Aggregated index of innovation potential. Assessing the innovative potential of an enterprise
Reimer Valery Viktorovich, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Far Eastern State Agrarian University, Russia
Kokuytseva Tatyana Vladimirovna, Researcher, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, Russia
Publish your monograph in good quality for only 15 rubles!
The basic price includes text proofreading, ISBN, DOI, UDC, BBK, legal copies, uploading to the RSCI, 10 author’s copies with delivery throughout Russia.
Moscow + 7 495 648 6241
Sources:
1. Oslo Manual: Recommendations for collecting and analyzing data on innovation. / Joint publication of OECD and Eurostat. 3rd ed. – M.: CISN, 2006. – 192 p.
2. Frascati's Guide. [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/browseit/9202081E. pdf.
3. Canberra leadership. [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/0/2096025.pdf
4. Bogota Guide. [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: http://www.ricyt.org/interior/difusion/pubs/bogota/bogota_eng.pdf
5. Robert B. Tucker. Driving growth through innovation. – Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2006. – 240 p.
6. Chesbrough G. Open innovations. – M.: Generation, 2007. – 336 p.
7. Harvard Business Review on Innovation. – Harvard Business Review Press, 2008. – 222 p.
8. European innovation scoreboard 2008 Comparative analysis of innovation performance [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: http://www.inei.org.br/inovateca/estudos-e-pesquisas-em-inovacao/EIS2008_Final_report-pv.pdf.
9. Mitsuaki S. The era of system innovation. – Miracle, 2006. – 248 p.
10. PRO INNO Europe. [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: www.proinno-europe.eu.
11. Global Competitiveness Report 2009–2010 [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: http://www.weforum.org.
12. World Bank. [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: http://web.worldbank.org
13. Human Development Report 1999. Commissioned by UNDP. – New York, 1999. – pp. 159–160.
14. Human Development Report 2010. The real wealth of nations: paths to human development. / Per. from English; UNDP. – M.: The whole world, 2010. – 244 p.
■STRATEGY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
UDC 338.22.021
global indexes
as a means of comprehensive assessment
innovation potential*
With. A. Balashova,
Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences,
Associate Professor, Department of Economic and Mathematical Modeling E-mail: sveta_b@economist. rudn. ru Peoples' Friendship University of Russia
The article examines the Porter-Stern Innovation Capacity Index and the resulting index of the EU Innovation Scoreboard (Summary Innovation Index IUS). Analysis of methods for constructing indices allows one to correctly interpret the results of country rankings based on these indices. You can also use indices as a means of monitoring the state of the innovation sphere and assessing the degree of approach to the strategic goal of innovative development.
Key words: innovative potential, global indices of innovative development, methodology for constructing indices.
Introduction. It is generally accepted that innovation is today the main driver of economic growth for both developed and developing countries. Governments of many countries around the world are developing innovative development strategies, trying to create conditions for sustainable endogenous economic growth in their countries. Long-term strategies for innovative development exist in the USA, Japan, the countries of the European Union, China, India and other countries. In December 2011, the Government of the Russian Federation also adopted the Strategy for Innovative Development of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020, which sets long-term development guidelines for subjects of innovation business.
* The article was prepared with the financial support of the Russian Humanitarian Fund, grant No. 11-02-00276a.
activity. Targeted government support for fundamental and applied science, high-tech industrial production, and effectively functioning markets for high-tech products is necessary to ensure an innovative development strategy.
It is customary to distinguish three models of innovative development. In “old” industrial countries, as a rule, a model of a full innovation cycle is implemented - from idea generation to production of the final product. “New” industrial countries are implementing a model of borrowing ready-made technology, on the basis of which they create their own high-tech product, intended primarily for the foreign market. Developing countries in Asia and Latin America are characterized by a model of borrowing and adapting innovations. Models of innovative development also differ depending on what prevails in the process of formation of an innovative economy - self-organization or regulation.
Depending on the existing model and the achieved level of innovative development of the country, the achievement of certain results in innovation activities is fixed as strategic goals, which depend on the degree of ambition of the tasks set, the adopted development priorities, the assessment of potential and ways of its implementation. The ability to measure innovation potential and successes already achieved is an essential monitoring tool
the degree of approach to the strategic goal of innovative development, the basis for adjusting the planned plans and ways of their implementation. At the same time, we note that there is no single approach to solving the problem of measuring innovation.
The concept of “new combination” introduced by J. Schumpeter (or, according to today’s terminology, “innovation”) includes, in particular: the production of a new good or improving the quality of an existing good, the introduction of a new method of production or commercial use of a product, the development of a new market, the use a new source of raw materials, reorganization of production in order to ensure a new position in the market. The division of innovations accepted today into technological (product and process), organizational and marketing is fully consistent with Schumpeter’s approach. At the same time, a special role is given to social and environmental innovations, the degree of development of which is associated with indicators of sustainable economic development. Innovation, therefore, refers not only to technological innovations resulting from the commercialization of scientific research and development, but also innovations in the field of organization and management of business, in marketing, as well as new models of social development and organization of public life.
The most studied and measurable are technological innovations. Below we consider M. Porter's approach to determining the innovative potential of a country based on achievements in technological innovation. This approach is most applicable to countries where the full innovation cycle model is dominant.
One of the authoritative institutions that initiates the development of methods and assessment of innovative activity at the micro- and macro-level is the Directorate General Enterprise and Industry under the European Commission. A comprehensive assessment of the state of the innovation sphere and analysis of the main trends are carried out on the initiative of this organization by the Maastricht Economic and Social Research and training center on Innovation and Technology - UNU-MERIT on a regular basis since 2006. “ European innovation board"
which in 2010 was transformed into the “European Union Innovation Scoreboard”, is designed to reflect achievements in innovative development of various types and provides a basis for comparing EU countries in terms of the level of capabilities for producing innovations and the degree of their implementation. Below we discuss in detail the methodology for assessing innovative development at the country level and constructing the resulting innovation index.
Michael Porter's approach and the ICI Innovation Potential Index. Developing the theory of economic competition, M. Porter formulated and described the stages of growth of competitiveness at the national level. At the first stage, the national economy has competitive advantages due to factors of production, at the second stage - due to investment, at the third stage - due to innovation, at the fourth stage - due to wealth. Studying together with Scott Stern, Jeffrey Furman and other researchers the stage of growth of competitiveness through the introduction of innovations, M. Porter defined the concept of national innovative capacity. In the works of Porter and his colleagues, national innovation potential is understood as the ability of a national economy to develop and commercialize a flow of new technologies over a long period of time. Thus, this approach considers only technological innovation.
