home › Acquisition of apartments › Innovation failures. Lonely ideas: what are the reasons for Russian failures on the path of innovation. Key success and failure factors for implemented innovations

Innovation failures. Lonely ideas: what are the reasons for Russian failures on the path of innovation. Key success and failure factors for implemented innovations

And you, friends, no matter how you sit down,
All musicians are no good
I. Krylov

FROM light hand The president talks about innovations in Russia 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 "positive" sides. According to INNOPROM experts, the field of defense R&D (research and development work) in Russia competes with the construction of roads and real estate in terms of the degree of corruption, and half of the state defense order money goes to kickbacks.

Reasons for the insufficient success of innovations in Russia

I believe there are three main reasons:

low level of innovative "maturity";
no need for Russian business in innovation;
loss of innovative culture (which flourished in the 70-80s of the last century).

What is this opinion based on?

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

1. Technical:

New Product;
new process.

2. Managerial (organizational).

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

company;
country;

There are many criteria for what counts as innovation. I like the following one the most: “Innovation is a product (process) that has no competitors now and is new to this market". A new package for candy will be an innovation if it is made of 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. The classic example of such a product is the iPhone.

What influences the success of creation and implementation of innovations?

The theory states: “Market instability and the need for growth leads to incentives for companies to develop and innovate.” Let's say your company has recognized the need to innovate. What should be done to successfully develop innovations in the company? Innovation audit provides answers to this question. Innovation audit considers the key factors that characterize the strengths and weak sides, defines and identifies the ways of development of innovations in companies.

Two key drivers for innovation in a company are the tech culture and the innovation culture.

Technical is:

linking strategy and innovation;
a portfolio of innovations;
assessment of the research process;
introduction of innovations;
connection with sales;
scorecard for innovation;
infrastructure.

An innovative 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 used in the audit.

Rice. one . The innovative Organization AuditCheckmap

The main "subjects" of the analysis are the following groups:

Implementing People (IP) - represent someone (or a group) who solves the tasks (R&D, finance, production, etc.). They are intentionally not clearly defined and are put in the center as a starting point for an innovation audit. Select the group you are going to explore - they are your IP.
Internal Customers (IC) are those with whom IPs interact 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 to measure innovative efficiency were based on technical indicators, financial (ROI, profit, etc.) or on an estimate of the number of patents received. To assess the level of innovative maturity of companies, the model below is usually used (Fig. 2).

Rice. 2 Innovation maturity model

Recently, most companies have realized that indicators that characterize an innovation culture are often more important than technical ones. An analysis of the structure of a typical 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 (portfolio);
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, the skills of 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 of innovations. This is information about innovations in the company, how technology is used to improve performance through a system of key indicators.
Creativity and idea management. Stimulation of ideas demanded by consumers. Since these ideas cover the areas of new products, services and processes, all employees should be involved in their development.
portfolio management. As a rule, it is possible different ways implementation of great ideas. But resources are always limited, so implementation needs to be prioritized. Successful companies typically have a balanced innovation portfolio that includes innovative products, services, and processes.
Project management. The ability to quickly turn a great idea into a final product is key. High speed market entry, high quality, an acceptable level of expenses - these are typical goals for a company.
Personnel Management. At the heart of all efforts innovation management lies the need to create a culture in which all employees from the rank and file to top managers are interested in the development of innovation.

Who are Innovation Managers?

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

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

An innovation manager is, first of all, a leader, and not just a manager who manages 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 innovations in Russia

Let's start with the level of maturity of the innovation process. I think everyone will agree that Russia is at the first level, which is characterized (see Figure 2) by some heroic attempts to innovate and a lack of formal procedures.

One of the indicators confirming this thesis can 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 for the American labor market to this moment is more than 50 thousand innovation managers.

Someone may say nothing terrible, often business development managers play this role in our country. There is only one but - 90% of business development managers do not know the methodology of innovation at all, and, in addition, most of them are not focused on innovation, but on the gradual improvement of the product or increase in market share.

However, imagine a situation where tomorrow 50,000 innovation managers will appear in Russia. After all, managers are just a tool, and you can buy it in 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 swear all they want that we need innovation until the business itself understands (or is economically forced to understand or stimulated to do so) that it needs them.

