Innovation failures. Chubais talks about the failure of innovation strategy, competition in politics and the threat of prison. Let's analyze the situation with innovation in Russia

Particular attention should be paid to the analysis of the emerging situation after the product enters the market, which can make adjustments to the assessment of the innovation. And this assessment turns out to be completely different from what the company’s specialists expected: the real market for the products turned out to be different, the consumers were also different, and the products were used differently than originally expected. For example, the 3M Company did not see that the adhesive tape it developed for industry would find a colossal number of uses at home, in everyday life and in the office, becoming adhesive tape 4, pp. 133-134.

In such cases, enterprises are obliged to urgently analyze the failure and - most importantly - evaluate the emerging opportunities in the market. If this is not done, competitors will take advantage of the new situation.

In studies and surveys devoted to the implementation of innovations, the majority of scientists and practitioners note the factors of success and failure of innovations in the market (Table 3).

Table 3

Key factors for the success and failure of implemented innovations

In innovative organizations there is a systematic procedure for creating new products, i.e. innovation is managed and becomes a repeatable and habitual process that produces creative and innovative products and services on an ongoing basis.

The success factors for all innovative organizations are as follows:

Excellent product : a differentiated product, unique in its kind, bringing additional benefits to the buyer.

Global product concept : The concept and development of the product are focused on the global market from the very beginning.

Strong Marketing Orientation : development focus on the market and client.

Intensive Primary Analysis : Even before development begins, human and financial resources are allocated for an in-depth feasibility study.

New Product Strategy determines the action plan, i.e. how the company plans to implement this project, a list of specific tasks, selection of the target market, a set of properties and positioning of the product.

Cross-functional coordination : a new product is the business of the entire company; it is necessary to organize a unified information exchange system “R&D – Production – Marketing”.

Structured development plan : the transition from the intended positioning of the product in the market to an operational marketing plan in terms of price, distribution and communication.

Management support : Instead of direct intervention, specific support for innovation is provided.

Harnessing synergies : realize strengths using a combination of technological and commercial effects.

Preliminary selection : success and failure can be foreseen; Pre-assessment procedures facilitate the accept/reject decision.

Monitoring the progress of development .

Access to resources : For the project to be successful, human and financial resources must be available, which must be considered as an investment and not as a cost.

The role of the time factor : Quick time to market is a source of competitive advantage, but this goal must be achieved without compromising quality of execution.

Multi-step procedure : A step-by-step assessment of future innovations during project implementation.

In Russia, the term “innovation” is associated with new scientific results and technical achievements. The experience of Western countries at the end of the twentieth century considers innovation to be ideas and technical projects that not only turned into products or services, but also established themselves in the market. Since that time, innovations have acquired economic and social content.

Thus, innovation is an economic and social term, respectively, and the criterion of innovation is changes in the economic and social environment 1, pp. 116-117.

Changes, as a consequence of the emergence of innovations, allow society to spend available resources more efficiently than in previous periods. And in the future, society will use them even more effectively than today. Through innovation, people's ordinary needs are met better and cheaper. At the same time, goods and services appear that satisfy new needs that humanity was not aware of, i.e. innovation creates new wealth.

The social inequality that currently exists in our country cannot refute this conclusion. Inequality is a consequence of mediocre public administration, which does not take advantage of the opportunities for economic development and allows negative processes to operate in the country.

Innovation also creates potential for action. The emergence and widespread use of computers in various fields of activity has radically changed the work processes and life of people. Moreover, universal computerization and the development of information transmission networks were one of the decisive signs (factors) of humanity’s transition to a post-industrial information society, which determines its further development. B. Gates states: “In the next 10 years, business will change more than in the previous fifty” 3, p. 12.

When creating an innovation, it is important to isolate it from the current activities of the enterprise. The presence of general management of production and innovation activities, as domestic and foreign practice has shown, deprives the enterprise of its future. In this case, the manager always gives preference to current affairs, because they ensure the receipt of funds from the sale of products. Therefore, the organizational principle for innovation is to create a group or team as an autonomous unit. It must operate outside the existing management structure of ongoing production.

In the same way, finances intended for innovation activities should be allocated and should not be included in the overall production budget. This is due to the fact that funds for the development of new products are clearly costs that do not provide returns today, and managers will always want to reduce them.

Innovation activities must also be self-funded. Moreover, the necessary funds for the implementation of the project must be reserved, otherwise they may not be available at the right time and the implementation of the project will slow down. Ultimately, this can lead to a loss of competitiveness of the enterprise.

And you, friends, no matter how you sit down,
Everyone is not fit to be musicians
I. Krylov

With the light hand of the president, innovations in Russia are talked about everywhere. Everyone is now puzzled by only one thing - to make our economy “innovative”. And she, the infection, resists so much that there is nowhere else to go. True, there are also “positive” sides. According to experts at INNOPROM, the sphere of defense R&D (research and development work) in Russia competes with the construction of roads and real estate in terms of corruption, and half of the money from state defense orders is spent on kickbacks.

