Ýêîíîìè÷åñêèå
íàóêè /6. Ìàðêåòèíã è ìåíåäæìåíò
Kurmanov B.K., Kurmanov G.B., Raimbaeva N.T., Sambetova Z.N.
Kazakh-British technical university,
Almaty technological university,
Kazakhstan
Some Aspects of Organization of the
Innovation Process in Industrial
Enterprises
This
report discusses factors, which are preventing industry's demands for the
results of research and development of Kazakhstani scientific organizations, as
well as questions of increasing the effectiveness of measures of the state stimulation
of innovative activity.
Innovative
activities of industrial enterprises - are actions directed on permanent
establishment and spread of innovations through the implementation of scientific,
technological, organizational, financial and commercial activities that enhance
enterprise competitiveness and ensure its long-term and dynamic development. Susceptibility (sensitivity) of businesses to
innovations - the ability for rapid and effective mastering of novelties, the
perception of innovations in order to
meet the demand of consumers, it is affected by economic, organizational,
psychological, social, technical, and many other factors.
Innovative susceptibility is determined
with respect to innovations themselves and information about them, with respect
to knowledge and best practices. It should be noted that in Kazakhstan, the
main barriers to innovations growth depend on a number of other factors such as
economic instability among the enterprises. The innovative activity of
enterprises is significantly influenced by such characteristic as the size
(small size limits the ability of large-scale innovations), belonging to a
particular industry, type of competition (foreign competitors or domestic
companies), etc. Very often, the type of competitor, not the level of
competition itself, is more important for industrial enterprises. If
competition is carried out with those who build their strategies on innovations
(in the case with competitors from abroad, such assumption is quite logical),
then the producers are forced to engage in active innovations, which include
not only investment but also R&D (research and development). The
probability of system realization of innovations as element of the development
strategy is significantly higher in companies experiencing strong competition
with imports.
With increased openness of the Kazakhstani
economics, the integration processes of domestic companies to the world economy
are becoming an important factor of
innovation activities in the industry. It should be noted that it is not so
much in a smaller proportion of innovation-active companies among those for
whom integration into the global economy is not relevant, but in significantly
lower "quality" of the innovation activities of these enterprises, which
is mainly situational, less dynamic and less closely connected with research and development.
Analyzing the existing views and opinions
of key players in R & D results, we can distinguish two polar points of
view. Representatives of the proposal of R & D results, which, as a rule,
are the domestic scientific organizations, believe that the domestic business
is immune to the new technology, not interested in innovation and even more so
in support of national science, although the quality of scientific research is
largely consistent with international
standards. Representatives of industry and business, in contrast, argue that
there is a lack of quality of scientific research and projects in Kazakhstan,
and most scientific organizations are not able to provide high quality product,
competitive to foreign analogues.
It is worth noting that the differences in
terms "quality" between
science and industry may generate some confusion: "quality" in
scientific understanding - is a
correspondence to norms and standards, the world's scientific level, foreign
scientific developments. Whereas "quality" from the point of view of
business and industry, could mean the possibility of using the development in
production, compliance with its needs and requirements of a particular company,
provision of full range of presales and after-sales service etc.
Data from different statistical surveys
and polls demonstrates the following structure of obstacles: the main reasons,
hindering innovation activity in Kazakhstani economics, are economic factors,
among which the leading role is played
by a shortage of own funds. The second " echelon" of factors which,
according to industrial companies,
impede innovations, consists of both factors of production activity of
enterprises (for example, lack of innovative capacity, or problems with
qualified personnel) and other factors such as lack of demand for innovation
products from the side of buyers or
imperfect legislation. Infrastructural problems in this layout took
place in importance among the factors of the third "echelon", such as
lack of information about the sales markets, weak market of technologies, etc.
Overseas research uses the actual
empirical work and numerous statistical and observational studies to analyze
the reasons hindering the innovation activity of industrial enterprises [1].
For most Western countries the first place among the factors impeding
innovation is taken up by a high cost of innovations themselves, second place –
by a lack of funding for innovations, which is confirmed by studies based on
data of the European innovation survey - CIS (Community Innovation Statistics)
and data from other surveys.
Low demand of enterprises on the results
of domestic scientific researches is increasingly determined not by their poor
quality, but underdeveloped innovation and human resources infrastructure, as
well as the fact that the strategy for commercialization of the results of
R&D by national research organizations is characterized by a weak focus on
the needs of industrial enterprises.
