The problem of introducing innovations into business. Analysis of problems of innovation and personnel training

Date of writing: 28.05.2022

Reading time: 51 minutes

The innovative vector of development of the Russian economy is hampered by the following circumstances: firstly, economic entities are poorly motivated for innovative behavior; secondly, the national supply of technological innovations for their implementation is small (more than 90% of the already insignificant demand for innovations is satisfied by imports). The key problem that reduces the motivation to implement innovations is the high degree of monopolization of industries and excessive protective barriers. The exaggerated role of the state in the market does not contribute to innovative development. In this situation, administrative resource is the most popular innovation, capable of quickly and effectively influencing the state of the enterprise. The social policy of the state plays a significant role. Thus, the government’s focus on maintaining or increasing jobs at existing enterprises may reduce the focus of such enterprises on increasing labor productivity as a result of introducing innovations and releasing workers. Market institutions for supporting innovation are in their infancy. For example, in Russia the number of actually operating “business angels” and venture funds tens and hundreds of times less than in countries that are key innovators.

The presence of demand for innovation deserves special attention. The development of innovative processes in Russia is faced with low demand, which also has an ineffective structure, which is reflected in the bias towards the purchase of finished equipment abroad to the detriment of the implementation of its own scientific developments. If in 2000 the balance of payments for technology in Russia was positive (+20 million dollars), then in 2009 it became negative (-1000.8 million dollars). In innovative countries the situation is completely different. Over the past decade, they have experienced a significant increase in the surplus of the technological balance (in the USA - 1.5 times, in the UK - 1.9 times, in Japan - 2.5 times).

World experience shows that the process of creating demand for innovation in different countries was carried out differently. For example, in the American Silicon Valley, private companies were the engine. In the bulk of the countries of Europe and Asia, the transition to an innovative economy was carried out at the expense of large companies, often with significant government participation. In Russia, unfortunately, both private and state-owned companies think little about innovation. Most of them do virtually no R&D at all. They have no connections with scientific institutes and universities. Thus, in 2010, only one Russian company - Russian Railways - in terms of the share of R&D expenses corresponded to the average level of foreign corporations (0.4% of revenue). If we take into account budget funding, companies such as the Space Center are close to the world average for this indicator. Khrunichev, RSC Energia, NPO Mashinostroeniya, Tactical Corporation military weapons"and several more individual enterprises.

The problem of commercialization of intellectual property, unfortunately, is poorly resolved also due to the lack of proper attention to it. For example, in the approved mandate of the Skolkovo Foundation, the main task is to create and maintain “globally competitive conditions and environment for advanced research and development with the subsequent commercialization of their results.” For these purposes, it is planned to create an intellectual property center and a representative office of the Russian patent office. However, without a unified technology transfer mechanism, these measures will not have the desired effect. So that Skolkovo does not repeat bad experience International Scientific and Technical Center, it is necessary to create technology transfer centers that will solve the problem of commercialization “at the start” and get the best results from all further work “at the end.”

Speaking about innovation activity, it is necessary to take into account one more important circumstance. Economic attractiveness for a subject of innovative activity depends largely on the effectiveness of barriers to the dissemination of developments (patents, know-how, capital intensity of copying, etc.), as well as the frequency of generational changes in technological standards. The greater the innovator’s profit and the longer he is able to receive it, the more attractive the process of investing in innovation is for him. At the same time, the interests of economic growth, on the contrary, require high rates of dissemination of new technologies throughout the industry, and not their isolation within the innovator’s business. And this, in turn, requires reducing barriers to the dissemination of developments by reducing the validity period of patents and expanding the potential for the development of new technologies at the level of sectors and territories. This dilemma leaves a certain imprint on the formation of mechanisms for stimulating innovation activity. Therefore, when speaking about the formation of demand for innovation, it is necessary to proceed from the fact that the financial attractiveness of innovation should be sufficient to cover market and country risks (when exporting and importing technologies).

The income of subjects of innovative activity must cover costs, and the amount of return on capital must be at least not lower than the return on the stock exchange index and, in any case, higher than the inflation rate.

While the demand for innovation from Russian companies continues to form, it is necessary to carefully build partnerships with global corporations that will help instill an innovative culture in large Russian businesses and form the correct system of innovative relations. Foreign companies can become participants in the innovation process. The rest of the “ecosystem” will form around them. However, without clear business benefits realized in Russia, this process will not go beyond good intentions.

Consequently, only a formed “ecosystem” that ensures an organic relationship between all elements of the technological chain of the innovation process is capable of self-development and the creation of many successful companies. Practice shows that one cannot limit oneself solely to the creation and development of innovation infrastructure. The commercialization of intellectual property has as its end result not ideas, inventions, innovations as such, but innovative products. As a consequence, it is necessary to distinguish the demand for factors in the implementation of the innovation process from the demand for its results, and the market for innovative resources from the market for innovative products. These distinctions are related to the theoretical understanding of the essence of innovation. They cannot be identified with the results of scientific and technical activities, R&D products. Innovation is the process of transforming the results of scientific and technological progress into final products and services, into something new that consumption and production need.

Thus, in order to successfully solve the problems of innovative development, it is necessary to create domestic demand for the products of innovative activities, wisely use tax and customs tariff regulation measures, and make the necessary amendments to the regulatory framework, including those related to giving priority to innovative enterprises in public procurement.

IN developed countries The authorities support the demand for innovation by stimulating the growth of new markets. In Russia, it is believed that an innovative breakthrough will be created by high-quality examinations of investment programs of state-owned companies, as well as demands for innovation on behalf of the state. Most often, in government programs, instead of analyzing the technological gap and low level of innovation activity, as well as developing measures to increase the innovative susceptibility of the real sector, the emphasis is on the distribution of budget funds. A key driver of innovation in business, such as fair competition, is completely ignored.

For Russia, the most acceptable option for solving innovative problems will be the use of mixed technology with elements of a leadership strategy in several segments in which competitive advantages exist or can be created, but necessarily with the implementation of a catch-up strategy in most sectors of the economy, focused on technological re-equipment based on imported technologies and targeted stimulation of domestic developments.

Control questions

1. What is intellectual property?
2. What role does intellectual property play in the innovation economy?
3. What are the main incentives for the effective use of intellectual property in the innovation economy?
4. How to understand state control over intellectual property?
5. What are the main difficulties in introducing innovations in Russia?

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Bibliographic link

Saifullina S.F. PROBLEMS OF INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIAN ENTERPRISES // Advances in modern science. – 2010. – No. 3. – P. 171-173;
URL: http://natural-sciences.ru/ru/article/view?id=7969 (access date: 02/01/2020). We bring to your attention magazines published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural Sciences"

The first and most important problem today is the reluctance of private investors to invest money in the development of science. As already mentioned, only 9.4% of Russian enterprises introduce innovations. The reason for such low innovative activity is that, while the profitability is significantly higher than from other types of activities, for a set of technologies in the long term, each of the technologies implies:

high risk (only 1-3% of all projects will be profitable);

high costs (200-500 times more than the cost of creating the technology);

long period of development (5-7 years).

From the point of view of a poor and risk-unprepared investor, innovative projects are unpromising, although they provide the highest income, determine the direction of technical progress, most effectively solve social problems, and create the political image of a technologically developed state.

The second problem is the insufficient funding of science by the state. Russia spends several times less on science than the European Union, China, Japan, the USA and other innovatively developed countries. Unfortunately, the main sectors of financing, as under the USSR, remain the defense, aviation, and space industries. This development model has long been outdated and does not bring results due to the secrecy of most discoveries.

The third problem is the reluctance of scientists, engineers, graduate students and other researchers themselves to carry out research activities in Russia. With an average salary of 40-45 thousand rubles. Russian scientists have no incentive to conduct research, look for new technologies and ways to implement them in business. For the same money, any of them can easily work with standard programs in a commercial business. There is often a “brain drain” abroad, where a researcher receives 2.3-3 times more for research activities than for the same position in Russia.