According to M. Porter, national innovation potential consists of three main components: 1) state innovation infrastructure; 2) economic environment (innovation clusters); 3) relationship between clusters. National innovation potential is primarily determined by the level of development and effectiveness of the national research system, existing technological achievements, but not to the fullest extent. It also reflects the direction of investment flows, government policy in the field of innovative development, the relationship between the strategies of the public and private sectors, the presence of public infrastructure and the necessary economic environment.
Innovation infrastructure is a complex of interconnected institutions that serve and ensure the implementation of innovation activities. The foundation of this complex is
a research system that provides the production of new knowledge in fundamental areas and the basis for the creation of new technologies that can be commercialized. Directions of public policy that ensure the implementation of innovative activities include the protection of intellectual property, the provision of a variety of tax benefits, antimonopoly protection and openness of the economy to investment and trade. All these measures should be long-term in nature, contributing to the implementation of the national strategy for innovative development.
Innovation infrastructure is a necessary condition for innovation, but enterprises are the producers of innovation. And, in order for an enterprise to strive to produce innovation, it must exist in an appropriate economic environment. M. Porter and his colleagues conducted numerous studies analyzing competitiveness at the micro and macro levels and came to the conclusion that the geographic concentration of interconnected companies and institutions provides a powerful impetus for the commercialization of technologies and innovation.
Using the Diamond Model, the vertices of which are key components for the formation of competitive advantages, Porter described the mechanism of functioning of an innovation cluster.
The first vertex of the diamond is the conditions for owning factors of production. The main condition is the presence in the innovation cluster of a highly qualified workforce, especially scientists and researchers, as well as technical and managerial personnel engaged in the production of new knowledge and technologies. Factors of production may include equipment for conducting research at universities and research institutes located within the cluster and high-quality information infrastructure, as well as a sufficient supply of venture capital.
The second top of the diamond is demand. In an innovation cluster, there is demand from demanding and discerning local consumers, which can largely serve as an indicator of demand for a given innovation in other markets.
The third point of the diamond is the presence of related and supporting sectors of the economy. Existence in an innovation cluster of local
suppliers and partners reduces the costs of producing innovations, thereby increasing their profitability.
The fourth point of the diamond is the conditions for the implementation of a sustainable enterprise strategy and internal competition. High competition between enterprises within the cluster ensures the need to search for new ideas and increase the speed of innovation implementation.
According to M. Porter, a local innovation cluster also has global competitive advantages due to strong internal competition and high-quality domestic demand, as well as special operating conditions.
Thus, the presence of innovation clusters is the second component of innovation potential.
The third component of innovation potential is the quality of connections between the innovation infrastructure created in the state and national innovation clusters. The presence of all kinds of formal and informal connections between these two components of innovation potential forms the bridge that makes the innovation system unified. Porter assigns a special role to national research universities, whose close connection with national enterprises ensures the transfer of knowledge and technology from science to production. Without such close ties, new ideas are more likely to be implemented by competing companies from other countries where there are more favorable conditions for this.
Measuring national innovation potential is a very complex task with many approaches. Porter and his colleagues implement the following approach. A certain value is determined, which is the result of the implementation of national innovation potential in the current period. It must be measurable, suitable for cross-country comparison, and must be observed over a number of years.
According to Porter's concept, the result of innovation activity is a function of a limited set of observable factors that characterize the national innovation potential in three dimensions: 1) the quality of the innovation infrastructure in the country; 2) development of innovation clusters; 3) the quality of connections between the state and entrepreneurs.
The theoretical basis for deducing the mathematical dependence of the result of innovation activity on the elements of innovation potential is P. Romer's model of endogenous growth.
In the simplest version of Romer's model, the production of new knowledge and technologies is the result of the work of a new producing sector - the R&D sector. The increase in new knowledge is a function only of the capital concentrated in this sector, which, however, is understood in an expanded sense and includes human capital and accumulated knowledge and technology (the so-called AK model).
In a more general form, Romer's model can be written as
where At is the increase in new knowledge in the current period;
HAt is human capital, which is a function of technological capital; Af - accumulated knowledge and technology. Thus, the increase in new knowledge is an endogenous value for both components of capital, X and φ are the parameters of the model. X > 0, an increase in human capital is expected to lead to an increase in R&D productivity. There are two hypotheses regarding the coefficient φ: if φ > 0, then knowledge accumulated in the past increases R&D productivity, if φ< 0, то освоенные в прошлом знания и технологии представляют собой «легкую добычу» и препятствуют производству новых идей.
Based on Romer's model, research in the field of national innovation systems, Porter's cluster model and the concept of three components of innovation potential, Furman, Porter and Stern proposed the following model for the production of new (for the world market) technologies:
j = 6ja (f ,YffS, ZffK)HAfJAh, (2)
where Aj,t is the flow of new (for the world market) technologies produced by country j in year t;
X .. - level of development of innovation infrastructure;
Yjt - degree of development of innovation clusters;
ZLLNK - the quality and strength of the connection between the innovation infrastructure in the country and its innovation clusters;
НХА] r - the general level of financial and human capital employed in the R&D sector;
Knowledge and technologies produced and accumulated to date in a given country, ensuring the production of new ideas in the future.
The model parameters X and φ are subject to empirical evaluation. To empirically estimate the parameters, the production function model (2) is translated into logarithmic form and one or another observable value is compared with each of the factors.
Since the focus of the study is technological innovation, it is proposed to use “international patenting” as a measure of newly produced technologies, which is measured as the number of patents issued by the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to innovators from the United States and other countries . Recognizing the imperfection of this indicator as a measure of the innovativeness of a country, M. Porter and his colleagues consider the receipt of a patent by a foreign applicant from the PTO as the achievement of a certain level of the applicant’s national innovation system. At the same time, an international patent is a guarantee of the high technological level of the proposed innovation. Since obtaining patents requires significant time (and financial) costs, the result of innovative activity in the year ^ is the number of patents received in the year ^ + 3.
To characterize the accumulated knowledge and technology, indicators such as GDP per capita and the total number of international patents received by residents of a given country over the entire observation period are used. To characterize capital H(, used in the production of knowledge, aggregated indicators of the number of workers of all categories employed in R&D and R&D expenditures are used. These indicators are attributed by the authors of the concept to the quality of innovation infrastructure along with such indicators as the level of openness of the national economy, legal protection of intellectual property , antimonopoly protection, state support for education.
