Formation of a culture of innovation. Cultural innovation

The development of society occurs only as a result of creativity that goes beyond the established traditions. Such creativity is called innovative.

The concept of innovation

Cultural innovations are ideas, values, norms, original products of creative activity that are introduced into culture for the first time, creating the prerequisites for progressive socio-cultural changes. Such innovations include the cultivation of plants, the domestication of animals, the emergence of metallurgy, the generation of electricity, the psychoanalytic theory of Z. Freud, computerization, and so on.

Innovations in culture arise as a result of the development of new ideas by members of a given socio-cultural formation (scientists, thinkers, artists), and as a result of borrowing the cultural achievements of other human communities.

The impact of new technologies on artistic culture

Cardinal changes as a result of the development of technical means have affected all spheres of human activity, including art. And we are not talking about photography or cinema that have become familiar and have already fallen on a par with the most ancient forms of art: painting, theater, music. Over the past decades, artistic culture has undergone fundamental changes due to the development of computer and digital technologies. New artistic genres are being formed. A phenomenon called digital arts has emerged. Broad creative possibilities have opened up in such areas as virtual reality, three-dimensional animation, the Internet and interactive systems.

Interactive multimedia technologies have changed the relationship with space and time. A powerful platform for artistic self-expression was formed.
Virtual reality stimulates the effect of sensory authenticity.

Using the interactive mode allows the viewer to make contact with the artist, to participate in the creation of the work.

Computer games are a vivid example of the rapid development of information audiovisual technologies at the beginning of the 21st century. Along with computer graphics and web design, modern computer games claim to be works of art.

Already established areas of art (music, painting, graphics, sculpture) have been enriched by digital technologies with new artistic means and opportunities. For example, electronic technology has made it possible to create holographic images that mimic sculpture and architecture, as well as completely new sounds that are far from the sound of real musical instruments.

The assessment of the impact of new technologies on artistic culture is ambiguous. Art critics are divided into two opposing camps. Some consider the development of media art to be a promising direction, while others perceive it as a path to the cultural degradation of society. Such a contradictory assessment of innovations is a typical problem in the early stages of the dissemination of any innovations.

Mechanism for dissemination of cultural innovations

The society goes through several stages.

Selection stage. In a highly developed society with a "fast" economy, new items appear all the time, but many of them are eliminated. Borrowing is also selective. The main selection criterion is the practical benefit for this community from the point of view of people in power, as well as the readiness of ordinary members of society to perceive original ideas and implement them into their daily lives.
Modification of an innovative idea. It occurs, as a rule, in the sphere of cultural borrowing in order to facilitate the integration of new cultural attitudes by the ethnic group. For example, many Christian holidays and rituals are built on the basis of pre-existing pagan ones.
Integration into culture. The final stage. The rooting of innovations in the life of society to such an extent that they turn into a traditional phenomenon for a given culture and are perceived by their carriers as a norm, a standard.

Innovation in some cultures is welcomed, while in others it is treated with skepticism at best, if not declared war, as something unambiguously negative. The nature of the attitude towards innovations makes it possible to differentiate societies of "innovative" and "traditional" types.

When developing a new product on the market, it is necessary to take into account the possibilities of obtaining support at all stages of the introduction of innovation, which depend on the level of the innovative culture of the society.

That is, openness to innovations, readiness to implement an innovative idea on the part of dominant social groups, representatives of different generations. Moreover, the attitude to the introduction of life can differ significantly. For example, often a positive attitude towards innovative technologies is combined with an ardent adherence to the norms of traditional social institutions.

Formation of an innovation culture

The desire for improvement of the progressive members of society often collides with the conservatism of thinking and the lack of a creative approach among its representatives, which have a decisive influence on social processes. In other words, those with conservative views are perceived as an encroachment on the inherited, well-known and understandable way of life. The need for a sense of security defeats the craving for change, even if it is positive in the long run. As a result, the process of introducing innovations is greatly delayed, if not completely slowed down as a result of censorship and legislative obstruction. This phenomenon is referred to as innovative inertia and leads to the incapacity of society in the future.

In the absence of a favorable climate for innovation, it must be created. To do this, first, an innovative product is offered to a small experimental group. High appreciation of the product by individual members of the society contributes to the credibility of the innovative introduction from the wider social community. The product is being implemented at separate sites - schools, hospitals, companies, countries. Depending on whether the innovation was accepted by the control group or not, the product is promoted to wider markets or sent for revision.

Innovativeness and tradition must be in a delicate balance. When introducing innovations, an anti-progressive policy, a critical attitude towards innovations should be distinguished from constructive criticism when evaluating innovations. Only under the condition of mastering and taking into account the experience of previous generations, transformations are initiated that contribute to real progress in the creation of new culture.

Formation of an innovative educational culture

INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………... .3

SECTION 1. Innovative educational culture as one of the main elements of a successful educational process...……..4

SECTION 2. Innovative activity in the system of scientific and methodological work of a teacher …………………………………………………....6

2.1. Innovative culture of the teacher: the psychological and pedagogical essence of the concept ...…………………………………………………………………….6

2.2. Features of the development of teacher culture in the context of the transition to a new humanistic-innovative paradigm of education ..………….7

2.3. Formation of an innovative culture of a teacher in the system of intra-school methodological work ………….………………………………….9

CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………………………………9

LIST OF USED LITERATURE ………………...……..11

ADDITIONS ………………………………………………………………..….1

INTRODUCTION

In modern conditions of reforming the educational system, the contradiction between the required and real level of culture is deepening. pedagogical activity necessary for the implementation of the most important functions. It is possible to resolve this contradiction if, under the conditions of any educational institution create optimal conditions for the manifestation of a high culture of innovative pedagogical activity. Currently topical there are certain problems of training an innovative teacher who has competence, is ready to use and create innovations, the ability to conduct experimental work. Consequently, relevant is to identify and overcome the contradiction between updating the paradigm of modern education - the transition to a new type of humanistic-innovative education, which involves the innovative activity of all participants in the educational process, and the unpreparedness of a significant part of teachers for the corresponding changes.

aim research work is to determine the role of innovation in the system of scientific and methodological work of the teacher and the coverage of the process of formation of innovative educational culture at various stages of the educational process.

The goal is to solution such tasks:

consider innovative educational culture as one of the main elements of a successful educational process;

highlight the essence of the phenomenon of innovation and innovation processes;

define innovative technologies as an object of the cultural space of education;

reveal the psychological and pedagogical essence of the concept of a teacher's innovative culture;

to determine the features of the formation of a teacher's innovative culture in the system of intra-school methodological work.

Research material the process of forming a professional culture of a teacher has become, which becomes more effective when creating an innovative environment in an educational institution, i.e. conditions for constant search, updating of techniques and methods of professional activity.

The object of study became the phenomenon of the existence of an innovative educational environment and its influence on the culture of pedagogical activity.

Subject of analysis became professional activity of the teacher, aimed at achieving the highest possible results in the training, education and development of students.

Methodological basis research was the fact that innovative activity is considered not as a teaching method, but as a type of joint activity of a teacher and a student, as well as the theory of personality development (L.S. Vygotsky, O.M. Leontiev) and the theory of pedagogical creativity. This is a dialectical approach to innovation culture as an integral system that is in constant dynamics, an understanding of innovation as a key factor in the development of pedagogical culture, a statement about the relationship between the form and content of innovation processes.

