass is good when you're not sure where you are and can only get a general sense of direction.

The variety of relationships between the use of the map and the compass - complementary, opposite, neutral, exclusive - reflects the variety of relationships between the two parts of the organizational cycle (loop), and hence the two roles of top managers of the organization. Functioning (solid organizational loop curve) insists on the use of a "map"; successfully navigating the development curve requires a "compass".

CHAPTER 5.4. THE ROLE OF NETWORK STRUCTURES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF INNOVATIVE ORGANIZATION

There are two approaches to assessing the role of networks of organizations in the implementation of innovative activities.

1. According to the supporters of the first position (the main provisions of which are set out in the works of David Teece), only strong and integrated organizations can successfully and systematically carry out innovative activities. Looser coalitions of joint ventures, alliances, or virtual partners are incapable of implementing systemic innovations, let alone setting standards for them or controlling their further development.

2. Adherents of a different approach (the main conclusions of which are presented in the articles of Paul de Laag) argue that since the industry structure is changing from vertical to horizontal and “digital convergence” takes place, systemic innovations can only be carried out today allied networks of organizations. Although such networks are vulnerable to "opportunism", they are capable of developing and implementing systemic innovations because the mutual relationship can be stabilized by various forms of both procedural and substantive obligations.

In other words, it is necessary first of all to understand the following: should innovation activity be carried out by individual organizations or within the framework of strategic alliances, networks of organizations. In this context, there are two types of innovation - autonomous and systemic.

What is the difference between autonomous and systemic innovations?

Autonomous innovation can be built into the system without any additional approvals or adjustments. Faster microprocessors or larger computer memory are examples of such innovations.

system innovation, on the contrary, they require significant adjustment of various parts of the system. Not one but many complementary innovations must occur simultaneously and be applied throughout the chain of system elements. Examples here are electronic money transfer, instant photography, jet aircraft, CD, Personal Computer.

So, in the works of D. Theis and other supporters of the first approach, it is argued that if an organization intends to implement innovations on a systematic basis, then the only organizational solution that guarantees success is the integration of all necessary activities within the organization itself (see, for example,). At the same time, it is necessary to avoid alliances, joint ventures, etc. Note that D. Theis does not claim that the creation of networks of organizations as a whole is not attractive. He clearly and openly recognizes the virtues of networks of organizations in the case of autonomous innovation. And only for the systemic nature of innovation, it is argued that full integration within one organization is the preferred way.

Supporters of this position identify a number of organizational agreements, forms for the implementation of innovative activities and rank them according to such a criterion as "number" of organizational control, which is characteristic of them.

The list of organizational forms (in descending order of organizational control), in their opinion, is as follows:

Integrated organization;

Organizations with autonomous divisions;

joint venture;

Association (alliance);

virtual organization.

Thus, an integrated organization is seen as the strongest of all possible forms of control, while a virtual organization, tying together external activities, provides the least amount of control. It should be noted that this emphasizes that a network (whether joint venture, alliance or virtual partners) can be considered as strong as an integrated organization if there is a dominant lead organization in the network.

What contributes to the formation of allied networks of innovative organizations?

However, it seems more and more illusory that a single organization can develop a system for the future, let alone create universal standards for it. There are several forces that drive innovative organizations to create alliances and virtual networks, the most significant of which are often recognized as the development of horizontal structures in industries, the trend of digital convergence, and the increase in R&D costs.

Development of horizontal structures in innovative industries most notably in the computer sector. Back in the 1970s. there was a vertical structure. Vertically integrated organizations sold general purpose computers that dominated the market - IBM and DEC. Gradually, a new, more horizontal structure emerged, within which companies are limited to the production of system components such as microprocessors, personal computers, operating systems, application software, and the like. Competition now exists within horizontal layers between component manufacturers. Such fragmentation appears to be detrimental to systemic innovation. Their development should be coordinated throughout the system, vertically, as it used to be, to harmonize the various layers. The only possible way is to create networks to bring together partner organizations. In old times IBM could transform the system by transforming itself; today the most adequate approach is networks of organizations.

What does digital convergence mean?

Digital Convergence Trend reinforces the above-mentioned trend in the development of horizontal structures in innovative industries. The boundaries between industries such as computers, telecommunications, consumer electronics, leisure and publishing are rapidly disappearing or becoming transparent.