Reasons for the lack of success of innovation in Russia

I believe there are three main reasons:

• low level of innovation “maturity”;
• lack of need for Russian business to innovate;
• loss of innovative culture (the heyday of which occurred in the 70-80s of the last century).

What is this opinion based on?

First, let's try to understand what innovation management is and what types of innovations there are. Let's start with the fact that there are two types of innovations -

1. Technical:

• New Product;
• new process.

2. Managerial (organizational).

Innovation can be based on technology integration or on disruptive technologies. In addition, innovations are divided according to the degree of their influence into levels:

• company;
• a country;

Many criteria have been developed for what is considered innovation. My favorite is the following: “An innovative product (process) is one that currently has no competitors and is new to the given market.” New candy packaging will be innovative if it is made from a material that does not allow the candy to spoil for five years (hypothetical example). Often an innovative product creates a new class of consumers that did not exist before. A classic example of such a product is the iPhone.

What influences the success of creating and implementing innovations?

The theory states: “Market instability and the need for growth lead to incentives for companies to develop and implement innovation.” Let's say your company recognizes the need to innovate. What needs to be done for a company to successfully develop innovations? Innovation audit provides answers to this question. An innovation audit examines key factors characterizing strengths and weaknesses, determines and identifies ways for the development of innovation in companies.

The key driving forces for innovation in a company are two – technical and innovation culture.

Technical is:

• connection between strategy and innovation;
• presence of a portfolio of innovations;
• evaluation of the research process;
• introduction of innovations;
• communication with sales;
• system of indicators for innovation;
• infrastructure.

Innovation culture is:

• desire for innovation;
• creativity;
• confidence;
• leadership;
• way of thinking;
• relationships within the company;
• general atmosphere.

The structure of the analysis of these forces can be seen in the diagram shown in Figure 1 and used during the audit.

Rice. 1 . The innovative Organization AuditCheckmap

The main “subjects” of analysis are the following groups:

• Implementing People (IP) – represent someone (or a group) who solves the assigned tasks (R&D, finance, production, etc.). They are deliberately not clearly defined and are placed at the center as the starting point for an innovation audit. Select the group you are going to research - they are your IP.
• Internal Customers (IC) are those with whom the IP interacts on an ongoing basis.
• External Customers (EC) are external consumers, users, clients. These are the people you provide a service to or who buy your product.

Traditionally, most metrics for measuring innovation performance have been based on technical indicators, financial indicators (ROI, profit, etc.) or on the number of patents obtained. To assess the level of innovation maturity of companies, the model below is usually used (Fig. 2).

Rice. 2 Innovation maturity model

Recently, most companies have realized that indicators characterizing an innovative culture are often more important than technical ones. An analysis of the structure of a standard innovation audit questionnaire shows that most of the 50 questions relate to the area of ​​innovation culture.

• leadership;
• creativity and idea generation;
• goals, metrics, strategy;
• personnel Management;
• ethics and values;
• organizational culture;
• bureaucracy.

And only a small part to the field of technical culture:

• resources;
• development of new projects;
• the need for innovation in the market (for your segment);
• innovation experience.

Based on the results of an innovation audit, a master plan is usually developed, the structure of which is shown in Figure 3.

Rice. 3 Innovative master plan.

This master plan answers simple questions

• why (strategy);
• what (briefcase);
• how (innovation process);
• who (culture);
• than (infrastructure).

What is innovation management?

Innovation management is an art that combines knowledge of the subject area in which projects are being implemented, skills in managing high-risk projects, as well as the ability to assemble a team and rally it around a common idea.

Innovation management includes:

• Strategic planning for innovation. This is information about innovations in the company, how technologies are used to improve operational efficiency through a system of key indicators.
• Creativity and idea management. Stimulating ideas that are in demand by consumers. Since these ideas cover areas of new products, services and processes, all employees must be involved in their development.
• Portfolio management. As a rule, there are different ways to implement great ideas. But resources are always limited, so implementation priorities must be determined. Successful companies usually have a balanced portfolio of innovations, including innovative products, services and processes
• Project management. The ability to quickly turn a great idea into a final product is key. High speed to market, high quality, and reasonable costs are typical goals for the company.
• Personnel Management. At the heart of all innovation management efforts is the need to create a culture in which all employees, from ordinary employees to top managers, are interested in the development of innovation.

Who are Innovation Managers?

Typically, an innovation manager in Western companies is required to (salary.com):

• At least five years of experience within a function (usually Marketing, R&D, Production);
• experience in developing new products. The ability to see the “big picture”, be creative and work at a strategic level;
• experience in budget management and previous financially successful projects;
• strategic thinking and leadership in cross-functional environments;
• strong communication skills. Excellent relationship building skills. Strong result orientation;
• creativity in problem solving;
• taking initiative and taking responsibility when introducing new products.