Main research methods are systemic, axiological, descriptive, structural, comparative, as well as methods of systematization, classification, comparison of cultural phenomena.

Materials and results can be found practical use teachers of different profiles at all stages of the educational process.

SECTION 1.

Innovative educational culture as one of the main elements of a successful educational process

The basic definition of the concept of "innovation" is the understanding of innovation, established in professional communication, as a realized innovation, regardless of the scope of application.

The innovation itself, i.e. scientific, scientific and technical development, invention, including in the field of education, becomes an innovation, as a rule, in the form of a product, service, method. Therefore, the innovation cycle is preceded by research, development or design work. Their results basically create the groundwork on the basis of which innovation activity begins in a specific area of their application.

Innovation also refers to the process of implementing innovation. In a broad sense, innovation is a synonym for the successful development of social, economic, educational, managerial and other spheres based on various innovations.

So, the phenomenon of innovation is primarily understood as a chain of implemented innovations. It is more successful when it covers more than one narrow area, but also includes areas that affect the overall result. Therefore, innovative development should be complex.

One cannot but agree with I.F. Isaev, who believes that the subject of innovation, the content and mechanisms of innovation processes should lie in the plane of combining two interrelated processes, i.e. on the one hand and the study, generalization and dissemination pedagogical experience, and on the other hand, with the problem of development and implementation of pedagogical innovations.

The innovative orientation of the formation of a professional and pedagogical culture of a teacher of an educational institution involves his inclusion in the activities of creating, mastering and using pedagogical innovations in the practice of teaching and raising children, creating an innovative cultural environment in an educational institution.

The innovation process in the education system is caused by the influence of many factors. The actions of innovators are nothing but the realization of their individual needs to expand their own social space through professional activities. If they meet general pedagogical interests, then the proposed innovations will bring undoubted benefits to educational institutions. However, when individual and social-group needs are absolutized, the result can be directly opposite. The complex structure of needs gives rise to many contradictions between society and the education system, between the subjects of the education system itself. Each innovation finds both support and opposition. This is an objective reality. Therefore, in matters of managing the education system, a clear orientation in the essential nature of innovations is necessary, which is reflected in the principles of state policy, the criteria for selecting knowledge from the sphere of science and production into the education system, taking into account the objective conditions for the transmission of knowledge to students and the factors that contribute to and oppose the implementation of this tasks .

SECTION 2

Innovative activity in the system of scientific and methodological work of the teacher

2.1. Innovative culture of the teacher: psychological and pedagogical essence of the concept

The professional activity of a teacher involves a constant change and addition of requirements for it. In the space of innovative educational culture, the teacher must be competent in relation to promising school technologies, develop and use their own creative projects.

The teacher's innovative culture is a component of professional and pedagogical culture. Through participation in it, the teacher has the opportunity for self-realization, the disclosure of creative potential, the use of intellectual abilities and the implementation of innovative ideas into practice.

Considering the psychological essence of the concept of innovative activity of a teacher, it should be noted that the concept of activity is generally assessed not as a teaching method, but as a type of joint activity of students and teachers (L.S. Vygotsky, S.L. Rubinshtein, A.R. Luria).

The issue of the pedagogical aspect of understanding professional culture is defined by the majority of researchers (V.M. Grineva, N.B. Krylova, I.F. Isaev) as a set of general cultural, moral, intellectual and physical qualities, professional knowledge and skills necessary for successful educational and educational work .

The specifics of the teacher's professional and pedagogical activity, including innovative, led to the allocation of pedagogical culture as one of the most important components of the culture of society. In the work of V.M. Grineva points out that “teacher’s professional goals, motives, knowledge, skills, qualities, abilities, attitudes are reflected through the teacher’s culture. That is, pedagogical culture is a phenomenon of the teacher's manifestation of his own "I" in professional and pedagogical activity through the unity of his goals, motives, knowledge, skills, qualities, abilities, relationships, united in a certain system of pedagogical values.

In the context of the transition to a new humanistic-innovative paradigm of education, the culture of a teacher can be considered a qualitative pedagogical characteristic of a specialist, which indicates his ability to organize and carry out innovative activities.

The culture of a teacher is an integral qualitative characteristic, the formation of which is due to the interaction of aspects: emotional and value (unity of goals, motives, personal qualities, pedagogical ethics), cognitive (knowledge of the technology of innovative activity) and procedural (skills regarding the organization, management and implementation of innovative activities ) .

Khoruzha L.L. determines that each of the components of a teacher's culture is a derivative of the basic components of education: professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills of a teacher, its spiritual and ethical background.

The definition of spirituality as a basic component is due to the fact that culture is considered as a component of the universal culture and professional culture of the teacher. The Ukrainian Pedagogical Dictionary (Goncharenko S.U.) defines spirituality as “an individual expression in the system of motives of two fundamental needs: the ideal need for knowledge and the social need to live and create for others.”

One of the components of a teacher's spirituality in the process of implementing an innovative culture is professional and pedagogical ethics. It acts as a defining characteristic of the teacher's activity, determines the moral and ethical requirements for him and reflects the degree of their transformation in consciousness and behavior.

The ethics of the teacher's behavior is a projection of his personal attitude to various objects of professional activity: students, himself as a person, the profession of a teacher, the introduction of innovations. It is through the system of relations that the personal-moral and professional readiness of the teacher to understand the features of innovative activity and ways of its implementation is manifested.

Another no less important professional skill of a teacher in the works of scientists is considered a pedagogical tact, "with the help of which he in each case applies to students the most effective method of educational influence in certain circumstances" . The way to regulate the pedagogical tact is tolerance, which is characterized by the absence or restraint of the teacher's reaction to any adverse factors of influence, emotional stability.

The model for the formation of a teacher's innovative culture in the system of intra-school methodological work should begin with the creation of a pedagogically expedient organization of a set of incentives that would encourage the development of pedagogical innovative thinking, teachers' interest in innovative activities. Creating an atmosphere of creative interpersonal interaction between the subjects of the educational process is the next step on the way to the development of innovative cultural space. This is followed by familiarization of teachers with the algorithms for the implementation of innovative activities, understanding and participation in it through their own creativity. This model ends with the promotion of the activation of social activity of all participants in innovative activity, the emotional experience of this process itself.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The formation of an innovative educational culture involves identifying and overcoming the contradiction between updating the paradigm of modern education - the transition to a new type of humanistically innovative education - and the unpreparedness of a significant part of teachers for the corresponding changes.

2. The general definition of the concept of "innovation" is the understanding of innovation, established in professional communication, as an implemented innovation, regardless of the scope of application.

3. The teacher's innovative culture as an integral part of professional and pedagogical culture reflects the totality of all methods of innovative transformation of pedagogical reality based on forecasting, planning, managing, designing and modeling educational and educational phenomena, processes and systems.

4. The actions of innovators are nothing but the realization of their individual needs to expand their own social space through professional activities.

5. The specificity of the teacher's professional and pedagogical activity, including innovative, led to the allocation of pedagogical culture as one of the most important components of the culture of society.

