Innovation networks. Prospects for the development of innovation networks Proximity of organizations and their innovativeness in networks
UDC 330.3
© 2006, S.A. Chernov
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 company 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. Currently, 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 activities 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 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. Fourth, 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.
General voluntariness implies that the decision made by one of the participants in the innovation network corresponds to the wishes of all or most of the network participants. 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.
There is a discussion in economic science about the form of future economic development. One of these forms may be the so-called. "network economy". The primary link of the network economy is the economic network as a complex organizational structure, the main purpose of which is to create a single space that ensures the maximum use of existing economic and human resources for the production and sale of goods and services, the development of scientific, technical, industrial and labor potential. The economic network forms economic centers that play a key role in the economy. There are various approaches to the classification of economic networks, which are reflected in the works of S. Zimin, M. Pereverzev, I. Ponomarev, B. Milner and others. According to the author, the main approach is based on the allocation of production, information, infrastructure, social and innovation networks.
The production network is a form of business organization based on the formation of a single space by legally independent enterprises in order to share their technological resources for the implementation of all stages of work on the performance of work and the provision of services from sources of primary raw materials to the delivery of products to the end consumer. The production network covers enterprises that have stable or potentially existing technological and organizational ties and jointly sell various goods and services.
The basis of the information network is the use of intelligence, knowledge and new information technologies as the main renewable resource for sustainable socio-economic development. In the information network-oriented economy, unlike the industrial economy, it is not the law of diminishing marginal returns that dominates, but direct network effects and thus positive feedback.
Infrastructure networks are a complex of interacting and interconnected objects that ensure the favorable development of the economy and satisfy the needs of the entire population, as well as the conditions for effectively solving important social problems of the development of society. Infrastructure networks include transport networks, communication networks, financial networks and institutional networks. Transport and communication constitute the general condition of production and act as the main core of infrastructure networks, although they did not arise and develop before some other elements of the infrastructure. The transport network is one of the tools to achieve social, economic, foreign policy and other goals, improving the quality of people's lives. A communication network is a technological system that includes means and communication lines and is intended for telecommunications or postal communications. The modern functional equivalent of a communication network is the minimum set of modern communication facilities that ensures the quality and existing volume of services. The financial network is a technological environment for supporting operations with specially designed ownership rights. This technological environment serves to reduce the transaction costs of transferring property rights for individuals and legal entities operating in financial markets.
In society, there are certain activities that give rise to institutions as an economic reality and maintain their performance. In accordance with this, the specific activity of people aimed at maintaining the functioning of institutions can be represented as a mechanism that brings organizations and individuals into interaction. At the “input” of this mechanism are the participants in the economy in a free, unorganized state. At the "output" - the same, but in a connected form through a system of established short- and long-term relationships with each other. Institutional networks arise that transfer the actions of many economic agents from a free, “chaotic” state to a certain ordered institutional structure (into an organization consisting of these agents and the connections between them). At the same time, some types of relations and organizations corresponding to them exist for a fairly short time (for example, acts of exchange in the market), others live for a longer time (for example, firms, etc.). Institutional networks provide frameworks and organize interactions between agents. An example of an institutional network is the formation and development of the EU market.
A social network is a set of stable contacts or similar social relations between individuals or groups. In general terms, a social network is a structure consisting of a group of nodes that are social objects (people or organizations) and connections between them (social relationships). According to the breadth and depth of coverage, one can single out family, professional, clan, corporate, local, regional, national, global social networks.
One of the strategic tasks for the development of the Russian economy is the transition to an innovative type of economic growth, innovative development. The formation of innovative networks is one of the tools to achieve this goal.
At its core, the innovation network is an open economic system consisting of many independent economic units. The formation of innovation networks is a process of analyzing factors and circumstances, selecting and connecting suitable economic entities 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. Post-industrial society is "a new principle of socio-technological organization and a new way of life that supplants the industrial system." In such a community, the global economy is fundamentally different from the international one. This is a single system of economy, the union of capital markets, currencies and goods. Borders between countries have practically disappeared. Capital is directed to where there is the greatest return on investment or value added [Ibid., p. CXXVII-CXXVIII]. We can say that D. Bell foresaw the formation of network forms of development of the economy and society, including innovative networks, because It is innovations in the modern economy that give the greatest return and bring the greatest profits. This is evidenced by the levels of development of such countries as the USA, Japan and Western Europe. These countries, in the words of D. Bell, occupy the highest rungs of the "technological ladder".