There is another system problem. If we recall the times of the USSR, then the driving force in the development of innovations was the needs defense industry. A system of branch science was created. And even the respected Academy of Sciences had the defense department as a real customer. Such important components of innovation management as strategic planning and innovation portfolio management. Today, this experience seems to be lost, if not completely, but to a large extent. And about the innovations that can come from the defense industry to civil industries, it seems, you can forget, rather the opposite. 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 by no means funding that determines success in this area.

The third problem is that over the past 20 years Russia has practically lost its innovation 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 sadly recall the words of my colleague, who is an adviser to the first person in a very respected science-intensive department, about the leaders of industry science: “Andrey, you understand, they have been without money for so long, that yes, now, of course, they steal, but apart from them, no one is anything at all cannot do."

Let's look at the R&D problem in the defense industry from this angle. With rare exceptions, most of the institutes and enterprises of developers have lost their innovation culture. But it has acquired a culture of “budget development”. The branch 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 talents to science. And the most talented part of the generation from 35 to 50 years old 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 there is a real demand for innovation, then there are innovative managers, talented scientists, and money for the implementation of projects, infrastructure appears. You need a desire for business, and answers to questions

why (strategy);
what (portfolio of innovations);
how (innovation process);
who (staff)

appear fairly quickly.

I will give the simplest case from the practice of one of the commodity companies. There was an order - to create an R&D center for research on promising topics.

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

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

End of history. 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 innovation to development.

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

Photo: Ludovic Charlet on Unsplash

"Why in modern Russia has there been no breakthrough yet? - this is the question that worries the best minds of the country today: progressive officials and fiery 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", "barriers", "barriers", "failures", "failures" - these are the words that are often put next to the word "innovation" today.

Ordinary ideas about the fate of innovation in Russia are contradictory. On the one hand, the Russians are assigned a special form of practical thinking - "estimation", that is, the ability to find an unexpected and effective solution in any situation. Let us recall at least the famous folklore and literary heroes: Leskovsky Lefty, who shod a flea, a soldier who cooked porridge from an ax, Ivanushka the Fool with his endless miracles, etc. expanses of bureaucracy, inertial thinking and general hope for "maybe". That is why it is generally believed 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 is tired of everyone with his “inventions” and “ideas”.

"People's experts" gave examples of non-embodied innovations. First of all, they recalled technical innovations and developments that remained at the stage of prototypes that were not put into series: titanium Submarine, hydroplanes, etc. Here it should be noted that these projects were the product of the technical creativity of the late Soviet military-industrial complex, which was actively engaged in the development of original mega-ideas, somewhat reminiscent of "Personal His Imperial Highness Prince Kirnu of the Four Golden Banners Nominal Bomber "Mountain Eagle"" from the famous Strugatsky's novel "Inhabited Island".

“One of the saddest pages in the history of innovation in post-Soviet Russia is the closure of hydroplane projects at the Design Bureau. Rostislav Alekseev. Seaplanes are semi-aircraft-semi-ships capable of taking off into the air 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 proper support. The last of the large hydroplanes - "Rescuer" - was "mothballed" in the design bureau shop for more than 15 years, and now, probably, it has already been cut into scrap metal.(Vladimir Bezdenezhnykh).

Experts also referred unfinished bills to 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 truncated legislation governing the activities of the Skolkovo Innograd 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 regarded as innovations!! :) 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 in the system arbitration courts Intellectual Property Rights Court"), the Supreme Arbitration Court was developed on behalf of Dmitry Medvedev"(Alexey Kulai).

“People's experts” refer the situation with venture fairs and voucher privatization to the same innovative failures. They argue like this: if both did not achieve their goals, then the innovations were unsuccessful. However, it does not take into account that the goals and objectives of innovations are sometimes adjusted in the course of their implementation.

“The clearest example of the failure of innovations in the management sphere is voucher privatization. The goal is correct. Methods of achievement are, to put it mildly, inadequate.”(Ivan Pogodin).

It must be said that there were few examples of incomplete and unrealized innovations, and the degree of their persuasiveness is 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 happens only to 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 can happen.