LIST OF USED LITERATURE

Bespalko VP Components of pedagogical technology. - M .: Pedagogy, 1990.

Bobrov V.V. Actual problems modern content of education// Philosophy of education. - 2002. - No. 5. - http://www.philosophy.nsc.ru/Obraz.htm.

Vaschenko G. Zagalnі methodi navchannya: Pіdruchnik dlya pedagodiv. – K.: Ukr. Vidavnicha spilka, 1997.

Goncharenko S. U. Ukrainian Pedagogical Dictionary. - K .: Libid, 1997.

Grinyova V. M. Formation of the pedagogical culture of the future teacher. - K., 2001.

Zabrodska L. M., Onoprienko O. V., Khoruzha L. L., Tsimbalaru A. D. Informational and methodological support for the design and technological activity of the teacher. – H.: View. gr. "Osnova", 2007.

Ksenzova G. Yu. Perspective school technologies. - M .: Pedagogical Society of Russia, 2000.

Nikolaev A. Process of innovative development. - http://stra.teg..ru/lentainnovation/1362.

Pedagogical Ethics: Textbook / Ed. E. A. Grishina. - Vladimir, 1975.

Pedagogical glossary / As edited by active member of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine M. D. Yarmachenko. - Pedagogical thought, 2001.

Postalyuk N. Yu. Pedagogy of cooperation. - Kazan: Kazan Publishing House. un-ta, 2000.

Professional ethics of the teacher: hour and time / For the zag. ed. B. M. Zhebrovsky. - K., 2001

Sinitsa I. O. Pedagogical tact and mastery of the teacher. - K .: Radianska school, 1981.

Samorodova A.P. Some aspects of the innovative orientation of the formation of the professional and pedagogical culture of the educator of a preschool educational institution. - http://stra.teg..ru/lentainnovation/1362.

Yasvin V.A. Educational environment: from modeling to design. – M.: Meaning, 2001.

In the process of forecasts and disputes about what the 21st century should be like, many judgments have been made. Concepts such as sustainable growth and globalization have become widespread in relation to social development. Recognizing their importance for assessing current trends, one cannot but see that they cannot serve as universal characteristics of a new stage in social, economic, political and other processes. More precisely, in our opinion, the essence of this stage reflects the category of “innovative development”, which was widely covered in domestic and foreign literature. With regard to Russia, we can agree with the opinion of Professor V. Fedorova about the innovative and mobilization nature of development. It seems appropriate to look at this topic from purely applied positions. What needs to be done to turn innovative development from an attractive idea into a reality for Russia?

In its left part there are two main components of the process of innovative development - the implementation innovative projects and development of innovative potential. This implies the specific task of measuring the initial parameters of the latter, determining its place in the overall potential of an enterprise, educational institution, governing body, etc.

An underestimation of this approach leads to the fact that indicators relating to scientific, technical, production and technological, personnel or other components of the overall potential of an enterprise or organization are often given as characteristics of innovative potential. In such cases, the actual innovative potential of the enterprise is not singled out, not measured, and, as a result, is not purposefully developed. As a result, the result is not achieved - the growth of new competitive goods and services. Scheme 2 shows the overall potential of an enterprise or organization and its main components - production and technological, scientific and technical, financial and economic, personnel and innovation potential, which represents, as it were, the core of the entire potential, organically entering into each part of it.

Of course, there are more complex dialectical connections between the parts of the overall potential, but one thing is indisputable: the innovative potential determines, as it were, the final part of the production cycle and its real throughput, which significantly affects the final result. It is widely believed that the main direction of stimulating innovative development is the renewal of fixed assets and, above all, the machine park. It would seem difficult to argue against this. But having strengthened the production and technological potential of the enterprise in this way and not affecting its other parts to the same extent, we usually get a deadening of financial resources.

The vicious practice of the past is known, when imported plants bought for foreign currency rusted in boxes for years, because they did not think about other components of the overall potential of the enterprise in time. This problem is still present in a slightly different form. Quite often, there is no one to work even on outdated equipment. The reasons are clear - the loss of the necessary production personnel or the loss of their qualifications. Who will use the new generation equipment? Are technological, repair and other services of enterprises ready for this? Finally, what should the innovation infrastructure of an enterprise, organization, or region look like?

Last year, the Institute for Strategic Innovations, together with the Ministry of Industry and Science of Russia, conducted two major studies, during which the innovative potential of enterprises and scientific and technical organizations was measured by 36 parameters. Hence a direct step towards monitoring, a kind of map of the state of the innovation potential of Russia, its leading economic regions, including cities and enterprises. This will create conditions for purposeful concrete work to solve real innovative problems and manage these processes. As a basis for assessing the state of innovation potential, we took the opportunities that enterprises have for their own innovation activities, mainly related to their innovation infrastructure. The heads of enterprises themselves acted as experts.

Out of 15 positions, they put the technical condition of the equipment (67.3% of managers) in first place, followed by the presence of a backlog of scientific and technical developments for innovation (56%), as well as the possibility of producing an experimental batch and organizing mass production (54.8% each). ). Least of all enterprises are ready for the examination of projects (17%), solving the problems of protecting intellectual property in Russia (16%) and abroad (11.1%).

4. The level of innovation culture, which characterizes the degree of susceptibility of innovations by the personnel of an enterprise, organization, its readiness and ability to implement innovations in the form of innovations.

If we evaluate the role of 12 external factors affecting the innovative activity of enterprises, then it is necessary first of all to note the demand for products in the domestic market (as indicated by 69.9% of managers) and taxation (64.1%). To a lesser extent, this applies to the impact of infrastructure located outside the enterprise (26% of respondents) and risk insurance (19.9%). Internal factors (there were 9 of them) actually reflected the readiness of the personnel in certain areas of activity. In general, 62.3% of respondents put the qualification of workers in the first place, and the preparedness of those employed in the field of marketing - 59.6%. The last place among internal factors is occupied by the readiness of personnel for foreign economic activity (44.4% of respondents) and in the field of patent and legal issues (39%).

Diagram 3 shows the structure of the innovation potential. It is based on the innovative infrastructure of the enterprise together with innovative opportunities that are created at the expense of other components of the potential. Internal factors prevail over external ones and, when an enterprise moves from the survival stage to the development stage, they significantly increase their weight. The relatively low significance of many external factors is explained not by their uselessness, but by the actual collapse of the systems of sectoral and regional management. When using sociological indicators, it becomes possible to determine the real impact of each of them on innovation activity, and this is extremely important, since even more “favorable” indicators (the condition of equipment or the qualifications of workers) do not give grounds for optimism (every third enterprise, neither in terms of the state of equipment, nor according to the qualifications of workers cannot carry out innovative activities).

On the other hand, it becomes possible to fill each factor with specific content and reach the development of standard models of organizational, legal, technological formation of the innovative potential of an enterprise, taking into account industry and regional characteristics. This may be, for example, the tasks, structure and organization of the services of examination or patenting. Considering the huge role of the innovation factor for the activities of enterprises and the lack of preparedness of many specialists in the management of the innovation sphere, it is advisable to develop the foundations of these models by government order and provide enterprises as a real form of their state support.

