ISSN 1995-459X print E-ISSN 2312-9972 online ISSN 2500-2597 online English
Editor-in-chief Leonid Gokhberg
|
2015. vol. 9. No. 1
|
Strategies
|
6–19
|
Strategic documents that reflect future S&T priorities are often formulated without sufficiently taking into account the social context of S&T developments. The paper discusses the capabilities of social sciences for a deeper contextual analysis when setting priorities and, consequently, for helping to make the diffusion of advanced technologies more efficient. The methodological basis of the analysis is the concept of the social construction of technology (SCOT). The list of critical technologies of the Russian Federation serves as an illustrative example of a strategic document defining S&T priorities. The authors point out developments with the highest potential for social embeddedness, which could be fully used only if coupled with an understanding of related social matters. These developments are divided into four groups (clusters): biomedicine and health, energy, environment, and transport. We identify for each cluster the social groups that would be affected by the relevant technologies, the potential for conflicts of interest and for formats of interaction. The paper proposes prospective areas of sociological research, allowing a deeper understanding of the real context in which new technologies might be developed and implemented, and thus may help optimize efforts for the diffusion of these technologies. We conclude that many prospective technologies, which by nature belong to the 'physical' world, would be more efficient if their implementation, and possibly also development, were accompanied (and in some cases preceded) by the outputs of relevant social science and humanities studies. In this sense, we propose the use of the 'social embeddedness of technology' concept. We argue that this is an important factor affecting the success of technology implementation, and sometimes, technology configuration. |
|
20–31
|
The present article, which continues the discussion of advanced manufacturing technologies initiated in Foresight-Russia issue 2 (2014), evaluates the current state of this field in Russia. The analysis here examines the state of the relevant scientific research and the readiness of industry to adopt the new technologies developed by researchers. The study is based on bibliometric and patent analyses, as well as on expert evaluations of the markets related to different segments of advanced manufacturing. Apart from several localized achievements, Russian research institutions and industrial enterprises show a low level of competitiveness in this area. Specific problems that hinder the development and implementation of new technologies by Russian industry include sub-optimal organizational structure of supply chains in the manufacturing sector and the shortage of domestic demand for new technologies. The latter problem is caused by the reluctance of potential industry customers to commit to long-term collaborations with the developers of new products and to create new key or ‘platform’ technologies on the basis of individual firms. The analysis suggests that Russia undoubtedly has potential for the development of advanced manufacturing. Such potential can be realized by the coordinated actions of stakeholders and the development and rational introduction of new policy and regulatory instruments by the government. The most relevant instruments to achieve this goal are policies to incentivize cooperation between technology developers and users. In conclusion, the authors highlight some policy recommendations which they argue can bring positive changes in the sphere of advanced manufacturing technologies. A key recommendation is to create project-focused consortia which unite industry representatives and centres for advanced research that are undertaking pre-competitive R&D in areas that are important for advanced manufacturing. Another recommended policy instrument is to strengthen manufacturing supply chains based on small and medium innovation enterprises through the enhancement of the current technological infrastructure. |
Innovation and Economy
|
32–55
|
Leading countries consider regional clusters an efficient tool of interaction between actors of a regional innovation system, which enables new poles of economic growth to be formed. There is a large literature describing the positive experience of public support for clusters. In Russia, this process is still at an early stage. Russia’s strategy of innovative development up to 2020 includes a programme for supporting pilot innovative regional clusters. The aim is to make these clusters self-sustainable. The emergence and outlook of a cluster largely depend on a range of basic conditions such as: the urban environment; an available critical mass of specialized companies; internal competition; and openness to the outside world. There is always a risk that without government support, the cluster will not be able to shift to the desired trajectory. The paper reviews existing studies on the best practices of implementing state cluster policy in different parts of the world. It provides a detailed analysis of the characteristic features of successful clusters, and evaluates the extent to which Russia’s pilot innovative regional clusters match these criteria of success. It also quantitatively compares domestic and foreign clusters, and suggests a model for sustainable cluster development. The study is based on an empirical analysis of the development programmes of pilot innovative regional clusters that were submitted to the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia in 2012 as part of a special competition. The paper also analyses the results of a survey commissioned by the joint stock company ‘Russian Venture Company’ at the end of 2013. |
|
56–67
|
The need to address the tremendous technological and investment risks intrinsic to the stages of business structuring and drawing up a business model means that an optimal tool to support innovative start-ups is sought. Continuity of the innovation process depends on the efficiency of individual instruments of implementing innovation and indeed on the entire infrastructure. Foreign experiences have shown that an acceleration mechanism to support innovative projects with the appropriate involvement of all stakeholders can be effective. This approach is embodied in regional business catalysts, combining organizational, managerial, research and production, and technological competences of the various actors of the innovation process, thus reducing the 'seedbed' costs and improving the quality of projects at the riskiest stages of the innovation process. The article reveals the importance and place of regional business catalysts in the innovation infrastructure toolbox, in particular the role they play in helping newcomers overcome the so-called 'valley of death' and in aiding innovative companies find investment. Regional business catalysts do this by synchronizing and coordinating competences of regional participants of the innovation process on the basis of common standards and a transparent selection procedure. Business catalysts can also contribute to an overall revitalization of innovative activity in regions. Examples of regional business catalysts introduced in Russia suggest that the region’s high scientific and educational potential, the development of innovation infrastructure, and support of the authorities are key to catalysts’ effectiveness. A performance assessment of the first national business catalyst, launched in the region of Rostov in 2012, confirms the effectiveness of catalysts in establishing horizontal linkages between the regional business community and institutions supporting innovation at the local and federal level. The authors describe the objective difficulties faced by regional business catalysts that are driven by the specificities of the engineering and manufacturing expertise for some projects and the complexity in establishing cooperation with key institutions of regional innovation infrastructure. Future developments are suggested to consolidate business catalysts’ sectoral affiliation, to develop the networking aspects, ensure transparency of this mechanism, as well as expand partnerships between regional industry, academia, and government institutions to support innovative entrepreneurship. |
Master Class
|
68–81
|
Creating industrial programmes, especially in technology, is fraught with high levels of uncertainty. These programmes target the development of products that will not be sold for several years; therefore, one of the risks is that the products will no longer be in demand due to the emergence of more advanced technologies. The paper proposes an integrated approach involving the complementary functions of foresight, intelligence and business analytics. The tools of foresight and intelligence are focused on the external environment and enable industry and researchers to, among other things, understand the direction in which markets and technologies are evolving, and profile local industries to determine which policy instruments may be effective in these industries. Signals picked up today through externally focused intelligence studies can be used to confirm conclusions from longer term foresight initiatives such as scenarios, roadmaps and scans, thereby providing the information needed to establish the long-term industrial policy that science and technology related industries require. The authors propose a dashboard for monitoring an industrial programme’s use so that any problems can be corrected early on. The dashboard relies on both information available in open sources and that accessible to a government. Combining foresight, intelligence and business analytics is believed to not only decrease uncertainty and risk but also make it more likely that the policy is implemented by its intended audience and that industry opportunities are identified at an early stage. To illustrate how this approach works in practice, the paper discusses a hypothetical case of a state programme to develop the nutraceuticals industry in Canada. |
|
|