An innovation manager is, first of all, a leader, and not just a manager managing a certain process. That is why so much attention is paid to communication skills, creativity, and the ability to think strategically.

Let's analyze the situation with innovation in Russia

Let's start with the maturity level of the innovation process. I think that everyone will agree that Russia is at the first level, which is characterized (see Fig. 2) by individual heroic attempts to introduce innovations and the absence of formal procedures.

One of the indicators confirming this thesis may be the need of the Russian labor market for innovative managers. It does not exceed one hundred people per year (estimated by the number of vacancies on HH.ru), and if you go to the American website salary.com, then the need of the American labor market at the moment is more than 50 thousand innovation managers.

Some may say it’s okay; often our business development managers play this role. There is only one thing - 90% of business development managers do not know the methodology for introducing innovations at all, and, in addition, most of them are not focused on innovation, but on gradually improving the product or increasing market share.

However, let’s imagine a situation that tomorrow there will be 50 thousand innovation managers in Russia. In the end, managers are just a tool, and they can be bought on the market (for example, the American one). What will change? Absolutely nothing!

The reason is the lack of business need for innovation. And the government can exhort as much as it wants that we need innovations until business itself understands (or is economically forced to understand or is encouraged to do so) that it needs them.

There is another systemic problem. If we recall the times of the USSR, the driving force in the development of innovations was the needs of the defense industry. A system of industrial science was created. And even the respected Academy of Sciences had the defense department as a real customer. The most important components of innovation management were formed: strategic planning and innovation portfolio management. Today this experience seems to have been lost, if not completely, but to a significant extent. And it seems that we can forget about innovations that can come from the defense industry to civilian industries; rather, the opposite is true. And here I will not give sad figures on the reduction in the level of R&D costs in Russia compared to developed countries, because in the current situation it is not financing that determines success in this area.

The third problem is that over the past 20 years, Russia has practically lost its innovative culture, which largely determines the success of the innovation process. And this problem cannot be solved overnight.

What have we lost?

• desire for innovation;
• creativity;
• confidence;
• leadership;
• way of thinking;
• general atmosphere;
• qualified personnel.

This cannot be returned instantly, even if the entire defense industry is flooded with money. And without this component the innovation process is impossible! I remember with sadness the words of my colleague, who is an adviser to the first person in one very respected science-intensive department, about the leaders of industrial science: “Andrey, you understand, they have been sitting without money for so long that yes, now, of course, they are stealing, but besides them, no one does anything at all.” can't do it."

Let's look at the problem of R&D in the defense complex from this angle. With rare exceptions, most institutes and development enterprises have lost their innovative culture. But it acquired a culture of “exploiting the budget.” Industrial science in Moscow suffered the greatest losses. The reasons for this are simple: market competition. There are too many other opportunities in Moscow and a salary of 15-20 thousand rubles cannot attract talent to science. And the most talented part of the generation from 35 to 50 years old has practically left science or changed their country of residence.

From my own experience in R&D management, I can say that today’s business approach to innovation, as a rule, involves the introduction of technologies that have already been mastered in the West and have not been used in Russia, rather than the development of fundamentally new technologies and products.

But what about innovation? And they will; From my own experience, I can say that as soon as a real demand for innovation appears, innovation managers, talented scientists, and money for implementing projects are found, and infrastructure appears. You need a desire for business and answers to questions

• why (strategy);
• what (innovation portfolio);
• how (innovation process);
• who (staff).

appear quite quickly.

I will give a simple case from the practice of one of the raw materials companies. There was an order to create an R&D center for research on promising topics.

• Step one - there is a decision to create and an Innovation Manager (director of the center) is determined.
• Step two - the innovation manager creates a list of topics for research, and the company evaluates the prospects of the areas.
• Step three - the building is reconstructed for this program and equipped with the necessary equipment (a year and a half cycle).
• Step four - in parallel, research groups are formed on topics, the groups are headed by Russian scientists, including those who have had experience working in the West and have a scientific background in selected topics.
• Step five - the center begins to implement the R&D program.
• Step six - the company begins to introduce the first technologies (three years from the date of the decision to create the center.

As a result, we have a modern R&D center, with an innovative corporate culture, ready to solve breakthrough problems.

The end of the story. There is a change of ownership, the request for innovation from the new owner disappears, projects are curtailed, key personnel leave, the business turns from an innovative one into a development one.

This case only confirms that the development of innovation in Russia is possible, but this should be done not by pumping money (which is certainly important), but through competent management of the innovation process and the formation of an innovation culture.

Photo: Ludovic Charlet on Unsplash

Failure Patterns

Researching failure requires a specialized approach and ideas. Christensen's failure scheme is based on three main ideas of the study (Fig. 99).

The first idea is differences in innovation strategies. The distinction between sustaining and disruptive innovation is an important and strategic one. This distinction is fundamentally different from that between sequential and radical technologies. Misunderstanding naturally leads to failure.