If we try to classify the barriers to innovation in the country, which the “popular experts” talk about, then we can distinguish two types of reasoning on this topic. We will call those who adhere to the first type of reasoning "systemists" - 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 "systemists" is similar to the thesis of a plumber from an old joke: here "the whole system is rotten." The second type of reasoning about insurmountable barriers belongs to the "soilists", referring to a special type of people's consciousness and Russian space, "the spirit of the local soil", which does not allow innovations to grow and become the norm of business and life of Russian society.

The state must become efficient

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

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

“The following is happening with innovations 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 investing in such projects are being improved. 5. Leading institutions, industries and entire industries receive state support for the implementation innovative projects. But! 6. Stable criminal communities have formed to cut and launder state grants for imaginary or secondarily funded projects.(Vladimir Bezdenezhnykh).

“Long-standing ulcers of our society, economy, National economy: terrible bureaucratization of everything and everyone, bureaucratic arbitrariness, corruption, etc.”(Nikolai Stepanov).

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

Without new legislation there will be no innovation

Closely connected with the bureaucracy is the following "systemic" explanation of failures in innovative development - raw and undeveloped legislation. In the end, the laws form those roads and paths along which the adherents of innovations make their movement. When these roads are broken or unpaved, you have to make your way through the bureaucratic jungle, cutting your way with a machete and risking 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 reconsider the role of the state in the system of relations "innovation - the state - business - consumers" in the legislative order. It's time for the state to stop being the general customer innovative product, by transferring the appropriate powers and opportunities 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 the imperfection of legislation. The state should not act as a customer or buyer of innovations, except in the case of the implementation of certain programs of national priorities. But to create conditions under which investments in innovative discoveries will be tempting for business players, it may well and should.”(Vladimir Bezdenezhnykh).

This thesis does not look so unambiguous in the light of 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 relevant strategic directions. Also, “people's experts” have repeatedly recalled the need to develop legislation governing copyright and intellectual property, which are the most important elements that guarantee that the author of a brilliant idea will not be left without a decent reward in the event of its industrial and business implementation.

“Currently, more and more questions arise around intellectual property of Russian origin. And the main ones are corruption, legal protection and the correct determination of the value of intellectual property objects. The ever-lower demand on the world market for Russian science-intensive goods is also due to internal problems related to access to financing, tax regulation, and state policy in the field of technological innovation. Since 2008, Russia's position on international market technology is only getting 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 inflow 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 R&D export-import format has been the export of new technologies and the import of old ones (having Russian analogues but not finished)(Georgy Yeletskikh).

"Systems" remembered another important reason for innovative failures in modern Russia: problems in the field of education and science. These problems are complex: from the low salaries of university teachers and the poor technical equipment of universities to the poor 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 to increase the rate of training of such specialists by 7 times. The inertia and weak informatization of the education system lead to an eternal delay in the level of training of specialists and school graduates. "People's experts" propose to correct the current state of affairs, in particular, to actively implement the principles of e-learning.

“The first thing that hinders the emergence, development and implementation of innovations in Russia is the backwardness of the education sector. School and vocational education catastrophically does not keep up with the development of science and technology, the speed of updating knowledge. The most relevant reforms of the education system include its informatization, the introduction of e-learning technologies (distance electronic education). Existing training scheme teaching aids 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 the 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 realities. e-learning technologies, firstly, significantly accelerate the speed of knowledge delivery to students, and secondly, they reduce the generally accepted pace of their assimilation. I will give a particular example that I recently heard at an international conference on distance learning: Einstein's theory of relativity is studied at a specialized faculty 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 the acquired knowledge!”(Liya Volova).

“In addition to the word 'innovation', we need a powerful production base 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 tangible assets of a completely new level, and nothing will happen without conditions for production, intelligent trained personnel, and normal support from the state. The level of "specialists" produced by universities remains below any criticism, I'm talking about guys who have to work with real electronics. The material base of universities is outdated for several decades. The knowledge that students receive in the process of studying 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 why exactly you are buying it. Sometimes "people's experts" paint a literally apocalyptic picture of the failure of domestic education. One can only wonder where educated people come from in this realm of corruption and backwardness.

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

The deplorable state of the Russian industry, which is also called one of the barriers to innovation, did not leave the "people's experts" without attention. According to the project participants, the time of lone innovators is long gone. All major successful innovations are the result 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.