Also, recently, working for foreign companies without traveling abroad has become increasingly popular among graduate students of various universities. Those. a graduate student in his country conducts research, sends it over the Internet to the customer and in this way earns from $500 per order, without leaving home. In Russia, for the same money, a graduate student will have to work in an office for 1.5-2 months.

The fourth problem concerns intellectual property. Unlike any other material product, knowledge has no direct economic limitations; its value does not depend on the scale of distribution. In this regard, knowledge is an inexhaustible resource that can be used free of charge not only by today’s, but also by future generations. Therefore, from an economic point of view, the price of new knowledge is zero.

At the same time, new knowledge expands a person’s ability to use new ways to replace traditional energy sources, obtain new materials and technologies - in general, everything that significantly increases economic potential. In this regard, the usefulness of new knowledge tends to infinity, i.e. and the price of knowledge tends to infinity.

In modern Russia, any new knowledge is automatically appropriated by the enterprise whose employee produced it, citing the fact that it has no material value, i.e. A researcher works for his strictly fixed fee and has no incentive to create new knowledge. Only an entrepreneur can receive income from new knowledge after introducing it into production and selling finished goods, and the scientist will continue to be content only with his salary, without receiving any profit from the project he created and creating new knowledge.

As was shown in the previous paragraph, despite the measures taken in recent years, innovation activity in the country remains low, the country's economy does not become innovative and continues to lose its competitiveness. Thus, the ranking includes 133 countries but their competitiveness for 2009-2010. Russia dropped from 51st to 63rd place.

Due to the low innovative activity of domestic enterprises, Russia's share in the world market of high-tech products is only 0.3%, while the USA - 36%, Japan - 30%, Germany - 17%.

The data presented indicate low innovative activity in the business sector of the economy and the absence of noticeable positive changes in Russia. Obviously, this state of affairs does not meet the requirements for the transition of the domestic economy to an innovative path of development.

What are the reasons for the weak development of innovation activity in Russia?

Considering the issue of the causes and factors of the Russian economy’s weak susceptibility to scientific and technological progress, to innovation, it seems fundamentally important to divide them into those operating in the economy as a whole and influencing the low innovative activity of all Russian enterprises and what are the problems of the weak development of small innovative entrepreneurship.

Since SIE is an integral part of the entire system of activity in the innovation sphere, its development is influenced by the general state of innovation activity in the country and the entire set of relevant factors. At the same time, there are a number of specific factors that directly influence the state and development of small innovative entrepreneurship.

In this regard, it is necessary to consider both those and other factors on which the state and development of both the innovation sphere as a whole, as well as small innovative entrepreneurship, depends.

And first of all, it is necessary to consider the reasons and factors that determine the generally unsatisfactory state of innovation activity in the country.

The well-known methodological position that without first solving general issues it is impossible to solve specific ones has its significance in the innovation sphere. As for the nature and content of the causes and factors of a general order, it should be borne in mind that they are determined by the essence of the model of the Russian economy that emerged during the market reforms and are of a deep-seated nature. They reflect not external economic processes and phenomena, but essential relationships and internal contradictions. Naturally, eliminating them without radical reform of the Russian economic model is impossible. Only this, in our opinion, is capable of unblocking the situation and creating favorable conditions for the formation of a national innovation system and intensifying innovation activity in the country.

The fundamental feature of the Russian economic model is its export-based nature of raw materials. With such a model, negative consequences for innovation processes are inevitable. As a result of the export-raw materials orientation, vertical production and economic ties were destroyed and stagnation and even degradation followed in a number of vital sectors of the economy and import substitution of their products (mechanical engineering, machine tool building, light industry, shipbuilding, aircraft manufacturing, etc.). We are talking about industries that are potentially susceptible to innovation.

Even during the period of economic recovery in 2002-2008, the growth trends in industries did not fundamentally change due to the predominance of exports of fuel and raw materials and the manifestation of a clear tendency to slow down the growth rate of industrial production. As a result, the share of the fuel and energy complex of other sectors producing export intermediate products has sharply increased (about % in the structure of industrial production), while the knowledge-intensive branches of mechanical engineering are among the outsiders.

Such changes in the structure of the Russian economy contradict the global trend of accelerated growth of the manufacturing industry and do not contribute to the transition to an innovative path of development.

The most important problems of insufficient development of innovation activity in general in the Russian economy include:

almost complete absence of demand for innovation;
insufficient funding for science and R&D in general;
lack of an effective mechanism to support and stimulate innovation;
administrative barriers, corruption;
disunity of links in the innovation cycle from the birth of idea development to the organization of production of high-tech products;
underdevelopment of the innovation infrastructure complex;
reduction of research and development personnel;
decline in the prestige of a scientist.

Let us consider the content of these problems and their negative impact on the development of innovative entrepreneurship in the domestic economy.

The lack of demand for innovation on the part of Russian enterprises is due to the fact that modern conditions Society's need for innovation is diminished. The innovative model of enterprise development is considered unimportant for many business representatives.

The extremely low innovative activity of Russian business is due to the insufficient investment attractiveness of this type of business activity. The paradox is that more profitable enterprises and industries are less involved in innovation than low-profit enterprises and industries.

For example, in mining, the profitability of goods sold fluctuates at about 30% (in 2012 - 31%), and in the mechanical engineering industries - 6-8% (in 2012, production of machinery and equipment - 7.7%) "However, the least innovative activity is observed in the most profitable sectors of the raw materials complex (the share of organizations carrying out technological innovations here is

5-7%), and in low-profit industries of the machine-building complex the greatest innovative activity is noted (15-26%).

In other words, the main thing for a business is to make a good profit. As we see in the extractive industries, it is quite high. Why then spend money on risky innovative projects? However, this behavior of business leads to a decrease in the technological level of the domestic fuel and energy complex: for example, compared to 1989, the oil recovery factor in Russia has decreased by 20% to date, and in the USA it has increased by the same amount, the coefficient of the volume of gas flared in our country increased by 2-2.5 times, and in the USA decreased by a factor of 10.

Along with this, one of the most important factors in the insusceptibility of the Russian economy to innovation is the state of the Russian market environment. It is formed under the influence of the characteristic Russian combination of a vast territory with low population density and insufficiently developed infrastructure. Under such conditions, domestic markets for most goods and services involuntarily gravitate towards a natural monopoly. In this case, a natural monopoly is formed not so much of the manufacturer as of the seller or intermediary. Such monopolization of markets oppresses both the consumer by unreasonably inflating prices for consumer goods, and the producer by artificially limiting effective consumer demand and high prices for industrial goods. Ultimately, this reduces the ability of the real economy to invest in technological innovation.

Monopolization and low competition to one degree or another are characteristic of most sectors of the Russian economy. Thus, in the oil industry, more than 80% of production and 76% of refining are controlled by five companies, and the share of small companies in total oil production has decreased in the last 10 years from 11 to 5%.

In industry, the monopoly position of producers leads to the fact that rising costs are passed on to the consumer. But it is competition that creates the situation of the need to search for the competitive advantages of the company and the competitiveness of the product. Competition encourages improvement of the entire process from production to consumer goods. This is ensured on the basis of the development and implementation of certain innovations. As a result, there is a demand for innovation. It is on the basis of the implementation of innovations that the competitiveness of a product and its successful sale increase.

The world data shows that the higher the competitive environment, the higher the demand for innovation. In the entrepreneurial sphere, competitive success is achieved by companies based on an innovative model of behavior. In a competitive environment in the Russian economy, a weak ego negatively affects the attitude of enterprises to innovation.