Various statements of representatives of
the large industrial enterprises of key sectors of Kazakhstani economics show
that the problem of low innovative activity and the lack of demand for domestic
R & D results lies not only and not
just at the financial level. According to some experts, innovation
infrastructure in Kazakhstan is underdeveloped and fragmented, so that
information about the market as a result did not reach their destination or is
heavily distorted. Given that Kazakhstan is characterized by preferential
orientation of enterprises on the imitational innovations (not involving
expenditure on R & D), a low level of relevance of the lack of information
about the new developments is quite feasible.
In practice, the enterprises of Kazakhstan
meet another difficulty in the realization of innovations: the borders between
the initiative and design stages of innovation process are often blurred. It
happens that the organization does not produce clear specificities of
innovation. Thus, the implementation is attached by something that does not
necessarily ensure the elimination of difficulties, and sometimes has no direct
relation to the problem. Another common fact that can be met even more often is
a neglect of the detailed plan of implementation of innovations, when work is
began without carefully thinking through successive steps, and having a vague
idea about it. It is clarified only on the way what is exactly being
implemented, and what results should be expected.
There is another problem associated with
the organization of the innovation process. It is known that the susceptibility
of the organization to innovations is determined by two groups of factors: the
potential for innovations (possession of information about new products as well
as ways and means to apply them; real access to needed innovations, i.e. the
possibility of the timely receipt of finished developments, placing orders for
them or creating its own; the availability of resources, which can be directed
towards realization of innovations without damage to current business
operations) and communicational structure (the size of enterprises, i.e. their
size and resources belonging to them; complexity or completeness, i.e.
availability of specialists and direction of their vocational training;
formalization of activities, i.e.
observance of strict prescriptions, rules and procedures, centralization
of authority, i.e. the concentration of power in the hands of the few leaders
and “verticalization" of information flows). Factors of the first group
are the general background of susceptibility to innovations and are its
prerequisites. In fact, if the organization does not know where to get the
novelties it - by and large – has nothing to count on. If you know which ones
are needed and where they are, but they have no real access, the practical
chances of innovations are still low. Finally, if organization can get close to
them, but there are not enough resources to implement them, we can hardly hope
for an effective update of our activities. All these factors act in the same
direction: the higher the value, the more receptive the organization to
innovations. On the contrary, the lower the value, the harder it is to achieve innovation goals.
Concerning the second group of factors,
they act in different directions and sometimes make opposite contributions to
the susceptibility of the organization to innovations. Thus, it is easier for
large organizations to initiate innovations and develop a plan of its
realization, but much harder to master the innovation - because their
structures are cumbersome and communication problems are frequently occurring.
For complex organizations (with a variety of competence) it is quite simple to
put the problem and find a suitable innovation to solve it. But they face a
barrier in the form of discrepancy and "inconsistencies" in the views
of experts, when they start designing of innovations and its implementation.
Centralization, which provides tight control over the execution, is very
effective in the development of innovations, but it inevitably crashes during
he design of innovation, and especially in its initiation. And in an
organization whose activity is formalized, and where, therefore, the discipline
is maintained, good work is done not only on the stage of development, but on
the stage of design too. However, it is,
as a centralized organization, passes, as soon as there is a need to
find a precise answer to the problem and identify the parameters of innovation,
designed to become its solution.
Finally, the implementation of innovations
is hindered by the weak competition policy of the state, because only the
competitive environment stimulates innovations and improvement of the quality
of goods and services.
It
should be noted that the most common and clearly erroneous behavior model of enterprise
is the pursuit to economic gain (profit) with fast results, which leaves the
"shadow" on and pushes the
issues of innovation development "for later", to the best of times,
which with such an attitude can no longer occur.
Nevertheless, let’s note that in recent
years we observe some positive trends in the development of scientific
institutions: their financial position has been improved, the demand for their
services has increased, and the salaries of academic staff members have
significantly increased. There is a prevailing trend towards increasing of the
demand for research and development of Kazakhstani research organizations. We
can also note the expansion of the scientific organizations that manufacture
products on a turnkey basis. In this case, significant problems in the sequel
expansion of the activities of scientific organizations are obsolete scientific
equipment and a shortage of qualified personnel.