“Technologies that are produced in the world today are the fruit of the work of large teams. But the main thing is that these teams are an organic part of corporations. And where is our industry in Russia today? You guessed it right, in this very place. Level 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 make them”(Sergey Volchkov).

Successful systemic introduction of innovations 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.

“Innovations are needed first of all because this is the only way to upgrade and develop the country. The resource-based economy plus outdated industry not only does not provide any bright prospects for the near future, but also makes the entire economy, and hence the lives of citizens, directly dependent on world prices for hydrocarbons and other raw materials. Innovation is capable of as soon as possible to create promising ways of development of practically all branches of industry. 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 created research and production clusters are able to provide, is guaranteed to ensure the inflow of investment funds into the modernized industries, because it promises investors solid profits. The demand for innovations in the world is greater than ever, the interest of the state in development in this area is indisputable, the intellectual potential in the country is available. The thing is small: to combine, 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 "resource curse" is against innovation

The "resource curse" has become a common term used by experts to denote 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 inhabitants of the country would long ago have turned the most daring innovative ideas into reality.

Proponents of a "systemic" view of the barriers to innovation saw a number of barriers that need to be mentioned.

A significant problem is global technological shifts that deprive the government of the ability to conduct macroeconomic policy based on the old tools. Stimulation of innovation processes is now happening as if we continue to live in a boom economy. It is necessary to develop the mechanism of public-private partnership as a tool for Russia's innovative development. It is necessary to work on analytical models to explain the impact of various 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 a desire to create their own firms.

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 Researchers also found a number of reasons why innovation in Russia often fails. They build their explanations on the basis of the thesis about the peculiarity of the country's path. This feature is connected, in their opinion, both with the national mentality and with the unique historical conditions and the socio-political climate in which it is difficult for innovators to survive. Managerial inertia different levels, the desire only for super-scale projects, etc. in the aggregate, although they are not systemic, they significant factors hindering innovation.

In addition, the Soviet system weaned 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 lack of understanding of the nature of innovation, as well as fears that the most promising areas of work may be controlled by foreign companies.

The broad Russian soul, just like the vast expanses of Russia, is conducive to 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 and running water. The neglect of “simple innovations” that improve the everyday life of the average person leads to overindulgence in mega-projects, many of which require gigantic resources with the most illusory returns. "People's experts" believe that such a passion for large scale can also become a barrier to innovation.

“Considering innovation as a tool to increase competitiveness Russian enterprises, we undeservedly forget about the importance of simple solutions that did not come from the world of high technologies. A worthy example of their effectiveness is the experience of automakers from BMW. During experiments on one of BMW's factory assembly lines, the design team developed an innovative technique that increased the productivity of control shifts, which consisted of workers whose average age was 47 years old, by 7%. In many ways, success was based on the involvement of workers in the process - they submitted 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 innovations is a banal misunderstanding of the nature of innovations themselves on a global scale. Today, the predominant part of the world's high-tech markets is occupied by foreign firms successfully operating in the field of applied and engineering research. In such conditions, the creation of a competitive innovation industry from scratch, from the concept of a product to its production in Russia, is obviously impossible and unviable, if we do not keep in mind constant state subsidies.

Finally, in society, Russian "Kulibins" are often perceived as suspicious eccentrics, as half-crazy, from whom you need to stay away. And I must say, they themselves often give a reason for this when they cannot clearly state the essence of the proposed innovation, and they perceive any doubter as an enemy of the idea. We also lack a culture of teamwork to create and promote innovation, which turns inventors and innovators into alienated loners with whom public and private corporations refuse to cooperate.

What comes too easily, we hardly appreciate. Valuable is that which is given dearly. 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 is engaged in development whole group scientists, rarely acting as the initiator of these studies. That is, there the task descends from above, on which to work later project team. 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 is time to think about our crazy Russian inventors, rushing about with crazy eyes in search of support. They do not have enough of them, and we have heaps of them. So why is the US granting 15 times more invention patents than any other country in the world? Here immediately there is compassion and desire to do our best to help our "Kulibins" to fulfill their dream. But this is until you reach reason number 2

2nd cause of research failure refinancing ! No, are you listening!? 86% of innovative projects were never completed 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 efficient if they do it all on their knees and without money.