Hence, the most important direction of the transition to an innovative type of economic development is the creation of a highly competitive institutional environment, including through the formation and development of competitive markets and the consistent demonopolization of the economy. Russia's accession to the WTO will further intensify the problem of developing a competitive environment.

Another serious barrier to the development of demand for innovation is the current bad practice of Russian business, when prices for products and services in all sectors of the national economy increase significantly every year.

As a result of this practice, enterprises increase their income not by improving production through the use of innovation, but by simply raising prices for their products and services.

As is known, in developed countries, enterprises increase their income by improving products (services), technology and organization of their production and, as a result, increasing the competitiveness of products based on the development and implementation of relevant innovations.

But Russian enterprises do not need risky innovations, since they can make good money by simply raising prices.

It is clear that this vicious practice of annual and quite significant price increases must be stopped. This will encourage manufacturers to more actively develop and implement innovations, increase the competitiveness of their products and, on this basis, increase the profitability of production.

The state of innovation activity in the country is also negatively affected by such an acute problem as the actual collapse of applied industry science, which formed the focus on innovative developments for the relevant industry and was the main partner in the practical development of the results of fundamental and exploratory research. This is evidenced by the data given in Table 2.7.

As can be seen from table 2.7. only for the period from 2000 to 2012. the number of research institutes decreased by more than 30% (from 2686 to 1725). At the same time, many research institutes, after privatization and transfer into private hands, changed their work profile. The number of design organizations has decreased by more than 2 times.

Without applied science, any domestic innovations turned out to be unclaimed, and the most professional of them are used in other countries. If in 1990 30% of enterprises were interested in new technologies and innovations, then in 2011 the number of innovation-active enterprises was only 9.6% of the total number.

Table 2.7.

Organizations that carried out research and development

Number of organizations - total

including: scientific-

research organizations design organizations

design and design and survey organizations pilot plants educational organizations of higher education industrial organizations that had scientific

research and development departments

An acute problem of innovative entrepreneurship remains insufficient financial support for the scientific sphere, which in fact is the core of the innovation system. Until now, we have not been able to fully overcome the consequences of the negative trends observed in Russia in the first decade of market transformations, which resulted in a sharp drop in the level of funding for national science, which decreased by approximately 5 times.

1 Russia in numbers 20!4.M.Rosstat.2014.p.366.

The country has not created favorable financial, credit and tax conditions for the modernization of industrial production on a new technological basis, attracting investment in innovation, without which sustainable economic development is practically impossible. Due to these reasons, neither potential consumers of innovations nor investors are interested in scientific, technical and innovative activities. Financial flows find ways to less risky, but more profitable types of business: in the field of trade, in the financial market, real estate transactions, etc. In such a situation, scientific research and development are not economically profitable. Therefore, the actual receipts of funds for the development of domestic science do not even ensure its simple reproduction. This applies to academic, applied and university science.

To implement the goals of “Strategy 2020” and the country’s transition to innovative development, the strategy of institutional transformations should be aimed simultaneously, firstly, at increasing the investment and innovation activity of the state (as an independent subject of innovation) and, secondly, at creating conditions for the innovative activity of domestic entrepreneurs. Strengthening the activity of the state as an independent subject of innovation activity (creation of state corporations aimed at developing innovations, support in the implementation of the Skolkovo project) is the most important factor in the innovative development of the country, but it is not sufficient.

Only entrepreneurial activity is the main source of economic growth, and it is entrepreneurs who determine the nature of economic growth - whether it will be extensive (increasing involvement of resources on a traditional technological basis) or an intensive-innovative type of growth, based on the use of the results of scientific knowledge and innovations. It is the private business of manufacturing and especially high-tech industries that should become the main driver of economic modernization, and not representatives of the raw materials business interested in maintaining the current situation. It is impossible to significantly increase the share of the non-resource sector in GDP without a sharp increase in entrepreneurial activity, large-scale sources of investment, advanced production technologies and GI. Meanwhile, statistical data indicate the absence of Russian entrepreneurs active innovative interest. Thus, R&D costs as a percentage of GDP in Russia in 2008 were only 1.3%, including the state - 0.6%, business - 0.2%; other sources - 0.5%; in developed countries in 2007: in the USA, respectively, 2.7%, 0.7%, 1.8%, 0.2%; in Japan, respectively, 3.4%,0.5%,2.6%,0.3%.

From these data it is clear that if the Russian state finances R&D at a level comparable to developed countries, then domestic entrepreneurs lag significantly behind: 0.2% in the Russian Federation versus 2.6% in Japan and 1.8% in the USA.

These data eloquently indicate that Russian business is practically indifferent to innovation and innovative activity.

It should be noted that domestic research and development costs in Russia are significantly below the technological safety threshold, which is 2%. It is quite natural that in such a situation, Russian science, which until recently occupied one of the leading positions in the world, if nothing is changed, is doomed to progressively lag behind, which in turn leads to increased technological dependence on the Western world. All egos indicate that the state of affairs with the state of Russian science must be decisively changed. The ongoing reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences provides a good chance for this.

The problem, however, is not only that little funds are allocated for science. The problem is that there is no mechanism when this money starts working in the economy and for the economy. Unfortunately, Russia has not yet created a mechanism for the formation and implementation of innovation and investment cycles from the birth of an idea (scientific theory or hypothesis), including experimental research and the creation of prototype design models, to the final stage of organizing the production of high-tech products and the introduction of high technologies into production.

People often explain that domestic developments have not been brought to their logical conclusion and cannot be directly introduced into production. However, “finishing” the development cannot be done on an initiative basis; this requires financing and a direct order from the real sector of the economy. Consequently, here too the problem lies in the low demand for innovation.

The lack of implementation of domestic innovations can also be explained by an imperfect financing scheme. Nowadays, different stages of the innovation process are financed in parallel. The links in this process are disconnected from each other. This means that subjects of innovation activity are responsible only for “their” part of the work and are less concerned with the promotion of innovation but with other stages of the innovation cycle. Meanwhile, an effective scheme is when it is the final stage of innovative development that is financed, which, in turn, becomes the “customer” for the earlier stages. In this case, the most optimal mode of interaction between various teams when creating and implementing an innovative product is ensured. One of the possible ways to activate this process could be a state order for innovation, especially in priority areas.

As the experience of advanced countries shows, successful commercialization of scientific achievements is possible only with direct interaction between scientific laboratories and the market with the participation of the state. These features of the organizational and economic nature of the transfer of knowledge and technology must be implemented in the process of moving towards an innovative economy. At the same time, what is needed is not fragmented and unrelated measures, but an integrated approach to the clear organization, coordination and financing of all parts of the innovation process from knowledge generation to the introduction of innovations into production based on the development and implementation of innovative development programs. Only with this approach is it possible to seriously improve matters while ensuring the transition of the Russian economy to an innovative path of development.

It is necessary to bridge the gap between science, education and production; they turned out to be organizationally and economically separated. And without the specific integration of science, education and production, a united national innovation strategy, the Russian economy will not be able to develop successfully.

In addition, the reasons for the ineffectiveness of the transfer (transfer) of advanced technologies in Russia are the following:

development scientists, as a rule, do not know the market and do not predict the transformation of their scientific results into a market product;
economic agents of the market (managers, companies) are practically unfamiliar with new scientific research and the most important areas of scientific activity, breakthrough achievements, which does not allow them to judge the reliability of the scientific results proposed for implementation and their technological effectiveness;
the state (represented by politicians and technical experts), called upon to establish the rules for technology transfer, has little idea of the possible consequences of the implementation of the adopted legislative provisions for the production of scientific knowledge and its commercialization.

Effective transfer of scientific research results to production must be carried out through specific and targeted market interaction between these main areas of the innovation economy.