Since all the main processes by their nature gradually become digital, controlled by computers, the essential differences between them disappear. The explosive growth of the Internet is the best example. This trend is important for industry competition. Existing firms can infiltrate new areas, increasing overall competition, leading to a chain reaction. Faced with new competitors, other organizations are also forced to penetrate into new, wider areas. Moreover, the need to be at the level of technological progress leads to the expansion of alliances, associations, their going beyond the boundaries of the industry.

Of course, while this is only a trend, not a rigid pattern. The markets are still fairly segregated with different firms represented. IBM is still a computer company, a Philips- still mainly consumer electronics supplier. But the distinctions are becoming more and more blurred, vague. It is important to emphasize that the trend of increasing digital convergence and all its consequences are related to the problem of systemic innovation - their significance is expanding significantly. An organization that intends to innovate systemically has no choice but to develop an external network (now horizontal) and try to reach parts of the system outside the areas where the organization already operates.

Increasing R&D costs. In the past, R&D spending has never been an important motive for building strategic alliances. The motives for creating associations at that time were primarily the desire to expand markets and enter new ones, as well as technological complementarity, complementarity, and a decrease in the period of time required for the implementation of innovations. However, the cost of innovation has risen sharply in recent years. As a result, it is to be expected that the lack of funds will force organizations to develop partnerships more actively.

This trend is clearly visible for autonomous innovations. A good example is the development of dynamic memory chips ( DRAM). The cost of developing each next generation has doubled. Do not forget that the costs of building factories are also growing. Not surprisingly, organizations seek to develop partnerships. So, Toshiba works with companies IBM, Siemens, Motorola; Hitachi with LG Semicon and with Texas Instrument; company Fujitsu with Hyundai; a NEC with company Samsung. Extrapolating this trend, it should be noted that the growth of costs is also characteristic of systemic innovations.

Thus, the generalization of these trends allows us to conclude that the implementation of innovative activities increasingly makes it necessary to form networks of innovative organizations.

Like Who sets the standards for system innovation outcomes?

What can be said about the process setting standards? Are they necessary at all? And if so, will they be offered by individual organizations or groups of organizations? So, D. Ioffe argues that in the era of digital convergence, communications and interactions within networks are extremely important. They would be significantly hindered by the simultaneous, parallel existence of a large number of standards. Consumers would react negatively to a situation where there is no dominant design.

In order not to interfere with the adoption of the standard, no innovative company should try to protect its own technological design so as not to open it to other companies. What is needed is an open approach to standards, in which other companies fairly obtain licenses to copy. The more systematic innovation is, the more such an open approach is needed.

Will such system standards be set by individual organizations or groups of companies? The last option seems to be the most possible. Once organizations come together to drive system innovation and the need for a standard becomes clear, they have no choice but to continue the partnership and try to establish a dominant and open standard. In order to generate maximum support in all areas, they are forced to expand the alliance of organizations as much as possible, which leads to the formation of an allied network of organizations. An individual organization can only hope to reinforce the global standard by artfully weaving strategic alliances. The result will be that in the face of mutual competition, one of the allied networks of organizations sets the standard.

As described above, it appears that the process of setting standards is predominantly the business of commercial organizations. Do government agencies play any role in this matter? Since it is clear that, at least initially, there is no consensus, public authorities tend to avoid imposing a standard, preferring to leave the problem to the market forces themselves. Nevertheless, there are ways in which the state can influence this process. If government entities account for a large share of the demand, then the format that the government proposes can play a significant role in setting the standard. In addition, market competitors themselves at some point in time may show interest and ask government agencies to intervene in solving the problem (see, for example,). Therefore, state bodies may actually be involved in this process both as a participant and as an arbitrator.

It should also be noted that the phenomenon of the formation of alliances, associations has changed the overall picture, the nature of competition. Competition now unfolds predominantly between networks of innovative organizations, rather than individual organizations, as it used to be. Moreover, organizations begin to compete for profitable partners in the formation of networks; each of them seeks to “take away” the best partners before competitors do. Proactive partnership becomes the norm (see, for example,).

Similar conclusions about the growing need for networks of organizations are being made both in business circles and in management science. Ray Noorda, former CEO of the company Novell, coined a new term competition, which can be translated into Russian as "competition", since it is obtained by adding the first part of the word cooperation(cooperation) and the second part of the word competition(competition). The introduction of this term points to the ubiquitous phenomenon competitive cooperation between organizations. The corporate model of the future, according to some experts, consists of internal networks of branches and external networks of strategic alliances, all of which belong to the global level (see, for example,).