The second idea is the different speed of progress of consumption and technology. Technological progress almost always outstrips market needs. Accordingly, the competitiveness of different technological approaches may change over time in different market sectors.

The third idea is different policies for investment in development projects. The influence of consumers and investors on decisions about investments in technological development projects is disproportionately large. Unlike new companies, established and thriving companies determine investment decisions by consumer preferences and the financial structures of those companies.

Let's look at these three ideas in a little more detail.

Supportive versus disruptive technologies are the first element of the failure pattern. Supporting technologies (up to 95% of them) contribute to product improvement. These are new, sometimes radical and breakthrough, or gradual (incremental) technologies. But they all only improve the quality of existing products within the technical specifications that are important to key consumers in major markets. They support the company, consumers, and the market. And they rarely cause the downfall of leading companies.

But from time to time they appear "subversive" technologies. These technological innovations contain fundamentally new approaches. They initially produce a lower quality product in terms of basic technical characteristics, but then quickly improve. Research conducted by Christensen shows that it was “disruptive” technologies that predetermined the collapse of leading companies.

Market demand trajectories and technology improvement are the second element in the failure pattern. Consumer needs lag behind technological progress. New products give consumers more than they need or what they are not willing to pay for. “Disruptive” technologies that are imperfect for mainstream consumers today may turn out to be quite competitive tomorrow.

Disruptive technologies and investments are the third and final element in the pattern of failure. The management of mature companies, based on their successful experience in implementing projects that support innovation, is convinced that investing in “disruptive” technologies is not a rational financial decision. This view has three sources.

Firstly, innovative products of disruptive technologies are simpler, cheaper and less profitable.

Secondly, Practice shows that disruptive technologies are usually first introduced in new or small markets.

Third, consumers, who generate most of the income of leading companies, do not need “disruptive” technologies - at first they do not even have the opportunity to use them. Those. they are not “non-consumers” and they do not have a condition defined as “no acquisition opportunity”.

Note that “disruptive” technologies are initially of interest to the least profitable consumers of the market. Therefore, most companies are almost always late in deciding to invest in disruptive technologies.

Checking the failure pattern

Problems of "disruptive" technologies and failure patterns are considered taking into account internal and external factors.

Internal validity. Using the example of analyzing the history of innovation in the hard drive industry (there are a lot of technology life cycles, they are short, and their situations can be studied like geneticists studying the fruit fly, whose life cycle is one day), a number of conclusions can be drawn.

Firstly, "disruptive" innovations were technologically simple. They used new technology in new architecture and applied new products in applications in which storing information on magnetic disks was previously technologically impossible or economically unjustified.

Secondly, advanced technologies have always been developed with one goal - to support the trajectory of quality improvement. Innovations made it possible to achieve higher technical performance (upper right corner of the graph). They were not "subversive".

Leading manufacturers were forced to improve their hard drives by consumers. Therefore, supporting technologies did not weaken the position of leaders.

Third, Despite the remarkable successes of established companies in advanced enabling technologies, it is newcomers, not industry leaders, who are the first to develop and implement disruptive technologies.

So why do entrepreneurial, innovative, consumer-sensitive companies ignore or be late in adopting strategic innovations? Established companies are truly energetic when it comes to any kind of sustaining innovation. But they, obviously, due to their experience, cannot act adequately when it comes to “disruptive” innovations - this is outside the scope of their current interests and even powers.

External validity. Failure is explored through many examples, and everywhere a large role is given to external factors. To do this, K. Christensen investigated the following circumstances:

How the leading manufacturers of cable excavators were forced out of the market by manufacturers of hydraulic mechanisms;

Rice. 99. The structure of the scheme of failures in the implementation of company development projects and the system of necessary knowledge

• - why the largest metallurgical plants with a full technological cycle gave way to mini-steel foundries;
• - why discounters were successful in luring customers away from traditional full-service department stores;
• - the importance of “disruptive” technologies in the production of hard drives and printers;
• - what caused the rapid growth of the personal computer market;
• - how new companies used “disruptive” technologies in the production of motorcycles and microcircuits in the fight against recognized market leaders;
• - how and why computer companies fell victims of disruptive technologies;
• - why this situation has developed in accounting software, as well as in the production of insulin.

Overall, all of these situations present a powerful, proven pattern of disruptive technologies and mechanisms that cause leading, well-managed companies to lose market leadership.

We hardly value what comes too easily. What is given at a high price is valuable. Heaven knows how to set the right price for its goods.

Thomas Paine

1st and the main reason for the failure of innovation in American companies is - lack of enthusiast . It is clear that in large companies, development is carried out by a whole group of scientists who rarely initiate this research. That is, a task comes down from above, which the project team subsequently works on. So, according to their data, in 99.9% of cases, if the idea did not come from a specific innovative developer, or such an enthusiastic leader is not formed in the team after setting the task from above, then the development is doomed to failure.