In the meantime, economic and legislative mechanisms for supporting and stimulating innovation activity are not working sufficiently in Russia, which is also reflected in the fact that the complex of innovation infrastructure is not developed.

An innovative infrastructure should be a system, that is, a set of interconnected elements that perform the function of servicing and facilitating innovation processes. With the help of various elements of the innovation infrastructure, the main tasks of promoting innovation are solved: information support, production and technological support of innovation, certification and standardization of innovative products, assistance in promoting effective developments and implementation of innovative projects, holding exhibitions of innovative projects and products, providing consulting assistance, preparation , retraining and advanced training of personnel for innovative activities, etc.

However, here too, innovative development is hampered by factors such as:

fragmentation and lack of systemic communication between elements of the innovation infrastructure, which complicates and slows down the processes of transferring innovations from the sphere of science to the sphere of production, and also significantly reduces the effectiveness of feedback in the development of innovation processes;
low level of interaction between the innovation infrastructure and the market, which determines the insufficient level of commercialization of created innovations and the lack of demand for the results obtained by the production sector of the economy.

As a result, the funds spent on scientific, research and development work do not provide the proper return. All these problems require urgent solutions.

It should be noted that in developed countries, the central task of budgetary funding of science is to support fundamental research, the role of which is increasing in modern conditions. Fundamental achievements in the field of scientific knowledge form the basis for applied developments in industry for the next 10-20 years, creating, in essence, the prerequisites for future economic growth. According to American experts, in the United States, for every $1 of investment at this stage of R&D, there is $9 of GDP growth.

Basic research in most developed countries is carried out primarily in the academic sector, in universities, in government research centers and laboratories, and research institutes. Moreover, the undoubted primacy belongs to universities. Thus, in the USA and Japan, universities account for about 60% of the total volume of fundamental research conducted in these countries, and in the UK - about 80%. In Russia, fundamental research is carried out mainly by research institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Our university science is very poorly developed. According to the Higher School of Economics, only 50-70 leading universities engage in scientific work.

In Russia, budget financing still remains the main source of R&D financing. Contrary to world practice, in which the ratio between government spending and private sector spending is on average 30:70, in Russia this proportion is the opposite. Moreover, the share of budget funds in the structure of internal costs in 2000-2011. increased steadily. If in 2000 it was 53.7% in 2005. increased to 60.9%, and by 2011 - 67.0%.

The dynamics of expenditures on research and development carried out in the business sector of science at the expense of enterprises’ own funds is changing slowly, and in general the share of its expenditures is modest, especially when compared with similar indicators in developed countries of the world. For example, in the USA the share of the business sector in financing research and development is 66%, in Germany - 64.1%, Canada - 49.9%, France - 48.5%, Great Britain - 47.3%.

Unlike developed countries, the corporate sector of science in Russia is underdeveloped and does not play as significant a role as in the West. According to some estimates, in Russia today the largest corporations spend about 50-100 million dollars on R&D annually, seriously inferior to Western corporations in the scale of research and development carried out on their own.

In developed countries, most of the costs of research and development are borne by private companies, among which national and transnational corporations are in the lead. It is they who, by financing research and translating it into real products, technologies, scientific results and inventions, take responsibility for the main directions of scientific and technological progress. Currently, their R&D expenses are very significant (see Tables 2 and 9). The state plays the role of a catalyst for private investment in research activities in industry. It encourages the development of the business sector in the scientific and technical field, creates a special infrastructure for it, provides some economic benefits, and provides training for scientists and specialists within the framework of the state education system.

As can be seen from table 2.8. The share of R&D expenses in the sales volume of the largest corporations reaches significant values.

The growth rate of investments made by the world's largest companies in research and development work is constantly growing every year. Thus, according to estimates by the UK State Department for Innovation, 1,250 leading companies in the world spent $510 billion on R&D in 2006, which is 10% higher than the same figure in 2005 (in 2005 the increase was 7%).

Expenditures of some of the largest transnational corporations on R&D in 2006. 2

Company	Sales volume, billion dollars	R&D expenses, billion dollars	Share of R&D expenses in sales volume

The department's report notes that increased competition is prompting increased investment in research and development.

In Russian companies, with fairly high incomes and production profitability, often significantly exceeding the corresponding indicators in developed countries, domestic large civilian firms focus on short-term goals. They allocate several times less funds for R&D in relative terms than similar firms abroad, while at the same time preferring to purchase foreign technologies and thereby undermining innovation activity in the country in the long term. At the same time, the state does not pursue the necessary policies to maintain the national innovation system.

Thus, the leader in R&D expenses in 2009 was OJSC Gazprom, which, according to the consolidated financial statements, amounted to $605 million; the expenses of other Russian companies on research and innovative developments are much more modest. Thus, the large science-intensive company AFK Sistema invested $50.6 million (0.38% of revenue) in research and development during the same period, Sitronics - $44.8 million (2.77% ), "GAZ" -19.5 million dollars (0.31%), "AvtoVAZ" -^,! million dollars (0.25% of revenue). In the same period, Toyota invested $9 billion in innovation, Nokia -$8.7 billion, Microsoft -$8.1 billion, which is 10 times more than the entire Russian investment. big business.

As we can see, R&D costs in Russian companies are quite modest. However, these costs are mainly associated with the acquisition of foreign technologies and equipment.

Moreover, as studies show, half of Russian companies in manufacturing do not spend any money on R&D, and only 20% have these expenses exceeding 1 million rubles. in year. On average, 0.4% of manufacturing enterprises' revenue goes to innovation. The most knowledge-intensive industries are mechanical engineering (2.4% of revenue is spent on innovation), metallurgy (2.2%) and chemical industry (1,94%).

As for financial support directly for the innovative activities of industrial enterprises, the main source remains their own funds.

Mostly enterprises rely on their own funds not because there are enough such funds, but because others

there are few sources. For example, the credit system is used extremely poorly to finance innovation, which is explained by the imperfection of the Russian banking system, which is characterized by the predominant performance of settlement and cash functions rather than credit. Russian banks are especially ineffective in lending to innovative projects, the implementation of which requires “long-term” money and is associated with a certain degree of risk. Even if loans are issued for such projects, their cost is extremely high.

In addition, the limitation of traditional credit financing is associated with strict requirements for the share of own funds (30-50% of the total cost of the project), as well as the need for collateral. Fulfillment of these conditions is especially unrealistic for small and medium-sized enterprises: there are not enough own funds and there is nothing to pledge. Thus, entrepreneurs cannot use loans, and lenders do not want to take risks and make concessions in the lending structure.

At the same time, we should not forget that many enterprises do not have the opportunity to finance innovation programs, especially in times of crisis. For them, their main desire is to survive.

Long-term underfunding of science could not but affect the reduction in the number of personnel engaged in research and development (Table 2.9).

Table 2.9.

Number of personnel engaged in research and development (at the end of the year; thousand people)

Source: Russia in figures 2014. P.366

As can be seen from table 2.9. The total number of personnel in this area during the period under review has been steadily declining and in 2012 amounted to . less than half the pre-reform level.

The number of researchers has decreased even further. Due to the lack of prospects for scientific growth and meager wages, there was an intensive outflow of young candidates of science and especially researchers without an academic degree.

The reduction in the number of scientists and highly qualified specialists is significantly influenced by their low pay.

It is quite obvious that the creation of normative conditions for the life and fruitful work of researchers is a problem that requires an urgent solution. So far, unfortunately, it has not been resolved. Therefore, only less than one third of candidates and doctors of science work in scientific organizations and universities in Russia.

This indicates that the field of scientific research has ceased to be prestigious. Moreover, there is a sharp decline in the prestige of the scientist. In Russia, according to the survey, the profession of a scientist is considered prestigious by only 9% of the country's residents, while, for example, in the SSL, the profession of a scientist was the most prestigious by 51% of the population.