Innovative organizations are organizations whose main areas are research activities, activities to create and sell products on the innovative market. Two groups of such organizations can be distinguished:
1) directly involved in the development and creation of the product;
2) ensuring the implementation of innovative activities.

The first group includes innovative organizations operating in the market:
- research organizations
- design and technological organizations and special design bureaus that carry out developments and projects that are the embodiment of the results of research institutes, conduct experiments, conduct product certification issues;
- firms, enterprises, concerns, corporations for which innovation is not the main one.
In the first group, four main sectors can be distinguished that have historically formed in the domestic structure of the economy. They have features of development and their advantages in certain areas of innovation. (Table 4.1)

The second group consists of innovation market infrastructure organizations. The development of the necessary infrastructure related to ensuring the dissemination of knowledge and information exchange is one of the main tasks in the field of innovation. It is characterized by the presence of infrastructure organizations (venture firms, profit centers, engineering firms, engineering centers, leasing firms that provide various engineering and consulting, marketing services and promote knowledge dissemination), as well as the level of use of modern information technologies.
Intermediaries operating in the Russian innovation market can be conditionally divided into two categories: consulting firms and funds. The former specialize in providing consulting services on intellectual property protection and marketing, while the latter specialize in finding a customer-investor. However, foundations do not necessarily have or manage financial resources.
The main feature of intermediary companies and organizations in the field of intellectual property and technology transfer in Russia is the provision of only consulting services. They do not assume the costs and responsibilities of managing intellectual property. Such an orientation of intermediaries, in addition to high investment risks and their lack of funds to pay for examination and patenting, may be due to the rejection of the transfer of intellectual property rights to an intermediary, as well as the qualifications and experience of specialists working in this business area. All this sharply reduces the efficiency of technology commercialization process.
The formation of modern innovation structures in Russia began in 1990, and by 1997 more than 50 technology parks had been created in the country, of which over 90% belonged to the university sector. By the beginning of the third millennium, according to TsISN, in Russia there were 60 research centers and 38 science and technology parks based on the university sector.
These structures have some similarities with the structures operating in the Soviet economy - research and production associations and research and production complexes. But to a greater extent, territorial interuniversity complexes, which began to be created in the 1970s, can be considered the forerunners of modern innovative structures. They contributed to the solution of complex scientific and technical problems and determined intersectoral interaction. The fundamental difference between modern innovative structures is that they are formed on a voluntary basis and require a more flexible management system. (Table 4.2.)

Currently, educational, scientific and innovative complexes (UNIC) are promising in organizing innovative activities, which not only provide the process of creating and implementing new products and services, but also train innovative personnel. UNIC in St. Petersburg and Saratov can be named as successful examples of the functioning of such structures. These complexes are designed to solve the following tasks:
1) determination of guidelines and goals for the development of enterprises in accordance with the prospects of science and the problems facing the region or individual consumers;
2) organization and selection of investment projects;
3) formation of an infrastructure that ensures the accumulation of new knowledge and information, the transformation of existing knowledge;
4) maintaining the knowledge system - expanding and deepening the existing knowledge base in accordance with the goals set;
5) assessment of innovative activity and regular audit of enterprises in order to identify problems and development prospects.
At present, a new type of organization has been formed - innovative marketing, where completely new relationships are being formed both within it and in its relationship with the external environment. These relations are based on the principles of openness, creativity, development of intellectual capital. Such an innovative marketing concept corresponds to the law of the rise of needs and involves the improvement of consumption and the improvement of the quality of life.
At present, the development prospects of innovative organizations are associated with the use of network forms of interaction, which involve the integration of the resource potential of several participants in order to create and promote competitive innovative products and conquer new markets.

There are two approaches to assessing the role of networks of organizations in the implementation of innovative activities.

What is the difference between autonomous and systemic innovations?

Autonomous innovation can be built into the system without any additional approvals or adjustments. Faster microprocessors or larger computer memory are examples of such innovations.

The list of organizational forms (in descending order of organizational control), in their opinion, is as follows:

Integrated organization;

Organizations with autonomous divisions;

joint venture;

Association (alliance);

virtual organization.