The magazine even has 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 such, but the opposite!

Of course, I myself am of the opinion that money for initial stage business only gets in the way. But here, in the case of invention ... for me a strange reversal.

3rd the reason for the fiasco is the lack of work with the end user . Everything here is almost obvious to me, but once again I mocked at my familiar innovators. Usually among such people (at least among my acquaintances) it’s forbidden to reveal the secret of what you are working on.

Well, so, the Americans say that in 82% of cases, innovations lead 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;
the answers of the survey participants were misinterpreted.

And it’s enough to visit an innovators’ rally once to see that these are “nerds” closed in themselves who don’t talk to their mothers, let alone with future consumers.

4th the reason for the unprofitability of innovative research is following a pre-selected concept . Here is the truth for me point of contention, but the researchers say that 69% of the developments failed due to the fact that the research was abandoned:

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

Why is not obvious, because in my experience, just those inventors who went to the end, not listening to anyone, and believing in the genius of their thoughts, actually achieved good results. And those that rushed from side to side remained with "air" in their hands.

5th the reason for me is also unusual - big team . Here also, as in the case of refinancing, they deduced 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 one, in their opinion, is everything that is more than 1 person) that leads to the failure of development.

Here again it is time to think about the benefits of business incubators and other similar parties. It turns out that singles are much more productive than their creative unions.

The magazine even cites the statistic that 1 inventor delivers about 4 times more innovation for every $1 invested in R&D than the average 5 person team, and about 24 times more than project teams with more than 50 employees.

6th the reason was not a discovery for me - it is market potential (56% - development dead ends). BUT 7th - project economics (54% - unviability of innovations).

It was not a discovery of their significance, but it was a surprise that they essentially give way:

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

The discussion about how Russia can overcome the “resource curse” and switch to an innovative path of development has been going on since the early 2000s. MIT Professor Lauren Graham's book Can Russia Compete? A History of Innovation in Tsarist, Soviet and Modern Russia, which is being published by Mann, Ivanov and Ferber, shows that today we are repeating a model that has proven to be ineffective for 300 years.

Not so often the Russian-language edition of a book comes out almost simultaneously with the American one. "Will Russia be able to compete?" - non-fiction on the topic of the day. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage of the book. One should not expect from her the depth and revelations of a serious monograph.

A problem for the Russian reader may also be that the history of domestic innovations is written with a clear American accent: structure, presentation of material, repetitive ideas, peremptory refrain, and sometimes superficial conclusions. Lauren Graham runs the risk of facing accusations of Russophobia and tendentiousness that have traditionally been directed at Sovietologists and Russianists who denounce the mistakes of Russian history, from Richard Pipes to the authors of the Siberian Curse, a book that made a splash in the early 2000s (which has a predictable title in its chapter on Soviet industrialization). link). However, one cannot deny the author of the History of Innovations sympathy for Russia and academic objectivity. Professor Graham devoted more than 50 years to studying the history of science in the USSR and Russia, and in recent years international consultant actively participated in the discussion of reforms Russian system science and education.

This book is not a denunciation, but a warning against repeating the mistakes of the past.

Watching another attempt to modernize the Russian economy, Graham tries to answer the eternal questions: what for 300 years has caused Russia to lag behind its Western neighbors and why creative ideas scientists and inventors did not translate into technological superiority. The English title of the book “Lonely ideas” (lonely ideas) conveys the main conclusion of the book better than the Russian translation: the path from invention to innovation lies through a system of social and political institutions that in Russia for many centuries did not contribute to the realization of ideas.

A retrospective of Russian innovations since the 19th century reads like a sad chronicle of buried industries and projects: the lost superiority of Russian gunsmiths, catching up with the construction of Russian railways, untapped discoveries in energy, destroyed genetics, unborn civil aviation industry, uncreated personal computers and other stories of how good ideas did not find application. All stories seem to be written according to the same scheme:

— Russian scientists have never lagged behind European and American colleagues. Even being the first in inventions, due to political or financial constraints, they could not move on to the product and its mass implementation.

- If the circumstances were such that the idea came to commercialization, the inventors turned out to be extremely unsuccessful businessmen, most often they faced a collapse in the commercial field.

— Inventors emigrated, did not find recognition in their homeland and often died in poverty.