In fact, the intensity of the “brain drain” from Russia is not decreasing. The total number of scientists who left to work in other countries is approximately 740 thousand. Human. As a rule, these are the most competitive scientists who are at their most productive age.

In Russia, despite the increase in the number of people with higher education, the number of researchers per 1000 people is decreasing. This is evidenced by the data in Table 2.10.

Table 2.10.

Dynamics of the ratio of researchers per 1000 population

but 4 countries




Russian Federation

Germany

As can be seen from table 2.10. The ratio of the number of researchers per 1000 population in developed countries is significantly higher than in Russia, while in dynamics this figure in Western countries is continuously growing and only in Russia is it falling.

It should also be noted that the human resources potential of science has aged significantly. Comparisons with the leading countries of the world indicate an unfavorable relationship between different age groups in the structure of the scientific workforce in Russia: scientists aged 50-59 years old make up approximately 28% of the total number of personnel, 60 years old and older - 18%. At the same time, SSL is characterized by different proportions: 15 and 6%, respectively.

So far, in Russian science, almost everything is done with the minds and hands of gradually passing away national enthusiasts of their work, highly qualified specialists. However, despite the importance of the problem of aging scientific personnel, it is not the most important thing. The main thing is that, given the recession in the knowledge-intensive sector of the Russian economy, the influx of young people into this field of activity has dried up.

Due to the decline in the prestige of scientific and teaching work, the decline in the social status of scientists and teachers, and low wages, the overwhelming majority of students do not want to connect their future with science and education. Now in Russia, on average, only a little more than 1% of graduates go to work in scientific organizations and universities. It is clear that this situation must be radically changed.

In order for young people to now go to work in the high-tech industry, in science, it is necessary to pay them significantly more than the average level, but at least more than in the service sector, where the responsibility and complexity of the work is much less. Other conditions necessary for life and successful work, including measures to increase the prestige of a scientist.

Thus, in the innovation sphere of Russia there are a number of serious problems that hinder the development of innovation activity and its effectiveness. A deeply thought-out program of measures is needed to remove existing barriers and create favorable conditions for the transition of the Russian economy to an innovative path of development.

All the problems and factors considered have a direct impact on the state of affairs in the innovation sphere of Russia, on the activities of all its components. All these factors, one way or another, influence both the state and the development of small innovative entrepreneurship as an integral part of the subjects of the innovation sphere. At the same time, there are a number of specific problems and factors that have a direct impact on the development of small innovative enterprises.

Such problems and factors include:

problems of financing SIE;
insufficient scientific groundwork for innovative activities;
insufficient support from the state;
excessive bureaucratic - ^ creation of small-scale investment enterprises;
underdeveloped infrastructure for small innovative enterprises.

It should be noted that the majority of participants in innovation activities in the country emphasize the importance of the adoption of Federal Law 217-FZ of August 2, 2009, which is aimed at solving the problem of commercialization of scientific and technical developments through the creation of small-scale enterprises at universities and research institutes.

The scope of Law 217-FZ includes 1,644 scientific institutions and 660 universities in the state and municipal sector of science and education. As of December 2012, 1,790 such SIEs were registered, of which 1,697 were created by 265 universities and only 103 scientific organizations.

The founders of the vast majority of small innovative enterprises are universities. SIE created by research institutes is less than 7%. Statistics of small innovation firms at universities indicate the following quantitative indicators on average: number of staffing - 5.42 people; average annual wage per person - 80,450 rubles; the average age of employees is 34 years; the share of students and graduate students in the staff is 34%, average annual revenue is 928,219 rubles; the average book value of equipment and tangible production assets is RUB 260,885.

But the first experience of implementing this law revealed many problems.

An analysis of the size and structure of the authorized capital of the first business companies created by scientific institutions and universities allows us to conclude that many of them were created rather formally only “on paper”. Thus, more than half of business companies were created with an authorized capital of 10.0-50 thousand. rubles, which is clearly not enough even for the initial stage of the process of commercialization of scientific and technical developments. In addition, many scientific institutions and universities contributed to computer programs and databases as a contribution to the authorized capital. Meanwhile, real economic growth can be achieved mainly through the production of innovative products based on inventions, which requires large capital investments, especially at the initial stage of the innovation process.

At existing SIEs, most often the type of intellectual property such as a patent is contributed to the authorized capital (about half), and the rest is almost equally divided between computer programs and databases, on the one hand, and know-how, on the other. The popularity of know-how is due to the fact that this type of intellectual property is accompanied by a patent, although the use of know-how in the formation of authorized capital is usually associated with a number of significant risks. Universities usually choose know-how because of the advantage in speed of document processing.

Data on the state of small innovative entrepreneurship in the public sector of science and education indicate that science, production and the market are developing essentially autonomously, in isolation, and the effect of the freedom granted to institutions of science and education in terms of introducing the results of scientific and scientific-technical activities by granting them the right creating SIP turned out to be minimal.

After some time had passed since the entry into force of this bill, a number of significant problems arose in its implementation. Some parts have conceptual and organizational shortcomings, as well as provisions that conflict with other legislative acts.

Thus, according to Law No. 217-FZ of August 2, 2009, a university can contribute not only the rights to use intellectual property, but also money and other property (premises, equipment) as a contribution to the authorized capital of a small enterprise. However, on the one hand, budget legislation prohibits budgetary institutions from allocating funds for these purposes, and the recommendations of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation directly indicate that the creation of small enterprises in universities should generally be done by transferring intellectual property to the authorized capital of companies. On the other hand, as practice has shown, the patents obtained in universities are mostly of a more academic rather than practical nature, i.e. currently do not have a business idea that could be applied in practice and for which it is realistic to find an investor.

In this regard, a number of problems in the organization and functioning of small enterprises can be noted.

The first problem is the lack of results of intellectual activity in the majority of scientific and educational institutions in the form of intangible assets, since the lack of patents and licenses prevents the formation of founding contributions when creating small innovative enterprises. At the same time, it is not clearly stated what rights to use the results of intellectual activity can be transferred to SIP and what will be the procedure for managing transferred rights (this issue is not completely resolved in Chapter 77, Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which deals with uniform technologies and procedures for using rights to these technologies). Consequently, there is a legal conflict between Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and budget legislation on the issue of ownership of rights to the results of intellectual activity, which is directly related to the issue of constituent contributions of business companies.

The second problem is that many scientific and educational institutions do not have the necessary material and technical base and qualified specialists to organize a full-fledged innovative business.

An analysis of the work of small innovative enterprises shows that the effectiveness of their activities depends on many factors. Nevertheless, in the totality of these factors, it is possible to single out some of them, on which the success of the business mainly depends. And first of all, as practice shows, the success of the work depends on who heads the innovative enterprise - a scientist or a business person.

The problem is that in Russia they are accustomed to thinking that a good scientist or engineer can automatically be a good leader of an innovative project, although this is far from the case. This is evidenced by an analysis of practice.

With all due respect to fundamental science, it makes no sense to implement something that was invented somewhere in a research institute, says Yu. Shtatnoe, head of the department for long-term development of the Novosibirsk City Chamber of Commerce and Industry. - More than half of all developments end up in the trash - not because they are bad, there is simply no real demand for them. And demand is born when production says: “I need this and that.”

Yu. Shtatnov’s opinion is confirmed by the General Director of the Management Company “Savings and Investments” (Moscow), which manages eight venture funds investing in companies at different stages of development - from seed to business expansion: “Our experience has shown that you need to start not with developers and not from the technologies, but from the customer or consumer of these technologies, especially in the industrial sector.

This approach to selecting the head of an innovative company is typical for developed countries. For example, in the USA and Western Europe, the creator of a new innovative company, as a rule, is removed from management already at the nerve-wracking round of investments. At best, he becomes a member of the board of directors or technical director, and the leader is always a person from business.