The development of innovation clusters is characterized by internal business expenditures on R&D and the degree of specialization of national enterprises in a particular technological area. The degree of specialization is determined by the authors
according to the results of patent statistics using a formula that takes into account the ratio of the number of patents received by representatives of a given country in a certain area to the total number of patents received by a given country, as well as the concentration of patents in a given area in the total flow of patents received by all countries in a given year. This value indirectly characterizes the country’s specialization in a particular technological area. In turn, specialization can be considered as a consequence of the development of innovation clusters in a given country.
The quality of connections between innovation clusters and state innovation infrastructure is difficult to quantify. The authors of the considered methodology for assessing innovation potential propose to use indicators that reflect the transfer of knowledge and technology between the public and private sectors. Universities play a special role in the transfer of knowledge from science to business and back. They not only train future researchers to work in innovation clusters, but are often the centers of these clusters and carry out research commissioned by the private sector. Therefore, the share of R&D carried out at universities and other higher educational institutions was chosen as one of the quantitative characteristics. It should be noted, however, that higher education does not play such a special role in the transfer of knowledge in all countries.
Another quantitative characteristic is the availability of venture capital for the implementation of risky innovative projects. This value is determined based on the results of a survey of experts from the World Economic Forum on a ten-point Likert scale.
To assess innovation potential, sequential identification of regression equations is used, which allows one to estimate the weight of a particular element.
Stage 1. Identification of the main factor of innovative potential. The basic regression equation resulting from the Romer model (1) is estimated. Considering the number of international patents as an outcome variable, the following are taken as regressors: population size, number of people employed in R&D and the total number of patents (“accumulated knowledge”, and in an alternative specification the measure of accumulated knowledge is GDP per capita). results
Baseline regression estimates suggest that more than 90% of the differences between countries in the manifestation of innovative activity at the international level can be explained by differences in two main factors (when controlling for population size): the current ability to record innovations through obtaining international patents and the availability of those labor resources that are necessary for the production of new knowledge.
Stage 2. Determining the influence of additional factors characterizing the national innovation infrastructure. Expanded specifications of the production function model are estimated to include other components of the national innovation infrastructure, such as R&D and education expenditures, intellectual property protection, antitrust protection, and economic openness. The significance of a priori selected factors is determined.
Stage 3. Determining the influence of factors characterizing the development of innovation clusters and connections between the public and private sectors involved in the production of knowledge. At the last stage, the regression corresponding to the full equation for the production function (2) is estimated. The estimates obtained at this stage make it possible to determine the contribution of each element of innovation potential to the formation of the resulting function while controlling other variables. The results are tested for consistency with formal statistical tests and for robustness to alternative specifications and choice of estimation period.
Using data from 17 OECD countries for the period from 1973 to 1996 as an empirical basis for the study, M. Porter and his colleagues obtained a regression equation of the following form (one of the alternative specifications is given, only significant factors):
log(Patenth++3) = 0.909 log(GDP _ P) + +0.899 log(FTE _ SE,) + 0.251- log(R & D,) + +0.152 ED, + 0.196 IP + 0.068 Op + +0.014 R & D_PR, + 2.705 SPEC, + +0.008 R & D_UNIV, +^5t dtv R2 = 0.978, n = 347, (3)
where GDPP is GDP per capita; FTESE - number of researchers;
R&D - R&D costs;
ED - higher education expenditure as a share
IP - degree of intellectual property protection;
OP - degree of openness of the economy; R&DPR is the share of R&D expenditures financed by the private sector; SPEC - degree of specialization of a country; R&DUNIV is the share of R&D carried out in higher education institutions. The term ^ bt ■ dt, accounts for time fixed effects.
The estimated value of innovation potential is the calculated value of the number of “international” patents obtained from equation (3).
It should be noted that this method of assessing innovation potential, on the one hand, is supported by a theoretical foundation and a thorough analysis of empirical data, on the other hand, it has a number of disadvantages. Empirically derived estimates are based on data from the most industrialized countries. The possibility of their extrapolation to less developed countries (especially developing ones) requires careful analysis. Equation (3) also implicitly assumes that the coefficients of the factors are independent of time (time effects are associated only with the free coefficient). This assumption requires both theoretical justification and empirical testing.
The most significant objection is to the use of USPTO patents as the primary measure of innovation achievement. The United States is a leader in obtaining patents from this organization, which is not only the result of high innovative potential, but also a clear and accessible procedure for filing patent applications for innovators from this country.
Index assessment of innovative potential. Porter and Stern also proposed an index assessment of innovative potential (Innovative Capacity Index - ICI), based on the construction of four subindices, each of which characterizes one of the components of innovative potential. When selecting factors for constructing
When calculating subindices and determining the weights with which each of the selected factors is included in a particular subindex, estimates of regression equations similar to those discussed above (at stages 1 and 2) are used.
Based on the results of regression analysis (3), it can be argued that the availability of those labor resources that are necessary for the production of new knowledge is one of the main factors ensuring the effectiveness of innovation activities. Accordingly, based on the value of “the share of scientists and engineers in the total labor force,” Porter and Stern construct the first subindex to calculate the integral index value characterizing the national innovation potential. The remaining subindices are determined based on the step-by-step inclusion in the basic regression equation of factors characterizing a certain component of innovative potential. The factors used are the results of expert assessments recorded in the reports of the World Economic Forum.
To construct the “innovation policy” subindex, the following factors were used:
Effectiveness of intellectual property protection;
Creating conditions for researchers to work in order to avoid “brain drain”;
The size and availability of tax incentives for the private sector when spending funds on R&D.
These factors are scored from 1 to 10 on a Likert scale. After adding these factors to the basic regression equation, coefficients are determined, which are weights for constructing the second subindex.
The third subindex characterizes the innovation environment and includes factors such as:
Quality of domestic demand for innovation;
Supply of qualified research and development personnel;
The degree of distribution and specialization of clusters.
The fourth subindex characterizes the quality of connections between public institutions and enterprises and is based on the following factors:
Overall assessment of the quality of the national research system;
Availability of venture capital for risky innovation projects.
The integral index of innovation potential is defined as a simple sum of four subindices.
Based on the results of the assessment of subindices and the resulting integral assessment of innovation potential, conducted by M. Porter and his colleagues in 2001 for the World Economic Forum, 71 countries were ranked. The United States of America took a leading position, the top ten included the most industrially developed countries, Russia took 30th position.
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2011. Monitoring the state of the innovation sector is carried out in the countries of the European Union using a unified methodology, which is being developed under the leadership of the EU Commission for Innovative Development (ProInnoEurope). Until 2010, indicators of innovation activity were combined and published in the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS). The composition of indicators characterizing innovative development and the methodology for their calculation were constantly adjusted in order to more fully reflect one or another direction of innovative development and conduct a more correct cross-country comparison.
