@ARTICLE{26543116_26547663_2010, 
	author = {Leonid Gokhberg and Tatiana Kuznetsova and Vitaliy Roud}, 
	keywords = {, innovation performance, imitatorsadoption of technologies},
	title = {Analysis of Innovation Modes in the Russian Economy: Methodological Approaches and First Results},
	journal = {Foresight and STI Governance},
	year = {2010},
	month = {1},
	volume = {4},
	number = {3},
	pages = {18-30},
	url = {https://foresight-journal.hse.ru/en/2010-4-3/26547663.html},
	publisher = {},
	abstract = {The paper discusses methodologies used to adapt to the Russian context the usual measures of STI performance, developed and implemented under the framework of the European Manufacturing Survey (EMS), and reports on results. Two rounds of surveys were conducted in 2009-2010 covering around 2000 Russian companies. The third round is planned for 2012.  The paper outlines how innovative activities in the real sector of the Russian economy can be measured. The EMS toolkit must be significantly adapted for the goals of the Russian survey. The authors harmonized their approach with the guidelines of the Oslo Manual. They covered the manufacturing and service sectors. Since the results show implications of the global crisis and the performance of the tools of state regulation, it was important to use a methodology comparable to that of the EMS on key parameters. The questionnaire developed to survey Russian companies aimed to capture the complexity of innovation activity. It provides information on such indicators as the availability of completed and early-stage innovations, the technological level of production, the structure of collaborative relations, and environmental and resource sparing issues.  The outcome of the project is a new source of empirical data for analyzing innovation by key firms in regard to technological and modernizing organizational issues. The results showed differences by sector for the following: innovation funding priorities; motivation/stimuli to innovation activity; the level of competition in various markets; factors impeding innovation; the level of development of innovation management tools; and the scope of firms’ demand for innovation infrastructure.The paper shows that far from all Russian firms considered "innovative" focus in a straightforward manner on innovation. Most industrial companies act according to in-house non-market-based rules of competition. These firms are very pessimistic about the prospects of promoting their own products in new markets. Innovation (especially radical) is not a business priority.Finally, the paper shows how results of the survey can be used in theoretical and applied research on innovation in Russia and develops policy recommendations.  },
	annote = {The paper discusses methodologies used to adapt to the Russian context the usual measures of STI performance, developed and implemented under the framework of the European Manufacturing Survey (EMS), and reports on results. Two rounds of surveys were conducted in 2009-2010 covering around 2000 Russian companies. The third round is planned for 2012.  The paper outlines how innovative activities in the real sector of the Russian economy can be measured. The EMS toolkit must be significantly adapted for the goals of the Russian survey. The authors harmonized their approach with the guidelines of the Oslo Manual. They covered the manufacturing and service sectors. Since the results show implications of the global crisis and the performance of the tools of state regulation, it was important to use a methodology comparable to that of the EMS on key parameters. The questionnaire developed to survey Russian companies aimed to capture the complexity of innovation activity. It provides information on such indicators as the availability of completed and early-stage innovations, the technological level of production, the structure of collaborative relations, and environmental and resource sparing issues.  The outcome of the project is a new source of empirical data for analyzing innovation by key firms in regard to technological and modernizing organizational issues. The results showed differences by sector for the following: innovation funding priorities; motivation/stimuli to innovation activity; the level of competition in various markets; factors impeding innovation; the level of development of innovation management tools; and the scope of firms’ demand for innovation infrastructure.The paper shows that far from all Russian firms considered "innovative" focus in a straightforward manner on innovation. Most industrial companies act according to in-house non-market-based rules of competition. These firms are very pessimistic about the prospects of promoting their own products in new markets. Innovation (especially radical) is not a business priority.Finally, the paper shows how results of the survey can be used in theoretical and applied research on innovation in Russia and develops policy recommendations.  }
}