In Russia, it is still generally accepted that the main value of a company is its technological competencies. They say, we have excellent technologies, and you should come and use them. In the world, business competencies have long come to the fore in the value system: sales, understanding the customer’s problems and the ability to solve these problems. In the open market, as a rule, the winner is not the one who has the best technical solution, but the one who has a better understanding of what the customer’s problem is. According to the director of the Department of Strategic Communications of the Russian Venture Company E. B. Kuznetsov, our technicians are still too “techie”; they lack business competencies.

In Russia, they are afraid to attract a business professional to the leadership of a technology company - this is our main problem. The most annoying thing is that we have professionals, and they are ready to work.

However, the understanding that it is necessary to take into account business interests in the process of developing innovative projects is increasing.

Experience shows that interaction between business and scientific teams produces good results if researchers react and respond to the needs of enterprises. The more a scientist or developer is immersed in practical consulting, the better he understands what needs to be done. At the same time, the effect of such interaction increases if an expert is found for an innovative project at the relevant enterprise, who, together with a team of researchers, specifies what of the plans can be done in practice. Moreover, many university researchers lack business competencies and do not always understand how the commercial environment operates.

In this regard, the experience of the private company Lomonosov Capital, created in 2012 in Novosibirsk Academgorodok to manage high-tech venture projects, is of interest. The company takes full responsibility for all project management processes: budget, quality, control, procurement, market promotion. As the chairman of the board of this company, E.V. Geisler, says, “let the project developers do the development; they don’t know how to sell and shouldn’t. Before “diving” into any project, we carefully study what trends exist in this particular market, in this industry, where things are going, where is the strategic gap between the company’s goals and its capabilities.”

This approach is carried out with the goal of developing a project that would be created ahead of the curve. It is clear that the task is only for experienced professionals.

As a result of this organization of work, the Lomonosov Capital company calculates the future effect with a target of 1000% return on capital and already at the start of the project imagines how to ensure a tenfold increase in the effect.

To the question: approximately how much expenses are spent on project development and how much on product promotion, V. Geisler answered: “My estimate is 20:80 or 30:70. Inventing and producing is half the battle, the main thing is to sell.” In other words, creating and promoting a new product are completely different business tasks. Unfortunately, most domestic innovators do not understand this.

This is exactly what V. Thurman, head of the organization “Resource Center for Business Development”, spoke at the international forum “Discovery of Innovation 2014”. In his opinion, when developing an innovative project, there must be an analysis of the competitive environment; there must be a very precise understanding of what problem your innovative product solves. The state can invest huge sums of money in the development of innovative projects, but as long as people invent products that are not sold, it will be money thrown down the drain.

It is quite obvious that V. Thurman’s opinion reflects the realities of the current state of affairs in the development of innovation activity in Russia.

In today’s dynamic world, when developing innovative projects, as already noted, it is very important to create products ahead of the curve, relying on forecasts for the development of certain scientific and technological areas based on the foresight method. The term “Foresight” (from English, foresight - foresight, or look into the future) means a judgment about upcoming events: about the future state of certain objects, the development of certain technical and technological processes and so on. Foresight is a system of methods for expert assessment of strategic prospects for innovative development, identifying technological breakthroughs that can have the maximum positive impact on the economy and society in the long term.

It is obvious that the initiation of ideas in promising areas of science and technology development, identified on the basis of foresight, will help reduce the amount of research and development that is not in demand by business.

Another important condition for the successful and efficient activity of a team of developers of an innovative project is the organization of work by a competent and cohesive team. At the heart of such a team, its core is a group of creative specialists, like-minded people with creative thinking, generating ideas, solving project problems, and its leader is a project manager with the qualities of a team leader. Experience shows that the team’s work is characterized by high determination in achieving the final result, that is, the development of an innovative product that is in demand by business.

Signs of effective work of a project team are: an informal atmosphere in the team, the task assigned is well understood and accepted for execution, team members listen to each other, they express both their ideas and feelings, conflicts and disagreements do occur, but are expressed around ideas and methods work, not individuals.

To ensure effective teamwork, the project manager must identify all categories of participants and their weaknesses in order to select the exact roles for each team member and ensure their effective interaction.

The main difference between teamwork and the work of formal lpyrin workers is the presence of a synergistic effect that allows one to achieve high results.

The third problem in the development of small and enterprise enterprises is the well-known disinterest of the business sector of the economy in financing risky and expensive innovative projects that often have a long payback period, since, as already noted, it is possible to earn money by simply raising prices on their products annually, especially without investing in production and without any risk.

The fourth problem is the possible bankruptcy of small innovative businesses, the bankruptcy procedure, which, according to another Federal Law No. 120-FZ, is significantly complicated, since the founders must pay their obligations either with money or with property (area and other assets).

An important unresolved problem in increasing the efficiency of small innovative enterprises operating in the scientific and technical field is the need for greater involvement of external investors and entrepreneurs from the business sector. Universities and research institutes will be able to more easily enter the foreign market by having market connections successful entrepreneurs, whose business acumen and skills in promoting products (services) will help solve the problem. Therefore, the task of universities and research institutes in implementing Law No. 217-FZ is to take into account the interests of businessmen and invite them to the innovative activities of their SIEs on mutually acceptable and equivalent terms, which will require the involvement of both financial and material resources of universities in their joint activities with business.

Another drawback is the ambiguity with the status of investors; the conditions for the participation of external investors in the activities of SIEs are not sufficiently specified, but they become the main link when the task arises of commercializing an innovative product. An investor acting as a business partner with experience and skills in promoting new products to the market is more important for any SIE than for an ordinary market company.

According to the Vice-Rector of Moscow State University, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences A. Khokhlov, the key problem for the development of small innovative entrepreneurship is the problem of stimulating demand for innovation, including from large businesses, which will require amendments to the Tax Code, providing for tax benefits for large companies that purchase SIE products . Another difficult problem is lack of money. More impressive government support for small innovative businesses is needed; this is evidenced by the experience of the United States, where the SBIR programs (Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program) were launched, the amount of funding amounting to $2 billion, and in Russia, the “innovation” component of the federal program for supporting small innovative businesses is equivalent to approximately S67 million, the size of the Fund for Assistance to the Development of Small Enterprises in the Scientific and Technical Sphere is approximately $113 million, i.e. more than 10 times less.

Through the introduction of Federal Law No. 217, the Government of Russia stimulates the participation of universities in the country’s transition to an innovative path of development, but so far the path from a scientific idea to a prototype, then a sample and implementation in real production, is very difficult for inventors, since between scientific development and implementation there is the so-called “valley of death”, which not all small innovative enterprises manage to overcome. In practice, universities experience great difficulties in obtaining investments for the development of innovative projects.

Banks finance such projects only on the security of property; registration of the pledge takes time comparable to the time of using the loan and is accompanied by corruption schemes on the part of state registration authorities. In addition, in accordance with current legislation, universities do not have their own property; all of their material assets belong to the Ministry of Education and Science and are under its operational management, therefore they cannot serve as collateral for a loan.

SIE failed to attract significant funds from private investors to “innovative” small enterprises. As for professional investors - “business angels” and venture funds, for the most part they are also not interested in establishing small innovative companies on shares with universities and research institutes. More than half of the companies were created in the form of an LLC with an authorized capital of 10-50 thousand rubles, mainly according to the “university plus several” scheme individuals from among its own employees." In general, it is worth recognizing that small innovative enterprises created under Federal Law No. 217 do not have sufficient own funds for commercialization.