After the adoption of the innovation development strategy of the European Union, one of the key points of which is the transition to the Innovation Union, the methodology for assessing indicators in 2010 underwent significant changes. As a result, 25 indicators were developed that characterize both the opportunities for innovative activities and the results recorded to date. These indicators are combined into the EU Innovation Scoreboard. 24 indicators are currently observable, the 25th indicator is proposed for monitoring in the future. Two reports were released using the new methodology - IUS 2010 and IUS 2011.
To determine the level of innovation, IUS operates with 3 main types of indicators, which are divided into 8 innovation dimensions and include 25 basic indicators. The three main types of innovation indicators are: 1) capabilities; 2) activities of enterprises; 3) resulting indicators.
Possibilities. This type includes the main drivers of innovative activity,
that are external to the firm, grouped into three dimensions.
The first dimension is “Human Resources”. It includes three indicators that assess the availability of highly qualified and educated labor resources. They measure the supply of new researchers in all fields of knowledge, the supply of highly skilled labor, and the skill level of young people aged 20 to 24 years.
The second dimension is “Openness, quality and attractiveness of the research system”, it includes three indicators that measure the competitiveness of the national research system. “Number of scientific publications with at least one co-author from abroad” and “Proportion of scientific publications among the 10% most cited publications in the world” are proxy variables to characterize the quality and efficiency of the national research system. An indicator such as “Proportion of graduate students from foreign countries” reflects student mobility, which is one of the effective ways to disseminate knowledge, as well as the prestige of a national research school.
The third dimension - "Finance and support" includes two indicators. They measure the availability of financial support for innovation projects (“Venture capital as a percentage of GDP”) and the level of government support for research and innovation (“Public sector R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP”).
Activities of the enterprise. This group of indicators assesses innovation activity at the firm level along three dimensions.
The first dimension - “Enterprise investments” includes 2 indicators: R&D expenses and innovation expenses other than R&D. The first indicator reflects the creation of new knowledge in the business sector. It is especially important for knowledge-based sectors of the economy, where a new product is the result of research and development. The second indicator reflects the costs of purchasing machinery and equipment, patents and licenses, which can be considered as innovation costs, because they contribute to the dissemination of new technologies and knowledge.
The second dimension - “Connections and Entrepreneurship” includes 3 indicators and measures
the effect of entrepreneurship, and the degree of cooperation between innovative firms and between the private and public sectors. An indicator such as “The share of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) carrying out internal innovation” measures the involvement of small and medium-sized enterprises in innovation activities, which is an important indicator of the degree of innovative activity of a business. Large enterprises, as a rule, are innovators. This dimension also includes indicators characterizing the degree of cooperation between SMEs and public sector enterprises, as well as the level of cooperation between the public and private sectors in conducting scientific research.
The third dimension is “Intellectual Assets”. The activities of an enterprise, including forms of intellectual property obtained by the company in the process of innovation. This includes international patents, particularly in the field of solving public problems, as well as applications for registration of new trademarks and designs. The latter indicators are the most important for the service sector, which today is experiencing a high growth in innovation activity.
Output indicators measure the effect of innovative activity and are decomposed into two dimensions. Measurement<Инноваторы» включает три индикатора: «Доля предприятий МСБ, осуществляющие инновации, как технологические, так и нетехнологические, на одном из своих рынков»; «Доля предприятий МСБ, осуществляющих маркетинговые и организационные инновации на одном из своих рынков», наличие фирм с высокими темпами роста. Инновационные фирмы с высокими темпами роста - новый индикатор, являющийся ключевым для стратегии Еи 2020, измерения этого показателя в 2010 и 2011 отсутствуют.
The Economic Impact dimension includes 5 indicators measuring employment, exports and sales as a result of innovation activity. “Export of medium- and high-tech goods” is a traditional indicator of the competitiveness of enterprises on the world market, which is supplemented in the EU Innovation Board with such an indicator as “Export of knowledge-intensive services.” The indicator “Volume of innovative goods as a percentage of turnover” reflects both the process of creating new technologies and their
spreading. The resulting indicators of innovation activity according to the IUS 2011 methodology also include “Employment in knowledge-intensive fields as a percentage of total employment” and “Royalties and license payments received from abroad as a percentage of GDP.”
The assessment of the level of innovative development of each country is carried out as a result of calculating the synthetic indicator “resulting innovation index” (Summary Innovation Index). Its calculation is carried out according to the following method.
Stage 1. Processing of primary data. This stage includes: identification and replacement of emissions; setting a base year for each indicator depending on the availability of data for that indicator for most countries (minimum 75% of countries); processing gaps in data; determining the maximum and minimum for each indicator.
Stage 2. Data transformation. Most indicators are relative indicators and take values from 0 to 100%. However, some do not have an upper bound, can be very volatile and distort the distribution of data (this is typical for indicators such as “Number of doctoral students from non-European countries”, “Venture capital”, “International patents (PCT patents) in the field of social problems" and “Income from licenses and patents received from abroad”). Such indicators are transformed by taking the square root to obtain a more symmetric distribution.
Stage 3. Normalization of indicators. Basic indicators Xijl (index i numbers the type, index j - innovative dimension (group), index l - number of the indicator within the group) are converted to a unified (normalized) form Xij _ U in accordance with the type of dependence of the indicator with a synthetic indicator. Normalization means bringing basic variables that have different dimensions to a dimensionless form. In this case, the minimum value of the normalized indicator is 0, and the maximum is 1. Due to the fact that the growth of any of the indicators used in IUS 2011 is interpreted as an increase in innovative activity, the basic indicators are associated with a synthetic monotonically increasing dependence, in which
max(Xijl) - min(Xijl)
where the maximum and minimum are taken to be the highest and, accordingly, the lowest values of the indicator for all observation periods for all countries, excluding emission points.
Stage 4. Calculation of the resulting indicator. The resulting indicator for each year of observation is calculated as a simple average of all normalized indicators.
Note that the methodology for calculating the integral indicator used in Ш8 2011 differs from the methods previously used in European Innovation Scoreboards. In particular, it should be noted that the result of normalization of baseline indicators now depends on the sample (on the number of countries and the number of years of observation). This makes the values obtained in 2011 inconsistent with the values obtained in 2010 and earlier periods. However, this is not a significant drawback, since, firstly, as the observation period expands, all previous values of the resulting indicator are recalculated, and secondly, it is not the value of the indicator itself for any country that is important, but its relative value compared to Ei 27 or global competitors.