The formation of innovative networks should be subject to the general laws of the formation of a post-industrial society. Here we can agree with the opinion of B. Kuzyk and Yu. Yakovets that the formation of a modern development paradigm, incl. and the policy of forming innovative networks should take into account certain factors that determine the vector of modern development.
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, there 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.
The growth of education of the population, the increase in migration flows, the formation of a global information space determine the accelerated growth of needs, which runs into limited opportunities for increasing production to meet these needs. This causes a deepening stratification both within countries between layers with different living standards, and between rich and poor countries and civilizations [Ibid., p. 23].
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 [Ibid., p. 24–25].
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, which makes it possible to multiply labor productivity and absolutely reduce the consumption of natural resources and harmful emissions into the environment [Ibid., p.27].
These development factors create conditions for the formation of innovative networks. These conditions are primarily Firstly, 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, the greening of technological progress, the 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 of highly efficient technological systems in the civilian 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.
The 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. An 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;
- a large-scale discussion aimed at creating a platform for entry and establishing 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 constructively cooperate among themselves 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.
The target strategic unity lies in the fact 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 unified targeted strategic development of an innovation network, as for other organizations, includes a set of standard management actions proposed in the works of Mescon M, Albert M., Hedouri F, Ansof I., Thompson A., Strickland A. . These include:
- formation, justification and selection 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.
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 FujitsuwithHyundai; a NECwith 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 a number of experts, consists of internal networks of branches and external networks of strategic alliances, all of which belong to the global level (see, for example,).
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 agreed to build a joint plant in Japan in order to use the knowledge they 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 the 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, the mechanisms of rotation of personnel of such research sites and visits to these sites by teams of employees of participating firms are mainly used. 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.
Foreign researchers attribute the advantages of network organizations to their information openness, adaptability to rapidly changing market conditions, the possibility of organic inclusion of an innovative component in a network of interacting entities. The recognition of the effectiveness of the network organization in terms of reducing management costs has given rise to the currently widespread understanding of the network as an optimal hybrid form, occupying a certain position between the market and the hierarchy. A number of foreign works 1 emphasize that the opportunity to find knowledge and then apply it in practice can be embodied in various forms of cooperation, and the variety of cooperation forms that are not connected by a single “roof” of property is growing all the time, thereby providing a more efficient environment for discovery of new knowledge. The issues of identification and use of non-coded knowledge are becoming increasingly important in cooperation studies. The high level of integration of scientific, organizational, material and financial resources, which is achieved in innovation networks, can significantly reduce the time to develop and bring new products and services to the market.
The concept of "innovation network" is relatively new in economics. Innovation networks, as one of the types of intercompany networks, do not yet have a well-known classification. There are many terms that imply various types of network interaction of organizations in innovative activities. In the most general interpretation, found in modern literature 2 , the innovation network consists of innovation, providing, financing subsystems, as well as a commercialization subsystem. The innovative subsystem includes organizations that carry out innovative activities in the development and production of innovative and intellectual products (with the optimal use of their resources).
The supporting subsystem unites objects that are not directly involved in the creation and production of innovations, but plays an important role in ensuring this process. This subsystem consists of 3 parts:
Scientific and technical support - organizations operating in the market of technologies, information resources and services.
Provision of material and raw materials for the production system of the innovation network.
Ensuring internal communication between all agents of the innovation network, as well as the creation and maintenance of a mechanism for collecting information.
The innovation financing subsystem provides financial support for the innovation network, conducts settlements and distributes cash flows, uses funds to develop the innovation network, participates in the work of the credit market and the securities market (banks, investment and insurance companies, venture firms, etc.)
It is possible to give a narrower definition of the innovation network. This is a set of scientific, educational organizations and companies connected by partnerships and united by a single specific goal.