Of course, we are talking about recommendations, but the need for them is so great that some directors of enterprises, not having modern developments, literally “dig out” and reanimate the elements of the innovation support infrastructure left over from Soviet times (BRIZ, VOIR, NTO, etc.). A clear understanding of where, in what form and in what sequence to apply efforts will make it possible to combine the capabilities of enterprises, regional and federal bodies in the innovation field. Finally, there will be a chance to eliminate the resulting blockage in the use of existing scientific and technical developments, inventions, and know-how. Otherwise, not only individual developments will be irretrievably lost, but also the very chance of independent restructuring of the entire social production.

The solution of these issues is possible both organizationally, technologically and economically. Without big expenses, we put into operation a huge resource of innovative infrastructure, which is now actually in an ownerless state. Meanwhile, he regularly serves in industrialized countries. However, the problem of developing innovative potential does not end there.

World experience shows that it is impossible to overcome innovation stagnation only with the help of investments. Thus, according to the opinion of the commission of Western European experts, set forth in the 1995 Green Book, the state of innovation in the European Union could be assessed as unsatisfactory. This is largely due to the tendency of enterprises to avoid risk, as well as to the numerous obstacles to the creativity of innovators, bureaucracy, red tape. Such interference negatively affects the coordination of efforts, human resources and the legal environment, which ultimately limits the ability to turn scientific breakthroughs and technological achievements into commercial success. Many problems, therefore, lie on a plane other than financial. Well-known manager, President of the Fraunhofer Society of Germany, Professor H.-Yu. Warneke believes that virtually all end goals, such as increasing market share and improving product quality, are best achieved through strategies that affect the social system. Technique and technology play a much smaller role in this process. The disunity of culture and art, on the one hand, and natural science and technology, on the other, he argues, threatens to turn into a catastrophe.

This is also confirmed by our research. Of the enterprises whose managers rated their level of innovation culture as very low, 71.4% were at the survival stage, while all enterprises that considered their level of innovation culture to be very high were at the stage of medium or fast development.

The process of forming an innovatively receptive environment is extremely complex. According to K. Tsiolkovsky, stated in his article “Motors of Progress”, where he specifically considers the problem of using innovations, the reason for the wrong attitude to discoveries and inventions lies in human weaknesses. He deduced a whole system of factors standing in the way of the implementation of innovations: inertia, inertia, conservatism; distrust of unknown names, selfishness, narrow selfishness, lack of understanding of the universal and one's own good; temporary losses, opposition to the unusual on the part of employees, unwillingness to retrain, corporate interests, professional envy. It seems that the conclusion of Tsiolkovsky, made more than 70 years ago, is the first attempt to pose this problem.

It is indicative that today it echoes the opinion of EU experts, who note that due to a number of reasons, “... an idea, even the most fruitful one, mostly perishes. At best, a good thought is hindered and delayed for tens and hundreds of years... Humanity remains at a terrible loss...”

The authors of the "Green Book" proceed from the fact that the concepts opposite to innovation are archaism and routine. The struggle between them, in principle, is necessary, since the new is far from always better than the old. Healthy conservatism, for example, could have warned Russian reformers against many hasty and frivolous decisions, the consequences of which cost society dearly. Let us add that some of them did not suffer from an excess of a common culture. It suffices to recall what kind of criticism the works of R. Aron, J. Galbraith, W. Rostow, J. Tinbergen and other Western scientists who tried to find a model for the convergence of socialism and capitalism were subjected to in the 1970s. Showing the merits of the Western model of civilization, they at the same time revealed its shortcomings, trying to find a solution that would allow them to use certain advantages of socialism.

It would seem that history provided an excellent opportunity to test the truth of such constructions in practice in the 1990s. However, the recommendations were implemented exactly the opposite - the shortcomings of capitalism in a hypertrophied form migrated to Russian soil, and the advantages of socialism were destroyed. To explain what happened only by the insufficient erudition of the fathers of the reform is a clearly simplified approach. The reason is much deeper - the innovative culture of society, its ability to separate the “wheat from the chaff” turned out to be unacceptably low. Over the past 10 years, the negative consequences of this have not been eliminated; moreover, they have been intensively aggravated. A striking example is the bureaucracy of officials, which has been and remains the force behind the total rejection of everything new, both in the sphere of public administration and in many corporations. Promotion of not only new, but also ordinary routine solutions requires tremendous efforts. In essence, we are dealing with a manifestation of anti-innovation culture, if the term culture is applicable here at all. Therefore, the problem under consideration is not only and not so much the fate of technical innovations, but of the entire state.

We are ready to offer the country's leadership our program for the formation of an innovative culture in general and in various fields of activity. Obviously, only educational and educational resources will not be enough for this. To radically change the situation, both support for initiative initiatives and the use of legal acts, sanctions, control, and the entire arsenal of means of personnel policy and management of a democratic state will be required.

There is an unlimited range of innovative culture manifestation - from creating conditions for the effective use of innovative potential (individuals, enterprises, organizations) in the interests of the development of society to ensuring maximum balance in its reform. With the participation of an innovative culture, one can really achieve in the field of a particular economy - acceleration and increase in the efficiency of the introduction of new technologies and inventions, in the field of management - a real counteraction to bureaucratic tendencies, in the field of education - promotion of the disclosure of the innovative potential of the individual and its implementation, in the field of culture - optimization of the ratio between tradition and renewal, different types and kinds of cultures.

At the same time, all these processes cannot be reduced only to the influence of an innovative culture; along with it, there are powerful political, economic, social and other factors. However, they are determined by the state of culture as a whole and, above all, by its innovative component.

It is the development of the motivational sphere, the formation of a new social system of values that becomes a necessary condition for the sociocultural and economic revival of the country.

Without touching on the disputes around the definition of “culture”, we note that there is no doubt about the organic connection of innovative culture with its other areas. It is the innovative culture that ensures people's receptivity to new ideas, their readiness and ability to support and implement innovations in all spheres of life.

An innovative culture reflects a holistic orientation of a person, fixed in motives, knowledge, skills, as well as in images and norms of behavior. It shows both the level of activity of the relevant social institutions and the degree of satisfaction of people with participation in them and its results.

The phenomenon of the so-called cultural lag should also play a stimulating role, when a contradiction arises due to the lag of changes outside the material sphere (innovations and innovations in management, law, organization) from the transformation in material culture (innovations and innovations in science and technology).

The formation of an innovative culture is associated primarily with the development of creative abilities and the realization of the creative potential of the person himself - its subject. At the same time, there are many other factors and conditions, the consideration and active use of which can significantly contribute to the effectiveness of innovation.

With a high level of innovative culture of society, due to the intercorrelation and interdependence of its parts, a change in one component causes a rapid change in others. In the conditions of innovation stagnation, a powerful organizational, managerial and legal impulse is needed for self-regulation mechanisms to work. This requires the institutionalization of an innovation culture, i.e. transformation of its development into an organized, orderly process with a certain structure of relations, rules of conduct, and responsibility of participants. This is not about red tape, but about the necessary consolidation measures, since it is necessary to resolve major socially significant issues in a short time.

How do we see the tasks of the scientific component of innovation culture? First of all, it is necessary to deepen our theoretical understanding of the innovation culture, to identify the factors that contribute to its development and hinder it.

Sociological and socio-psychological studies of different social groups are especially important. The first such study was conducted by the Institute for Strategic Innovations last year. It confirmed that they perceive the innovation culture quite specifically, as an objective reality that affects production and economic indicators. Similar studies will be continued and this year will probably become international.

The educational component seems to us to be the key one, and it is closely related to the research component. It is necessary to develop a mechanism for the formation of a constructive attitude in society towards innovations as a particularly significant personal and social value, to lay the foundations for healthy competition in various fields of activity. The media could play an important role here. The education system has an excellent experience of innovation in the content, teaching and upbringing methods. Relying on it as a base, one can set the task of developing innovative tolerance and receptivity among schoolchildren and students. A special task is the recognition of innovatively gifted children, the development of their activity, the ability to adapt to possible difficulties on this way. Russian and foreign practice of work on the development of creativity could be useful here.

Naturally, one cannot count only on children of preschool and school age. The fundamentals of innovation culture should be assimilated to the maximum extent in university and postgraduate education. We need a solid educational and methodological product, taking into account the capabilities of technical means, foreign and domestic experience. We are currently working on it. Innovation culture as a special form of human culture implies a close relationship with its other forms, primarily with legal, managerial, entrepreneurial, corporate. Through an innovative culture, it is possible to achieve a significant impact on the entire culture of professional activity and industrial relations of people. Given the international nature of innovation culture, efforts to develop it should be based on the cultural traditions of the country and the field of activity. It is able to equip practice with methods for assessing and suppressing the use of innovations that can harm a person, society, and nature.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize once again that the innovation culture has a powerful anti-bureaucratic and creative charge. In accordance with the current needs of the development of the state, it is in our common interests to use its capabilities to the fullest.

"Creating an Innovation Culture: How Global Companies Unleash Creative Potential" is a study report by the Economist Intelligence Unit sponsored by EF Education First. This paper explores the challenges faced by companies trying to innovate across corporate and national boundaries. In particular, this study analyzes ways in which companies can create a corporate culture that promotes creative cross-border collaboration to develop and spur innovation.

The Economist Intelligence Unit is solely responsible for the content of this work. The results of the study do not necessarily represent the views of the sponsor.

In order to study and summarize the results in this work, two main sources were used:

# Two global online surveys: the first among corporate executives; the second - among the representatives of the authorities. The surveys were conducted in October and November 2014.

The sample for the corporate survey included 350 respondents. They all work for companies that, in addition to their national market, operate in at least one other country. More than half of the respondents (54%) are directors or board members. 57% of respondents work for companies with annual revenues of more than $500 million. About 43% as their primary job function indicated general management or strategic management and business development. The majority of respondents work for growth companies: 72% said their companies' EBITDA (earnings before taxes, interest, depreciation and amortization) has increased over the past 12 months. Respondents are based in different countries, with at least 30 executives interviewed in China, Brazil, Russia, France, Germany, Spain, Scandinavia, the US, the UK and the Middle East.

The sample, which included representatives of government bodies, included 57 respondents. All of them have been involved in the development and implementation of adult education and learning policies. Respondents in this group work at the municipal (56%), regional (32%) and federal (12%) levels of government. Most of the governments (82%) represented by this group of respondents have an annual budget of less than $100 million. Almost all of the respondents (88%) work in departments responsible for education or skills development. Almost two-thirds of the respondents (63%) are heads of departments or directors of institutions. Although this sample is global, there is more emphasis on countries in Western Europe and Asia-Pacific and less on countries in North America.

# In-depth interviews with the following independent experts and top executives:

Jim Andrew, Director of Strategy and Innovation, Philips
John Biggs, R&D Director Latin America, Dow Chemical Company
Martin Clark, Consultant, Gadfly
Jeff Dyer, Lecturer in Strategy Horace Beasley, Brigham Young University Marriott School of Management
Cathy Fish, Chief Technology Officer, Innovation Capacity and Global R&D, Procter & Gamble
Tammy Lowry, Global Head of Educational and Organizational Effectiveness, Roche
Michelle Proctor, Chief Innovation Officer, FedEx
Fabian Schlage, Head of Idea Management and Innovation, Nokia
Shrupti Shah, Director, Deloitte GovLab

We thank all interviewees and respondents for their time and opinions.

The author of this document is Neil Baker. Editor - Aviva Freudmann.

Basic provisions

In a world of rapidly changing technologies, markets and consumer preferences, innovation is essential for all companies, regardless of size, location or industry. Companies that cannot change their offering or improve their performance in response to changes in the environment tend to be marginalized and overtaken by more resourceful competitors. The strategic question for companies is how to create a culture of creativity and develop innovation at all levels of the organization? For many companies, this task is closely related to improving communication, which is the basis for more effective collaboration and the exchange of ideas both within corporate and geographic boundaries and beyond. This study examines the ways leading companies have found to drive collaborative innovation across the organizational space. The key findings of the study are as follows:

Companies around the world are banking on their ability to innovate for the future.

Creating new products and services was one of the top three priorities for 54% of our corporate survey respondents, more important than cutting costs or investing in people. More than two-thirds of respondents (71%) have increased investment in innovation over the past three years, with 25% indicating that the increase in investment has been significant (growth in investment of 20% or more). There are no signs that this trend is easing. Over the next three years, almost a third of respondents (31%) plan to significantly increase their investment in innovation.

Innovation is a key corporate discipline with much room for improvement. Speaking about their company's ability to innovate, two-thirds of those surveyed (67%) described it as "good" and only 20% as "excellent". 13% of respondents rated their companies' ability to innovate as "poor" or "very poor". In response to a request to identify three main factors that characterize an innovative business, respondents indicated that it is, firstly, a culture that stimulates the promotion of ideas from each employee (53% of respondents indicated), and secondly, a high degree of tolerance for failures (41% ) and thirdly, strong leadership (34%).

Many companies will not be able to capitalize on these investments unless they rethink their approach to innovation. Workers' confidence in their ability to communicate with colleagues to develop innovative ideas is steadily declining as they face various barriers. This confidence drops from 95% - the percentage of employees who feel confident when communicating with colleagues in their department, to 72% - the proportion of employees who feel confident when communicating with colleagues from other countries. In addition, there is a hierarchical barrier - the processes of exchange of ideas are widely implemented by managers at the level of directors of companies, but lower down the managerial ladder, participation of employees decreases. Moreover, there are also cultural barriers. So, on the one hand, 87% of respondents noted that intercultural cooperation gives rise to innovative ideas. On the other hand, 50% indicated that cross-cultural differences make it difficult to exchange ideas between colleagues.

Companies strive to create a culture conducive to experimentation, but often fail to follow through. A creative culture is a culture in which every worker is motivated to come up with ideas and in which there is a high degree of tolerance for failure. However, many companies do not take steps to ensure such conditions. In our survey, 30% of respondents indicated that their companies lack a culture that encourages new ideas from every employee. 30% said their companies don't have a culture of tolerance for failure, and 34% said their companies don't give employees time to experiment on their own projects.

Companies need to build a skill base of employees to develop new ideas and disseminate them widely throughout the organization.

As our research shows, investing in communication confidence and communication skills training can be very rewarding. Four-fifths of respondents (81%) said that improving the communication skills of staff can significantly increase their companies' ability to innovate. However, almost 30% of the companies surveyed admit that their spending in this area is inadequate or non-existent. It is important to note that almost a quarter of CEOs (23%) have never been trained to develop creative skills. This figure for CFOs rises to 47%.

There is a discrepancy between the skills that companies think are needed in the future and the skills that governments think should be developed by governments through adult education programs. More than one-third of the company representatives surveyed (37%) indicated that the training offered in their countries is not enough to improve the ability of workers to innovate. However, government officials seem unwilling to negotiate with companies about what skills they need. The majority of civil servants surveyed (75%) noted that their job responsibilities do not include addressing the lack of creativity in corporations. The present study concludes that companies need to make greater efforts to eliminate this mismatch by improving the communication skills of workers and their motivation to share ideas throughout the organization.

Innovation as a strategic priority

Companies have long known that passionate and creative employees are critical to their ability to drive innovation and success. This key feature distinguishes companies that can continue to meet the needs of existing customers while seeking new customers from those that cannot. In recent years, as the pace of technological change has accelerated, the ability to quickly and creatively adapt to changing conditions has become even more important to a company's success.

Some experts, such as Jeff Dyer of Brigham Young University, who co-authored The Innovator Method with Nathan Furr, believe that the most important thing for established companies is to learn to think like startups, constantly re-evaluating their markets, products and technologies. Our survey of 350 corporate executives supports this view. More than half of respondents (54%) said that creating new products and services is one of their top three priorities for their company over the next three years, more important than cutting costs (42%) and investing in people (33%).

Over the past three years, 71% of the companies surveyed have increased their investment in innovation, with 25% increasing investment to a significant extent, defined as an increase in investment of more than 20%. There are no signs that this trend is easing. More than three-quarters of companies (76%) plan to increase investment in innovation over the next three years, with almost a third (31%) intending to increase such investment significantly.

Respondents in Brazil, China, Finland, Spain, the US and the UK indicated that their companies are planning a significant increase in investment in innovation.

The public sector is also showing enthusiasm for investing in skills development among the adult working population, although to a lesser extent than companies. Compared to 76% of corporate respondents who indicated their companies would increase investment in the next three years, 70% of government officials said their governments would do the same.

Such an investment vector shows certain results. Two thirds of respondents (67%) rated their company's ability to innovate as "good" and 20% as "excellent". However, some respondents believe that there is significant room for improvement in this area - 13% of those surveyed rated their company's ability to innovate as "poor" or "very poor". Moreover, this study revealed a dichotomy in the perception of ability to innovate in the US and Europe, with, surprisingly, respondents in the US being more reserved. Thus, 77% of US respondents rated their company's ability to innovate as good or excellent, while in the UK this figure was 84%, in Germany - 82% and in Spain - 93%. The relatively low scores of US respondents may be due to greater fear of risk-taking and fear of failure in a legal environment that provides less job security for workers.

Reducing Barriers to Innovation

Innovation is more likely to occur in a culture that values creativity and new ways of thinking. Defining the three main factors that characterize an innovative business, the respondents clearly indicated that it is, firstly, a culture that stimulates the presentation of ideas by each employee (53% of respondents), secondly, a high degree of tolerance for failures (41%) and, secondly, third, strong leadership (34%).

The survey results show that organizational culture is a constraint on companies' ability to innovate. It is significant that respondents believe that their own ability to innovate is higher than that of their companies. 94% of those surveyed rated their ability to innovate as “good” or “excellent”, and only 87% gave the same rating to their companies. Among company board members, the difference is even wider: 95% of them rated their own innovative abilities positively, compared to 84% who gave the same rating to their companies. This discrepancy is important because it shows the situation in the future: individuals can be phenomenal germinators of creative and useful ideas, but in a culture that is unable to nurture innovation, their ideas will fall into barren ground.

Experts on the development of innovative corporate cultures are unanimous on this issue. “Innovation starts when management at the top makes it a business priority,” says Tammy Lowry, head of global education and organizational performance at drug giant Roche. “This means that the leader must create an environment and space where creativity is highly valued, which will encourage the emergence of new and interesting ideas.”

Leaders must demonstrate and reward good behavior, says Michelle Proctor, director of innovation at FedEx. “If company leaders say they support innovation, but don't actually back up their words with actions, then ordinary employees will perceive this as empty promises,” says Ms. Proctor.

Jim Andrew, director of strategy and innovation at Philips, also agrees. “People are very smart and they know what really matters to their organization,” says Mr. Andrew. “Therefore, we spend a lot of time and put in a lot of effort to make it crystal clear to everyone that, no matter where they are in our organization, their ability to innovate is critical to our success.” However, companies often lack strong leadership to do this. More than a quarter of respondents (26%) listed "poor leadership" as one of the top three barriers to innovation in their companies.

Despite such shortcomings in leadership, companies generally agree that new ideas are always welcome. In our survey, two-thirds of respondents (64%) said they were actively encouraged to come up with new ideas. Of course, just because employees are encouraged to come up with new ideas doesn't mean they will put their new ideas into practice. Our research shows that even top executives often stick with innovative ideas. A fifth of all respondents (20%) and, revealingly, a fifth of company CEOs indicated that in some cases they were very afraid to share an idea with colleagues. This suggests that in many companies the key elements of an innovation culture—effective stimulation of new ideas and tolerance for failure—are either completely absent or not particularly evident.

Moreover, the 64% of all respondents who are actively encouraged to come up with new ideas is an average that hides significant national differences. Thus, about 80% of Germans and 81% of Americans indicated that they are actively encouraged to come up with new ideas (as noted in Part 1, such stimulation is not always effective, since a smaller proportion of American respondents, compared with Europeans, believe that their companies have good or excellent ability to innovate). The share of companies where employees feel actively encouraged to come up with new ideas drops to 59% in Russia and 48% in Brazil.

So how can companies address these shortcomings and ensure that a culture of innovation spreads throughout the organization? One approach is to create a formal process for submitting ideas, although this also has its drawbacks. More than half of the companies surveyed (58%) have formal processes in place to solicit staff proposals. However, not everyone believes that investing in common processes is effective.

For example, Nokia refrains from using such a process and prefers to take a more focused approach, says Fabian Schlage, head of the company's idea management and innovation division, adding: "We don't use a 'please send us your ideas' idea collection channel." ". Instead, Mr. Schlage creates what he calls "honey traps," time-limited financial rewards that reward staff for solving specific problems. This approach motivates innovative employees to come to the fore.

In companies that have idea-gathering processes, these processes are used widely, but not evenly throughout the organization. Overall, 84% of respondents with access to such a process have used it in the past 12 months. A breakdown of the data by position shows that CEOs of companies are more active in using such processes (95%). Further down the corporate ladder, the use of these processes is declining, at 78% for managers and 77% for department heads. This separation calls into question the ability of formal processes to engage all employees in the creation of innovations.

The effectiveness of ideation processes also varies across countries. Thus, 82% of all respondents noted that the process used in their companies is effective for generating ideas. However, the degree of satisfaction with such a process is reduced to 53% in the US. For comparison, this figure is 88% in the UK, 79% in Germany and 78% in France. Although the reasons for these differences are not entirely clear, the data show that US-based workers and managers are less confident than European workers in proposing new ways of doing business, perhaps because of less job security in the US than in Europe.

Opinions also vary widely about the impact of ideation processes on increasing a company's rate of innovation. More than half of respondents (56%) indicated that such a process could increase the rate of innovation in their company, and 53% said that it could increase the likelihood that they themselves would start to come up with new ideas. On the other hand, a significant minority of respondents disagreed with this statement. According to one fifth of the respondents (20%), the formal process will not affect the pace of innovation. And a third of respondents (31%) indicated that implementing such a process would not affect their likelihood of coming up with new ideas themselves. Given these different assessments, it's not surprising that many of the companies that don't have idea-gathering processes are reluctant to implement them.

Despite such doubts, the need for the free flow of ideas is especially acute for large organizations operating in different cultures, regardless of whether the boundaries of cultures are national or organizational. Most companies (87%) agree that cross-cultural collaboration generates innovative ideas. This is true, even though the diversity of cultures and approaches can also make it difficult to critically analyze and implement these ideas.

“We are convinced that innovation occurs at the intersection of borders,” says Ms Lowry. Roche has two independent research and development centers, as this helps with ideological diversity. However, in general, R&D isolationism can create difficulties in solving complex problems that span many functions. “In this case, simplicity and a common global approach are important, which can sometimes give room for innovation in other areas,” says Ms. Lowry. “What is needed is an openness to ask questions and question the status quo, as well as a willingness to listen and understand differences.”

Innovation depends in part on the degree to which employees feel confident in expressing their ideas, but this confidence steadily wanes when employees encounter organizational boundaries. The present study shows that respondents are confident in expressing ideas within their teams and departments, i.e. in familiar environments where everyone speaks the “same language”.

Half of the companies (50%) indicated that cross-cultural differences make it difficult to exchange ideas with colleagues. This proportion is 61% in Brazil, 66% in China and 67% in Germany. The lesson for companies is that the communicative confidence to share ideas is weakened when workers step outside their comfort zones. To develop cooperation with colleagues from other departments or countries, this barrier must be removed.

This is supported by the fact that four-fifths of respondents (81%) indicated that increasing investment in improving the communication skills of staff can significantly increase their companies' ability to innovate.

In summary, it should be noted that the existence of a culture that promotes innovation depends on a number of factors. Important of these factors is, firstly, to promote the understanding that the company welcomes all ideas, and, secondly, the recognition that not all ideas proposed will be successful. Since innovation is more likely to be born at the intersection of departmental and national culture boundaries, companies that work tirelessly to develop open communication across such boundaries stand the best chance of enhancing their innovation capabilities. In the same way, companies that consistently create systems for knowledge sharing across various internal boundaries will be more successful in creating creative and innovation-driven cultures.

Nokia: A call to all innovators

After announcing the sale of its once market-leading handset division to Microsoft in September 2013, Nokia is in the process of reinventing itself. Now, this Finnish multinational telecommunications and IT company is set to become the biggest player in the market for the networking technologies that make the Internet of Things possible. To do this, the company is changing the way it manages innovation across its geographically dispersed divisions with 90,000 employees in 120 countries.

In the past, the company received ideas through a tightly controlled funnel. Potential innovations were formally identified, designed, developed and brought to market. Unsuccessful ideas were swept aside during this process. This approach led to several profitable innovations, which, however, proved to be insufficient. Fabian Schlage, head of the company's idea and innovation management, says: "That process looked at innovation management more like risk management," says Mr. Schlage. The goal was to develop new ideas while controlling the risk factor of wasting resources on failed projects.

Fabian Schlage and his global team of 50 innovation managers are leading Nokia to another model. “Our ambition is to create a future that requires a more complete set of innovative capabilities,” says Mr. Schlage. And, as he believes, this also requires a change in the way of thinking. “Our new paradigm places innovation management in a larger dimension, in which culture and change play a leading role.” A key element of this cultural transformation is the encouragement of each employee to offer their ideas and to exchange ideas with colleagues. To promote collaboration, Mr. Schlage seeks to develop flexibility, trust, easy access to information, effective leadership, open communication and worker autonomy.

“There is no point in having a small 'breakthrough department' somewhere in the company - we have to make sure that innovation is everywhere,” says Mr. Schlage. However, in order to encourage the participation of every employee in the company, "it is necessary to understand how innovation works in reality."

Advances in technology mean that, according to Mr. Schlage, “innovation is now happening online,” so sharing ideas and collaborating online with different departments and countries has a higher potential to develop profitable ideas. According to Mr. Schlage, "such interaction will not happen automatically." “You have to understand how to connect people and how to orchestrate such interaction. You have to offer people a rationale for their participation. Participation must be attractive enough for employees to be involved in the process.”

For example, Nokia holds regular internal competitions to attract new ideas from employees. According to Mr. Schlage, in order to be effective, such competitions should be aimed at solving business goals and offer certain rewards. For example, in a recent request for proposals to improve the online security of Nokia customers, an Apple laptop was proposed as the best idea.

In parallel with these targeted requests, Nokia is also running competitions for what Mr. Schlage calls "crazy ideas." These competitions are judged by teams that include employees from each Nokia division.

In these ideas, they look for a high degree of novelty - a game-changing breakthrough - and also evaluate the technical feasibility of the idea and the possible cost of its implementation. The last request received 250 proposals, 20 of which are currently under development.

Employees who regularly come up with good ideas—both goal-oriented and “crazy ideas”—are heralded throughout the company as “champions” of innovation. They may receive an award and/or be trained in methods for developing, capturing and sharing ideas.

Great efforts in the development of innovation are directed to stimulate communication throughout the company. To do this, Nokia publishes ideas proposed by staff in the Global Innovation Center, a unified intranet portal. On it, employees can get acquainted with these ideas, upload their own proposals and comment. By keeping track of the number of ideas uploaded to the portal and analyzing the level of interaction they generate, Fabian Schlage is able to understand which proposals can be further developed and allocate an appropriate budget for their development.

Nokia strives to ensure that all employees contribute and develop ideas. In addition, the company also has several dedicated innovation centers in different countries. Their role is to develop ideas by facilitating collaboration within local ecosystems including start-up incubators, universities and technology hubs.

Mr. Schlage encourages competition between these innovation centers by giving "points" for each successful idea they develop and posting their total scores on an intranet site. “No one wants to be left behind, each of the innovation centers wants to be the best,” says Mr. Schlage. This approach contributes to the fact that different centers develop their capacities organically. For example, the Innovation Center in Budapest is very successful in safety innovation. Some centers are great at improving existing capabilities, while others are best at finding brand new ideas.

According to Fabian Schlage, the transition to a culture that encourages collaboration has brought measurable results. Nokia roughly doubled to 20% the proportion of new ideas that ended up as profitable products, services, or process modifications. “There is no single blueprint or standard that creates innovation, and there is no one magic tool,” Mr. Schlage says. “They are many, and you have to know all of them and apply the right tools to the right problem. So my approach is very simple: I want to be flexible. Nevertheless, I measure everything in order to know what we have in the process chain, what are our successes and results.”