To analyze various aspects of innovative development, synthetic indicators of the second level are calculated for each of the eight innovation dimensions. The second level indicator is calculated as the average value of all normalized indicators included in this innovation dimension.
Based on the results of assessing innovation activity, 27 EU member countries are divided into 4 groups: 1) innovative leaders; 2) innovative followers; 3) moderate innovators; 4) catching up innovators (see figure). Innovative leaders have indicators that are more than 20% higher than the European average. Innovative leaders in 2011 included countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Finland1. These countries are innovative leaders throughout the entire observation period.
A group of countries classified as innovative followers have close to average European indicators: Belgium, Great Britain, the Netherlands.
1 It should be noted that the 2011 indicator is based on primary data from 2009-2010. and may not reflect recent changes related to the impact of the financial and economic crisis or adjustments in government policies in a particular country.
Leaders Followers Moderate Catching up
Innovative development indicators for 4 groups of EU countries according to 8 dimensions:
1 - research system; 2 - finance and support; 3 - investments of enterprises; 4 - connections and entrepreneurship; 5 - intellectual assets;
6 - innovators; 7 - economic effect;
8 - human resources
lands, Austria, Luxembourg, Ireland, France, Slovenia, Cyprus and Estonia. The same composition of the group of innovative followers (with the exception of Luxembourg, which, according to the results of 2010, was part of the leading group) was in 2010. But earlier, countries such as Estonia and Slovenia belonged to groups with lower indicators of innovation. The indicators of moderate innovators are more than 10% lower than the European average (but not lower than 50%): Italy, Portugal, Czech Republic, Spain, Hungary, Greece, Malta, Slovakia and Poland based on the results of 2011. The lowest indicators (lower than 50% of the European average) are Romania, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Latvia, which belong to the “catching up” group.
Innovative leaders have the best performance in all innovation dimensions. As can be seen, their superiority is recorded to the greatest extent in the following dimensions: “Intellectual Property”, “Enterprise Investments”, “Financing and Support”. For innovative followers, the indicators of the dimension “Human Resources and Research System” have the greatest values, and “Enterprise Investments” have the lowest value. Moderate and catching up innovators are close in terms of the indicators “Human Resources” and “Enterprise Investments”, however, in the countries of the catching up group the level of entrepreneurship and the share of innovators in small and medium businesses are rated low.
Measuring innovation potential
Innovation potential is an aggregated characteristic of a region that can be measured by a large number of indicators. Such indicators are usually divided into groups of factors. Due to the fact that innovation potential, in its essence, is a reflection of the capabilities and activities of the region, this indicator is characterized, first of all, by factors of intellectual capital, investment activity, macroeconomic indicators, innovation infrastructure, and geolocation differences.
Empirical work on measuring the innovative potential of regions is divided into two blocks. The first block presents authors who measure potential by many factors and, as a rule, build a rating by presenting potential as an aggregate indicator. The second block of research is devoted to the search for significant factors and assessment of the impact of indicators on innovation potential.
As a generalization, four main methodologies for measuring and studying innovative potential were identified: integral indices, matrix methods, cluster analysis (Maskaikin, Artzer, 2009) and regression analysis. For this work, the first and last methods are the most interesting, since they are most widely used by researchers, despite the fact that each method has its own advantages and disadvantages.
Aggregated index of innovation potential
The first group of methods - the most common - is the construction of integral indices. As mentioned in the previous subsection, innovation potential is an aggregate indicator that includes many factors. In order to take them into account, it is necessary to understand which groups of factors to include, which indicators of each group most fully reveal the concept of potential, and with what weights to include them. Research in this section is divided into works that study innovation potential across regions, and works that study cross-country differences.
Thus, building an index comes down to four steps:
1) Groups of indicators and corresponding factors are determined.
2) Group indices are calculated using the weights of each variable based on the chosen method.
3) A regional innovation index is being formed.
The method of constructing an index as an aggregate indicator for regions was used in their article (A.A. Bykova, M.A. Molodchik (2007)) to assess the investment potential of the regions. When constructing the innovation potential index, the region's R&D costs were taken as the main component.
level or number of innovation-active enterprises; volume of innovative products; investment in fixed capital per capita; costs of technological innovation; number of personnel engaged in research and development; number of students; GRP per capita, etc.
Terebova and Vyacheslavova (2011). To assess the innovation climate, the authors take 3 groups of indicators:
1) Indicators at the input of the innovation system: financing, human resources. This group includes such indicators as R&D costs (% of GRP), internal costs of R&D by funding sources (%), costs of technological innovation, as a percentage of GDP (GRP), personnel engaged in research and development (by category ), the share of personnel performing research and development in the total number of people employed in the economy (in %), the number of graduate students and doctoral students per 100 thousand population.
2) Indicators within the innovation system: institutional conditions. Includes the number of personal computers per 100 employees, Internal research and development costs per R&D employee, internal R&D costs per researcher, average monthly wages per R&D employee, the ratio between the average monthly wages of R&D personnel and the average wages in the economy.
3) Output performance indicators of the innovation system: number of scientific inventions, etc. Receipt of patent applications and issuance of certificates for utility models, the share of innovative products in the total volume of shipped products, the share of shipped innovative products in GRP (GDP).
Similar studies in the field of determining the factors of the innovation system are carried out by Edquist (2001), who highlights not only the technological, intellectual, organizational and financial components, but also the consulting and market aspects in the field of innovation. The market and consumers are also discussed in detail by Sundbo (2002).
Many authors identify the group of intellectual capital in the study of innovation potential. Intellectual capital includes human capital, relational and structural capital. Human capital is partially taken into account in research using indicators of the number of students, graduate students, and the working population. However, it is worth emphasizing this separately and identifying a separate group for these indicators, since, according to research, they largely determine innovation potential.
Human resource and human capital management has long occupied a central place in Western systems for the development of innovation in companies and regions. The trends are described in detail in the works of Schultz (1961), Mescon et al. (1994), Becker (1967), Dyatlov (1996), Armstrong (2004), Tripon and Blaga (2011) and others. It is the educational potential that, for the most part, is devoted to the works of Peters and Pikkemaat (2006), Ottenbacher and Gnoth (2005), Ottenbacher et al. (2006).
Jitz's (2000) article highlights human resources and educational capabilities and also places emphasis on the consumer sector. The author defines innovation potential as a system of providing resources in order for the system to function actively at the international level, and cross-country comparison analysis can be applied. The innovation system, according to Jitz, includes 4 indicators:
1) Technical scientific potential.
2) Educational potential.
3) Investment potential.
4) Potential of the consumer sector.
Technological capability is the basis of innovation capability and combines all four indicators into one, which relates to invention, craftsmanship and technology distribution.