Here it’s time to think about our crazy Russian inventors, running around with crazy eyes in search of support. They don't have enough of them, but we have them in stock. So why does the United States issue 15 times more invention patents than any other country in the world? Here compassion immediately arises and a desire to do our best to help our “Kulibins” realize their dream. But that is until you get to reason number 2

2nd reason for research failures - refinancing ! No, are you listening!? 86% of innovative projects were never brought to fruition because too much money was invested in them. This was not at all obvious to me. It turns out that our half-starved inventors will be much more effective if they do it all on their knees and without money.

The magazine even provides a graph showing the inverse correlation between the amount of funding and the output of the final product. You understand!? Neither a weak correlation, nor the absence of one, but the opposite!

Of course, I myself am of the opinion that money only gets in the way at the initial stage of business. But in the case of invention... it’s a strange turnaround for me.

3rd the reason for the fiasco is lack of work with the end user . Here everything is almost obvious to me, but I once again mocked my familiar innovators. Usually among such people (at least among my friends) it is said that revealing the secret of what you are working on is forbidden.

Well, the Americans say that in 82% of cases innovation leads to failure if:

• there was no end user survey;
• the focus group was too small;
• the studies were small and ad hoc;
• the wishes of future consumers were ignored;
• survey participants' responses were misinterpreted.

And it’s enough to attend a gathering of innovators once to see that these are closed-off “nerds” who don’t talk to their own mother, let alone to future consumers.

4th the reason for the unprofitability of innovative research is following a pre-selected concept . This is a really controversial point for me, but researchers say that 69% of developments failed because they refused to explore:

• change the paradigm;
• go off the plan;
• make significant changes to the product being developed.

Why is not obvious, because in my experience, it was precisely those inventors who went to the end, without listening to anyone, and believing in the genius of their thoughts, who really achieved good results. And those that rushed from side to side remained with “air” in their hands.

5th The reason is also unusual for me - large team . Here, as in the case of overfinancing, they derived an inverse relationship between the size of the team and the success of inventions. And they argue that in 61% of cases it is a large team (and a large team, in their opinion, is anything more than 1 person) that leads to the failure of developments.

Here again it’s time to think about the benefits of business incubators and other similar get-togethers. It turns out that loners are much more effective than their creative unions.

The magazine even provides statistics that show that 1 inventor produces about 4 times more innovation per $1 invested in research and development than average teams of 5 people, and about 24 times more than project teams of more than 50 employees.

6th the reason was not a discovery for me - this market potential (56% - deadlock in developments). A 7th - economics of the project (54% - non-viability of innovations).

It was not a discovery of their importance, but it was a surprise that they were significantly inferior to:

• the presence of a “champion-fanatic” of the project;
• refinancing;
• to a large team.

“Why has there still not been an innovative breakthrough in modern Russia?” - this is the question that worries the country’s best minds today: progressive officials and ardent oppositionists, economists and political scientists, professional and “people’s” experts, that is, all those who are not indifferent to the present and future of Russia. “Failures”, “problems”, “obstacles”, “barriers”, “failures”, “failures” - these are the words that are often put next to the word “innovation” today.

Everyday ideas about the fate of innovation in Russia are contradictory. On the one hand, Russians are assigned a special form of practical thinking - “smartness”, that is, the ability to find an unexpected and effective solution in any situation. Let us at least recall the famous folklore and literary heroes: Leskov’s Lefty, who shoed a flea, the soldier who cooked porridge from an ax, Ivan the Fool with his endless miracles, etc. On the other hand, a stereotype has emerged about the futility and meaninglessness of innovations that dissolve in endless Russian expanses of bureaucracy, inertial thinking and general hope for “maybe”. That is why it is generally accepted that the most likely path for an innovator in Russia is non-recognition, ridicule, alcoholism, or, at best, the role of a “village eccentric” who has bored everyone with his “inventions” and “ideas.”

“People's experts” gave examples of unimplemented innovations. First of all, they recalled technical innovations and developments that remained at the stage of prototypes that were not put into production: a titanium submarine, seaplanes, etc. It should be noted here that these projects were the product of technical creativity of the late Soviet military-industrial complex, which was actively involved in the development original mega-ideas, somewhat reminiscent of “Personal His Imperial Highness Prince Kirna of the Four Golden Banners Personalized Bomb Carrier “Mountain Eagle”” from the famous novel by the Strugatskys “Inhabited Island”.

“One of the saddest pages in the history of innovation in post-Soviet Russia is the closure of projects to create hydroplanes at the Design Bureau named after. Rostislav Alekseev. Seaplanes are half-airplanes, half-ships capable of taking off and landing on water surfaces, covering distances of hundreds of kilometers without refueling (for example, flying from the Baltic to the Caspian Sea). The developments of the brilliant inventor did not find adequate support. The last of the large hydroplanes - "Rescuer" - was "mothballed" in the design bureau workshop for more than 15 years, and now, probably, has already been cut into scrap metal."(Vladimir Bezdenezhnykh).