What contributes to the formation of allied networks of innovative organizations?

What does digital convergence mean?

Thus, the generalization of these trends allows us to conclude that the implementation of innovative activities increasingly makes it necessary to form networks of innovative organizations.

Like Who sets the standards for system innovation outcomes?

Thus, it seems that the implementation of systemic innovations is increasingly dependent on the creation of associations of partner organizations. Not one integrated organization as a center of power, but more fragmented coalition of partners with multiple centers of power manages the innovation process.

How can the resilience of networks of innovative organizations be improved?

Of course, this gives rise to danger of "opportunism" those. that each partner will strive to get as much as possible and contribute as little as possible. Not surprisingly, there are many complaints about collaboration within R&D alliances (see, for example, ). Partners often save on the contribution of their specialists: “Let other partners use their best specialists first! After that, the knowledge gained by each partner will be expropriated and used to enhance joint competitiveness. In this case, the "devastation" begins already at the R&D stage.

Associations created for the purpose of implementing systemic innovations are especially vulnerable to opportunism. There are two main reasons for this.

A completely new interconnected system must be created, which requires intense face-to-face collaboration across organizational boundaries. This in itself opens the door to opportunism, the innovative organization becomes "transparent".

It is necessary to consider the type of knowledge involved in the system innovation process. In part, this will be codified, formalized knowledge for which legal protection tools are applicable. If a patent has been obtained or copyright has been effectively exercised, then to a certain extent the innovation can be protected from expropriation. Contractual agreements (conditions requiring confidentiality, restricting the use of information that has been disclosed) may also be used. However, most of the knowledge and know-how involved in systemic innovation is implicit. Such knowledge cannot be easily assimilated or copied by others. It is for this reason that tacit know-how must be demonstrated openly and repeatedly to partners in order to innovate. Such intense interactions are associated with strategic risk, since it is very difficult to control how much tacit knowledge is actually assimilated and expropriated by partners. Since tacit knowledge cannot be specified in any formal sense, it appears that there are no legal or procedural means of protecting it.

However, the experience of partnerships in R&D over the past two decades has led to the development of a number of mechanisms that can stabilize and strengthen the relationship between the partners of the innovation network. These are mainly various forms of obligations that partners take on. They voluntarily provide guarantees that they will faithfully adhere to the agreements. There are two types of such obligations: material, real and procedural.

What are the forms of real and procedural obligations of partners of innovation networks?

Material, real obligations of partners of innovation networks. Throughout history, material obligations have been actively used. For example, when concluding a treaty, kings sent their sons as hostages or handed over fortified castles as collateral. What is the corporate equivalent of such real, material obligations?

First, knowledge specific to the organization must be made known to partners. As noted above, especially in systems innovation projects, this can "open the door" for opportunistic behavior - knowledge that has been disclosed can be expropriated. But there is another side of the coin. This sharing of knowledge is not only a risk, it is also investment in relationships that cannot be canceled are cancelled. Secondly, of course, it is necessary to take into account investments in research equipment, buildings, etc., which also "tie the hands" of investors.

Here are a few examples that, although related to autonomous innovation, illustrate the latter claims. Toshiba and Motorola began working together in 1986. An agreement between them required that Toshiba shared her know-how on memory chips, a Motorola I had to reveal my knowledge about microprocessors. Moreover, both companies have agreed to build a joint plant in Japan in order to use the knowledge they have exchanged. Such obligations, which are largely irrevocable (they cannot be cancelled), of course, bound the partners, which determined the duration of their cooperation.

Similarly IBM, Siemens and Toshiba in the late 1980s joined forces to conduct R&D on the development of dynamic memory chips. At first, the researchers from the three firms only exchanged some knowledge, which was not a close collaboration. However, in 1992 the task was set to develop the next generation chip, which was a very expensive task, since it required $1 billion for R&D and $3 billion for building factories. But in addition to these investments, such an alliance meant sharing the latest know-how. To do this, a team of 200 specialists representing these three companies was created, who worked in a new research center. IBM around New York. Clearly, this was an effective way to tie these companies together. Later, the company also joined this alliance. motorola, which also sent its researchers to this center.