Thus, the basis for the study is the classification of innovative potential, according to the Jitz system. The author notes that innovative potential includes 5 main elements:
1) Human resources: the number and qualifications of employees, their level of education, creative abilities, experience, knowledge of advanced technologies, ambitions for further training, readiness to develop and implement new technologies and an open mind for innovation.
2) Institutional environment: the number of organizations that provide key technology specialists, their status, belonging to a specific department, etc. The same information about key consumers of these technologies.
3) Investments and financing: the amount of investment in technology development in a certain period of time, the volume and structure of financial resources for investment in technology, available equipment, materials, gadgets, computers, etc.
4) Organizational element and management: mechanisms for controlling the development and transfer of technology, protection of intellectual property rights.
Rice. 1.
5) Consolidated indicators: development of the region in terms of technology exchange, share of innovative products in the region’s GDP, etc.
An article by Stepan Zemtsov (2010) addresses the problem of insufficient innovative development of the northern regions of Russia. The author notes that using one indicator for innovative potential is incorrect. Based on the methodology of R. Florida and A. Pilyasov, Zemtsov uses the following indicators:
1) Talent: human capital (percentage of employed people with higher education) and scientific talent (number of scientists per 1 million inhabitants).
2) Technologies: scientific investments (share of R&D costs in GDP) and patent activity (number of patents per 1 million inhabitants).
3) Tolerance (share of households with different nationalities) and international attractiveness (percentage of migrants to Russia as a percentage of the total number of visitors; number of migrants per 1 million inhabitants).
In order to bring the indicators into a single form, the author carries out normalization. Then, based on the principal component method, it determines the necessary indicators: economic and geographical location, the percentage of residents in cities with a population of more than 200 thousand people, the percentage of people with higher education, the number of students per 10 thousand people, the percentage of people employed in the R&D sector, the percentage of companies with website, the number of registered patents per 1000 employed people. These indicators are normalized and form one integral index of innovation potential.
An important group of innovation climate indicators is the geolocation of regions. According to Rosstat, innovations and technologies are concentrated more in the central part of the Russian Federation. In remote areas, there is sometimes no possibility of rapid diffusion of new technologies and, accordingly, innovative development. It is the localization of technologies that is addressed in the works of Rodriguez-Pose and Crescenzi (2011), Sonn and Storper (2005), Charlot and Duranton, (2006), Iammarino and McCann (2006). In addition, there is also a spatial aspect of innovative development of regions (Ceh, 2001).
Determining the factors of innovation potential is also considered in a cross-country context. Similar works include: Andersen, Lundvall, & Sorrn-Friese, 2002; Edquist, 1997; Freeman, 1997; Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1993), studying national systems of innovative development. The work of Archibugi (2004) to construct a single indicator of the innovative potential of countries includes factors such as patents, scientific articles, Internet penetration rate, telephony penetration rate, electricity consumption, applicants for engineering and applied specialties, number of years of education, literacy level, which form three groups indicators: technology creation, technological infrastructure, skills development.
The article by Kachitsyna and Berkovich (2014) focuses on innovation infrastructure in the development process of countries. The paper describes the current situation of the innovation structure in Russia and the results of a reassessment of the situation. The authors use various methods for assessing the development of innovation infrastructure by region. In addition, the assessment results provide recommended assessment indicators that are more detailed and comprehensive than previous studies. They include:
1) The number of cities in the technology park (zone): the number of patents and licenses in the region, the number of experimental developments, new knowledge that can be formed into a commercial product.
2) Investment venture innovation fund.
3) Non-state innovation funds: financing of innovation by credit banks, non-state pension funds and insurance companies financing innovation.
4) Support of innovative activity with data and expert advice: the volume of consulting, auditing, information, analytical and other services provided by all objects of innovation infrastructure.
5) Number of people (human resources) for innovation activity: people engaged in scientific, consulting, information and other activities associated with organizing and supporting innovation activity and providing analysis and verification of innovative projects.
Thus, studies related to the construction of a unified index of innovation potential distinguish the following groups of this indicator: technological potential, infrastructure, social conditions, intellectual capital, investment potential, economic well-being. When constructing indexes, it is necessary to weigh the indicators. First, the weights can be equal if the authors assume equal contribution from each variable in the group. However, the most common method is to find weights using principal component analysis.
In modern conditions, the success of an enterprise is largely determined by its innovative potential and activity, which characterize the enterprise’s ability to carry out innovative activities. To do this, it is necessary to quantify both the innovative potential and the innovative activity of the enterprise.
Under the innovative potential of the enterprise (IP) we will understand the set of characteristics that determine its ability to carry out activities to create and practically use innovations.
The main elements of IP are various types of innovation resources (IR), which include:
- financial resources;
- material and technical resources;
- human resources and intellectual resources;
- organizational and managerial resources.
To successfully implement innovative processes, an enterprise must have:
- 1. A sufficient amount of funds to finance innovation activities. Sources and forms of financing depend on the overall financial condition of the enterprise, previously achieved innovative results, the chosen innovative development strategy and other factors.
- 2. An appropriate progressive material and technical base for the development and subsequent production of innovations, the basis of which is a high-tech level of production.
- 3. Necessary human and intellectual resources, including:
- highly qualified creative personnel capable of generating and implementing new ideas and solutions;
- if necessary, backlog of unfinished research and development work;
- intangible assets in the form of inventions, patents, know-how, documents, etc.
- 4. An organizational structure and management system that corresponds to the goals of the enterprise's innovation policy. The use of existing organizational and managerial resources should be aimed at reducing bureaucratic obstacles to the introduction of innovations and stimulating the development of the company's innovative activities.
The innovative potential of an enterprise is closely interconnected with the concept of “innovation activity” (IA), which should be understood as the intensity of innovative transformations in the enterprise. It is always considered as a relative characteristic of innovation activity and is determined by the growth of innovation potential over time, i.e. dynamics of relative indicators of innovation activity.
The intensity of an enterprise’s innovation activity is influenced by a number of factors, the most important of which include:
- corporate culture capable of perceiving and adapting to the implementation of innovative activities by the enterprise;
- receptivity and management support for changes associated with the flow of innovative processes in the enterprise;
- dependence of innovation activity on the size of the enterprise. Thus, small and medium-sized enterprises have greater IA, which is explained by their significant flexibility and ability to quickly respond to changes in the market situation.
In general terms, the innovative potential of a small enterprise can be defined as follows:
Where X.- the value of the /"-th indicator; a j- weighting coefficient of significance of the i-th indicator; P- number of analyzed indicators.
