ISSN 1995-459X print E-ISSN 2312-9972 online ISSN 2500-2597 online English
Editor-in-chief Leonid Gokhberg
|
2011. vol. 5. No. 2
|
Innovation and Economy
|
4–15
|
Ian Miles— Professor, University of Manchester (UK), and Head, Research Laboratory for Economics of Innovation, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University — Higher School of Economics (Russia). E-mail: ian.miles@mbs.ac.uk Address: 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, Russia, 101000 This paper is an evaluation of service sector innovations. It reviews the development of innovations in the sector, including innovation across services and the promotion of new services, and patterns of management and service design. Until the 1990s, it was rare to find researchers and policymakers taking service innovation seriously. However, massive growth of service industries in the two last decades and interest in service innovation show the importance of renewed interest in research and policy. At present, researchers tend to lean toward one of two approaches: that service sector innovation can directly apply tools from manufacturing, or that there are distinctive features of services that require particular evaluation procedures and policies. In fact, there is often convergence between the manufacturing and service sectors. Many manufacturing firms are coming to resemble traditional kinds of service-oriented firms; and many service firms are coming to be like traditional manufacturing firms. This poses difficulties for evaluating service innovation by exclusively one approach. The author argues for adopting a synthetic approach to avoid drawing strict boundaries between the technological and the organizational, and the product and process innovations. It is naturally more elegant to have a single approach that would enable policymakers to argue for integrated training and comprehensive innovation policies. However, it is more important to follow developments among modern firms, which can be overlooked in partial analysis. The synthetic approach fosters well grounded decision- and policy-making and allows updating of future trends and prospects of service innovation. It helps account for variations within and across goods and service innovation and address the service activities of manufacturing firms and the goods-producing activities of service organizations. Ian Miles finds a synthetic approach reasonable in that it combines elements of concepts in use earlier with a recognition of the importance of services to all sectors of twenty-first century economies. This is important for understanding the industrial competitiveness of the advanced industrial countries as well as for confronting the grand challenges that our world faces in this century. These challenges require solving problems that are bound to involve mixtures of technological and service innovation, which are both complex service systems at heart. |
|
16–32
|
Anna Zaytseva— Junior Research Fellow, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University — Higher School of Economics (Russia). E-mail: azaytseva@hse.ru Address: 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, Russia, 101000 Olga Shuvalova— Head, Division for Sociological Studies, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University — Higher School of Economics (Russia).E-mail: oshuvalova@hse.ru Address: 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, Russia, 101000 Innovation commonly refers to new marketable goods generated by a manufacturer. This concept is the base of the established system of innovation policy. However, a new type of innovation is becoming increasingly widespread — innovation initiated by the user. Such developments are often not based on R&D and technology. Despite the increase in the area of statistical innovation measurement in recent years, the role of the user as an player in innovation is underestimated, both in statistical and political terms. The paper attempts to explain the specifics of this phenomenon and evaluate its contribution to economic development. The emerging new model presumes a changing role of technologies — from innovation drivers to innovation enablers. It is emphasized that the dynamics of user innovation should not be underestimated, as they create the prerequisites for involving the whole society in the innovation activity. This allows the enlargement of the share of warranted innovations owing to issuing products demanded by users; increasing market niches; developing collaborative models; and changing policy priorities. Implementation of new opportunities provided by “mass” innovation depends on the innovative capacities of users and the possibilities of their mobilization under public and corporate policy. Empirically, the study is based on the results of the 1st round of Monitoring the innovation behavior of the Russian population evaluating Russian users' innovation capabilities. It demonstrates that better access to ICT for the majority of the population may significantly increase the population’s innovation potential and bear fruits in the short and middle-term perspective. The analysis confirms the necessity of government efforts in developing innovation infrastructure. It is obvious that user-oriented policy does not exclude fostering manufacturers but presumes use of complementary leveraging for establishing long-term economic growth, based on active inclusion of the mass population into innovative processes. |
|
34–47
|
Tatyana Kuznetzova— Director, Centre for S&T, Innovation and Information Policy, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University – Higher School of Economics (Russia). E-mail: tkuznetzova@hse.ru Address: 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, Russia, 101000 Vitaly Roud— Research Fellow, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University — Higher School of Economics (Russia). E-mail: vroud@hse.ru Address: 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, Russia, 101000 Innovation activity is about the intersection of economic, social and cognitive dimensions, each of which has an impact on the choice of behavioral patterns by a company as well as the extent of its involvement in the innovation process. Regarding innovation in Russia there is a "terminological paradox". The basic conceptual framework has been introduced by OECD and Eurostat as an international standard more than 20 years ago. Relevant methodological and methodical approaches are thoroughly studied and adapted by Russian experts. They are used in the theoretical and empirical research as the basis for federal statistical observation of innovation. However, they still aren’t embedded into business and management practices. Entrepreneurs, officials and separate expert groups are often dominated by their own points of view on this sector and its "products". This complicates the dialogue between the various actors in the innovation sector, and prevents the choise of the most efficient regulation mechanisms. The paper presents the experience of adapting methodological approaches developed in the framework of European manufacturing survey to the Russian context. This study is aimed at creating a reliable source of empirical data