At present, in the interaction of
scientific organizations with the business «non-contractual" forms are
prevailing: in most cases there is a transfer of R & D results on a
contract basis (excluding sales of patents, showing licenses). However, there
are signs of the orientation of research institutions to significant expansion
of the application of "contract" forms during the interaction with
business in the scientific-technical sphere, which is coupled with the
formation of the “postponed” demand for protection of the rights on the results
of research and development (R&D).
In order to develop the
scientific-industrial cooperation it is
important to ensure a balance of stimulation of demand and supply in scientific field by expanding the use of mechanisms
to stimulate demand of business on
research and development, including the one on the basis of state co-financing of companies’ orders to conduct R&D , and to form additional tools to encourage
the networking among participants of innovation processes, to support the development of innovation
networks and clusters, promoting the competitive long-term partnerships and
consortiums by the priority areas of technological development.
To date, there are developed a series of
regulations aimed at activization of innovation activities, including “The
strategy of industrial-innovation development of Kazakhstan for 2003-2015
".
Innovations are implemented within a
complex dynamic system, the efficiency of which depends on the use of internal
mechanisms, and on interaction with the environment. At present, there are three
directions to innovations study: the first and least effective - the state
sector of economics, where intermediary between the society with its needs and
science is the state; the second area
- the relationship between science and big business, and the third - the
creation of small innovation firms, aimed at finding new ideas, their
evaluation and implementation.
In order to implement innovation
solutions, country needs to attract considerable investment. To date, there is
dominance by R & D funding from the state budget. Recently, however, there
is a tendency to increase the volume of
funding of innovations in industrial enterprises with its own funds and
customer’s money.
Each of
the existing instruments of state support of innovation activities of industrial
enterprises has its advantages and disadvantages. Thus, the mechanisms of tax stimulation (except for
investment tax credit) are focused on the use by a wide range of businesses
and do not require complex bureaucratic
approvals, providing feasibility studies, business projects, etc., they are more "market", that
is, suggest a lower level of state
intervention to the economics. At the same time, support of innovation activities in the form of
co-financing of specific projects appears to be address (and not
"smeared" by a wide range of enterprises), and its volume is
determined arbitrary by the state and, generally speaking, may not even be
limited by the criteria of economic suitability. In addition, during the
selection of projects for support the state can be guided by considerations of
their social significance, focus on increasing
the national security level, improvement of ecological environment,
etc., which are extremely difficult to take into consideration in the case of
"unascertained" fiscal instruments of innovations stimulation . In
general, the most effective one is a rational combination within the state
innovation policy instruments of both types. In this case, the tax measures
contribute to the overall improvement "of innovation climate” in the
country and to the increase of enterprises and organizations’ activities in the
corresponding area, and the mechanisms of state co-financing ensure the “point"support of the most
important and priority projects
The reaction of companies to a variety of
arrangements that stimulate innovation strongly depends on the duration of
innovation projects, realization of which is needed to improve their
competitiveness [2]. During long-term payback period of innovation the direct
state support in the form of co-financing of innovation projects under the
risk-sharing or crediting of import of foreign technologies are more critical
and effective for companies. And tax incentives and mechanisms of budgetary
co-financing contribute to the development of innovation activities, but in the
second case the permissible duration of companies’ innovation projects
increases, accordingly, the choice of suitable areas of innovation and
long-term competitiveness of businesses expands. Thus, budget co-financing is
more conducive to "launching” of new innovative projects by companies,
while tax incentives encourage the expansion of existing projects.
From
the standpoint of stimulation of demand of industrial companies on R & D
results (especially those companies that had used the simulation model of innovations)
budget co-financing orders for R & D seem to be very efficient, it reduces
the risk to "start" the interaction with academic institutions for
these companies. However, in relation to
the instrument viewed there is a risk of "substitution" of private
expenditures on public ones without substantial increases in overall R & D
expenditures. Let’s note that for companies that already have R & D
expenditures, the budget co-financing of such expenditures is less important
than tax stimulation in the form of incremental benefits on R & D
expenditures.
References
1. Innovation
in Europe: Results for the EU, Iceland and Norway, 2004
2. Zasimova L.S. and others: The problems of
transition of industry on the way of
innovation development: a microeconomic analysis of the specificities of
firms’ behavior, dynamics and structure of demand for technological innovation.
-M.: Moscow public science fund, 2008