The number of indicators required to calculate the IP is determined by the required accuracy and goals of the calculations, the capabilities of analysts, the availability of information, the timing of solving the problem, etc. The accuracy of quantitative estimates of IP depends on the correct choice of indicators, rational distribution of weighting coefficients and other factors.
To measure IP, various units are used: points, dimensionless form, percentages. For example, innovation potential can be assessed as:
- high (9-10 points);
- average (6-8 points);
- low (no more than 5 points).
Thus, an enterprise with a high level of innovative potential is characterized by:
- constant updating of the range of products, production capacities, technologies;
- using various types of innovations (product, technological, information, organizational and managerial, environmental, etc.);
- effective research and development work, as well as the presence of a backlog in the form of research and development, the presence of a powerful production base;
- high professional level of staff.
Thus, determining the innovative potential of a small enterprise may consist of the following stages:
- 1. Development of indicators that most objectively characterize the innovative potential of a given specific enterprise.
- 2. Selection of 5-10 indicators for calculating IP.
- 3. Translation of selected indicators from natural units of measurement into conditional points. For this purpose, a 10-point or other rating scale can be adopted.
In table 6.1 provides approximate estimated indicators and their standard values used to calculate individual entrepreneurs of an enterprise with up to 100 people.
Table 6.1
Approximate assessment indicators and their standard values for determining the innovative potential of a small enterprise
|
Indicators |
Rating (level) |
|||
|
Number of new products introduced per year, pcs. |
||||
|
Number of new technological processes introduced per year, pcs. |
||||
|
Share of new construction materials, % |
||||
|
Share of new equipment introduced,% |
||||
|
Share of new computer programs in management, % |
||||
|
Level of use of information technology in management, % |
||||
|
Equipment Progressivity Coefficient |
||||
|
Factor of mechanization and automation of production |
||||
|
Progressivity coefficient of technological processes |
||||
|
Professional qualification level of personnel, points |
||||
|
Number of innovations issued per year in the form of inventions, patents, innovation proposals, etc., pcs. |
||||
|
Share of costs for developing innovations, % |
||||
4. Determining the priority of the indicators used for calculating the IP (determining the weighting coefficients of significance). Significance weights (A) according to indicators can be determined expertly, based on the condition:
5. Calculation and analysis of IP.
As for the innovative activity of an enterprise, various ways of assessing it are possible. Most often, methods of parametric indices are used for this, as well as assessments of the increase in innovative potential and other methods. Let's look at some of them.
In the case of assessing innovative activity using parametric indices, it can be calculated as follows:
Where P j- a parametric index characterizing the change in the innovative potential of the enterprise according to the i-th indicator.
In turn, the parametric index:
Where 
- /th indicator characterizing the enterprise’s individual entrepreneur
respectively in the current and base periods.
The index value can be interpreted as follows:
- R. > 1 - increase in the innovative activity of the enterprise in the current period relative to the base;
- R.= 1 - the innovative activity of the enterprise in the current period relative to the base period remained at the same level, i.e. the enterprise has stabilized its innovative potential;
- P j the enterprise in the current period has reduced the level of its innovative activity.
In the case of assessing innovation activity by the increase in innovation potential, it can be calculated as follows: 
where IP current, IP base - the value of innovation potential in the current and base periods, respectively.
The value of the average annual increase in IP can be interpreted as follows:
- average annual growth of IP
- average annual growth of IP = 10-30%, the enterprise is stably innovative and active;
- average annual increase in IP > 30%, the enterprise is highly innovative and active.
Determining the innovative activity of a small enterprise using parametric indices may consist of the following stages.
- 1. Determination of the necessary and sufficient number of indicators characterizing the individual entrepreneur in the current and base periods.
- 2. Determining the priority of the indicators used to assess IP and IA ( a.).
- 3. Calculation of parametric indices characterizing the change in IP according to the i-th indicator (R.).
- 4. Calculation and analysis of enterprise intelligence.
ANALYSIS OF METHODS FOR ASSESSING THE INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGICAL POTENTIAL OF REGIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF DYNAMIC ABILITIES OF TERRITORIAL-INDUSTRY COMPLEXES
Fedotova Anna Yurievna
Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education "Southern Federal University"
Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Management and Innovative Technologies
annotation
Currently, achieving a leading position in the global economy is possible with dynamic capabilities. Due to which, competitive advantages are formed that ensure high innovative and technological development. Based on an analysis of existing methods for assessing innovative and technological development, a system of indicators was developed that will help identify imbalances in the development of territorial and industrial complexes.
THE ANALYSIS OF TECHNIQUES OF ASSESSMENT OF INNOVATIVE AND TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITY OF REGIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DEVELOPMENT OF DYNAMIC ABILITIES OF TERRITORIAL-BRANCH COMPLEXES
Fedotova Anna Yrevna
Southern Federal University
Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate professor of management and innovative technologies
Abstract
Now achievement of the leading positions in scales to world economy is possible with dynamic abilities. At the expense of which, the competitive advantages providing high innovative and technological development are formed. On the basis of the analysis of the existing techniques of assessment of innovative and technological development the system of indicators which will allow to reveal disproportions in development of territorial-branch complexes was developed.
Bibliographic link to the article:
Fedotova A.Yu. Analysis of methods for assessing the innovative and technological potential of regions in the context of the development of dynamic abilities of territorial-industrial complexes // Modern scientific research and innovation. 2016. No. 10 [Electronic resource]..03.2019).
THE PUBLICATION WAS PREPARED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF SCIENTIFIC PROJECT No. 15-02-00344 SUPPORTED BY RFSF “MODELING PROCESSES OF REINDUSTRIALIZATION OF TERRITORIAL-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES IN THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE ECONOMIC-GEOGRAPHICAL SPACE OF RUSSIA”
Currently, the world and Russia are undergoing a transition to a new technological structure. The factors that determine technological development, their organization and significance are changing. The key factor determining the socio-economic development of the economy is the level of development of technology. The development of innovation infrastructure will allow enterprises and organizations to create high-tech products that are competitive in world markets, thereby facilitating the transition from a resource-based economy to an innovative economy. The development of innovation opens up new business opportunities for enterprises, which, thanks to the free movement of labor, information, capital, are associated with the availability of all types of resources. Accordingly, in the context of increasing global competition, the need to quickly respond to external changes that ensure the transition to a qualitatively new level of development means for an enterprise an increase in their dynamic capabilities. The development of dynamic capabilities implies the use of the enterprise's potential to create, integrate and reconfigure the enterprise's key competencies to respond as quickly as possible to changes in external operating conditions. Since it is no longer enough to simply create a high-quality product, but it is necessary to create competitive advantages, dynamic capabilities unique to each company in an industry or region come to the fore in the process of forming competitive advantages of enterprises, regions and the national economy, since they are focused on the formation and maintenance of competitiveness taking into account future changes in the external environment.
