Аннотация
В эпоху открытых инноваций выбор бизнесом кооперационной стратегии вносит решающий вклад в продуктивность инновационной деятельности. Авторами рассмотрены типичные конфигурации кооперационных связей российских предприятий обрабатывающей промышленности, включая механизмы выбора партнеров, значимость факторов пространственной удаленности, длительности совместных проектов. Анализ данных по предприятиям позволил оценить роль кооперации в итоговой результативности инновационной деятельности с точки зрения новизны создаваемых инноваций и реализации экспортного потенциала. Самой распространенной практикой признана вертикальная кооперация — привлечение к разработке инноваций клиентов и поставщиков преимущественно из одного географического региона на нерегулярной (краткосрочной) основе. Узкий круг предприятий, вовлеченных в международное сотрудничество, как правило, опирается на долгосрочные связи с наукой, взаимодействие с которой отличает наиболее инновационные российские компании, занятые, среди прочего, созданием объектов интеллектуальной собственности и трансфером прав на них.
Литература
Arranz N., de Arroyabe J.C.F. (2008) The choice of partners in R&D cooperation: An empirical analysis of Spanish firms // Technovation. Vol. 28. № 1-2. Р. 88-100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.07.006
Aschhoff B., Schmidt T. (2008) Empirical evidence on the success of R&D cooperation - happy together? // Review of Industrial Organization. Vol. 33. № 1. P. 41-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-008-9179-7
Balland P.A., Boschma R., Crespo J., Rigby D.L. (2019) Smart specialization policy in the European Union: Relatedness, knowledge complexity and regional diversification // Regional Studies. Vol. 53. № 9. P. 1252-1268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1437900
Barney J.B. (2001) Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view // Journal of Management. Vol. 27. № 6. Р. 643-650. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700602
Becker W., Dietz J. (2004) R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms - evidence for the German manufacturing industry // Research Policy. Vol. 33. № 2. Р. 209-223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.07.003
Belderbos R., Carree M., Diederen B., Lokshin B., Veugelers R. (2004) Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies // International Journal of Industrial Organization. Vol. 22. № 8-9. Р. 1237-1263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2004.08.001
Belderbos R., Carree M., Lokshin B. (2004) Cooperative R&D and firm performance // Research Рolicy. Vol. 33. № 10. Р. 1477-1492. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26481/umamet.2004020
Bessonova E., Gonchar K. (2019) How the innovation-competition link is shaped by technology distance in a high-barrier catch-up economy // Technovation. Vol. 86. P. 15-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2019.01.002
Boschma R. (2005) Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment // Regional Studies. Vol. 39. № 1. P. 61-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887
Breschi S., Malerba F., Orsenigo L. (2000) Technological regimes and Schumpeterian patterns of innovation // Economic Journal. Vol. 110. № 463. P. 388-410. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00530
Caloghirou Y., Kastelli I., Tsakanikas A. (2004) Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance? // Technovation. Vol. 24. № 1. P. 29-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-005-1005-z
Carlsson S., Corvello V., Schroll A., Mild A. (2011) Open innovation modes and the role of internal R&D // European Journal of Innovation Management. Vol. 14. № 4. P. 475-495. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061111174925
Castellacci F. (2008) Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories: Manufacturing and service industries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation // Research Policy. Vol. 37. № 6-7. P. 978-994. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.03.011
Chesbrough H. (2012) Open innovation: Where we've been and where we're going // Research-Technology Management. Vol. 55. № 4. P. 20-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308x5504085
Chesbrough H.W. (2003) Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Cohen W.M., Levinthal D.A. (1990) Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation // Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 35. № 1. P. 128-152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
Dachs B., Ebersberger B., Pyka A. (2008) Why do firms cooperate for innovation? A comparison of Austrian and Finnish CIS3 results // International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy. Vol. 4. № 3-4. P. 200-229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/ijfip.2008.017577
Dahlander L., Gann D.M. (2010) How open is innovation? // Research Policy. Vol. 39. № 6. P. 699-709. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013
De Faria P., Lima F., Santos R. (2010) Cooperation in innovation activities: The importance of partners // Research Policy. Vol. 39. № 8. P. 1082-1092. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.05.003
Edquist C. (2011) Design of innovation policy through diagnostic analysis: Identification of systemic problems (or failures) // Industrial and Corporate Change. Vol. 20. № 6. P. 1725-1753. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtr060
Fagerberg J., Mowery D.C., Nelson R.R. (eds.) (2005) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.001.0001
Freeman C. (1987) Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.
Fritsch M., Lukas R. (2001) Who cooperates on R&D? // Research Policy. Vol. 30. № 2. P. 297-312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00115-8
Godin B. (2006) The linear model of innovation: The historical construction of an analytical framework // Science, Technology and Human Values. Vol. 31. № 6. P. 639-667. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243906291865
Godin B. (2008) Innovation: The history of a category. Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation Working Paper № 1. Quebec: Institut national de la recherche scientifique.
Gokhberg L., Kuznetsova T. (2015) Russian Federation // UNESCO Science Report: Towards 2030 / Ed. S. Schneegans. Paris: UNESCO. P. 343-363.
