Leading countries consider regional clusters as an efficient tool of interaction between actors of a region’s innovation system, which allows generating new poles of economic growth. There is a plenty of literature describing positive experience of clusters’ public support. In Russia, this process is still at an early stage. Russia’s strategy of innovative development until 2020 includes a program for supporting pilot innovative regional clusters. The aim is to make these clusters self-sustained.
Emergence and outlook of a cluster’s evolution are largely dependent on a range of basic conditions, such as: the urban environment; available critical mass of specialized companies; internal competition and openness to the outside world. There is always a risk that without government support the cluster will not be able to shift to the desired trajectory.
The paper presents a detailed overview of research devoted to the best practices of implementing state cluster policy. It provides a detailed analysis of the characteristic features of successful clusters, evaluates matching of Russia’s pilot innovative regional clusters to these criteria, as well as quantitative comparison between domestic and foreign clusters, suggests a model for sustainable cluster development.
The empirical base of the study is the development programmes of pilot innovative regional clusters, submitted to Ministry of Economic Development of Russia through 2012 in the framework of a special contest, as well as the results of the survey, commissioned by the JSC "Russian Venture Company" at the end of 2013.
Public research plays an extremely important role in social and economic development, and has implications for industry, services, education, training, the creation and diffusion of knowledge, management etc. In turn, R&D and innovation activities in the business sector are becoming increasingly open. Being influenced by increasingly tightened global competition, companies are entering into partnerships with other companies, universities or public research institutions (PRIs) to leverage competences from different places and organizations to foster innovation. The search for partners and the management of many co-operations itself are new challenges especially in terms of administering intellectual property rights. Universities and PRIs must respond to the changing requirements imposed by companies while maintaining their unique positions as research and science related institutions. The overall framework conditions for these actors are changing, which in turn requires new government policies especially given the slowdown in key performance indicators of the commercialization activities of PRIs.
The paper highlights recent trends and approaches related to knowledge and technology transfer from public research and education to industry. It considers legislative initiatives to target industry engagement and research personnel, new technology transfer office models, collaborative intellectual property (IP) tools, and initiatives to facilitate access to public research results. The authors stress that the quality of research has a strong influence on knowledge and technology transfer. In turn, contrary to the widespread belief that knowledge and technology transfer activities might negatively impact scientists’ academic work several studies found evidence that the engagement of scientists in technology transfer and commercialization activities does not have negative impacts on the quality and quantity of academic research. In fact, scientists who are actively engaged in technology and knowledge transfer, i.e. through patenting, also enjoy a high scientific reputation and in most cases do excellent scientific work.
There is a common agreement that innovation is driven by the people that form the heart of any company's innovation activity. Still, people perform innovation in a special institutional environment characterized by rules and regulations that might support or impede innovation. The open innovation paradigm expects companies to engage in external relationships for innovation; however companies often neglect the actual internal openness of employees, which is an absolute must before partnering with external partners. The article finds that company innovation culture comes in five main forms: closed innovation (driven by internal capabilities); doing, using, interacting (ad hoc processes, no link to knowledge providers); outsourcing innovation capabilities; extramural innovation, no matching internal culture/procedures and proactive innovation (match of internal and external openness). The empirical analysis shows that the closed innovation behavior is by far the most widespread among Russian companies whereas proactive innovation behavior remains an exception in the overall sample.
The paper investigates the process of evolutionary transformation of cooperation and integration modes of industrial and construction enterprises in St.-Petersburg. The study has been performed at the period since 1998 to nowadays. The network form of integration was chosen as the main objet of this research. The paper is aimed at identifying the path of knowledge management development in different types of networks.
One of the peculiarities of the network form of integration is the high level of independence of the network participants that interact with each other. Key issues in this cooperation would be the following:
How to organize an effective transfer of knowledge and technologies within a network?
How to find a balance between open systems of innovation and the protection of the intellectual property of network participants?
How to evaluate the intellectual capital of a network? Is it necessary to make an assessment for each participant separately? Should one take into account synergies that increase the value of the intellectual capital because of the network participants’ interaction and knowledge sharing?
How to increase competitiveness of each company and of the whole network by the effective use of the intellectual capital?
How to measure the impact of open innovations on the intellectual capital of the companies interacting within a network?
Thus, it is important to reveal how knowledge management system is developing within a network of inter-related enterprises.
On the base of interviews of top-managers of companies in industrial and construction companies there were identified five different types of networks and knowledge management systems within these types. It is demonstrated how the knowledge management model is growing and becoming mature from the amorphous type of network cooperation to the integrated type. Factors, influencing this evolutionary development, have been revealed. Also, the paper proposes an approach to the evaluation of knowledge management systems based upon the value-based management indicators.
The quest for growth models based on science, technology, and innovation (STI) has been central to the Russian Federation (Russia)’s policymaking agenda for more than a decade. Relying too much on the exports of primary resources (particularly oil and natural gas) as a major driver of development was recognized as unsustainable during the global financial crisis of 2008. The acknowledged importance of the reforms transformed into the urgent need for a new economy after the second half of 2014, when global oil prices dropped radically. According to a number of estimates, the resulting economic downturn, marked by inf lation and depreciation of Russia’s currency, has had an even greater impact on the performance of the national economy than the previous recession. Facing the compromise of the existing growth models, decision makers, as well as the broader expert community, designate STI as an alternative driver of sustainable growth.
The Global Innovation Index (GII) aims to capture the multi-dimensional facets of innovation and provide the tools that can assist in tailoring policies to promote long-term output growth, improved productivity, and job growth. The GII helps to create an environment in which innovation factors are continually evaluated. In 2016, the theme for this year’s edition of the GII is: ‘Winning with Global Innovation’. Science and innovation are more internationalized and collaborative than ever before. The GII 2016 explores global innovation as a win-win proposition; a rising share of innovation is carried out through collaborative networks, leveraging talent worldwide.
This chapter explains the entrepreneurial university concept and its place and role in the triple helix in its entirety. It further elaborates on its implications for university management, departments, faculty members and supporting organizations. Moreover it reflects the meaning of the entrepreneurial university for stakeholders, i.e., university boards, regional and national policy and administrative bodies, funding agencies, the business community, university ranking institutions and the global university community overall. The chapter provides a comprehensive understanding of the entrepreneurial university, which is increasingly important because stakeholders’ expectations towards universities are growing. This in turn leads to increased pressure on universities to move beyond their traditional roles and models towards taking responsibility for economic development, large scale basic education and targeted further education and the development of value from research. These expectations provide opportunities for universities, but impose threats on the existing models and practices. Recent literature on entrepreneurial universities is incomplete and mostly focused on the commercialization of research, technology transfer and the third mission of universities. The article expands the predominant thinking about entrepreneurial universities and gives a broader structured definition.