for the analyzing the specifics of behavioral patterns of economic agents with respect to innovation with an emphasis on issues of technological and organizational modernization. Analysis of the innovation activity of manufacturing enterprises allows us to formulate some sound conclusions. The national innovation system in Russia is in stagnant condition. It is characterized by a small scale innovative complex in the manufacturing industry, sustainability of unfavorable trends, lacking critical mass of innovators of all types and the actual absence of radical innovation. Unequivocally, the national economy is not able to quickly shift to an innovation path. Companies are not interested in long term forecasting, they are poorly integrated into communication networks and innovation clusters. The results obtained in the survey are interesting, especially as a useful source of information about the specifics of the innovation sector of Russia, the dominant models of innovative behavior of enterprises and the effectiveness of their strategies. This information supplements the available statistical information that allows us to refine the analytical conclusions about the prospects of increasing innovation activity in the real economy and strengthen the validity of the recommendations on public policy. |
Science
|
48–56
|
Sergey Shashnov— Head, Division for Strategic Forecasting, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University – Higher School of Economics (Russia). E-mail: shashnov@hse.ru Address: 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, Russia, 101000 Anna Poznyak— Research Fellow, Research Laboratory for Science and Technology Studies, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University – Higher School of Economics (Russia). E-mail: apoznyak@hse.ru Address: 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, Russia, 101000 The paper discusses the results of revising the lists of S&T priorities and critical technologies of the Russian Federation, adopted in 2006 that became the basis for the federal targeted R&D program for the period of 2007-2012. The identification of priorities aims at more efficient budget planning. The lists of S&T priorities and critical technologies are adjusted and updated every four years. The updated lists allow mobilizing available resources on those areas which are associated with the largest economic and social effects as well as improving science, technology and innovation policies. In addition owing to the adjustment of priorities and developing roadmaps businesses get a clear view on the possibilities of commercialization and development of breakthrough solutions related to critical technologies while investors reveal promising directions and best conditions of investment. The authors present in detail the stages of adjusting and selecting the priorities by analyzing the established practices and trends in Russia, European countries as well as on the international level. According to the results of this work six core priority areas have been identified. Compared to the 2006 edition the renewed list was reduced significantly, from 34 to 25 positions. The number of critical technologies decreased in all directions, except for «Transport and Space Technology». Five technologies retained their wording unchanged, in 11 cases the formulations have been adjusted while the rest changed significantly. The list of critical technologies reflects the latest scientific and technological trends in conjunction with the objectives of socio-economic development. In the short term one may expect scientific and technological breakthroughs in these areas that will lead to the emergence of new markets, increasing competitiveness of domestic products, a higher quality of life and national security. They are all characterized by significant economic, social and environmental effects. |
Master Class
|
58–64
|
Ron Johnston— Professor, Australian Centre for Innovation, Faculty of Engineering, University of Sydney (Australia). E-mail: rj@aciic.eng.usyd.edu.au Address: Australian Centre for Innovation, Faculty of Engineering University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Rapidly changing context as well as growing uncertainty in almost all spheres of life lead to an understanding that standard means are not applicable to solving emerging complex issues. The ability to anticipate major emerging challenges is more relevant than ever before. Renowned international institutions constantly inform on coming challenges and threats, however, the topic of futures research does not receive proper attention. The paper examines why despite evident seriousness of the situation future studies are not in relevant demand and provides a detailed explanation. The author provides examples of the Foresight practices that had significant or in contrast few impact on decision making in various countries. The study is based on interviews with the participants of the International Conference "Future-Oriented Technology Analysis" (FTA). The answers illustrated the present state of FTA, its objectives and the vector. Analysis of expert opinions leads to the following conclusions. Poorly developed partnerships have a negative influence on the use and development of the FTA. Most managers are not familiar with these tools and their capabilities. There is deeply rooted opinion that unforeseen events will always occur, and there are inevitable limitations to any attempt to influence the future, and therefore the ability to change anything is minuscule. This belief only strengthens the current trend. In many countries, government officials have been largely resistant to the concept and the value of FTA. It does not fit easily with established public administration procedures and protocols. This situation has several explanations: the universities have no educational programs on FTA; managers lack the knowledge and skills to foresee serious challenges. In addition there is a lack of a reliable method enabling to assess FTA mechanisms and prove its effectiveness. The challenge for high impact FTA is to select issues that not necessarily have long time horizon, but rather are relevant and bottom-line. Special education and training in this field are needed. Therefore, a key challenge for the next generation of FTA projects is to shift focus from expertise building to rooting recognition of importance of FTA learning among non-specialists. This presumes the introduction of special issues into the curricula of schools and universities, as well as training of public officers. |
Events
|
66–75
|
The article provides an overview of discussions held at the Workshop on S&T and Innovation Policy (April 6-7, 2011) organized by the HSE Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge in the framework of the XII HSE International Academic Conference on Economic and Social Development. The Workshop addressed the transition of the national economy to innovation-based growth; S&T policy issues in the context of global trends; identification of long-term priorities for innovation-based development using Foresight tools; energy efficiency as a priority of economic modernization; development of the HSE innovation infrastructure. |
|
|