Experts also included unfinished bills as failed innovations, the path of which corresponds to the well-known saying “It was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines.” Thus, one of the “people’s experts” noted that the curtailed legislation regulating the activities of the Skolkovo Innovation City may well be considered as a failed innovation.

“Real examples of innovations in the field of legislation that have not yet taken place. (Draft laws can be considered as innovations!! :) The essence of the issue: two bills (“On amendments to the federal constitutional laws “On the judicial system of the Russian Federation” and “On arbitration courts in the Russian Federation”” and “On amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation” in connection with the creation of the Court for Intellectual Rights in the system of arbitration courts"), the SAC was developed on behalf of Dmitry Medvedev"(Alexey Kulay).

“People’s experts” include the situation with venture fairs and voucher privatization as similar innovation failures. They reason like this: since both did not achieve their goals, then the innovations were unsuccessful. However, this does not take into account that the goals and objectives of innovations are sometimes adjusted during their implementation.

“The clearest example of the failure of innovation in the management sphere is voucher privatization. The goal is formulated correctly. The methods of achieving it are, to put it mildly, inadequate.”(Ivan Pogodin).

It must be said that there were few examples of unfinished and unrealized innovations, and the degree of their convincingness was not very high - it seems that our “people's experts” did not have enough imagination to talk about the rich Russian experience of failed innovations. But in characterizing the barriers to an innovative breakthrough, the experts did not skimp on reasoning.

Barriers to innovation in Russia – why is it not working?

“Nothing works out only for those who do nothing” - “people's experts” refute this maxim, citing a variety of examples of obstacles and barriers to innovation in Russia. Here you can do everything, and still nothing may work out.

If we try to classify the barriers to innovation in the country that “folk experts” talk about, then we can distinguish two types of reasoning on this topic. We will call those who adhere to reasoning of the first type “system specialists” - they believe that various groups of institutional factors (economy, industry, bureaucracy, etc.) become the main obstacles to an innovative breakthrough in Russia. The logic of the “system specialists” is similar to the thesis of the plumber from the old joke: here “the whole system is rotten.” The second type of reasoning about insurmountable barriers belongs to the “soil people”, who refer to a special type of national consciousness and Russian space, the “spirit of the local soil”, which does not allow innovation to grow and become the norm of business and life of Russian society.

The state must become effective

Let us consider in more detail the arguments and opinions of the “system specialists” and “soil specialists”. Systemic factors inhibiting innovation activity include the role of the state, the existing economic system, the existing industrial system, problems of Russian education, and even the global influence on the situation.

The state, which manifests itself in the form of a bureaucratic and corruption-prone machine, is recognized by “system specialists” as one of the key barriers to an innovative breakthrough.

“Approximately the following is happening with innovation in Russia. 1. They are talked about a lot and everywhere. 2. Substantial funds are allocated for their development. 3. Western managers are involved in innovation management. 4. Laws regulating the activities of innovative companies and mechanisms for investment in such projects are being improved. 5. Advanced institutes, industries and entire industries receive government support for the implementation of innovative projects. But! 6. Stable criminal communities have formed for cutting and laundering government grants for imaginary or secondary financed projects.”(Vladimir Bezdenezhnykh).

“Old ulcers of our society, economy, national economy: terrible bureaucratization of everything and everyone, bureaucratic arbitrariness, corruption, etc.”(Nikolai Stepanov).

That is, according to “people's experts,” innovation is impossible in an environment entangled in corruption and bureaucratic networks, where any living and fresh idea is doomed to death and oblivion. That is, without consistent work on innovative reform of the civil service and cleansing it of corruption, the fate of innovation in the country is predictable and sad. However, it cannot be said that in the eyes of the “system specialists,” officials are conscious villains who have made it their mission to stifle innovation. Rather, inertia and reluctance to change among middle-level government officials leads to the fact that an innovative endeavor gets bogged down in a quagmire of endless approvals and indifference. At the same time, today it is much more difficult to fire a mid-level official than a manager of any commercial company.

Without new legislation there will be no innovation

Closely related to bureaucracy is the following “systemic” explanation for failures in innovative development – ​​crude and undeveloped legislation. In the end, laws form the roads and paths along which adherents of innovation move. When these roads are broken or not paved, you have to make your way through a bureaucratic jungle, hacking your way with a machete and risking the risk of running into predators. Not everyone is capable of such dedication, and therefore “people's experts” recognize the importance of improving legislation.

What exactly is wrong with legal support for innovation? First of all, it is necessary to legislatively reconsider the role of the state in the system of relations “innovation - state - business - consumers”. It is time for the state to stop being the general customer of an innovative product, transferring the corresponding powers and capabilities to market players. The state should retain the role of a “night watchman”, setting the rules of the game, but not directing the individual moves of all players.