- As a result, today the whole world is convinced that the light bulb was created by Thomas Edison, and not Pavel Yablochkov, and the radio - by Guglielmo Marconi, and not Alexander Popov. And today none Russian company in these industries is not among the leading companies in the world.

One such story might seem like an accident. All together they line up in a chain of institutional patterns that both 300 years ago and today hinder the development of innovations in Russia.

The authoritarian political regime in both tsarist and Soviet time had a monopoly on determining the most promising directions research and development, focusing on some industries and excluding others. So, Soviet aircraft designers had to create aircraft for the fastest and longest flights, but not the most comfortable for civil aviation. Therefore, now the Russian Tu and Ilya are hopelessly inferior to Boeings and Airbuses.

Under the conditions of the monopoly of the state order for innovation, there were no alternative sources of financing for the creation of new products. Many inventors only abroad got the opportunity to realize their ideas and even achieved commercial success.

Social barriers limited the exchange and promotion of potentially successful ideas. In addition, in a strictly hierarchical society, many Russian inventors were outcasts by birth or political convictions and could not succeed.

Cultural barriers and stereotypes even now do not allow the servants of science to engage in commercialization own ideas. And in society, a negative attitude towards businessmen and entrepreneurial activity still dominates.

The legal and regulatory system in the field of patenting in Russia has never provided inventors with protection of intellectual property rights.

Education and science, neither in Soviet times nor today, contribute to experiments, inventions and the development of creative ideas. The system of closed Soviet research institutes has traditionally been aimed at the development of theoretical science, rather than applied research.

Finally, traditional Russian corruption is the main barrier to the development of any business. As a result, it is much easier for an innovator whose activity is not tied to a specific territory to implement his ideas in a country with a more favorable business climate.

Industries in which Russian scientists have excelled are cosmonautics, nuclear energy and software- confirm the listed rules. The Soviet space program and achievements in the field of "peaceful atom" were supported at the level of the country's leadership, being important elements of the leadership of the USSR in the competition with America. And the success of Russian programmers, on the contrary, is explained by the impossibility of state control over an extensive network of free agents.

It turns out that Yuri Gagarin personifies two ways of modernizing Russia - "from above", through the implementation of state megaprojects, and "from below", by creating a system of institutions that stimulate the disclosure of creative and entrepreneurial potential.

And although historical experience testifies to the dangers of the first path, it seems that so far we are confidently moving in the direction of traditional modernization.

Despite the rich historical experience, it is still customary in Russia not to create an environment for innovation, but to search for breakthrough points and magical solutions, which include both the miracle city of Skolkovo and the Rosnano corporation. In the last part of the book, reflecting on whether Russia will succeed this time in escaping the 300-year trap, Lauren Graham describes a conversation between a senior MIT executive and Russian colleagues in 2010, before high-profile investigations in connection with Skolkovo. The American manager paid much attention to the system of institutions and relations between universities, funds, investors in the development of innovations. Russian colleagues constantly interrupted him, asking how to create "the best in the world" high tech. At some point, the American could not stand it and exclaimed: “You want to get milk without a cow!”

What comes too easily, we hardly appreciate. Valuable is that which is given dearly. 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, a whole group of scientists is engaged in development, rarely acting as the initiator of these studies. That is, there the task descends from above, on which the project team subsequently works. 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.

Of course, I myself am of the opinion that money at the initial stage of a business only interferes. But here, in the case of invention ... for me a strange reversal.

Well, so, the Americans say that in 82% of cases, innovations lead 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;
the answers of the survey participants were misinterpreted.

And it’s enough to visit an innovators’ rally once to see that these are “nerds” closed in themselves who don’t talk to their mothers, let alone with 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 the researchers say that 69% of the development failed, due to the fact that the researchers refused:

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

Here again it is time to think about the benefits of business incubators and other similar parties. It turns out that singles are much more productive than their creative unions.

The magazine even cites the statistic that 1 inventor delivers about 4 times more innovation for every $1 invested in R&D than the average 5 person team and about 24 times more than 50+ design teams.

6th the reason was not a discovery for me - it is market potential (56% - development dead ends). BUT 7th - project economics (54% - unviability of innovations).

It was not a discovery of their significance, but it was a surprise that they essentially give way: