Evaluation of the effectiveness of innovation activity. Innovation Performance Indicators

Various schools of managerial thought developed and gained popularity. First appeared schoolscientific management. Its heyday was at the end of the 19th - the first two decades of the 20th century. Later, in the 1920s and 1950s, it developed administrative school, and in parallel with it in 30 - 50 years - school of human relations". Since the middle of the 20th century, behavioral sciences and a quantitative approach to management have been developing. The indicated chronology is very arbitrary, since the schools listed have adopted a lot from each other in matters of theory and practice, and in each of them there are elements of other theories.

The formation of the school of scientific management is associated with the works of F.U. Taylor "Management of a Factory" (1903), "Principles of Scientific Management" (1911), "Deposition before a Special Committee of Congress" (1912). F. and L. Gilbrett invented a device called a microchronometer, it was used in combination with a movie camera in order to determine exactly what movements are performed during certain operations and how long each of them takes. G. Gantt developed a kind of schedule, which reflected the temporal relationships between the sections of the production program and the progress of the task. It formed the basis for the operational planning of the production process, as well as the network planning models that were developed later. Just as technological operations are divided into elements, Gantt rightly believed, management operations should also be divided.

F. W. Taylor proposed to abandon the forms of management generally accepted in his time, based only on personal experience and knowledge, and called for a transition to the "condensation" of the mass of traditional knowledge, bringing them into a single science by classifying, systematizing and bringing them to general rules, formulas, laws. Taylor for the first time tried to decompose into its constituent elements not only physical labor, but also the organization of production.

The School of Scientific Management has played a large role in rationalizing and stimulating production at the enterprise level. Its ideas and principles do not lose their significance to this day, namely:

1. Using analysis to determine the best ways to organize work.

2. Selection of workers and their training.

3. Provision of resources.

4. Financial incentives.

5. Work planning.

6. Rationalization.

7. Rationing.

8. Division of labor.

The administrative or classical school of management (1920-1950) is associated with the names of A. Fayol, X. Emerson, L. Urvik and L. Gyulik, M. Weber and others.

Henri Fayol (1841-1925) stood at the origins of the classical theory of management. He paid the main attention to personnel management, especially administrative personnel. He noted that to manage means to lead an enterprise towards its goal, extracting the maximum opportunities from all available resources. Fayol reduced the work of the enterprise to the following types of activities: technical (technological process), commercial (purchase, sale, exchange), financial (money resources and their effective use), protective (protection of property and personality), accounting (inventory, statistics), administrative (impact on workers).

To manage "fayol" means:

1. Anticipate - study the future and set a program of action.

2. To organize - to build a double organism of the enterprise, material and social.

3. Dispose - to put into action the personnel of the enterprise.

4. Coordinate - connect and unite, combine all actions and efforts.

5. Supervise - to see that everything happens according to the established rules and standard orders.

This classification of functions still underlies the science of management.

The basis of the "administrative theory" of A. Fayol is formed by the famous 14 principles, which, according to the author, apply to all areas of administrative activity without exception:

Division of Labor - Increases productivity by simplifying the tasks each worker performs.

Power and responsibility. Power is the right to give orders. Power is inconceivable without responsibility. Wherever there is power, there is responsibility.

3. Discipline. Its essence lies in the strict implementation of organizational rules and instructions.

Unity of command An employee may be given instructions regarding any action by one superior.

Unity of leadership. One leader and one program for a set of operations pursuing the same goal.

Subordination of private interests to the general. The interests of employees or a group of employees should not be higher than the interests of the enterprise.

Reward. This is payment for work done. It must be fair and satisfy the enterprise.

degree of centralization. The issue of centralization and decentralization is a matter of measure. It comes down to finding the degree of centralization that is most favorable for the enterprise.

9. Hierarchy of leaders. This is a series of leadership positions from the lowest to the highest.

Order. A certain place for each person and each person in his place.

Justice. It is the result of a combination of benevolence with justice.

The constancy of the composition of the staff. When change is kept to a minimum, especially at the managerial level, the enterprise is more likely to operate successfully.

Initiative. It is the freedom to propose and implement it.

Staff unity. There is no need to separate staff. Dividing the forces of your own enterprise is a grave mistake.

These principles have not lost their significance in our time.

A. Fayol attached exceptional importance to "staff work". "Headquarters", in his opinion, should be an organ of thinking, studying, observing, and its main function is to prepare for the future by administrative influence and to identify possible improvements. His main ideas are set forth in the book General and Industrial Management, published in 1916.

The follower of the ideas of A. Fayol was the mechanical engineer X. Emerson, the pinnacle of his research is the principles of productivity he formulated. His book "The Twelve Principles of Productivity", published in 1911, received worldwide fame. He raised the question of the scientific organization of management not only of an individual enterprise, but also of all sectors of the country's economy.

Emerson's twelve principles are:

1. correctly chosen and clearly defined ideals or goals;

competent advice;

common sense;

discipline;

fair treatment of staff;

fast, complete, accurate and permanent accounting;

dispatching as a way to avoid mistakes in the future;

norms and schedules;

normalization of conditions;

10. normalization of operations;

11. written standard instructions;

12. reward for performance.

Speaking about the role of these principles, he noted that even in the hands of mediocre people they are stronger than the unsystematic ambitions of a genius. Confirmation of this truth life presents as much as you like.

Gyulik and Urwick paid great attention to the principle of "delegation", that is, the ability of a leader to transfer his powers and responsibilities to subordinates. The maximum possible delegation of responsibility is, in their opinion, the most important condition for the effective work of top managers. In addition, they noted the need to comply with such principles as "comparability, responsibility and authority" with a "range of control". Urwick argued that "at all levels, power and responsibility must be coinciding and equal." The meaning of "range and control" is that certain restrictions are needed on the number of people directly reporting to one leader. According to Urwick, no manager can directly supervise more than five or at most six subordinates whose work is interrelated.

The problem of control remains to this day one of the largest in control theory. Greikūnas even introduced a special mathematical formula for determining the factors that determine the volume of the control area. According to his calculations, the introduction of each new subordinate doubles the number of potential relationships. Now most researchers are inclined to believe that the number of directly subordinates to one boss should be approximately 7 + 2.

A later representative of the classical (administrative) school is the German sociologist Max Weber, who developed an "ideal type" of administrative organization, which he designated by the term "bureaucracy". The work of the organization, according to Weber, should be regulated by a system of standards (general rules) that ensure "uniformity in the implementation of each task, regardless of the number of persons involved."

Weber's model of rational bureaucratic organization is characterized by the following main features:

Deep division of labor according to the functional principle;

Clear construction on a hierarchical basis;

A system of rules, norms of procedures that determine the rights and obligations of employees, their behavior in specific situations;

Selection of personnel on formal grounds on a competitive basis, etc.

Such an approach to management could, with some degree of success, be applied to military-type organizations, to the gigantic, unwieldy enterprises of the first half of the 20th century, to state institutions whose activities are dominated by inertia and routine. But in the system of the market, it is not suitable, as it fetters freedom of action and does not allow full use of the available opportunities.

The Weberian concept proceeds from the premise that any deviation from the formal structure reduces the effectiveness of administration. However, at present, most experts are of the opposite opinion, although the bureaucratic form of organization dominates business practice, and many of its elements are applicable in organizing the foundations of active enterprise management.

The classical school of management is criticized for its limitations and ignorance of the human factor. But by doing so, it gave an impetus to the development of other schools. Its obvious shortcomings (simplified understanding of the motives of human behavior, standardized treatment of people as machines) contributed to the development of the doctrine of "human relations".

The foundations of the school of "human relations" in management were laid by Mary Parker Follet (1868-1933) and Elton Mayo (1880-1949) from Harvard and others. They recommended that entrepreneurs pay Special attention on the nature of the relationship between the administration and workers, the formation of a healthy psychological climate in the workplace.

E. Mayo was known for his research in the field of "sociology of industrial relations", as well as experiments called "Hawthorne" (conducted at the plant in Hawthorne). The purpose of these experiments was to study the "social organization within labor groups." The main conclusion reached by E. Mayo is that the decisive influence on the productivity of a worker is exerted not by material, but mainly by psychological and social factors. This idea was defended earlier in the works of M. Follett. By the way, a significant place in them was occupied by the problem of conflicts in organizations. In particular, it was M. Follett who put forward the idea of "constructive conflict" as a normal process of the organization's activities.

The most prominent of the followers of E. Mayo - D. MacGregor in the book "The Human Side of the Enterprise" (1960) proved that the despotic regime in production is outdated. The idea that a person is lazy by nature, that he must be urged on, threatened with punishment and deprivation, is not true. People like interesting work, they want independence, they are happy to be recognized for their merits, and when properly treated, they willingly show initiative and ingenuity, he argued.

The doctrine of "human relations" revealed the importance of informal factors in the activities of organizations; it flourished in the 40s and 60s. However, this theory has been heavily criticized.

The American specialist in the mental illness of industrial workers F. Herzberg in the books “Stimulation of Labor” and “Labor and Human Nature” criticized E. Mayo for inattention to the content of labor: “The division of labor taken to the extreme does not always have an effect.” Herzberg advised diversifying the operations performed by workers, strengthening certain types control, replace foremen with informal team leaders, consult with workers more often.

The doctrine of "human relations" was also accused of dealing only with the immediate factors of production and ignoring the external environment, considering work as a statistical process that hardly changes over time.

Close to the doctrine of "human relations" is the behavioral (behavioristic) approach to management, which gained great popularity in the 60s of the XX century. His main postulate is that the correct application of the science of behavior (primarily the data of sociology and psychology) will always contribute to the best work of both the individual and the organization as a whole.

The revolution in motivation is linked to the concept of making the most of human resources at work. Human potential is becoming the most important factor in entrepreneurship, so it is necessary to create favorable conditions for the development of entrepreneurial activity of all employees.

The current stage of development of management is distinguished by the marketing concept of intra-company management, a quantitative and systematic approach, the formation of situational management and program focus.

The marketing approach provides for the orientation of the control subsystem in solving any problems of production activity towards the consumer.

The quantitative approach to management consists in the transition from qualitative to quantitative assessments using mathematical, statistical methods, engineering calculations, etc. It is possible to manage by numbers, and not by words, its supporters believe.

The process approach considers management functions as interrelated. The management process is the sum of all functions, a series of interrelated continuous actions.

The systematic approach follows from the doctrine of "social systems", the formation of which is closely connected with the progressive complication of social production and the emergence of supergiant corporations in the 60-70s of the XX century. From the point of view of the system approach, an object is considered as a set of interrelated elements that have input and output, connection with the external environment, and feedback. With a systematic approach, the main attention is paid to the identification and evaluation of system-forming qualities, that is, those new qualities that arise as a result of the interaction of the elements of a given system.

The situational approach is based on the fact that the suitability of various management methods is determined by a specific situation. From the position of the situational approach, there is no single way to manage an object. The most effective method in a particular situation is the one that is more appropriate for the given conditions, maximally adapted to them.

A great contribution to the development of the principles of the modern school of management was made by M. Mescon, M. Albert, F. Hedouri, P. Dreker, W. Ouchi, D. Carnegie, C. Bernard, and others.

Michael Mescon, Michael Albert, Franklin Hedouri published the monograph "Fundamentals of Management". Chester Bernard identified the development of management from closed to open and studied the foundation of a systems approach.

I. Ansoff,T. Pierce formulated the strategic foundations of management and a number of new approaches to the "quiet managerial revolution", according to which its main provisions can be applied without immediately breaking and destroying the existing structures, systems and methods of management, but, as it were, supplementing them, gradually adapting to new conditions. Thanks to this, systems based on the foresight of changes and on the basis of flexible, extreme solutions are increasingly used.

A specific expression of the theoretical concepts of the development of management in market conditions is a comparative description of the Japanese and American management models (Table 1).

Table 1 - Comparative characteristics management models

Japanese model	American model
Management decisions are made collectively on the basis of unanimity	Individual nature of decision-making
Collective responsibility	Responsibility is individual
Non-standard, flexible management structure	Strictly formalized management structure
Informal organization of control, collective control	Clearly formalized control procedure, individual control of the head

Table 1 continued

Slow performance appraisal and promotion	Quick assessment of the result of work, accelerated promotion
The main quality of a leader is the ability to coordinate actions and control	The main qualities of a leader are professionalism and initiative
Group Orientation	Orientation of management to the individual
Evaluation of management by achieving harmony and by collective result	Evaluation of management by individual result
Personal informal relationships with subordinates	Formal relationship with subordinates
Promotion by seniority and seniority	Business career is driven by personal results
Leadership training universal type	Training of highly specialized managers
Remuneration according to the performance of groups, seniority, etc.	Compensation based on individual achievement
Long-term employment of managers in the company	Employment for a short period

The first thing that involuntarily draws attention to when comparing the Japanese and American management models is their complete opposite. However, this opposition does not beg, but strengthens the conceptual nature of management, the essence of which is a systemic impact that corresponds to national characteristics, traditions, psychology and culture of a particular people.

Management in Russia has its own differences.

The development of managerial thought in Russia is associated with the names of prominent statesmen - Tatishchev, Speransky. Witte, Stolypin and others. The reforms carried out by the Russian tsars could not be carried out without the implementation of certain management concepts.

A great contribution to the study of management problems, both before the revolution and after it, was made by scientists, state and economic figures: M. Tugan-Baranovsky, A.A. Bogdanov, A.K. Gastev, P.M. Kerzhentsev, O. Ermansky, S.G. Strumilin, E.F. Rozmirovich, E.K. Dresden, N.D. Kondratiev, A.V. Chayanov and many others.

The merits of A.A. Bogdanov (1873-1928), who laid the foundations of the general theory of systems. He introduced and substantiated the concepts of "managing and controlled systems", feedback and others, without which the modern science of management is inconceivable. His book "General Organizational Science", which, on the basis of a single concept, describes the structure and deduces the laws of organizational systems of various nature, has not lost its interest today.

A. K. Gastev (1882-1941) developed the idea of a “narrow base” in the 1920s. Its meaning is that the bottleneck, from the "decoding" of which it is necessary to begin the improvement of production, is the organization of the labor of an individual - from a director to an ordinary worker. His well-known 16 rules, set out in the book "How to Work", have not lost their significance. A. K. Gastev created the school of scientific organization of labor (NOT).

A significant contribution to the development of management science belongs to P. M. Kerzhentsev (1884 - 1940). His book "Principles of Organization" was widely known in its time, but even today it is of great interest to practitioners.

E. K. Dresden subjected the linear and functional construction of organizational structures to a thorough analysis, which allowed him to identify the advantages and disadvantages of each of them. He considered the best integrated (combined) management structure.

Theoretical and practical aspects of the functioning of peasant farms, the advantages of the cooperative movement were proved in the works of A.V. Chayanov (1888-1937).

In the late 1930s, the 35-year-old mathematician L. V. Kontorovich (1912-1986), who later became a Nobel Prize winner and academician, discovered a new area of application for linear programming.

In the 60s and subsequent years, the domestic science of management continued its development, taking into account new requirements. At that time, studies on management problems by academicians A.G. Aganbegyan, V.G. Afanasiev, D.M. Gvishiani, V.M. Glushkova and others, textbooks by the team of authors of the Moscow Institute of Management. Ordzhonikidze under the leadership of its rector O.V. Kozlova.

A lot of work to improve the management of agricultural production was carried out in research institutes and agricultural universities. Much has been done by the Research Institute of Labor Organization and Management under the guidance of Professor I.F. Piskunenko. Textbooks on the management of agricultural production were published under the guidance of academicians S.M. Loza and G.I. Budylkin, professors I.S. Zavadsky (USHA), I.G. Ushachev (VNIIESKh) and others.

Management is a science, art and practice. Management science is a sphere of human activity, the function of which is to develop and theoretically systematize objective knowledge about reality.

At the same time, many experts believe that management is more of an art that can only be learned through experience and that people who have a talent for this master perfectly.

In the course of their activities, practitioners have to deal not only with specific employees, but also with entire groups. There are so many factors at work in a large group that it is difficult to simply identify them, and even more so to accurately measure their magnitude and significance. The same applies to factors. external environment that affect the organization. Under such conditions, managers must learn from experience and modify subsequent practice accordingly, taking into account the conclusions of theory. This means that the manager must view management theory and scientific research not as an absolute truth, but as tools that allow one to understand the complex world of the organization. The theory and results of scientific research help the manager to predict, with a certain degree of probability, what might happen, thereby helping him make better decisions and avoid mistakes.

1.3 Laws, patterns and principles of production management

Management involves the knowledge and use of the basic laws and patterns inherent in social production.

The laws of development of production are objective and do not depend on the will and consciousness of people. Their action is manifested only in human activity and, therefore, depends on how fully the requirements of objective laws are taken into account.

Economic laws include the laws of value, the conformity of production relations to the nature and level of productive forces, increasing labor productivity, planned and proportional development, etc. Management acts as the main means of using economic laws in the process of joint activities of people. However, management is a specific type labor activity, and therefore, in addition to general laws and patterns, management is subject to its own specific laws and patterns.

"Law" and "regularity" belong to the same group of scientific categories. However law unambiguously expresses the necessary connection between phenomena; regularity indicates the correctness, sequence of phenomena, confirms that this phenomenon is not accidental, characterizes the process due to certain reasons.

In management theory, regularity is considered as a preliminary formulation of the law in its theoretical understanding and research.

The most important patterns of management include: the proportionality of production and management, the optimal combination of centralization and decentralization, the optimal link of the management system, etc.

Proportionality of production and management means the dependence and proportionality of all elements in the systems of production and management. For example, when organizing the main and service production, with technical and technological support, with the selection and training of personnel, with organizing the work of the management apparatus.

Proportionality is constantly violated under the influence of external and internal factors. Establishing and maintaining proportionality is an objectively necessary task, without which it is impossible for an enterprise to function as a system.

Centralization and decentralization management means such a distribution of tasks, functions and powers by management levels, which in each case ensures the maximum efficiency of enterprise management.

The level of centralization of management changes in the process of development of production. The task of the subject of enterprise management is to determine and establish this level for each specific stage of production development.

Optimal linkage of the control system- this is the most appropriate differentiation of structural units, object and subject of management, their relationship in accordance with the industry, production and technological specifics of the agro-industrial complex.

Innovation statistics, based on common international approaches, starts counting from 1989. It was initiated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The OECD experts prepared a series of methodological guidelines that form the so-called "Frascati Family" (Frascati, Italy, famous for the fact that in it the OECD member countries in 1963 prepared the Frascati Guide "Standard Practice for Surveying Research and Experimental Development" ), including recommendations: on measuring and interpreting balance of payments data for technology (1990); on Data Collection on Technological Innovation - The Oslo Manual (1992); on the use of patent data as indicators of science and technology (1994); on Measuring the Science and Technology Workforce - The Canberra Manual (with Eurostat, 1995).

In Russia, taking into account the introduction of a market economy, innovation statistics begins in 1994. The system of statistical indicators characterizing the innovative activity of industrial organizations includes 10 sections.

The indicators that are most widely used in domestic and foreign practice and characterize the innovative activity of an organization, its innovative competitiveness, can be divided into the following groups: a) costly; b) temporary; c) updateability; d) structural.

Cost indicators:

1) unit costs for R&D in the volume of sales, which characterize the indicator of the science intensity of the company's products;

2) unit costs for the acquisition of licenses, patents, know-how;

3) the cost of acquiring innovative firms;

4) the availability of funds for the development of initiative developments.

Indicators characterizing the dynamics of the innovation process;

1) TAT innovation indicator;

2) duration of the new product development process ( new technology);

3) the duration of preparation for the production of a new product;

4) the duration of the production cycle of a new product.

Renewability indicators:

1) the number of developments or implementation of product innovations and process innovations;

2) indicators of the dynamics of renewal of the product portfolio ( specific gravity products manufactured 2, 3, 5 and 10 years);

3) the number of acquired (transferred) new technologies (technical achievements);

4) the volume of exported innovative products;

5) the volume of new services provided.

Structural indicators:

1) the composition and number of research, development and other scientific and technical structural units (including experimental and testing complexes);

2) the composition and number of joint ventures engaged in the use of new technology and the creation of new products;

3) the number and structure of employees engaged in R&D;

4) the composition and number of creative initiative temporary teams, groups.

The most commonly used indicators reflect the firm's unit costs for R&D in the volume of its sales and the number of scientific and technical departments.

Examples

1. The Japanese company Sony is considered the most innovative company in the field of consumer electronics. Over the course of its fifty years of activity, it has constantly introduced into use a fundamentally new technique that changes the work and leisure of people. The company's sales volume in 1991 reached $26 billion, in 1994 it rose to $36.6 billion. 112.9 thousand people). The firm spends $4.5 billion on research and development, representing 5.7% of sales. Every year the company offers 1000 new products - about 4 every working day. About 800 of them are improved versions of products that are already on the market - either with improved performance or at a reduced price. The remaining 200 are original developments aimed at opening up new markets. These are novelties in audio and video technology, as well as in the field of computer technology.

2. Hitachi is one of the largest manufacturers of radio-electronic and electrical products, machine tools and press-forging equipment. The volume of its sales in 1994 amounted to 70.710 billion dollars, the number of employees - 291 thousand people, including 12 thousand were employed in scientific activity; R&D expenses accounted for about 10% of sales of products and services.

3. General Motors controls 88% of the US auto market, including the small car market. Already in 1983, General Motors was ranked 5th in the list of companies - the largest US importers. In 1994, the company ranked #1 in the top 10 US companies with $120 billion in sales, $2.5 billion in profits and 876,000 employees. R&D spent $4.2 billion, or 4% of sales. At present (1996), almost 900 thousand people work at General Motors, of which 130 thousand are white-collar workers (this is only in the North American automobile divisions).

4. IBM's annual turnover from 1984 to 1990 increased from $27.4 billion to $69 billion. Profit in 1990 was $6 billion. IBM's R&D expenditure in 1990 was $3.5 billion per year. (about 5% of sales volume).

5. Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) is a transnational company specializing in the production of electronic products. In its industry, DEC was 12th in the world and 3rd in the US in 1989, behind IBM and General Electric. In 1989, the number of people employed in the FEC amounted to 126 thousand people, of which 8,300 highly qualified workers (6.6% of the total) were in the field of R&D. Sales in 1989 amounted to 13 billion dollars, net profit exceeded 1 billion dollars. 1.3 billion dollars were allocated for scientific development (1980 - 186 million dollars, 1984 - 630 million dollars). ).

6. General Electric Corporation is a leading manufacturer of electric motors, power equipment, medical diagnostic equipment, laser medical equipment, thermoplastics, computer-controlled railway locomotives,

x-ray and ultrasound equipment. The number of employees in all divisions is 307 thousand people, including 22 thousand people. - scientists and engineers employed in R&D (about 7% of the total number of employees). Expenditure on R&D in 1988 amounted to 1.9 billion dollars, in 1992 - 3.2 billion dollars, i.e. even more than is invested in fixed capital. The volume of sales in only 15 years (1979-1994) increased more than 3 times and amounted to 60.5 billion dollars in 1994. In the list of the largest US companies for 1994, the corporation occupies 8th place in terms of turnover, 2nd e - in terms of profit and 5th - in terms of the number of employees.

7. The main activity of Chrysler is the automotive industry: the production of cars and trucks, jeeps and minivans. The number of employees is 119 thousand people, including about 4.5 thousand people in R&D. In 1995, with sales of $52.2 billion, the company's profit reached a record high of $3.7 billion. R&D expenses were only 3.2%. In the second half of the 1990s, the firm intends to spend an average of $1.9 billion per year on R&D.

The indicator of innovativeness TAT is willingly used. The term "TAT" was put into circulation by the Japanese and comes from the American phrase "turn - around time" ("have time to turn"). This is understood as the time from the moment of awareness of the need or demand for New Product until it is sent to the market or to the consumer in large quantities. Matsushita holds a kind of record for TAT in color television, at 4.7 months.

Example

Experts at the McKinsey consulting firm believe that in the automotive industry, the use of advanced computer technology will lead to a reduction in TAT by reducing the cycle of designing and developing a car by 25%.

That means an 18-month savings that will allow car companies to make decisions about which cars to build a year and a half closer to the time a product goes to market. And this is a huge advantage over competitors who failed to take advantage of the new technology.

Other indicators are less commonly used in the general press, for example, structural indicators showing the number and nature of innovative units. Such indicators are usually present in special analytical reviews.

Example

The Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M), a leading company in the manufacturing industry, exemplifies the formation of a dynamic, market-oriented organizational structure. In the 1990s, 3M was among the top 100 industrial giants in the United States: 32nd in terms of profits ($1.3 billion in 1994), 30th in terms of the number of employees (83,000 people) , 27th in terms of total sales ($15.1 billion). The corporation prides itself on the science-intensive nature of its products: R&D costs accounted for 6% of sales in 1994, twice the US manufacturing average.

The specific form of the corporation's activity in the scientific and technical sphere is highlighted through the financing of venture companies, that is, small (inventive) companies created by scientists or entrepreneurs to develop some advanced science-intensive product or technology.
Controlling the development of several hundred such firms, the corporation actually carries out a "wide-ranging" search for promising scientific and technological achievements. $100-150 million is spent annually on acquiring the most promising innovative firms.

Innovation Goals

Concept of innovation goal

For achievement development goals organization is being developed innovation strategy*, the implementation of which, in turn, requires the targeted management of innovation, that is, the formulation innovation goal.

Innovative goals can be requirements:

1) on the creation of a new product;

2) on the transition to a new technology;

3) about preparation new service;

4) about switching to the new kind resource, a new management system, a new organizational structure.

Introduction

Chapter 1. The concept, functions, structure and role of the innovative state of the organization

1.2 Functions of formation of structures of control systems

1.3 The structure of the innovation process and the role of innovation in the development of the organization

Chapter 2. Indicators of the innovative state of the organization

2.1 Indicators of innovative activity of the organization

2.2 Balanced scorecard in the organization

Chapter 3. The main ways to improve the innovative state of the organization in modern conditions

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

One of the most important components of the activity of a manufacturing enterprise is innovation. Innovative activity is often interpreted as an activity associated with the use of new (high) technologies. Many organizations are trying in one form or another to carry out innovative activities on their own or through subsidiaries or innovation centers created specifically for this purpose, designed to promote the promotion and use of innovative products.

The innovative activity of an enterprise is an activity aimed at using the results scientific research and developments to update the range and improve the quality of products, improve the technology of its manufacture. The need for innovative development of any organization imposes new requirements on the content and methods of management activities in this organization.

Innovation management is a system for managing innovation, the innovation process and relationships that arise in the process of innovation movement.

The organization of innovation management in an enterprise is a system of measures aimed at the rational combination of all its elements in a single innovation management process. The management process in accordance with the concept begins with the formation of a system of goals and objectives of innovation activity (or project) for a certain period of time.

The goal in innovation management is the required or desired state of the innovation system in the planning period, expressed as a set of characteristics. The goal of an organization or activity should establish certain guidelines for their development for given periods of time. Thus, the goal of the organization, on the one hand, is the result of forecasts and assessment of the situation, and on the other hand, acts as a limitation for the planned innovative activities.

The process of forming goals is one of the most important procedures of innovation management. He is integral part and the starting point of all planned calculations in the innovation sphere. The main goal of innovation management is to ensure the long-term functioning of the enterprise based on the effective organization of innovation processes and the high competitiveness of innovative products.

The process of organizing innovation management in an enterprise consists of the following interrelated stages:

· Definition of the purpose of innovation management.

· Choosing an innovation management strategy.

· Determination of innovation management techniques.

· Development of an innovation management program.

· Organization of work on the implementation of the program.

· Monitoring the implementation of the planned program.

· Analysis and evaluation of the effectiveness of innovation management techniques.

· Adjustment of innovation management techniques.

Innovation management is based on the following key points:

· Search for an idea that serves as the foundation for this innovation.

· Organization of the innovation process for this innovation.

· The process of promoting and implementing innovation in the market.

For the innovative development of any organization, it is necessary to know the innovative state of this organization at the moment.

This term paper is the consideration and study of the innovative state of the organization, its indicators, as well as the development of the main ways to improve the innovative state of the organization in modern conditions.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

Consider the essence of the innovative state of the organization and its components;

Consider the role of innovation and the structure of the innovation process in the organization;

Identify and consider indicators of innovative activity of the organization;

Analyze the main ways to improve the innovative state of the organization in modern conditions.

Chapter 1. The concept, functions, structure and role of the innovative state of the organization

1.1 The essence of the innovation climate and innovation potential of the organization

An assessment of the actual state of the organization within the framework of two vector strategic innovation space, in which one vector is the strategic innovation potential, and the other is the strategic innovation climate, is called the innovation position. The strategic innovation position of an organization is determined by joint consideration of the internal and external environment, that is, the innovation potential and the innovation climate. To consider the innovative state of an organization, it is necessary to consider the innovative climate and innovative potential of this organization.

The innovation climate is an integral assessment of the state of the components of the external innovation environment.

The innovation climate is part of the overall organizational culture of an organization. There is no unambiguous definition of the concept of innovation climate. Most often, it is understood as a set of conditions that contribute to the efforts of employees in the promotion and implementation of new ideas. The most favorable innovation climate is characterized by a general focus on innovation as a clearly defined goal, achieved through joint efforts, as well as through a high degree of mutual trust, decentralized decision-making and financial control.

The innovation climate is the state of the external environment of the organization that promotes or opposes the achievement of the innovation goal. The innovation climate is understood as a set of external conditions that affect the innovative potential of an enterprise:

Opportunities to produce new or improved products or services (process and technology innovations);

Opportunities for change social relations at the enterprise (personnel innovations);

Opportunities to develop new management methods (managerial innovation);

Opportunities to create new mechanisms for promoting products to the market (market innovations);

Opportunities to acquire know-how, patents;

Legislative framework, low refinancing rate, preferential taxation;

Interaction between government and business;

The practice of technology commercialization.

The barriers of the innovation climate thus act as filters, passing through which the directed action of the vectors of the enterprise's innovation potential is significantly reduced.

Most often, the innovation climate of an organization includes such parameters as:

"vision" by the personnel of the company of the main directions and future guidelines for scientific, technical and market development;

Purposeful efforts to put forward new ideas, overcome bureaucratic organizational barriers, develop the creative abilities of staff, expand the powers of innovators, increase the attention of all employees to "achieving High Quality and exemplary state of the company”;

Understanding by each employee of their role in the overall effort to implement the technical strategy;

Perception of dynamic scientific, technical and organizational changes at all levels of the company's management.

Creating a favorable innovation climate implies an atmosphere of trust, identifying and overcoming factors that “block” creative efforts and joint search work of staff, empowering innovators in the workplace, and using organizational and psychological tools that help “generate” new ideas.

In the structure of the external environment of the organization, macro-environment and micro-environment are distinguished.

There are four strategic spheres in the macro environment: social (S), technological (T), economic (E), and political (P).

When analyzing the innovation climate, it is necessary to know that the object of analysis is the spheres of the external macro environment, and the subject is their impact on innovation goals and strategies, that is, the definition of the innovation macro climate.

If necessary, you can deepen the object of analysis at the expense of the other two vectors - the territorial scale and industries. However, in some part, these two vectors are already taken into account in the structures and characteristics of the spheres.

There are 10 main conditions for maintaining the innovation climate:

1. Providing the necessary resources

Maintaining a creative climate in an organization requires significant resources, including time, skills, money, and information. Time is especially important, as little good ideas born in a hurry.

2. Spreading ideas within the organization

Liberalization of the exchange of ideas and information in the organization contributes to better coverage of the problem and reduces resistance to innovation.

3. Promoting open group processes

All groups of workers associated with the creation of new products (processes) should be encouraged to separate the generation of ideas from the evaluation of ideas. It is of particular importance that project team members feel free to express their opinions.

4. Recognition of worthwhile ideas

The best way to encourage openness of opinion is to constantly recognize and appreciate the merit of people who put forward valuable ideas.

5. Express trust in employees

Recognizing the value of ideas is one way to show employees that you trust their abilities and recognize their dedication. More generally, showing trust can be part of a general management philosophy based on harnessing the creativity of all employees.

6. Emphasize professionalism

An integral part of trusting employees is emphasizing the value and level of professional knowledge of key specialists of the organization. The best specialists should be provided with conditions for professional growth, opportunities to communicate with colleagues at seminars, exhibitions, conferences, etc.

7. Recognize workers' need for autonomy

Most specialists achieve their maximum at work when they are internally motivated not only by the possible reward, but also by the content of the work. The feeling of freedom of creativity arises only with a certain level of independence in work.

8. Letting people slip

Independence in work is inevitably associated with mistakes. Non-systematic errors should not be considered intentional misdemeanors or crimes.

9. Use decentralized decision-making structures.

A significant part of the decisions regarding innovation activity can be transferred to lower levels of management with the proper division of rights and responsibilities.

10. Weaken the formalization of the organizational structure

Innovation constantly requires active coordination between functions and departments, which is not achievable using purely formal management structures. It is necessary to find opportunities for organizing communication between specialists outside the office environment and using target groups. A significant part of the tasks of maintaining an innovative climate in an organization is solved through the development and consistent implementation of adequate forms and methods of material incentives.

Innovative potential is an integral assessment of the state of the elements of the innovation system (the active part of the production and economic system - PHS).

The innovative potential of an organization is also a measure of its readiness to perform tasks that ensure the achievement of the set innovative goal, that is, a measure of readiness for the implementation of an innovative project or program of innovative transformations and the introduction of innovation.

A number of researchers believe that the innovative potential of an enterprise, a scientific and technical organization is a combination of scientific, technical, technological, infrastructural, financial, legal, socio-cultural and other opportunities to ensure the perception and implementation of innovations, i.e. obtaining innovations that form a single system for the emergence and development of ideas in it and ensure the competitiveness of the final product or service in accordance with the purpose and strategy of the enterprise. At the same time, it is a “measure of readiness” of an enterprise to implement a strategy focused on the introduction of new products. At the same time, the innovative potential includes, along with technological progress, institutional forms associated with the mechanisms of scientific and technological development, the innovative culture of society, its susceptibility to innovations.

Through the development of potential is the development of the organization and its divisions, as well as all elements of the production and economic system. The development of the organization is considered as a reaction to changes in the external environment and therefore is of a strategic nature. The choice and implementation of an innovation strategy depends on the state of the innovation potential, and therefore its assessment is a necessary current operation.

The development of the innovative potential of an organization as an integral system can be carried out only through the development of the components of its internal environment. It is necessary to analyze the internal environment of the organization.

The internal environment of the organization is built from the elements that form its production and economic system. The elements are grouped into the following blocks:

1) product (project) block - areas of activity of the organization and their results in the form of products and services (projects and programs);

2) functional block (block of production functions and business processes) - the operator of the transformation of resources and management into products and services in the course of the labor activity of employees of the organization at all stages of the life cycle of products, including R&D, production, sales, consumption;

3) resource block - a complex of material, technical, labor, information and financial resources of an enterprise;

4) organizational block - organizational structure, process technology for all functions and projects, organizational culture;

5) control unit - the general management of the organization, the management system and management style.

Approaches to the assessment of innovative potential.

The innovative potential is assessed according to the scheme: resource (R) - function (F) - project (P). A project or program means the release and sale of a new product (service), line of business. The tasks of assessing the innovative potential of an organization can be set in two planes:

1) a private assessment of the readiness of the organization to implement one new project;

2) an integral assessment of the current state of the organization in relation to all or a group of projects already being implemented.

The needs of practice put forward the need for two schemes for analyzing the internal environment and assessing the innovative potential: detailed and diagnostic.

detailed approach. A detailed analysis of the internal environment and assessment of the organization's innovative potential is carried out mainly at the stage of justifying innovation and preparing a project for its implementation and implementation. With great labor intensity, it gives a systemic and useful information. The scheme for assessing the innovative potential of an organization with a detailed analysis of the internal environment is as follows:

1) a description of the systemic normative model of the state of the innovative potential of the organization (its internal environment) is given, that is, those qualitative and quantitative requirements for the state of the potential for all blocks, components of the blocks and parameters that ensure the achievement of this innovative goal and its subgoals are clearly established (according to target tree)

2) the actual state of the innovation potential is established for all blocks, components and parameters;

3) the discrepancy between the normative and actual values of the parameters of the organization's potential is analyzed; strong (with a margin or exactly corresponding to the normative model) and weak (much or little inconsistent with the normative model) are distinguished | side capacity; j

4) an approximate list of works on the innovative transformation of the organization (strengthening weaknesses) is compiled.

diagnostic approach. Time constraints, the lack of specialists capable of conducting a systematic analysis, the lack or inaccessibility of information about the organization (especially when analyzing the innovative potential of competitors) make it necessary to use diagnostic approaches to assess the innovative potential of an organization.

The diagnostic approach is implemented in the analysis and diagnostics of the state of the organization according to a limited range of parameters accessible to both internal and external analysts.

Mandatory conditions for a qualitative diagnostic analysis:

1) knowledge of the system model and, in general, system analysis of the object under study should be used;

2) it is necessary to know the relationship of diagnostic parameters with other important parameters of the system in order to assess the state of either the entire system or its essential part based on the state of any one diagnostic parameter;

3) information about the values of the selected diagnostic parameters must be reliable, since when the parameters are limited, the risk of losses increases due to an inaccurate diagnosis of the system state.

1.2 Functions of formation of structures of control systems

The functions of organizing and planning innovative activities are targeted at creating competitive products and developing the service sector.

Innovation management performs certain functions that determine the formation of the structure of the management system.

There are two types of functions:

1) functions of the subject of management;

2) functions of the control object.

The first ones include:

1) forecasting;

2) planning;

3) organization;

4) regulation;

5) coordination;

6) stimulation;

7) control.

The functions of the control object include:

1) risky investment of capital;

2) organization of the innovation process;

3) organizing the promotion of innovations in the market and its diffusion.

Functions of the subject of management represent general form activity, expressing the direction of the implementation of the impact on the relations of people in the economic process. These functions are a specific type of management activity. They consistently consist of collecting, systematizing, transmitting, storing information, developing and making a decision, transforming it into a team.

Prediction Function(from the Greek prognosis - foresight) in innovation management covers the development of a long-term change in the technical, technological and economic state of the management object as a whole and its various parts. The result of forecasting is forecasts, i.e. anticipation of relevant changes. A feature of innovation forecasting is the alternativeness of the technical and economic indicators inherent in the creation of innovation. Alternative means the need to choose one solution from mutually exclusive possibilities. In this process, exclusively importance has the correctness of determining the emerging trends of scientific and technological progress and trends in consumer demand, as well as marketing research.

Managing innovations based on their foresight requires the manager to develop a certain flair for the market mechanism and intuition, as well as the use of flexible emergency solutions.

Management function - planning- covers the whole range of activities both for the development of planned targets in the innovation process, and for their implementation in practice.

Organization function comes down to bringing together people who jointly implement an investment program on the basis of some rules and procedures. The latter include the creation of management bodies, the construction of the structure of the management apparatus, the establishment of a relationship between management units, the development guidelines, instructions, etc.

Control function(from Latin regulate - obedience to a certain law, order) in innovative management consists in influencing the control object to achieve the state of stability of the technical, technological and economic system in the case when this system deviates from the established parameters.

Coordination function(from Latin co - with, together + ordinatio - arranged in order) means the consistency of the work of all parts of the management system. Coordination "works" to ensure the unity of relations between the subject and the object of management.

Incentive function expressed in the motivation of employees to be interested in the results of their work on the creation and implementation of innovations.

Control function in innovation management is to check the organization of the innovation process, the plan for the creation and implementation of innovations. Through control, information is collected about the use of innovations, about the course of the life cycle of this innovation, changes are made to investment programs, to the organization of innovation management. Control involves the analysis of technical and economic results. Analysis is also part of planning. Therefore, control in innovation management should be considered as the reverse side of innovation planning.

The controlled subsystem of innovation management, as mentioned above, performs the functions of risky investment of capital, organization of the innovation process and organization of innovation promotion in the market and its diffusion.

Risk investment function manifests itself in the organization of venture financing of investments in the innovation market. Investing in a new product (operation) is always associated with uncertainty. Therefore, it is usually carried out through the creation of innovative venture funds.

The function of promotion and diffusion of innovation manifests itself in the market and consists in creating an effective system of measures to promote and distribute new products (operations): promotional activities, capture of new sales markets, etc.

1.3 The structure of the innovation process and the role of innovation in the development of the organization

The innovation process includes seven elements, the combination of which into a single sequential chain forms the structure of the innovation process.

These elements include:

initiation of innovation;

marketing innovation;

release (production) of innovation;

implementation of innovation;

promotion of innovation;

assessment of the economic efficiency of innovation;

Diffusion (distribution) of innovation.

Control of the transition from one operation of the innovation process to another is an effective tool for managing the process of introducing innovation. The success of innovation implementation is largely determined by the degree of unhindered passage through the logical chain of operations, especially at their junctions, and this depends primarily on the consistency of related departments in the transition from one operation to another and, of course, on the interest of organizations performing the corresponding operations.

The beginning of the innovation process is initiation. Initiation is an activity that consists in choosing the goal of innovation, setting the task performed by innovation, searching for the idea of innovation, its feasibility study and materializing the idea. The materialization of an idea means the transformation of an idea into a commodity (property, a new product, etc.).

After the justification of a new product, marketing research of the proposed innovation is carried out, during which the demand for a new product is studied, the volume of product output is determined, consumer properties and product characteristics are determined, which should be given to innovation as a product entering the market. Then the innovation is sold, that is, the appearance on the market of a small batch of innovation, its promotion, evaluation of effectiveness and diffusion.

Innovation promotion is a set of measures aimed at the implementation of innovations (advertising, organization of the trading process, etc.).

The results of the implementation of innovation and the costs of its promotion are subjected to statistical processing and analysis, on the basis of which it is calculated economic efficiency innovation. Following the economic development of innovation, first at the first and then at other enterprises, the phase of its effective use follows, which is characterized by gradual stabilization of costs and an increase in the effect, mainly due to an increase in the volume of use of innovation. It is here that the main part of the actual economic effect of innovation is realized.

The innovation process ends with the diffusion of innovation. Diffusion (lat. diffusio - distribution, spreading) of innovation is the spread of once mastered innovation in new regions, in new markets.

The role of innovation in the modern economy.

In the modern economy, the role of innovation has increased significantly. Without the use of innovations, it is almost impossible to create competitive products that have a high degree of science intensity and novelty. Thus, in a market economy, innovation is effective remedy competitive struggle, as they lead to the creation of new needs, to a reduction in the cost of production, to an influx of investments, to an increase in the image (rating) of a manufacturer of new products, to the discovery and capture of new markets, including external ones.

The role of innovation in economic development is changing along with the change in critical factors of production, competitive advantage and features of management technology.

The role of innovation in enterprise development .

The innovative activity of the enterprise is aimed primarily at increasing the competitiveness of products (services).

Competitiveness - This is a characteristic of a product (service), reflecting its difference from a competitor product both in terms of the degree of compliance with a specific need, and in terms of the cost of satisfying it. Two elements - consumer properties and price - are the main components of the competitiveness of a product (service). However, the market prospects of goods are not only related to quality and production costs. Other (non-commodity) factors, such as promotional activities, the prestige of the organization, the level of service offered, can also be the reason for the success or failure of a product.

At the same time, service at the highest level creates a great attraction. Based on this, the competitiveness formula can be represented as follows:

Competitiveness = Quality + Price + Service.

Manage competitiveness - means to ensure the optimal ratio of these components, to direct the main efforts to solve the following problems: improving the quality of products, reducing production costs, increasing efficiency and the level of service.

In essence, the basis of the modern "philosophy of success" is the subordination of the interests of the company to the goals of developing, manufacturing and marketing competitive products. The focus is on long-term success and on the consumer. CEOs look at profitability in terms of quality, consumer properties products, competitiveness.

To analyze the position of the product on the market, assess the prospects for its sale, select a sales strategy, the concept of "product life cycle" is used.

Simultaneous work with goods at different stages of the life cycle is only possible for large companies. Small firms are forced to follow the path of specialization, i.e. choose one of the following roles:

* firm-innovator, dealing primarily with issues of innovation;

* engineering: a company that develops original modifications of the product and its design;

* a highly specialized manufacturer - most often a sub-supplier of relatively simple mass-produced products;

* manufacturer of traditional products (services) of high quality.

Smaller organizations are particularly active in the production of goods that are going through the stages of market formation and exit from it. A large organization is usually reluctant to be the first to produce a fundamentally new product. Consequences possible failure it is much harder for her than for a small newly formed organization.

Ensuring the competitiveness of a product requires an innovative, entrepreneurial approach, the essence of which is the search and implementation of innovations.

Chapter 2. Indicators of the innovative state of the organization

2.1 Indicators of innovative activity of the organization

To assess the innovative activity of the organization and its innovative competitiveness in domestic and foreign practice, indicators of the innovative activity of the organization are widely used.

Such indicators can be divided into the following groups: costly; time indicators; indicators of renewal and structural.

Cost indicators:

1. unit costs for R&D in the volume of sales, which characterize the indicator of the knowledge intensity of the company's products;

2. unit costs for the acquisition of licenses, patents, know-how;

3. the cost of acquiring innovative firms;

4. availability of funds for the development of initiative developments.

Indicators characterizing the dynamics of the innovation process:

1. indicator of innovation TAT,

2. the duration of the process of developing a new product (new technology);

3. the duration of preparation for the production of a new product;

4. the duration of the production cycle of a new product.

Renewability indicators:

1. the number of developments or implementation of product innovations and process innovations;

2. indicators of the dynamics of product portfolio renewal (share of products produced for 2, 3, 5 and 10 years);

3. the number of acquired (transferred) new technologies (technical advances);

4. the volume of exported innovative products;

5. volume of new services provided.

Structural indicators:

1. composition and number of research, development and other scientific and technical structural units (including experimental and test complexes);

2. the composition and number of joint ventures involved in the use of new technology and the creation of new products;

3. number and structure of employees engaged in R&D;

4. composition and number of creative initiative temporary brigades, groups.

The most commonly used indicators reflect the firm's unit costs for R&D in the volume of its sales and the number of scientific and technical departments.

The indicator of innovativeness TAT is widely used, which comes from the phrase "turn - around time" ("have time to turn"). This is understood as the time from the moment a need or demand for a new product is recognized to the moment it is sent to the market or to the consumer in large quantities. Other indicators are less commonly used in the general press, for example, structural indicators showing the number and nature of innovative units. Such indicators are usually present in special analytical reviews.

2.2 Balanced scorecard in the organization

The composition and structure of balanced indicators that determine the conditions and opportunities for the development of the organization's innovative potential are determined through a systematic analysis of the components of the strategic map in order to compare the actual level of individual potentials at a certain moment with existing ideas about this level.

The starting point for the composition and structure of balanced scorecards is to determine the current internal capabilities of the organization in the innovation field using economic criteria. Depending on the degree of current provision of the organization with material, technical and financial resources, as well as the experience of introducing new technologies into economic circulation, further planning of the direction of future innovative development is carried out. To implement effective management of innovation activities based on the use of a balanced scorecard, a real assessment of the level of the organization's innovative potential at a given point in time and an assessment of its dynamics for further development is necessary.

The innovative potential is determined by the composition and level of development of the components of the organization's strategic map, their interrelations and the ability to work as a single system for implementing innovations. Therefore, in order to determine the composition and structure of balanced indicators for the development of the innovative potential of an organization, it is necessary to isolate the components of the strategic map, measure the potentials, identify the relationship between them, and thus obtain a comprehensive forecast of the potential level of the innovative potential of this organization.

Forecasting such a complex category as innovation potential with the help of any one indicator is not possible, and a large number of balanced indicators describing it should be proposed. But the main problem of measuring innovative potential is not only the choice and determination of the values of these parameters, but also the evaluation of the measurement results, the possibility of their use in practice.

An important point in determining the composition and structure of balanced scorecards for predicting the conditions and opportunities for the long-term development of the innovative potential of an organization is, first of all, building a system. This system balanced scorecard should give an objective assessment of the real state of the innovative potential of the organization under study. In addition, it should take into account the industry-specific features of the flow of innovative processes, the characteristics of the production system, the type of production; the system should also have indicators that reflect the availability and quality of the main strategically important resources for the organization involved in innovation, indicators that directly or indirectly indicate the effectiveness of the use of available resources by the organization involved in innovation.

In a market economy, financial resources are of paramount importance, which provide the conditions for the implementation of the remaining components of the strategic map in predicting innovative potential and perform the role of their quantitative assessment. The financial resources of the innovative potential ensure the flow of funds for the implementation of innovative processes, create incentives and conditions for the development of innovation, influence the choice of topics for innovative projects in accordance with the needs of the functioning and development of the organization's innovative activity, and contribute to the effective formation of innovation costs. Indicators of the financial component in determining the composition and structure of balanced indicators for the development of the organization's innovative potential characterize the amount of costs for R&D, the acquisition of new technologies and intangible assets.

Determining the composition and structure of balanced scorecards within the client component should proceed from the fact that the purpose of creating and accumulating the necessary resources for an organization implementing innovations is to make a profit from the sale of innovative products, as well as the ability to create innovations on a regular basis. The indicators of this group indirectly determine the efficiency and rationality of the systems of organization and management of innovative activities in the organization.

The use of the results of scientific and technical activity in production and innovation activities occurs on the basis of information transfer. Information plays an important role in the process of scientific and technical activity, acting as the source material of any research work, and as a result of R&D. Information can be presented in the form of scientific and technical literature, information about patents, inventions, new technologies, etc. internal information in the form of regulations, design documentation, reports that are important in innovation. It is possible to determine the composition and structure of balanced indicators for the development of the organization's innovative potential using the indicator of the number of people employed in information activities in the organization, as well as the costs of information activities.

This group of indicators can be supplemented with absolute indicators and analysis of such parameters as information management systems available in the organization, information technologies, the degree of their participation in the innovation process.

The material basis of the composition and structure of balanced scorecards within the process component are material and technical resources that determine the technical and technological base of the potential, affect the scale and pace of innovation.

In many cases, it is the level of the process component in predicting the conditions and opportunities for the long-term development of the innovative potential of an organization based on a balanced scorecard that determines the costs and timing of research and development, experimental verification of scientific and technical results.

Important indicators in predicting the conditions and opportunities for the development of the innovative potential of an organization based on a balanced scorecard are quantitative and qualitative indicators of personnel. The magnitude of these balanced scorecards determines the scope and scope of innovation. The readiness of personnel for innovative activity is the main condition for predicting the development of innovative potential, since it is the readiness of the organization's personnel for innovative transformations that has a positive, or bad influence into other components, contributing to or vice versa preventing the disclosure and implementation of innovative potential.

Personnel indicators characterize the provision of the innovation process with human resources, the qualification structure of the personnel involved in the creation and dissemination of innovations.

Each indicator presented above provides useful information about the characteristics of the organization under study, the use of a system of indicators increases the validity of managerial decision-making in the direction of the development of the organization's innovative activities. The main advantage of the balanced scorecard is its ease of use, combined with the practical completeness of the information contained in it.

Determining the composition and structure of balanced indicators for the development of an organization's innovative potential involves keeping records of various costs and results associated with innovative activities, which contributes to the formation of an array of analytical information and systematization of the process of collecting internal information necessary for the analysis and evaluation of innovative activities.

Using a system of balanced scorecards for assessing and developing the innovative potential of any organization will allow its management to realistically assess innovative opportunities in the preparation of innovative projects and programs, and avoid irrational costs for unrealizable projects.

Chapter 3. The main ways to improve the innovative state of the organization in modern conditions

Modern conditions for the successful existence of an organization are determined by a number of parameters, among which it is important to single out those that have the most significant impact on its competitiveness. At the same time, a competitive advantage is only of strategic importance for an organization when it is based on some unique skills, knowledge, methods or developments that the organization owns. The creation and constant updating of such skills, in other words, continuous innovative activity, is one of the main strategically important tasks facing the modern organization.

The innovative activity of an organization should be understood as a complex characteristic of its innovative activity, including susceptibility to innovations, the degree of intensity and timeliness of the actions taken to transform innovations, the ability to mobilize the potential required amount and quality, the ability to ensure the validity of the methods used, the rationality of the technology of the innovation process in terms of composition and sequence of operations. In other words, innovation activity characterizes the readiness to update the main elements of the innovation system - one's knowledge, technological equipment, information and communication technologies and the conditions for their effective use (structure and culture), as well as receptivity to everything new.

To increase the level of innovation and increase competitiveness, organizations must first of all solve the following tasks:

a) more active participation in the markets, as well as an increase in the total sales share domestic market, which does not depend on changes in foreign exchange rates;

b) expanding the range of products;

c) reduction of production costs;

d) a more consistent marketing policy.

a) the use of technological skills and know-how to produce new types of products;

b) comprehensive preparation of production for a possible "jump" - rapid development due to increased demand in the market;

c) more active financing of technological renewal of production.

Tasks of the "third order":

a) meeting the growing demands of buyers and suppliers, mainly related to the compliance of products with ever newer European and international quality and safety standards;

b) tracking trends and patterns in changes in the needs and tastes of consumers.

There are 7 parameters of innovation activity:

1 - the quality of the innovation strategy and innovation goal; This is the correspondence of the strategy to the mission-purpose and mission-orientation, the external environment, potential, goals, and other strategies of the company.

2 - the level of mobilization of innovative potential;

This is the ability shown by management to attract the required potential, the ability to attract not only the obvious and known part, but also the hidden (latent) part of the potential, that is, the ability to show the highest competence in mobilizing innovative potential.

3 - the level of attracted capital investments - investments;

This is the ability shown by management to attract investments that are required in terms of volume and acceptable sources.

4 - methods, culture, guidelines used in the implementation of innovative changes;

This is the application in innovation of concepts and methods aimed at obtaining real competitive advantages. For example, in innovation processes, the method of "parallel design" is common. In the marketing of innovations, such a method or such a concept today is the concept of "focusing on customers".

5 - compliance of the organization's reaction with the nature of the competitive strategic situation;

This innovative situation is determined by the state of the object (the proposed innovation) and the state of the environment. Three types of behavior or reactions to a strategic situation are known: reactive behavior, when the situation is already perceived even by insufficiently competent managers and only then the organization begins to change it; active behavior, when the situation is recognized by professionally competent management and after that a strategy is developed and implemented; planned and predictive behavior, in which the control method is implemented by "weak signals".

6 - speed (tempo) of carrying out strategic innovative changes;

The speed (tempo) of developing and implementing an innovation strategy: the intensity of actions to create and promote innovation, to carry out strategic innovation changes. Such intensity is characterized by a set of indicators, including the indicator of innovativeness "TAT", product renewal, technology renewal and technological equipment, updating of personnel knowledge, updating of organizational structures and other indicators.

7 - validity of the realized level of innovative activity;

This is the correspondence of one or another level of strategic and tactical activity to the state of the external environment and the state of the organization itself. A sharp unreasonable increase in activity can turn the organization into the so-called "dead hero", and inadequate passivity dooms it to become a loser.

The strategy that an organization develops should first of all be aimed at maximum use capabilities and the maximum possible protection against threats.

Summarizing all of the above, we can conclude that the innovative activity of an organization is the main characteristic of its innovative development. The active use of innovations by existing companies allows achieving a sufficient degree of technological independence, increases their efficiency and competitiveness. In addition, the innovative activity of enterprises and organizations is directly related to their investment activity, which qualitatively depends on innovation.

Conclusion

The active use of innovations by organizations improves their efficiency and competitiveness, helps them accelerate their growth, develop new markets, create new jobs, which ultimately determines the economic development of the region, the growth of the tax base, and the improvement of the quality of life.

The company's readiness for innovation is characterized by an innovative climate, its state determines how successful the implementation of an innovative project will be.

Depending on the state of the innovation climate in the organization, the achievement or non-achievement of the innovation goal occurs. To create a favorable environment for achieving the goals of the organization, it is necessary to develop incentive methods that are understandable to the staff.

Innovative potential characterizes the organization's readiness to perform tasks that ensure the achievement of the set innovative goal, i.e. is a measure of readiness for the implementation of an innovative project or program of innovative transformations and the introduction of innovations.

The main prerequisite for an innovation strategy is the obsolescence of manufactured products and technology. In this regard, every three years, enterprises should carry out certification of manufactured products, technologies, equipment and jobs, analyze the market and distribution channels for goods. In other words, a radiograph of the business should be conducted.

List of used literature

1. Textbook for universities S.D. Ilyenkov; L.M. Rochberg, - M. Unity - Dana, 2008

2. Innovation management - I.T. Balabanov, M.N. Dudin, 2008

3. Innovation management - textbook, L. N. Ogoleva, 2006

4. Novikov V.S. Tourism Innovation, 2007

5. Gunin, V.N., Barancheev, V.P., Ustinov, V.A., Lyapina, S.Yu. Innovation management; M.: INFRA-M, 2000

6. Kokurin D.I. Innovative activity 2006

7. Lisin B., Fridlyanov B. Innovative potential as a factor in the development of enterprises, Moscow, 2008

8. Sokolov D.V., Titov A.B., Shabanova N.M. Prerequisites for the analysis and formation of innovation policy, 2002

9. Surin A.V., Molchanova O.P. Innovation management, M.: NNFRA-M, 2008

10. Thompson Jr., Arthur, A., Strickland III, A.J. Strategic management: concepts and situations for analysis. - M .: Publishing house "Williams", 2002

11. Fatkhutdinov R.A. Innovation Management: A Textbook for Universities, 2008

12. Huchek M. Innovations at enterprises and implementation, Moscow, 2000.

13. The use of an innovative approach in the strategic management of an enterprise - Trifilova, A.A., N. Novgorod, 2004

14. Innovative development and innovative culture - Nikolaev, A. V.// Problems of theory and practice of management. 2001

15. Textbook, evaluation of the effectiveness of innovative development of an enterprise, - Popkov V.P., Evstafieva E.V. – 2007

16. A.M. Mukhamedyarov "Innovation Management", Textbook, Second Edition, Moscow, INFRA-M, 2008

Indicators of the results of innovative activity of an enterprise are a set of indicators that characterize the results of the introduction of new or improved products and technological processes.

In their composition, statistics usually considers three groups of indicators, reflecting:

The share of innovative products in its total volume;

3) the cost of acquiring innovative firms;

4) availability of funds for the development of initiative developments;

b) Indicators characterizing the dynamics of the innovation process:

1) indicator of innovation TAT

2) the duration of the process of developing a new product (new technology)

3) the duration of preparation for the production of a new product

4) the duration of the production cycle of a new product

V) Renewability indicators

1) the number of developments or implementation of product innovations and process innovations;

2) indicators of the dynamics of updating the product portfolio (the share of products manufactured for 2, 3, 5 and 10 years);

3) the number of acquired (transferred) new technologies (technical achievements);

4) the volume of exported innovative products;

5) scope of new services provided;

G) Structural indicators:

1) the composition and number of research, development and other scientific and technical structural units (including experimental and testing complexes);

2) the composition and number of joint ventures engaged in the use of new technology and the creation of new products;

3) the number and structure of employees engaged in R&D;

4) the composition and number of creative initiative temporary teams, groups.

The most commonly used indicators reflect the firm's unit costs for R&D in the volume of its sales and the number of scientific and technical departments. The innovativeness indicator TAT is widely used, which comes from the phrase "turn - around time" ("have time to turn"). This is understood as the time from the moment a need or demand for a new product is recognized to the moment it is sent to the market or to the consumer in large quantities. Other indicators are less commonly used in the general press, for example, structural indicators showing the number and nature of innovative units. Such indicators are usually present in special analytical reviews.

The listed metrics can certainly be useful, but some of them do not measure the potential innovative capabilities of the company, and will not be significant in making strategic decisions.

Thus, the annual development of a large corporate budget for R&D does not at all guarantee the emergence of countless new products that will shock the market and become a source of additional income companies. In addition, in addition to patented solutions, many companies have a number of developments that are not protected by patents, as well as technological know-how that is not fixed in any way using the indicator of the number of patents. And, finally, out of a huge number of rationalization proposals submitted to the "corporate box", only a few can be implemented.

Therefore, D. Khomutinsky proposes to use the following main indicators:

1. Innovation profitability ratio ( ROII or return on innovation investment) - can be calculated both for successfully completed projects and for projects prepared for implementation, subject to forecast calculations for revenue growth or cost reduction (formula 1).

The financial result from innovation can be, for example, the income received from the sale of new products, the amount of excess of the actual income from the launch of a new product on the market over the planned indicator, the amount of reduced operating costs, the profit of the organization from the penetration of its products into a new market segment.

The cost of innovation is made up of: the cost of employees and external consultants; from the costs associated with the acquisition or own development of special software for the project; cash prizes and employee benefits; the costs of searching for information via the Internet, magazines, etc. The denominator of the formula does not include the costs associated with the process of implementing an innovative project.

2. The share of proceeds from the sale of new products in the total profit for the last N years.

3. Change in the relative growth of the company's market value compared to the relative growth of the industry market over the past N years. This indicator is based on the postulate that it is innovation that is the key resource of the company, which provides it with additional competitive advantages and allows you to determine the industry average market growth.

4. The number of new products and / or services that the company has brought to the market over the past N years.

5. The number of innovative ideas put forward by the company's employees over the past N months.

6. The ratio of implemented innovative ideas to the total number of proposals put forward. The most important indicator characterizing the effectiveness of idea management in an organization.

7. Time from the moment of submission of the proposal to the launch of the project.

According to the methods of A.A. Trifilova, in order to implement effective innovation management, it is necessary to analyze the financial and economic state of the enterprise. The main areas of analysis of the financial and economic condition are the composition and structure of the balance sheet, financial stability, liquidity and solvency, profitability, business activity of the enterprise.

Depending on the degree of the current technological approach and the production state of the enterprise, either the leader’s strategy is chosen, which means the development of fundamentally new technologies, or the follower’s strategy, i.e. introduction of improving goods and services to replace existing goods and services. The assessment of the innovative activity of an enterprise should be based on a set of certain economic indicators that characterize the enterprise's ability to master certain types of innovations. The set of calculated economic indicators of innovative activity may include a number of coefficients.

1. Intellectual property coverage ratio (formula 2), which is the ratio of intellectual property (line 110 "Intangible assets") to other non-current assets (line 190 of the balance sheet) of the enterprise (fixed assets, construction in progress, profitable investments in tangible assets , long-term financial investments).

Wherein - leader strategy

- follower strategy

2. The rate of development of new technology - the ratio of the newly commissioned fixed assets of the enterprise to other funds. It characterizes the ability of the enterprise to master new equipment and the latest production and technological lines (formula 3).

, (3)

where - the cost of newly introduced fixed assets, rub.

The average annual cost of fixed production assets of the enterprise, rub.

Wherein - leader strategy

- follower strategy

3. The coefficient of development of new products - it characterizes the ability of the enterprise to introduce innovative or technologically changed products (formula 4).

where - proceeds from the sale of new or improved products and products manufactured using new or improved technologies, rub.

Total proceeds from the sale of all products (works, services), rub.

Wherein - leader strategy

- follower strategy

4. Coefficient of innovative growth. It characterizes the sustainability of technological growth and production development; shows the share of funds allocated by the enterprise for own and joint research on the development of new technologies, for the targeted recruitment of highly qualified specialists, education and training of personnel associated with innovation (formula 5).

where - the cost of research and educational investment projects, rub.

Total cost of other investment expenses, rub.

Wherein - leader strategy

- follower strategy

5. Coefficient of property intended for R&D (formula 6). It shows the share of property for experimental and research purposes, purchased machinery and equipment related to technological innovation in the total cost of all production and technological machinery and equipment.

This indicator is intended to characterize the material and technical base and research equipment of the enterprise in comparison with the armament of the main production assets, including household equipment. When calculating this indicator, it is possible to correlate both those funds that are owned by the enterprise or taken on the terms of a financial lease (leasing), and machinery and equipment taken on economic lease.

where is the cost of equipment for experimental instrumentation, rub

The cost of equipment for industrial purposes, rub.

Wherein - follower strategy

- follower strategy

6. Coefficient of personnel employed in R&D (formula 7). This ratio shows the share of personnel directly involved in the development of new products and technologies, production and engineering design and other types of technological preparation production for the release of new products or the introduction of new services, in relation to the average composition of employees in the enterprise.

where - the number of people employed in the field of research and development, people.

Average number of employees of the enterprise, pers.

Wherein - leader strategy

- follower strategy

The analysis of innovative activity does not provide an unambiguous answer to the question of choosing a strategy for technological development. To effectively choose the direction of innovative development, it is not enough for an enterprise to confine itself to assessing the current state of R&D opportunities and related structural elements.

To make informed management decisions, it is also necessary to carry out a comprehensive calculation of the approximate costs of developing and implementing new and improving technologies, followed by a financial and economic analysis of the enterprise's innovative potential. Such a sequence of forming an innovative development strategy makes it possible to assess the capabilities of an enterprise both in the implementation of new or improving technologies, and in the financial and economic support of current production activities, while avoiding unjustified costs and unreasonable investments.

In the work of A.A. Trifilova proposes a way to evaluate the effectiveness of investments in innovations and assess the feasibility of innovations. The indicator of the feasibility of an innovative project is shown in Figure (1). This indicator is determined by dividing the surplus or shortage of enterprise resources to involve a new or improved product in economic circulation in the field of research and development, production, fixed capital, sales, personnel to the enterprise's own funds according to the balance sheet (formula 8):

where - own funds of the enterprise (Section III "Capital and reserves" Balance sheet liability), rub.

Figure 1 Evaluation of the possibilities of implementing a new product at the enterprise

The assessment of investment performance is described in detail in the draft part of the report. In order to make economically competent and scientifically sound decisions on the choice of a particular technology for implementation, it is not enough to confine ourselves to analyzing the effectiveness of investments in terms of the main economic parameters. It is also necessary to evaluate the dynamics of changes in indicators, taking into account their interrelations.

To do this, you can apply the method of assessing the impact of new technologies on the development of the enterprise's economy. This approach will make it possible to establish causal and indirect relationships, as well as to identify internal positive and negative contradictions of economic and innovative processes and to quantify them. Offered by A.A. Trifilova methods for assessing the on-farm efficiency of innovative projects are presented in Appendix A.

The following technique proposed by M.S. Abibullaev, is an assessment of the levels of innovative development of an enterprise using the index of innovative development of an enterprise.

When calculating the index of innovative development, the following indicators are used: indicators of expenditures on innovative activities ( I in.exp.), innovative product ( I in.prod), own funds for financing innovation activities ( I own medium), new equipment and technology ( I new tech) and staff education level ( I arr. pers). To determine the degree of significance of indicators used in assessing innovative development, it is necessary to use the method of expert assessments on a five-point scale. The method for calculating the index of innovative development of an enterprise will be shown in formula (9).

where - the corresponding weights for each indicator of the innovation development index, found by an expert.

The index of innovative development of an industrial enterprise should not be less than 0.50. Each enterprise can independently calculate the innovation development index and compare its innovation development index with the index for the industry as a whole. This will enable the head of the enterprise: firstly, to determine their place among the enterprises of the industry in the context of innovative development, and therefore to assess their competitive advantages, and, secondly, to develop an appropriate strategy for further conquering the market.

In addition, the head of the enterprise, based on the results of calculating the index of innovative development, can study its structure in detail, and identify which indicators underestimate its value, and which ones increase it. In other words, the head of the enterprise can identify weaknesses that hinder the innovative development of his enterprise. Having calculated the index of innovative development by periods, one can observe its changes, as well as changes in the structural elements of the index in dynamics, and make appropriate adjustments to the strategy of the enterprise.

Gunin V.N. and Shlenov Yu.V. highlights the need to assess the innovative potential as one of the components of the analysis, taking into account only the internal environment of the organization. The authors propose a scoring method based on expert opinion. Shlenov Yu.V. aspects and the corresponding criteria are given, according to which the innovative capabilities of the enterprise are evaluated.

The authors have developed special questionnaires and questionnaires to solve analytical problems using the assessment of innovative potential varying degrees parameter details. The internal environment of the organization is built from the elements that form its production and economic system, and the elements are grouped into blocks. First of all, it is proposed to use general questionnaires for block assessments, in which experts put down their assessments on a five-point scale.

We present a comparison of the two methods in Table (2). Based on the results of the comparison, it should be noted that the aspects of innovative opportunities in the methodology of Yu.V. Shlenov to blocks of elements of the internal environment according to V.N. Gunin. All aspects highlighted by Yu.V. Shlenov, relate to the internal environment of the enterprise, except for the latter - ecological and taking into account the influence of the external environment. Then, innovative opportunities can be considered as innovative potential, taking into account the influence of environmental factors.

The criteria proposed by the authors differ depending on the specific characteristics of the enterprise, its industry affiliation and strategic focus. The above list is not exhaustive and universal, and depending on the goals and activities of a particular enterprise, it can be expanded.

Table 2 - Comparative characteristics of methods for assessing innovative potential

Each enterprise can use those criteria that it considers essential and significant for itself. In addition to the analysis of innovative potential, V.N. Gunin expands the research methodology, taking into account environmental factors, namely, he proposes to evaluate the innovative climate, which in turn affects the innovative potential of the organization.

The innovation climate is the state of the external environment of the organization that promotes or opposes the achievement of the innovation goal. In the structure of the external environment of the organization, macro-environment and micro-environment are distinguished. There are four strategic spheres in the macro environment: social (S), technological (T), economic (E), and political (P). Their impact on the organization's macro environment and its innovative potential is established based on the results of the STEP analysis.

The microenvironment of an organization is considered as a set of strategic zones of the immediate environment, as a composition of subjects that directly interact with it and directly influence the state of innovation potential. Estimates of the components and parameters of the external environment are also given by an expert on a five-point scale. Then V.N. Gunin combines the results of the innovation potential score and the innovation climate to determine the organization's strategic innovation position using a SWOT analysis. Innovative position ( ), is determined jointly by the innovation potential ( ) and innovation climate ( ). The quantitative expression of the innovative position can be calculated either by the product or by the sum presented in formulas (10, 11):

; (10)

(11)

The analysis ends with the definition of innovative activity or innovative strength of the organization, also using scoring. When evaluating this or that situation, not only the innovative position is really taken into account, but also the innovative power or strength, specifically shown by the organization in a specific situation. Innovative force () is determined by the formula (12), multiplying the innovative position () by the coefficient of innovative activity ().

(12)

The parameters of innovative activity are presented in Table 3.

Innovative activity is determined by formula (13) as the arithmetic mean of each of the parameters assessed by an expert on a five-point scale.

Table 3 - Evaluation of the organization's innovative activity

№	Estimated parameters of innovative activity	Parameter status level
A 1	Quality of innovation strategy and innovation goal
A 2	Level of mobilization of innovative potential
A 3	The level of attracted capital investments - investments
A 4	Methods, culture, reference points commonly used in innovative measurements
A 5	Correspondence of the firm's response to the nature of the competitive strategic situation
A 6	The speed of development and implementation of the innovation strategy
A 7	Validity of the implemented level of innovation activity
Final assessment of the state of innovation activity

Analyzing empirical research in the field of the impact of innovation on the efficiency of the firm, we can distinguish the following approaches to assessing innovation.

1 Methods that do not use specialized approaches, but are based on standard methods of econometric analysis (statistical significance testing, p-value, correlation coefficients), including data from innovation surveys, such as innovation costs, the number of employees in the innovation sector, company profits (total, clean, operating room), etc.

2 Techniques that study the relationship between the innovative activity of a company and its economic result. At the same time, such criteria as the growth of profitability, the growth of total profit, the growth of the company (expansion of the market share), the increase in competitiveness, and temporary monopoly profit are used as criteria for the economic result.

According to A.A. Stocking, in order to assess the effectiveness of innovations, it is necessary to find criteria for selecting data used in the calculations, and to determine indicators of the results of innovative activities at the input and output of the organization, for example, operating profit OPR, ROI etc. An analysis of foreign practice allows us to identify the following system of indicators of the effectiveness of innovations at the micro level, presented in table (4).

Table 4 - Main types of indicators of innovative activity of innovations

Indicator	Method of calculation	Advantages	Flaws
R&D spending	Number of R&D personnel divided by the total number of employees R&D expenditure divided by the firm's total sales	Availability of time series data Ability to separate R&D data into product and process data	R&D spending accounts for only 25% of total innovation spending, depending on the type of industry Innovation reviews often underestimate R&D spending Sectoral aggregation is often used when publishing data due to a firm's reluctance to provide sufficient information
Patents and their application	Number of patents (in % or number) Number of patents divided by the firm's total sales	Availability of time series data Detailed information both about the product (technology) and about all participants in patenting	Often a company's refusal to commercialize a patented invention is part of a strategic policy The company may refuse to develop an innovation and acquire a license Some patents may reflect a relatively small economic effort of the firm compared to others
Innovation costs not included in R&D	Innovation (non-R&D) spending divided by the firm's total sales	Non-R&D costs (marketing, staff training, trial sales, design) range from 5-7% to 25% of total innovation costs	In Russia, there is practically no such data against the backdrop of low activity of companies in this area

Table 4 continued

Indicator	Method of calculation	Advantages	Flaws
Announced new products	Screening of trade and technical magazines to collect information about new products	Relative cheapness of the method No problems associated with interviewing firms and the threat of partial information Separation of innovation into types and types Statistically confirmed estimates without industry or regional aggregation	Clear correlation between the quality of the results and the representativeness of the sample of journals Some small firms may refrain from publishing in a journal, preferring other channels of presentation to the information market
Significant (major) innovations	Expert survey	Lack of contact with the firm Ability to take into account innovation using expert evaluation methods	The use of the competence of experts is related to the issues of competence of experts and the objectivity of their assessments.

Based on the above indicators, the author proposes a methodology for assessing the effectiveness of innovations at the micro level, including the ratio of benefits and costs of innovation. This development can be used to assess the propensity of Russian firms to innovative development. As the final indicator of innovative development, a generalized innovative indicator is used, taking into account adjustments for innovative indicators expressed in relative terms. The generalized innovation indicator is determined by formula (14).

1. At the firm to assess its own capabilities and select the appropriate strategy.

2. In large concerns and associative structures to compare the innovative capabilities of various enterprises and select programs for their development.