According to experts 1, the organizational form can work effectively within certain limits. Two types of typical errors are characteristic of the development of various organizational forms: 1) the expansion of the form beyond its internal capabilities; 2) the appearance of such modifications that do not correspond to the internal logic of this organizational entity. In this regard, the primary task is to classify network organizations, with the help of which it would be possible to determine how the evolution of various types of networks will proceed, what strategic problems they will face in the future, what will be the consequences of partnership activities. The type of network is determined by the goals set by the partners. Innovation networks should ensure the implementation of a complete innovation cycle - from the generation of new knowledge to its implementation in a specific product or service.
Researchers identify the following types of foreign innovation networks 1 (Table 1).
Table 1
Types of innovation networks
|
Type |
Characteristic |
|
R&D cooperation network |
A set of scientific teams cooperating to carry out complex research projects (emphasis on the generation of new knowledge) |
|
Technology transfer network |
A combination of strong partnerships between research and production teams that ensures rapid commercialization of research results (emphasis on the commercialization of new knowledge) |
|
Competency transfer network |
Actively interacting expert community, the purpose of which is to increase the overall competence on key issues of science due to the synergy effect (emphasis on the generation of new knowledge) |
|
Science and Innovation Networks |
A set of scientific, educational and industrial organizations - partners united by a common goal (emphasis on supporting the pre-competitive stages of the full innovation cycle) |
The purpose of networks, time periods, forms of existence, levels can be used as classification criteria.
Consider some types of network organizations
Strategic alliances (SA). Alliances of this type are common among all types of companies. Based on the results of SA studies conducted by foreign experts, the following conclusions can be drawn:
Partnerships between strong competitors (such alliances are able to create large synergies for a short period of time by consolidating overlapping market and product positions) are usually short-lived. And, as a rule, one of the partners fails to achieve its strategic and financial goals. Most of these alliances end in termination.
The alliance of weak companies does not improve the position of partners. There is a rapid termination of partnership agreements or the acquisition of an alliance by a third party.
Partnerships strong company - weak company are short-lived. Usually a strong partner buys a weak company.
Alliances of strong partners complementing each other, in which there is no asymmetry in the positions of partners during the life cycle of the alliance, persist for a long time. Such alliances are built on real cooperation between partners. Both partners hold important patents on which the alliance depends, so their market relations remain relatively equal, and the risk of an unplanned take of assets is low.
To achieve strategic goals, partners can use various forms of inter-firm cooperation, however, according to experts, the best partnerships should strive to meet certain criteria:
Both partners are strong and have some value that they bring to their relationship.
The presence of long-term goals for each partner, in which their relationship plays a key role.
Interdependence of partners. They have complementary assets and skills. None of them can achieve success alone.
Long-term commitment to the alliance through mutual investment.
Open exchange of information within reasonable limits.
Virtual organization 1 . According to foreign experts (David Thies and Henry Chesbrough) 2 , the type of innovation network is determined by the type of innovation. For example, systemic innovation may require interrelated changes in product development, supply chain management, and information technology. Systemic innovations are associated with implicit knowledge that is dissolved among specific employees and cannot be transferred except with the transition of a specific employee to a new job. Mature companies can protect such knowledge by disclosing only codified information to counterparties. The open knowledge sharing that underpins systemic innovation is usually easier to establish and secure within a single organization than within a community of multiple companies. Systemic innovations are associated with special management problems in the field of information exchange. By their very nature, such innovations require that information be available and its use coordinated and regulated across the entire production system of the product.
Industrial cooperation of small innovative business with large corporations. Thanks to such cooperation, innovative firms immediately get access to well-established technologies, in addition, it is much easier for them to enter markets. However, Russian practice has revealed the following shortcomings of such cooperation: 1) price dictatorship by large companies, 2) dictatorship of non-monetary terms of the contract (terms, technological requirements, quality standards).
Innovation clusters 1 . The core of an innovation cluster is usually a network of scientific and industrial organizations connected with each other through a large number of innovation projects and having an internal information space for transferring innovations 2 .