To determine the level of regional imbalances and the potential for technological development in a regional context, in order to form and develop the necessary dynamic capabilities that will allow the formation of the necessary competitive advantages for the transition to a new level of development, it is advisable to assess the current innovative and technological situation of the regions of the Russian Federation. To assess the scientific, technological and innovative potential in foreign and domestic practice, the following methods are used. Innovation index developed by The Boston Consulting Group which includes two groups of indicators: innovation costs and innovation efficiency. When assessing innovation costs, the following is assessed: fiscal policy, including the level of taxation, government funding and tax incentives for R&D; policy in the field of education, innovation infrastructure. The effectiveness of innovation is assessed by the number of patents, business activity, exports of high-tech goods, labor productivity, as well as the impact of innovation, employment growth, investment, and economic growth. This methodology is largely designed to compare the level of development of different countries, which does not make it possible to assess the innovative potential of enterprises and industries. In addition, this model was developed by developed countries and is focused on a high level of innovative development, without taking into account factors and parameters characteristic of countries with developing economies. Of interest is the methodology proposed by the Japanese government and based on the analysis of indicators reflecting the level of use of scientific and technical potential and resource capabilities. In particular, this method should be used to evaluate
the number of patents registered both within the country and abroad, the volume of exports of technologies, high-tech products and technologies sold abroad, as well as the level of national spending on scientific research and the number of people employed in the scientific and technical field. After carrying out mathematical transformations, the results are presented in the form of eight-rayed stars. The octagon thus obtained reflects the integral characteristic of scientific and technical potential, and it is possible to evaluate both the power of scientific and technical potential (this is the area of the figure) and the contribution of individual components (the area of the figures for different countries). This allows us to identify the orientation of national potential and the contribution of individual components to the total indicator. The advantage of this technique is the simplicity of calculations, the availability of initial data, and the clarity of the results obtained. However, the application of this methodology at the regional level is difficult due to the lack of data for calculating the integral indicator. The innovative potential and technological development of a territory can also be assessed on the basis of the European Innovation Scoreboard Index or European Innovative Scoreboard. This index is formed on the basis of the blocks schematically presented in Fig. 1.
Rice. 1. European Innovative Scoreboard methodology
In the presented scheme, capabilities mean everything that forms the basis of the innovation process, without which innovation will not take place. To carry out the innovation process, investments, an intellectual basis, and relationships with innovative partners are required. Consolidation of efforts and resources will result in an economic effect. The disadvantage of this methodology is the impossibility of assessing absolute indicators of innovation activity, such as the volume of innovative products, the number of introduced innovations, the share of innovative products in the total volume of manufactured products, etc.
The World Bank also offers its own methodology for calculating innovation potential, which is based on calculating the knowledge economy index. To calculate it, you need to calculate the arithmetic mean of three components: the innovation system, education and human potential, information infrastructure, in order to then derive a general knowledge index for each object in the group. The innovation system is characterized by the number of organizations performing research and development, the number of innovatively active enterprises, internal costs for research and development, the number of patents and other indicators characterizing the state of the innovation system. Educational and human potential is characterized by quantitative indicators of educational institutions at all levels, the number of higher education students, the number of people with higher education in the total number, and investments in education. Information infrastructure is assessed by quantitative indicators of the information and communication technology sector, such as the number of personal computers, costs of purchasing software, etc. As a result, a rating is compiled in which the object with the maximum index occupies the leading value. The ease of use and clarity of the results determine the popularity of this method; however, it is difficult to assess the scientific and technical capabilities and effectiveness of technological development of the regions. Also interesting is the methodology for rating regions according to the level of their innovative development developed by A.B. Gusev, which includes two groups of factors. Factors of innovative receptivity of regions and factors of innovative activity of regions. The advantage of this methodology is a clear reflection of the efficiency and effectiveness of innovation activities. The analysis shows that today there are a sufficient number of methods for assessing the innovative potential of territories from different positions in accordance with given goals.
The changing nature of technological development is reflected in the fact that at the moment the key factor is the location of high-tech activities according to the availability of appropriate conditions and opportunities in the territory. If we assume that the basis for the innovative development of regions is the activity of high-tech industries on its territory, then clustering processes should be considered as the most promising direction of development. The development of high-tech enterprises in the region will ensure a synergistic effect through the interaction of cluster participants. Thus, the problems of resource provision, investment and more efficient use of the dynamic capabilities of enterprises included in the cluster are solved and the achievement of multiplicative effects is ensured.
Analysis of most of the considered methods for assessing innovative and scientific-technological potential made it possible to create a system of indicators for assessing territorial-industrial sets in order to identify dynamic abilities and technological capabilities (Table 1).
Table 1. System of indicators for assessing the activities of TOK
| Group of indicators | Indicators |
| 1.Region specialization | Localization coefficient |
| 2.Human capital | The share of the population with higher education employed in the regional economy. Proportion of the population covered by all forms of lifelong learning. Labor productivity Number of researchers with an academic degree per 1000 population Employment in the manufacturing sector Share of the average number of employees involved in the field of research and development |
| 3.Technological potential | Group 1. Efficiency of use of the involved fixed production assets return on assets renewal rate degree of depreciation of fixed assets Group 2. Enterprises carrying out technological innovations in industries the share of industrial enterprises carrying out technological innovations in the industry; the share of industrial enterprises with research and development departments; the share of industrial enterprises developing technological innovations on their own; Group 3. Costs of technological innovation The share of expenses of industrial enterprises in the industry on technological innovations; The share of costs for innovation in the volume of shipped goods of innovation-active industrial enterprises carrying out technological innovations; The share of foreign investment attributable to technological innovation in the industry. |
| 4.Innovation potential | Innovation activity Number of patents issued ICT costs |
To form competitive advantages, certain technological capabilities, the necessary human capital, a certain level of innovative development, as well as the specialization of the region’s industries, which determines the availability of resources, are required. Therefore, the developed system of indicators consists of 4 blocks that reflect the effectiveness of the innovation activity of the region in which TOK operates, both from the point of view of the process and from the point of view of the result. Based on primary statistical information, the level of technological, human and innovative potential of the region is assessed, the dominant industries are determined based on the localization coefficient, and the effectiveness of innovation activity is determined. In the future, with the help of factor analysis, the most significant indicators will be determined, allowing them to be defined as criteria for the spatial poles of technological development.