3. To compare the level of innovative development of Russian and foreign enterprises.

The list of assessments of innovative activity - namely, indicators and methods - is quite large. This section highlights only a few of them. Many organizations find measuring innovation difficult and develop their own complex system of innovation metrics. However, if you get too carried away with this process, the indicators can become abstract. Thomas Kuchmaroki, the author of numerous publications on innovation management, describes four main shortcomings that can be made when developing your own innovation metrics.

1. Too many indicators. This error can be due to two reasons: the desire to do too much for too much short term or unwillingness to get rid of some old metrics that have already shown their practical unsuitability. The result of using a complex system of indicators is a huge expenditure of working time on collecting information to calculate values, which ultimately turn out to be inconvenient for interpretation. The clearer and more practical indicators of innovation, the more likely it is to set reasonable targets and develop sound strategies to achieve them.

2. Design point of view on innovation. In many companies, innovations are viewed as projects that are managed in accordance with generally accepted project management practices. At the same time, the assessment of the success of innovations is carried out using the "classical" financial indicators For project activities- NPV, IRR and payback period. However, innovation is not a collection of individual projects, but a continuous process of initiating, developing and selecting innovative ideas, as a result of which new projects are born and implemented. Therefore, it is incorrect to apply “design” indicators to measure innovation.

3. Innovation indicators are developed and autonomously used by individual departments of the company. The situation is widespread when local innovation programs are implemented by individual departments. These metrics are used to evaluate the performance of a given unit, but they are not built into the company's corporate scorecard and are not considered strategically important by top managers. In this case, innovative initiatives are "focal" in nature and do not cover the life of the entire enterprise.

4. Focus on cost reduction. If the key document for a company is the profit and loss statement, then the focus is likely to be on cost reduction rather than understanding customer needs and satisfying them using innovative methods. At the same time, the practice of successful enterprises shows that cost reduction is always an inevitable consequence of the concentration of intellectual and organizational efforts on customer expectations and the quality of the product being sold.

Innovative goals and innovative potential of the organization

Classifier structure

Classification of innovations, innovation processes and innovations

Most progressive innovations (innovations) are used in complex, science-intensive products, energy-saving and high technologies, service industry. With all the variety of innovations, very important condition for their practical implementation in innovations is the timely and sufficient allocation of innovative investments.

Innovations and innovations are divided into scientific and technical, technological, economic, managerial and organizational. The degree of their novelty and innovative potential determines the decision-making on the creation of new products, the development of advanced technology, and the expansion of the service sector. The innovative processes organized for this purpose are determined by the nature and essence of innovations and the area of their distribution.

A large number of factors influence the options for organizing innovative processes and the direction of innovative activity, including the value aspect of innovations, the presence of competition, etc. In order to reasonably allocate investments in innovative processes, it is necessary to know the main features and the fundamental content of the whole variety of innovations and innovations. Their classification according to basic features and other characteristics will provide significant assistance in making decisions in innovation management, determining the directions of innovation activity.

The classifier has two levels.

1.Basic features of objects of classification.

2. Grouping typological concepts according to basic features.

The basic features of classification objects are divided into three groups. The first group includes innovations (innovations), the second - innovative processes, and the third - innovations. Each group has its own subgroups of basic classification features. For example, innovations (innovations) are detailed by features that characterize the degree of novelty, as well as innovative potential. 104

Innovation statistics, based on common international approaches, starts counting from 1989. It was initiated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The OECD experts prepared a series of methodological guidelines that form the so-called "Frascati Family" (Frascati, Italy, famous for the fact that in it the OECD member countries in 1963 prepared the Frascati Guide "Standard Practice for Surveying Research and Experimental Development" ), including recommendations for measuring and interpreting balance sheet data for technology payments (1990); on Data Collection on Technological Innovation - The Oslo Manual (1992); on the use of patent data as indicators of science and technology (1994); on Measuring the Science and Technology Workforce - The Canberra Manual (with Eurostat, 1995).

In Russia, taking into account market transformations, innovation statistics begins in 1994. The system of statistical indicators characterizing the innovative activity of industrial organizations includes 10 sections.

Cost indicators:

1) unit costs for R&D in the volume of sales, which characterize the indicator of the knowledge intensity of the company's products;

2) unit costs for the acquisition of licenses, patents, know-how;

3) the cost of acquiring innovative firms;

4) the availability of funds for the development of initiative developments.

Indicators characterizing the dynamics of the innovation process:

1) indicator of innovation TAT,

2) the duration of the process of developing a new product (new technology);

3) the duration of preparation for the production of a new product;

4) the duration of the production cycle of a new product. Renewability indicators:

1) the number of developments or implementation of product innovations and process innovations;

2) indicators of the dynamics of updating the product portfolio (the share of products manufactured for 2, 3, 5 and 10 years);

3) the number of acquired (transferred) new technologies (technical achievements);

4) the volume of exported innovative products;

5) the volume of new services provided.

Structural indicators:

1) the composition and number of research, development and other scientific and technical structural units (including experimental and testing complexes);

2) the composition and number of joint ventures engaged in the use of new technology and the creation of new products;

3) the number and structure of employees engaged in R&D;

4) the composition and number of creative initiative temporary teams,

The most commonly used indicators reflect the firm's unit costs for R&D in the volume of its sales and the number of scientific and technical departments.

Japanese firm Sony is considered the most innovative company in the field of consumer electronics. During its 50 years of activity, it has constantly introduced into use a fundamentally new technique that changes the work and leisure of people. The company's sales in 1991 reached 26 billion dollars, in 1994 it rose to 36.6 billion dollars. All the company's products were developed by its scientific and engineering staff, numbering 9 thousand people. (with a total number of commas in the company 112.9 thousand people). The firm spends $4.5 billion on research and development, or 5.7% of sales. Every year the company offers 1000 new products - about 4 every working day. About 800 of them are improved versions of products that are already on the market, either with improved performance or at a reduced price. The remaining 200 are original developments aimed at opening new markets: new audio and video equipment, computer equipment.

Firm Hitachi- one of the largest manufacturers of radio-electronic and electrical products, machine tools and forging and pressing equipment. The volume of its sales in 1994 amounted to 70.710 billion dollars, the number of commas - 291 thousand people, including 12 thousand were employed in scientific activities; R&D expenses accounted for about 10% of sales of products and services.

General Motors controls 88% of the US automotive market, including the small car market. Already in 1983 General Motors ranked 5th in the list of companies - the largest US importers. In 1994, the company ranked #1 in the top 10 US companies with $120 billion in sales, $2.5 billion in profits, and 876,000 employees. $4.2 billion was spent on R&D, or 4% of sales. In 1996 in General Motors almost 900 thousand people worked, of which 130 thousand were white-collar workers (this is only in the North American automotive divisions).

Annual turnover IBM from 1984 to 1990 increased from $27.4 billion to $69 billion. Profits in 1990 amounted to $6 billion. Expenses /5L/ for R&D in 1990 amounted to $3.5 billion (about 5% of the volume sales).

Corporation Digital Equipment (DEK) is a multinational company specializing in the production of electronic products. In your industry DEK in 1989 was 12th in the world and 3rd in the US, behind IBM And General Electric. In 1989, the number of people employed in DEK amounted to 126 thousand people, of which 8300 highly qualified workers in the field of R&D (6.6% of the total). Sales in 1989 amounted to 13 billion dollars, net profit exceeded 1 billion dollars. 1.3 billion dollars were allocated for scientific development (in 1980 - 186 million dollars, 1984 - 630 million dollars) .

Corporation General Electric is a leading manufacturer of electric motors, power equipment, medical diagnostic equipment, laser medical equipment, thermoplastics, computer-controlled railway locomotives, X-ray and ultrasound equipment. The number of employees in all divisions is 307 thousand people, including 22 thousand people. - scientists and engineers employed in R&D (about 7% of the total number of employees). R&D expenditures in 1988 amounted to 1.9 billion dollars, in 1992 - 3.2 billion dollars, i.e. even more than is invested in fixed capital. The volume of sales in only 15 years (1979-1994) increased more than 3 times and in 1994 amounted to 60.5 billion dollars. -e - in terms of profit and 5th - in terms of the number of employees.

The main activity of the company Chrysler is the automotive industry: the production of cars and trucks, jeeps and mini-vans. The number of employees is 119 thousand people, including about 4.5 thousand people in R&D. In 1995, with sales of $52.2 billion, the company's profit reached a record high of $3.7 billion. R&D expenses were only 3.2%. In the second half of the 1990s, the firm spent an average of $1.9 billion per year on R&D.

Widely used measure of innovation TAT, which was put into circulation by the Japanese and comes from the American phrase turn- around time"("keep turning"). This is understood as the time from the moment a need or demand for a new product is realized to the moment it is sent to the market or to the consumer in large quantities. Firm Matsushita in color television belongs to a kind of record value of the indicator TAT- 4.7 months.

Consulting Firm Experts McKinsey believe that in the automotive industry, the use of advanced computer technology will lead to a reduction in TAT by reducing the cycle of design and development of the car by 25%.

That means an 18-month savings that will allow car companies to make decisions about what cars to build a year and a half closer to the time a product goes to market. And this is a huge advantage over competitors who failed to take advantage of the new technology.

Corporation Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing (3M), a leading company in the manufacturing industry, exemplifies the formation of a dynamic, market-oriented organizational structure. In the 1990s, the company was among the top 100 industrial giants in the United States: 32nd in terms of profits (1.3 billion dollars in 1994), 30th in terms of the number of employees (83 thousand people), 27 -e - in terms of total sales ($15.1 billion). The corporation is proud of the high science-intensiveness of its products: the share of R&D costs in the cost of sales in 1994

Organization Development Management: Modular Program for Managers

was 6%, twice the US manufacturing average.

The specific form of the corporation's activity in the scientific and technical sphere through the financing of venture companies, i.e. small (inventive) created by scientists or entrepreneurs to develop some advanced science-intensive product or technology.

Controlling the development of several hundred such firms, the corporation actually carries out a wide-ranging search for promising scientific and technological achievements. $100-150 million is spent annually on the acquisition of the most promising innovative firms.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of innovation activity. Innovation Performance Indicators

Chopped tomatoes with butter for the winter

Appetizers with crab sticks

What to cook for the new year

Categories

Latest Articles

Fortune telling on coffee grounds - interpretation of the future through the lines and signs of Fate

Stuffed crab sticks - the best stuffing recipes What to wrap in a crab stick

Is liquid honey better than thick honey?

How to convert weight from kilograms to liters

How to make Coca-Cola at home: recipe

How to make Coca-Cola at home: recipe

Olivier salad: a classic recipe with sausage and peas

Recipe for chocolate charlotte with apples

Pilaf with chicken in a slow cooker, recipes How to cook pilaf in a slow cooker with chicken

Advertising

Evaluation of the effectiveness of innovation activity. Innovation Performance Indicators

You might be interested:

Categories

Latest Articles

Advertising