According to experts, in their economic essence, clusters combine the features of four types of economic systems - object, process, design and environmental 3 . In this regard, the innovation strategy of the cluster should include four types of strategies:
strategic plans of the enterprises included in the cluster, taking into account their comprehensive relationships (objective strategy of the cluster);
strategic plans for the development and interconnection of processes (process strategy of the cluster);
strategic description of projects of various types (research, innovation, organizational) implemented by cluster members (cluster project strategy);
strategic plans for the functioning and development of communities formed from persons related to cluster organizations (cluster environmental strategy).
Cluster relationships are manifested in the continuous circulation of knowledge, technology transfer, joint research projects, mobility of qualified personnel. But when identifying a cluster, it is necessary to take into account the fact that it operates within a single value chain. Therefore, his research involves a detailed analysis of barriers to entry, the process of obtaining innovation rent, specific mechanisms for managing transactions, as well as systemic efficiency.
The results of the study of the functioning of the innovation cluster in Novosibirsk 1 are summarized in Table. 2.
table 2
Characteristics of the innovation cluster in Novosibirsk
|
Indicators |
IT cluster |
PR - cluster |
|
Resource providers |
They gravitate towards the resource market of Akademgorodok and the external market |
They gravitate towards the markets of Novosibirsk and Russia |
|
Human Resources |
Over 90% of skilled labor resources are attracted from the local market. The heads of companies in both clusters note a higher preparedness of engineering and technical personnel than managers |
|
|
The intensity of productive competition |
For knowledge-intensive companies, a tendency to increase competition as the market becomes larger has been revealed. This trend indicates the dependence of the local market on the external one, which means the possibility of new competitors entering the local market, and with the quality of products and processes below the world level |
|
|
Rivalry for the acquisition of factors of production |
Firms are under strong competitive pressure to acquire qualified personnel as well as premises; weak - when purchasing services; very weak - in the struggle for components and equipment |
|
|
Funding sources 1 |
The main source is own funds. Funds of cooperation partners are considered as an alternative to their own funds |
The main source of financing is own funds. Grants and state orders are widely used |
|
Competitive advantages |
Value for money; product exclusivity |
|
|
Main types of business strategies |
Cost minimization |
Specialization (focus) |
|
Origin and implementation of developments |
About 90% of enterprises in both clusters use developments created in-house. However, PR companies commercialize developments that are more or less related to budget science, while IT companies use developments created by third-party organizations that are not related to science. |
|
|
Cluster life cycle stage |
Developing, as evidenced by the formation of formal and informal alliances between firms and the involvement of new members in the cluster |
|
|
Cluster performance |
Both clusters demonstrate higher rates of growth in headcount, revenue and profitability than similar small businesses on average in Russia. |
|
The study made it possible to identify the following priority areas for increasing the competitiveness of the innovation cluster:
development of cooperation between commercial and educational structures in the field of training of personnel of the required qualification;
expansion and deepening of interactions between cluster subjects (including between business and science)
creation of production infrastructure necessary for the functioning of small and medium-sized science-intensive businesses (production areas, access to financial resources, etc.);
creation of joint innovation-technological and marketing-logistics centers;
improvement of the institutional environment (legislative, certification and other conditions, improvement of the system of standards).
The final conclusion is this. For the successful formation and functioning of innovation networks in Russia, the following tasks must be solved:
1) increasing the mobility of scientific personnel; creating conditions for rotation between institutions, scientific disciplines, sectors of the economy, countries;
2) creation of a world-class innovative infrastructure integrated into a single scientific network through the active use of the latest information and communication technologies;
3) organizing an effective exchange of knowledge, especially those created at the expense of the budget (creating open access to this kind of knowledge);
4) improving the coordination of research programs and priorities.
1 Teece D. J. Economies of scope and the scope of the enterprise // Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 1980. - N 1. - P. 223 - 247; Nonaka I., Takeuchi H. The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. - Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995; Edvinsson L., Malone M. S. Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company`s True Value by Finding Its Hidden Brainpower. - N.Y.: Harper Business, 1997; Grant R., Baden-Fuller C. The knowledge-based view of strategic alliance formation: Knowledge accessing versus organizational learning // Cooperative Strategies and Alliances Ed. by Contractor F., Lorange P. - Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd., 2003.