“Innovation is hampered primarily by imperfect legislation. The state should not act as a customer or buyer of innovation, unless in the case of the implementation of certain programs of national priorities. But it is quite possible and should be possible to create conditions under which investments in innovative discoveries will be tempting for business players.”(Vladimir Bezdenezhnykh).

This thesis does not look so clear in the light of the rich world experience, when it was states that became generators of innovative development, both by creating good institutional conditions for this and by directly supporting the corresponding strategic directions. Also, “people's experts” have repeatedly recalled the need to develop legislation regulating copyright and intellectual property - the most important elements that guarantee that the author of a brilliant idea will not be left without a decent remuneration in the event of its industrial and business implementation.

“Currently, more and more questions are arising around intellectual property of Russian origin. And the main ones are corruption, legal protection and the correct determination of the value of intellectual property. The ever-lower demand for Russian high-tech goods by the world market is also due to internal problems related to access to financing, tax regulation, and government policy in the field of development of technological innovation. Since 2008, Russia’s position in the international technology market has only gotten worse every year. Among the main indicators here are an increase in restrictions on access to new technologies, a decrease in foreign direct investment in research and development, and, in addition to a decrease in the influx of foreign investment, the costs of Russian companies for R&D have also decreased, and the quality of scientific research and development has decreased. According to statistics, in recent years the export-import format in the field of R&D has been the export of new technologies and the import of old ones (which have Russian analogues, but are not completed).”(Georgy Eletskikh).

“Systems people” remembered another important reason for innovation failures in modern Russia: problems in the field of education and science. These problems are complex: from low salaries of university teachers and poor technical equipment of universities to low quality of education, to corruption and the urgent need to transform the content and forms of education. By 2015, in addition to the existing number, it is necessary to train another 1 million IT specialists, that is, in three years, increase the rate of training of such specialists by 7 times. Inertia and poor informatization of the education system lead to an eternal lag in the level of training of specialists and school graduates. “People's experts” propose to correct the current state of affairs, in particular, to more actively introduce the principles of e-learning.

“The first thing that hinders the emergence, development and implementation of innovations in Russia is the lag in the education sector. The system of school and vocational education is catastrophically behind the development of science and technology and the speed of updating knowledge. The most relevant reforms of the education system include its informatization and the introduction of e-learning technologies (distance electronic education). The existing scheme for preparing textbooks has become obsolete - the time required for their preparation, printing and distribution is so great that by the time the textbook falls into the hands of a student, a significant part of its content is already hopelessly outdated. In the same way, many methodological and methodological approaches and solutions do not correspond to reality. E-learning technologies, firstly, significantly accelerate the speed of delivery of knowledge to students, and secondly, they reduce the generally accepted rate of their assimilation. Let me give you a particular example that I recently heard at an international conference on distance learning: Einstein’s theory of relativity is studied in a specialized department and according to the classical scheme for a whole semester, and with the use of e-learning technologies - for three weeks. And without compromising the quality of acquired knowledge!”(Liya Volova).

“Besides the word “innovation”, a powerful production base is needed on which it will be possible to create prototypes of future devices. Yes, of course, innovations can be intangible, but unfortunately, at the moment Russia really, really needs material assets of a completely new level, and without conditions for production, intelligent trained personnel, and normal state support, nothing will happen. The level of “specialists” produced by universities remains below any criticism; I’m talking about the guys who have to work with real electronics. The material base of universities is several decades out of date. The knowledge that students gain during their studies becomes hopelessly outdated by the third or fourth year.”(Evgeny Volkov).

Basic science is underfunded, which also hinders innovation. If your plans include buying a baikal-boats.ru boat or buying a boat, first of all, ask yourself what a really good motor boat is for you and what exactly you are buying it for. Sometimes “popular experts” paint a literally apocalyptic picture of the failure of domestic education. One can only wonder where educated people come from in this kingdom of corruption and backwardness.

“Innovation in Russia is primarily hampered by the system. Everyone knows very well that many teachers at higher educational institutions take bribes from students and their parents, and most often wealthy parents give bribes, and only some parents have children capable of doing anything. And many of those people whose minds are actually capable of great things live in poverty because their parents were not born into a rich family and were unable to give their children a decent education and future. Education should NOT be paid; everyone who wants to study should study, not those who have the opportunity to do so. Only then will it be possible to identify truly talented people through various competitive and testing events.”(Sergey Masasin).

“People's experts” did not ignore the deplorable state of Russian industry, which is also called one of the barriers to innovation. According to project participants, the time of single innovators is long gone. All major successful innovations are the result of the work of powerful research teams. The creation of such teams and equipping them with the appropriate technical and financial base is the prerogative of large industrial companies. In Russia, unfortunately, the powerful tradition of working in large research teams that work for the needs of industry has almost been lost.