As is known, budgetary institutions can contribute to the authorized capital of business companies only the right to use the results of intellectual activity, while retaining exclusive rights to them. This means that the created small innovative enterprises are deprived of the opportunity to transfer to third parties the rights to use the results of intellectual activity that they themselves received as a contribution to their authorized capital. Theoretically, there will always be a risk that the university can transfer exactly the same right to another company, that is, with its own hands it will create a competitor to its SIE. In addition, according to Federal Law No. 217-FZ, a budgetary institution must have an “irreducible” share in the enterprise - more than 25% of shares in a joint-stock company and more than a third of shares (34%) in an LLC.

All this creates inconveniences and risks that not every private investor is willing to put up with. After all, he receives a “venture” partner in the person of the head of a budgetary institution with at least a blocking stake. The “irreducible” share of a university or research institute creates great difficulties for the implementation of the classic venture investment scenario, which assumes that at different stages of development of an innovative enterprise, more and more new investors will join the project, who in exchange for investments will receive a share in the company. Moreover, with each new venture round, the stakes of the founders and earlier investors are eroded as the authorized capital increases. And if a company has a “privileged” co-founder - a university or research institute, whose stake cannot be diluted, then a small investment company with such a “burden” will find it difficult to attract new investors, especially at the later stages, when truly significant investments are required - for example, to launch production . Who then capitalizes “innovative” startups? There is only one answer - the state through its support programs, as well as universities and research institutes themselves.

Lawmakers have moved in that direction in recent years. In particular, the state began to allow universities to partially perform the functions of an investor; they are now allowed to support their small innovative enterprises with almost any available assets, rent out space and equipment at a preferential rate and without competition. Usually these are investments for which a startup will purchase equipment, rent space, etc., since universities have equipment, space, and extra-budgetary funds.

According to expert estimates, in Russia only 45% of innovative companies reach the sales stage, although a high-quality business plan is available in 60% of cases. According to the study consulting company Nautech startups often die due to reasons beyond the control of the developer - bureaucratic delays, an exorbitant tax burden for “newborn” enterprises and imperfect innovation legislation.

According to the general partner of the venture company Ventures E. Zaitsev, investments at the “seed” stage also occupy not the least place among the factors hindering the development of innovative projects. The main problem here is the lack of funding at the stage after completion of R&D and before the creation of pilot production. Large venture funds are not interested in investing in small businesses, since their transaction costs for structuring a deal are comparable to the volume of investment, and the expected partners for subsequent exit from these projects do not inspire optimism. In addition, innovators often complain about such a problem in the venture market as the presence of a large number of intermediaries who do not invest money, but only help attract financing. At the same time, they seek to burden a small innovative company that is in the process of searching for funds with enslaving financial obligations.

Another barrier typical for small innovative projects is the need to acquire a nominal legal address: in the early stages, the team most often works in laboratories under the heading

“informal”, whereas a legal entity is required to obtain financing. It is typical that entrepreneurs who have managed to bring a project to self-sufficiency have little interest in attracting investors in exchange for control in their project. Almost half of those who present “seed” projects on the market today set themselves the goal of maintaining the status quo. According to a Nautech study, in 75% of cases, own developments were named as the main sources of ideas underlying ongoing innovative projects, and in 43% - their own entrepreneurial ideas. At the same time, mechanisms for acquiring developments or development using state contract funds turned out to be less in demand.

Despite all the problems, it turned out that with the right approach, the survival rate of SIEs emerging from a university environment can be much higher than in the average economy, where the norm is that half of startups die within the first year of existence. In universities, enterprises are often created not so much on the basis of some serious intellectual property, but on the entrepreneurial spirit of students, graduate students, teachers and university management, i.e. The entrepreneurial spirit is stronger in universities than in research institutes and academic institutions.

However, the number of SIEs created at universities is growing slowly. The main reason for the insufficient dynamics in the development of small innovative firms is the absence of the results of intellectual activity as part of intangible assets ready for commercialization in the vast majority of educational and scientific institutions. This is confirmed by the fact that for 72.2% of small firms the cost of intellectual property as of September 2010 was up to 20 thousand rubles.

The fact is that in universities, according to the analysis, only 16% of teachers conduct research. Less than 10% of universities have a research budget exceeding 50 thousand rubles. per year per teacher.

It is clear that these modest amounts of research expenditure do not allow for the implementation of large and significant projects.

Many problems arise when creating small innovative enterprises at RAS institutes. About 30 small enterprises have been created in the academy, while in universities there are already almost 1,700. This can be explained by the fact that in universities, whose main task is training personnel with higher education, large-scale scientific developments practically cannot appear. As a result, a large number of small enterprises are created with the transfer of rights to intellectual property worth less than 500 thousand rubles, while in accordance with Federal Law No. 21 there is no need to conduct a market valuation of the transferred intellectual property.

In the RAS, as a rule, the creation of intellectual property is based on the results of many years of work, and the intellectual property, the rights to which will be transferred by RAS institutes to a small enterprise, costs much more than 500 thousand rubles. Therefore, RAS institutes need to conduct a market assessment of intellectual property.

At the same time, according to many accountants, when putting intellectual property on the balance sheet, you need to pay income tax, and if, as a result of market valuation, the value of intellectual property is millions, then income tax increases significantly. For clarification on this issue, the RAS has repeatedly appealed to the State Duma and the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation. No clear answer was received on this issue. The Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation believes that the Russian Academy of Sciences should not pay tax in this case.

In addition, there is no clear understanding of the question of how much income that the Russian Academy of Sciences receives from the work of small innovative enterprises can be used according to the law. In accordance with and. 3.1 Art. 5 of the Federal Law “On Science and State Scientific and Technical Policy”, the Russian Academy of Sciences may have income from small enterprises, which come to the independent disposal of scientific institutions, are accounted for on a separate balance sheet and are used only for the legal protection of the results of intellectual activity, payment of remuneration to their authors, as well as for the implementation of the statutory activities of these scientific institutions. According to the instructions of the Ministry of Finance Russian Federation the use of income from the disposal of shares in the authorized capital of business companies of the Russian Academy of Sciences is prohibited. It is clear that this state of affairs significantly complicates the process of creating small-scale investment projects in scientific organizations.

The most important barrier to innovation also seems to be the lack of the necessary scientific infrastructure for successful innovation activities, which involves the interaction of industrial enterprises with research institutes and leading universities to quickly transfer innovations and scientific and technical developments of scientists into real production.

The subject of innovation activity infrastructure is a legal entity that provides production, technological, consulting, financial, information and other services to subjects of innovation activity. The detailed composition of the innovation activity infrastructure is presented in Fig. 2.2.

Rice. 2.2.

Due to the pronounced specificity of the sphere of small innovative entrepreneurship, there is an urgent need for the existence of an extensive infrastructure to support it. The infrastructure for supporting small innovative businesses is understood as a set of government bodies operating in the field of regulating innovative processes in the economy and organizations providing services to enterprises operating or planning to start activities in the innovation sector.

The main purpose of the functioning of the infrastructure for supporting small innovative entrepreneurship is to provide assistance to business entities at the initial stages of development of an innovative enterprise or scientific and technical project. Obviously, the most “critical” period for a high-tech company is its formation period.

Infrastructure is an area that small firms are not capable of creating, but without it they cannot operate normally and for any length of time and effectively.

The experience of developed countries shows that it is advisable to use budget funds for the creation and development of innovation infrastructure, even in the form of direct investment. However, it is advisable to carry out such investments within the framework of public-private partnerships by combining the resources of the state and the business community.

The main tasks facing the infrastructure for supporting innovative entrepreneurship in accordance with the main problems of this area of economic activity are the following:

1) expanding demand for high-tech products from consumers;
2) expanding the circle of potential investors through representatives of the venture investment market, as well as through medium and large businesses;
3) providing financial support in the early stages of implementation of innovative projects;
4) assistance in finding partners and providing various types of services to “support” the implementation of innovative projects;
5) assistance in gaining access to the most financially accessible office and production premises;
6) information support for small innovative businesses.