2 Titov L. Yu. Principles of formation of innovative networks in the real sector of the economy // Problems of modern economics. 2009. - No. 1 (29).
1 Milner B.Z. Organization theory. Textbook. – 7th ed. Revised and additional - M.: INFRA-M, 2009. - S. 772.
1 Voronina L.A., Ratner S.V. Scientific and innovation networks in Russia: experience, problems, prospects. - M.: INFRA-M, 2010. - S. 72.
1 The founders and members of MSITA are the International Institute of Pitirim Sorokin and Nikolai Kondratiev, Institute of Economic Strategies, St. Petersburg State University of Engineering and Economics, St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University, Moscow State Institute of Radio Electronics and Automation, Russian Academy of Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation, Russian Peoples' Friendship University, Scientific and Technical Holding "Pasarat" (Kazakhstan), Dnipro Institute of Economics and Law, Scientific Research Institute "RINCCE", JSCB "My Bank", as well as a group of individuals from different countries. The Alliance forms a network of regional branches and departments: Northern European (St. Petersburg), Central Asian (Almaty), Southern European (Dnepropetrovsk), Western European (Munich), Far Eastern, Islamic, South Asian, Latin American, African, etc. As a result, a global structural network of the Alliance will be created focused on attracting investments for the implementation of highly effective innovative projects ( http://www. Globfuture. new paradigm. ru /glfuture 15.htm).
2 http: // www. russba. ru /… / article _ id/ 148.
1 Its distinguishing feature is the presence of many companies (usually small and medium-sized) pooling resources to implement projects that they are not able to carry out alone. Members of a virtual organization achieve a significant expansion of the boundaries of their capabilities by achieving a significant "virtual" size while maintaining their flexibility inherent in small companies. Such a network is able to cover a wide range of competencies, while each of its members focuses on individual core competencies. Virtual organizations differ from other forms of networks: by a relatively stable pool of partners, which, depending on the order, either forms a new combination of performers or leaves the old one; project coordination that varies depending on the order (no enterprise takes on coordination tasks for a long time); weak communication between partner enterprises; modular integration of manufacturing services.
2 Strategic alliances. Per. from English. - M .: Alpina Business Books, 2008. - P. 180 - 184.
1 A cluster refers to a geographical concentration of organizations in one or more industries that compete but also cooperate with each other, benefiting from specific local assets, co-location and social inclusion. The participants of the cluster are enterprises, educational and research institutions, financial institutions, authorities. Their interactions form an environment that directly affects specialized firms, the totality of which represents the "core" of the cluster, which is the essence of the cluster.
2 Experts distinguish three levels of innovation transfer: 1) transfer of only the material component of innovation and the minimum part of its information component, which allows the use of innovation, but does not provide information about its internal structure or scientific principles on which its functioning is based; 2) transfer along with the material component of the technological and / or organizational principles of its work, which allows you to recreate the specified material component either by copying or by making the necessary changes to its structure in order to adapt; 3) the transfer of the information component of the innovation, which not only allows the development of this innovation, but also to learn the technological and / or organizational principles underlying it. As foreign practice shows, the main part of the diffusion of innovation in a cluster from one economic agent to another occurs at the first level.
3 Kleiner G.B., Kachalov R.M., Nagrudnaya N.B. Systemic paradigm in economic research: strategic planning of clusters // Eighth All-Russian Symposium "Strategic Planning and Development of Enterprises". Abstracts of reports and communications. Section 1. - M.: CEMI RAN, 2007.
1 The foundation of the innovation cluster is the intellectual capital of Novosibirsk universities and research institutes, as well as the infrastructure of the NSC SB RAS. The innovation cluster includes two subclusters: information technology (IT - cluster) and innovation and production (PR - cluster). Firms of the first cover the following activities: software production, automation, communications and telecommunications, information security. Firms in the second cluster mainly operate in the fields of scientific instrumentation, industrial technology, new materials, biotechnology and medicine. The studies were carried out in the context of two subclusters (http: //www.sibai.ru/content/view/506/620/).
1 None of the respondents mentioned venture capital as their funding method.