“The technologies that are produced in the world today are the fruit of the labor of large teams. But the main thing is that these teams are an organic part of corporations. Where is our industry in Russia today? You thought correctly, in this very place. The level of modern technologies is so high that theoretical institutions simply cannot produce them in isolation from production, and in our case, in the absence of this. The reality is that in modern Russia there is no basis for the production of serious innovations, there is simply nowhere and nothing to do them with.”(Sergey Volchkov).

Successful systemic implementation of innovation requires the creation of innovation clusters, where the entire cycle, including development, creation of prototypes and launch into production, is combined in one administrative and technological system. And in Russia, even the existing production base is in crisis.

“Innovation is needed primarily because it is the only way to renew and develop the country. A resource-based economy plus an outdated industry not only do not provide any bright prospects for the near future, but also make the entire economy, and therefore the lives of citizens, directly dependent on world prices for hydrocarbons and other raw materials. Innovations are capable of creating promising development paths for almost all industries in the shortest possible time. The scientific and intellectual capital available (so far) in the country should become the basis for innovative research and discoveries. The creation and development of a constant “innovation flow”, which the newly created research and production clusters can provide, will guarantee an influx of investment funds into modernized industries, because it promises investors solid profits. The demand for innovation in the world is greater than ever, the government’s interest in development in this area is undeniable, and the country has plenty of intellectual potential. It’s just a matter of little things: connect, bring together all these three vectors and direct them towards a single goal in order to receive a powerful impetus for the comprehensive development of Russia.”(Vladimir Bezdenezhnykh).

“The curse of raw materials” is against innovation

The “raw materials curse” has become a common term used by experts to describe the pathological dependence of the Russian economy on the export of hydrocarbons. It is believed that if there were no gas, oil, timber and other natural resources in Russia, the country’s residents would have long ago turned the most daring innovative ideas into reality.

Proponents of a “systems” view of barriers to innovation saw a number of other barriers that need to be mentioned.

A significant problem is global technological shifts, which deprive the government of the ability to implement macroeconomic policies based on previous instruments. Stimulating innovation processes is now happening as if we continue to live in an economy of general recovery. It is necessary to develop the mechanism of public-private partnership as a tool for innovative development of Russia. It is necessary to work on analytical models that can explain the influence of different behavioral strategies of private agents (innovators and conservatives) on macroeconomic processes.

With such an investment climate as in Russia now, it is difficult to expect that engineers will have the desire to create their own companies.

Innovations must be supported and actively implemented not only from above, but also from below. It is necessary to involve not only the state, but also medium and large businesses in these processes.

Soil Scientists also discovered a number of reasons why innovation in Russia often fails. They base their explanations on the thesis that the country’s path is special. This feature is connected, in their opinion, both with the national mentality and with the unique historical conditions and socio-political climate in which it is difficult for innovators to survive. The inertia of managers at various levels, the desire only for super-scale projects, etc., in total, are, although not systemic, significant factors that hinder innovation.

In addition, the Soviet system discouraged the exercise of initiative and commercial skills for so long that they gradually died out in life practice. Now the commercial vein is returning with such difficulty that innovation is still not seen as a source of profit. There is also a general misunderstanding of the nature of innovation, as well as concerns that the most promising areas of work may be controlled by foreign companies.

The broad Russian soul, just like the endless Russian expanses, encourages large-scale thinking, but the needs of ordinary citizens are not taken into account. The USSR was the first to launch a man into space, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of people lived in houses without heating or running water. Neglect of “simple innovations” that improve the everyday life of an ordinary person leads to excessive enthusiasm for megaprojects, many of which require gigantic resources with the most elusive returns. “People's experts” believe that such a passion for large scale can also become a barrier to innovation.

“Considering innovation as a tool for increasing the competitiveness of Russian enterprises, we undeservedly forget about the importance of simple solutions that do not come from the world of high technology. A worthy example of their effectiveness is the experience of automakers from BMW. During experiments on one of the BMW factory assembly lines, the project team developed an innovative technique, thanks to which the productivity of control shifts, consisting of workers whose average age was the same 47 years, increased by 7%. Much of the success was based on the involvement of workers in the process - they made and implemented 70 proposals. The total cost of the project amounted to 40 thousand euros, and the results promise millions.”(Ivan Pogodin).

In Russia, the main obstacle to the development of innovation is a banal misunderstanding of the nature of innovation itself on a global scale. Today, the predominant part of the world's high-tech markets is occupied by foreign firms successfully working in the field of applied and engineering research. In such conditions, creating a competitive innovative industry from scratch, from the concept of a product to its production in Russia, is obviously an impossible and unviable task, unless constant government subsidies are taken into account.

Finally, in society, Russian “Kulibins” are often perceived as suspicious eccentrics, as half-crazy, from whom you need to stay away. And it must be said that they themselves often give reasons for this when they cannot clearly state the essence of the proposed innovation, and perceive anyone who doubts as an enemy of the idea. We also lack a culture of collective work to create and promote innovation, which turns inventors and innovators into alienated loners with whom public and private corporations refuse to cooperate.