Greco M., Grimaldi M., Cricelli L. (2016) An analysis of the open innovation effect on firm performance // European Management Journal. Vol. 34. № 5. P. 501-516. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.02.008
Hayter C.S., Nelson A.J., Zayed S., O'Connor A.C. (2018) Conceptualizing academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: A review, analysis and extension of the literature // Journal of Technology Transfer. Vol. 43. № 4. P. 1039-1082. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3137406
Humphrey J., Schmitz H. (2002) How does insertion in global value chains affect upgrading in industrial clusters? // Regional Studies. Vol. 36. № 9. P. 1017-1027. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340022000022198
Kaufmann A., Todtling F. (2001) Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation: The importance of boundary-crossing between systems // Research Policy. Vol. 30. № 5. P. 791-804. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(00)00118-9
Kim Y., Vonortas N.S. (2014) Cooperation in the formative years: Evidence from small enterprises in Europe // European Management Journal. Vol. 32. № 5. P. 795-805. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.02.003
Kline S., Rosenberg N. (1986) The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/612.
Kratzer J., Meissner D., Roud, V. (2017) Open innovation and company culture: Internal openness makes the difference // Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Vol. 119. P. 128-138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.022
Laursen K., Salter A. (2006) Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms // Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 27. № 2. P. 131-150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.507
Lee K. (2020) Openness and innovation in online higher education: A historical review of the two discourses // Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning. P. 1-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2020.1713737
Leydesdorff L., Rotolo D., de Nooy W. (2013) Innovation as a nonlinear process, the scientometric perspective, and the specification of an ‘innovation opportunities explorer // Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. Vol. 25. № 6. P. 641-653. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2013.801948
Lhuillery S., Pfister E. (2009) R&D cooperation and failures in innovation projects: Empirical evidence from French CIS data // Research Policy. Vol. 38. № 1. P. 45-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.09.002
Lundvall B.A. (1992) National Systems of Innovation. Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter.
Nambisan S., Wright M., Feldman M. (2019) The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes // Research Policy. Vol. 48. № 8. P. 1-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.018
Nelson R. (ed.) (1993) National Innovation Systems. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nieto M.J., Santamaria L. (2007) The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation // Technovation. Vol. 27. № 6-7. P. 367-377. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2006.10.001
OECD (2015) The future of productivity. Joint Economics Department and the Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Note. Paris: OECD. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264248533-en
OECD, Eurostat (2018) Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation (4th ed.). Paris: OECD. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/24132764
Perkmann M., Walsh K. (2007) University-industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda // International Journal of Management Reviews. Vol. 9. № 4. P. 259-280. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00225.x
Plewa C., Korff N., Baaken T., Macpherson G. (2013) University-industry linkage evolution: An empirical investigation of relational success factors // R&D Management. Vol. 43. № 4. P. 365-380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12021
Rosenbloom R.S., Spencer W.J. (1996) The transformation of industrial research // Issues in Science and Technology. Vol. 12. № 3. P. 68-74.
Roud V., Vlasova V. (2020) Strategies of industry-science cooperation in the Russian manufacturing sector // Journal of Technology Transfer. Vol. 45. № 3. P. 870-907. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9703-3
Srholec M. (2015) Understanding the diversity of cooperation on innovation across countries: Multilevel evidence from Europe // Economics of Innovation and New Technology. Vol. 24. № 1-2. P. 159-182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2014.897864
Teece D.J. (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance // Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 28. № 13. P. 1319-1350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
Tether B.S. (2002) Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis // Research Policy. Vol. 31. № 6. P. 947-967. DOI: 0.1016/S0048-7333(01)00172-X.
Torre A. (2008) On the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge transmission // Regional Studies. Vol. 42. № 6. P. 869-889. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400801922814
Van Beers C., Zand F. (2014) R&D cooperation, partner diversity, and innovation performance: An empirical analysis // Journal of Product Innovation Management. Vol. 31. № 2. P. 292-312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12096
Wang C.H., Chang C.H., Shen G.C. (2015) The effect of inbound open innovation on firm performance: Evidence from high-tech industry // Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Vol. 99. P. 222-230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.006
Wernerfelt B. (1984) A resource-based view of the firm // Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 5. № 2. P. 171-180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207
Yakovlev A. (2014) Russian modernization: Between the need for new players and the fear of losing control of rent sources // Journal of Eurasian Studies. Vol. 5. № 1. P. 10-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2013.09.004
Быкова А.А., Молодчик М.А. (2009) Практики открытых инноваций в России: эмпирическое исследование инновационного поведения предприятий Пермского края // Корпоративные финансы. Т. 3. № 3. C. 77-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/j.jcfr.2073-0438.3.3.2009.77-93
Дежина И., Медовников Д., Розмирович С. (2018) Оценки спроса российского среднего технологического бизнеса на сотрудничество с вузами // Журнал новой экономической ассоциации. Т. 4. № 36. С. 81-105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31737/2221-2264-2017-36-4-4
Кузнецова Т.Е., Рудь В.А. (2013) Конкуренция, инновации и стратегии развития российских предприятий (результаты эмпирических исследований) // Вопросы экономики. № 12. С. 86-108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2013-12-86-108
НИУ ВШЭ (2019) Индикаторы инновационной деятельности: 2019. Статистический сборник. М.: НИУ ВШЭ.
Рудь В., Фурсов К. (2011) Роль статистики в дискуссии о научно-технологическом и инновационном развитии // Вопросы экономики. № 1. С. 138-150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2011-1-138-150
Симачев Ю.В., Кузык М.Г., Фейгина В.В. (2014) Взаимодействие российских компаний и исследовательских организаций в проведении НИОКР: третий не лишний? // Вопросы экономики. № 7. С. 4-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2014-7-4-34
Теплых Г.В. (2015) Драйверы инновационной активности промышленных компаний в России // Прикладная эконометрика. № 2 (38). С. 83-110.

Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution» («Атрибуция») 4.0 Всемирная.