In addition, the association of partners can also occur through the purchase and exchange of shares of each other. This intertwining of equity creates bonds that discourage opportunism. Partners become interdependent - by hurting the partner, the company is hurting itself. If the partners are approximately equal in size, then both take part in each other's share capital. However, if there is a difference in size, then, as a rule, it is advised to buy shares only to a larger partner and thus demonstrate their devotion, loyalty to the agreement.

So, the main attention in the analysis of networks of innovative organizations has so far been given to the creation of associations in the field of R&D. In real practice, many innovative companies not only have such alliances with several partners, but often enter into several alliances with each partner. Most players in innovative markets support dozens and even hundreds of unions and alliances at the same time.

In addition, as many experts note, in practice, the formation of alliances does not occur simply at random, there is usually a tendency to create clusters or groups of innovative organizations which often interact with each other. The formation of such groups of organizations automatically provides for more mutual guarantees. In this case, the stability of networks of innovative organizations often increases for the following reasons. First, if two organizations (A and B) have a whole set of agreements with each other, then this serves as a kind of mutual guarantee, because by putting one agreement at risk, you risk endangering the whole set. Secondly, if organization A, by violating the agreement, infringes on the interests of organization B, then the latter has at its disposal an effective weapon to discipline the violator - organization B may threaten to reveal to the public the opportunism of organization A. As a result, the entire cluster of relations of organization A may fall apart - if not immediately, then after some time. A tarnished reputation is difficult to recover, and membership or acceptance into the community of a given cluster may be at stake in the present and future.

Procedural obligations of partners of innovation networks.

In addition to real obligations, organizations seek to find ways to bind each other with procedures that would limit potential opportunism. Of course, in every alliance, as a rule, there is some form of agreement or contract. If things go wrong, the partners can go to court. Therefore, litigation is a kind of main line of the approval procedure. However, contracts cannot effectively address the vague, undefined characteristics of R&D alliances. Therefore, organizations have gradually developed other forms of procedures (see, for example,).

Thus, organizations often try to attract not a judge, but another figure to resolve conflicts. In advance, the partners agree on mediation in case of a complication of the situation. Such a mediator should make every possible effort, use every means to restore agreement between the partners. He is not bound by legal restrictions and can act more flexibly, although he may not have any power. A stronger figure is the arbitrator, the arbitrator, in whose person mediation and power are combined, since the partners ex ante promise to reckon with his decisions. However, mediation and dispute resolution by an arbitral tribunal, arbitration are all forms of special intervention, the entry of a third party into the case as a result of a far-reaching conflict. Therefore, as a more radical approach, the appointment of a “guarantor” as a third party, who would constantly monitor the cooperation of partners, is often considered. The guarantor must be recruited from outside, such as industry associations, government bodies, research institutes, universities, etc. At the same time, his powers should be clearly defined.

Of course, these agreements do not exhaust the possibilities to limit opportunism in allied networks of innovative organizations. So, an interesting way is the so-called Chinese Wall, which, however, applies only to alliances in the field of R&D in the case of implementation of innovative activities at a separate third site. As a rule, each partner sends a certain number of researchers to work on a joint innovation project. They constantly exchange knowledge with each other. However, there is usually a lot of effort put into project participants to gain know-how that could be quickly applied in their home company. For this purpose, mechanisms are mainly used for the rotation of personnel of such research sites and visits to these sites by teams of employees of participating firms. But such a policy of "repatriation" of knowledge creates strong incentives for deception. Innovative companies involved may choose to "carry on alone" at some point. In order to prevent this kind of apostasy, apostasy, it is recommended to build a "Chinese wall", i.e. suspend the repatriation of knowledge back to their company until the innovation project is completed. Although such agreements are extremely rarely used in practice, experiments in this regard are interesting and promising.

It should be emphasized that real and procedural obligations are the most common guarantee mechanisms that can be used in various kinds of unions of innovative organizations. They protect against many types of opportunism. But their applicability depends on the specific characteristics of the alliance. For example, shared knowledge can be a form of real commitment if close collaboration in R&D is the centerpiece of an alliance. As noted earlier, equity interweaving will only be beneficial if the partners are approximately equal in size; if there is a size mismatch, it is preferable that the larger partner unilaterally acquire the shares. The erection of the "Chinese wall" makes sense only if the mutual exchange of know-how is intensive and permanent, and the partners are also active competitors.

Prospects for the development of innovative networks. Innovation networks Types of innovation networks

Report a typo

Text to be sent to our editors:

Your comment (optional):