Due to the specifics of innovative entrepreneurship, it seems obvious that at each stage of formation it is important for small innovative companies to have the opportunity to receive various types of support (mainly from government agencies), as well as business services of various types. In this sense, it is essential not only to build a support structure in which at any stage of the life cycle a high-tech firm can take advantage of government or other forms of government support, but also to increase the availability of information about infrastructure, as well as increase the transparency of its activities.

The consistent creation of all the necessary infrastructure elements will undoubtedly contribute to the intensification of innovation activities.

In the meantime, the necessary elements of innovation infrastructure are underdeveloped. Contradictions between departments do not contribute to solving this problem. Thus, the development of technology parks and business incubators is financed both through regional and federal budgets, and universities within which SIEs are created are financed from the budget of the Ministry of Education and Science. Therefore, it is not entirely clear how these funds can be redistributed for the needs of building premises for university innovation departments.

Throughout the country there are now a total of about 170 business incubators and 60 technology parks, i.e. The number of business incubators, technology transfer centers, technology and scientific parks and other innovation infrastructure in Russia has already been created. However, the effectiveness of their activities does not fully meet the requirements for the development of small innovative enterprises.

According to the President of the National Association of Business Angels K. Fokin, who himself managed one of the Moscow technology parks for several years, what is important for a young company is not so much the savings on office rent and other benefits when it is in a business incubator, but rather the presence of people nearby who - truly competent in finance, marketing, etc., and ready to help a novice starter. In this sense, an experienced entrepreneur who, for whatever reason, has decided to become a business mentor for a startup may turn out to be a much more preferable “incubator” for him. However, there is still no continuous “hatching” of startups and high-tech projects in existing business incubators. In connection with the empty spaces of many Russian business incubators and technology parks, the question arises: is this because there is a lot of infrastructure, or because there are not enough innovative projects? There is only one answer - there is a shortage of innovative startups in our country.

The processes of correctly selecting startups, supporting them, and fully “incorporating” the innovation group into the innovation system are complex and slow. Life has shown that it turned out to be much easier to build a “hard” infrastructure in the form of buildings and complexes for budgetary funds than to create the so-called “soft” infrastructure of an innovation system, the elements of which are: investments, competencies, personnel and services - these are exactly the four elements necessary for the operation of every startup. In the Russian innovation system, all these infrastructure elements are available separately, but together they do not work effectively, and each of these elements requires improvement.

One of the main problems of “soft” infrastructure is observed already at the start. An innovative project at the time of its inception is a team plus a productive idea, and the future startup needs not only money, but also relevant personnel and business competencies.

In the process of meetings between e-organizers and professional business consultants at venture and startup events, exchanges and idea fairs, joint brainstorming sessions, etc. there is a mutual enrichment of each other’s ideas and approaches to solving problems, and only in this way does a difficult-to-formalize “soft” infrastructure begin to appear. So far the situation is such that there is no relationship between its elements. Of course, innovative startups always have the opportunity to turn to professional business- consultants to help with marketing concepts and drawing up a business plan: such a service on the market now costs from 25 thousand rubles. But what can truly move a project forward is not a paid consultant, but one who is a member of the project team, who receives his share in the company and uses all his potential, experience and connections for the hasty implementation of an innovative project.

To ensure this approach and select innovative ideas and projects at the “pre-seed” stage, when even seed venture funds are not yet ready to invest in the project, business accelerators began to be created in the country. Their main task is to hold events in various regions called “startup weekends”, the purpose of which is to quickly upgrade ideas to the level of structured business projects, bringing to them the necessary expertise and assistance from experienced business consultants, i.e. mentors.

Thus, A. Moreinis, the founder of the Internet service Price.ru and the creator of one of the first business accelerators in Russia - “Glavstart”, figuratively explains the essence of his activity as follows: “I search and select people, help bring their ideas to more or less less attractive appearance and I give a little money so that it is enough to bring the product to a working condition, i.e. In essence, I act as a “teacher” for the preparatory group - I prepare “children” for “school”.

Today in Russia, in addition to Glavsgart, the format of a business accelerator (or business catalyst) has been adopted by the following companies: Venture Expert, Vadim Kulikov Innovation Center, InCube Accelerator, Academy of Farminers Projects, GreenfieldProject, Pulsar Venture .

In modern conditions, participants in the emerging innovation ecosystem inevitably have to go beyond their “natural” specialization and take on much greater functionality: business consultants occasionally engage in business angel investing, specialists from venture funds themselves package technological ideas into projects, and the founders of innovative startups Having created a working technology, they themselves go into production. Thus, technology transfer centers (TTCs), the number of which in Russia reaches almost half a thousand thousand, also began to function as a business accelerator and incubator. In particular, the head of the Center for Technology Transfer (TCT) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, A. Gostomelsky, describes his activities as follows: we find a developer with a certain technology in the laboratory, together we refine the business model, do marketing, figure out what is best to bring to the market, carry out an examination together with the Russian Academy of Sciences and We are looking for an investor. It is easy to see that such an algorithm of actions will make it possible to intensify the creation of small-scale investment projects.

Thus, the production development of specific innovations is ensured, firstly, within the existing “hard” and “soft” innovation infrastructure, subject to the formation of appropriate specialized services leading this process, and secondly, in newly created structures focused specifically on it . The originality of new organizational forms of innovative activity is determined by new trends in the competitive struggle of companies in the context of globalization and informatization, the emergence of self-learning organizations as one of the forms of “knowledge corporations”.

It follows from this that in modern conditions, which are characterized by a high degree of uncertainty, a creative search for new approaches and new organizational forms of enhancing innovation activity and increasing its efficiency is necessary.

It should also be noted that the current state of statistical tools for assessing the development and performance of small innovative entrepreneurship does not correspond to the role it plays in the development of the Russian economy.

The fact is that the innovative activity of small enterprises is surveyed by Rosstat on the basis of form No. 2-MP innovation. “Information on technological innovations of a small enterprise” has a number of shortcomings.

Firstly, the survey does not take into account micro-enterprises, which include small enterprises with up to 15 employees, and most of these are small enterprises, especially those created at universities and research institutes. Thus, in 2012, out of 15,169 small innovative enterprises, 13,553 were micro-enterprises, that is, almost 90% were not included in the survey.

Secondly, as the name of the survey suggests, only those enterprises that are engaged in technological innovation are taken into account and enterprises that carry out marketing and organizational innovations are not taken into account, but they are the serious driving mechanism for the development of small enterprises and contribute to their adaptation to a rapidly changing environment .

Thirdly, the survey of the innovative activities of small enterprises is carried out on a smaller range of enterprises than the observation of the innovative activities of large and medium-sized organizations. In form No. 2-MP innovation, small enterprises registered under the types of economic activity “Mining”, “Manufacturing”, “Production and distribution of electricity, gas and water” are reported. Small businesses operating in the service sector agriculture, construction, education are not included in the survey 1.

Fourth, these surveys are conducted only once every two years.

As a result, these surveys conducted by Rosstat cover only a part of small enterprises, do not provide complete information about the activities of small enterprises and cannot serve as an adequate information base for adoption management decisions on the development of small innovative enterprises. Clearly, significant changes need to be made here.

Lenchuk E.B., Vlaskin G.A. Investment aspects of innovative growth - M.: 2008.-e. 126. BIKI.2008. January 12 No. 3. //Innovations//. No. 6. -2012 - P.44

Y. Kuzminov, V. May, S. Sinelnikov-Myrylev. A country where there are many, many bad universities // Expert, No. 37, 2009.

Otkin I. Assembling the puzzle // “Business Magazine”. 2011. - No. 10

Akmaeva R.I. Innovative management of a small enterprise operating in the scientific and technical field. Rostov-on-Don. "Phoenix".-20!2.-p.203.