Empowering employees to create innovation

Like efforts to create a more innovation-friendly culture, efforts to empower employees to generate and share ideas must come from the very top of the organization. According to Professor Dyer of Brigham Young University, this effort usually requires a reorientation in the way top management thinks. In particular, the performance skills that are at the heart of MBA programs and highly valued by senior management are not well suited to the "convoluted and unpredictable" field of innovation, Professor Dyer said. Instead, CEOs must understand that promoting innovation changes their own role. Instead of leading the company in the direction they think is right, their job should involve identifying the assumptions that form the basis for decisions and finding ways to test them. “They have to move from being the main decision makers to being the main experimenters,” says Professor Dyer.

One set of assumptions worth revisiting involves the conventional wisdom about how innovation works—or how it should work—in companies. According to Professor Dyer, it's often easier for leaders to say "we're just not good at innovation" when what they really mean is that innovation is not within the purview of the leadership team. "They have to acknowledge this fact and demonstrate a real desire to learn." A better understanding of the conditions that spur innovation will help leaders develop a set of processes and a culture that suits their company's current situation, and then find ways to inspire employees to apply the necessary skills.

Shrupti Shah, director of Deloitte GovLab, a division of consultancy Deloitte that helps US governments innovate, says executives must also show they are open to criticism. "They should give employees the opportunity to suggest changes and improvements in the way they work." This means leaders need to focus more on the desired outcome and less control over how those outcomes are achieved.

As noted by a number of leaders, part of the process of stimulating innovation is understanding the different types of innovation. Often this involves adopting a dual approach, where one centralized department focuses its efforts on developing major modifications to products and services, while the rest of the organization can propose incremental improvements. For example, at FedEx, senior management provides incentives to employees who suggest improvements to products and services. At the same time, the company employs teams of specialists who are looking for breakthrough or game-changing innovations. “This is a highly educated and disciplined group that knows our business and is committed to defining where we will be in the future. They are exploring the latest technologies and ideas to create more value for our customers,” says Ms. Proctor. "They are collaborating with peers across countries, teams and projects to add value by redefining traditional thinking, incorporating new perspectives, and leveraging knowledge of development trends to identify opportunities."

Dow Chemical is also trying to create a culture of innovation through a combination of dedicated R&D units and a networked approach that extends throughout the organization. “We talked a lot about who is in charge of innovation, and we definitely didn't want to have a director of innovation or any innovation managers,” says John Biggs, R&D director for Latin America at Dow Chemical. While the company has large innovation labs in the US, "we created a network structure that included employees from every division because we didn't want our people to think that innovation was the responsibility of the R&D division alone."

According to Mr. Biggs, this approach has created a particular type of culture of innovation that is more suitable for Dow Chemical's business in Latin America, which has fewer employees than the US and is mostly run by family businesses. One way Dow Chemical uses to track the effectiveness of its innovation management is to measure the percentage of new product sales in each region, where new products are defined as products less than five years old. “My goal in Latin America is to sell more new products than any other region,” says Biggs. “This percentage is growing and I think we are more innovative and bring products to market faster.”

Professor Dyer believes that every innovation lab needs three different sets of skills: staff must be able to assess the desirability of an idea from a consumer perspective, test its technical feasibility, and determine its commercial viability. This requires specialists from different departments of the company - from engineers to accountants and marketers.

In addition to rethinking their approach to innovation and ensuring they have the right skills, companies also need to invest more heavily in training people to be creative at work. confidence in the ability to achieve the intended. "We believe that it is this self-belief, this belief in one's own creative abilities, that lies at the heart of innovation."

Martin Clarke, a creative consultant at Gadfly, a consulting agency that specializes in fostering creativity in organizations, says the real issue is not so much teaching employees to be creative, but how to motivate them to express their inner creativity. “At the age of five, everyone is creative, but at some point people lose this sense of freedom. I'm trying to recreate the emotional setup of childhood: failure is ok, playing is ok, if what you do is different from what everyone else is doing, that's ok too,” says Mr. Clarke.

This approach is also taken by Fabian Schlage at Nokia. “Children learn the world through trial and error, without thinking about what will happen next. They learn by making decisions and resolving situations. I cannot change people, but I can create conditions for them to play. I can motivate them to take small steps that they can be proud of.”

The companies in this study received varying scores on how well they learned and implemented these lessons. On the positive side, as noted above, companies are willing to invest in improving the creative skills of their employees. Moreover, 67% of respondents felt that their companies' level of investment in creativity training was adequate, and 62% indicated that they had personally received creativity training at their current or past job. On the downside, 30% of respondents rated their companies' level of investment in creativity training as inadequate or non-existent. Nearly a quarter of the CEOs surveyed (23%) indicated that they had never received any creative skills training. Among financial directors, this proportion rises to 47%.

Respondents also suggest increased investment in improving communication between departments and countries. Almost four-tenths of those surveyed (38%) said that such investments are necessary to develop communication between colleagues from different departments. In comparison, only 20% of respondents consider it more necessary to invest in improving communication within departments. 25% of respondents indicated that investments are necessary to develop communication between colleagues from different offices of the company. For comparison, 8% of respondents consider it more necessary to invest in the development of communication within one office.

Can adult education programs help improve the situation? The present study revealed a lack of training programs aimed at developing creativity compared to other types of educational programs for adults. In particular, respondents noted that the communication and creative skills training available to them is not as effective as the training in business or management skills. For example, training in management and business skills was rated positively by 83% and 81% of respondents, respectively, while training in communication and creative skills was rated positively by only 74% and 69% of respondents, respectively. These findings point to a problem area that companies should consider when choosing funded employee training programs.

Interestingly, government officials interviewed for this study have an opposing view regarding the area of concentration of adult education programs. Assessing the opportunities for developing the skills of employees in their countries, 86% and 81% of civil servants, respectively, gave positive assessments of training in communication and creative skills. A smaller percentage of respondents in this group - 81% and 75%, respectively, gave positive ratings to existing business and management skills training programs.

Back to School: Teaching Creativity for Adults

If workers with the ability to innovate are a powerful engine of economic growth, should the government do more to help people develop the skills they need? Most companies answer this question with a unanimous "Yes". In our survey, 37% of corporate respondents indicated that skills development opportunities in their countries are inadequate to improve the ability of workers to innovate. Moreover, 44% of respondents indicated that training to improve innovation is not the sole responsibility of the employer, suggesting that public intervention is preferred.

“We believe that educational systems for children and adults should be experiential and more problem-solving oriented. They must move away from the requirements of the industrial age and become open and comfortable laboratories of ideas,” says Tammy Lowry, head of global education and organizational effectiveness at Roche. “Unfortunately, most training programs are aimed at determining the “rightness and wrongness” of ideas through testing. Therefore, people can simply lose their sense of confidence, even if their knowledge base grows.”

Executives who took part in our survey agree that public education more attention needs to be paid to creativity. However, the representatives of the authorities, i.e. those who have to carry out such a transformation, do not always see the problem in the existing educational proposals. Two-thirds of corporate respondents (63%) indicated that skills development opportunities in their countries are adequate to improve the ability of workers to innovate. Among the representatives of the authorities, 72% of the respondents gave this answer. Civil servants see the need for more informing the adult population about the proposed training programs as their main task. More than half of civil servants (56%) in our survey indicated that this is their top priority. For comparison, only 30% of civil servants noted that their priority is to work with companies to improve educational programs for adults.

More than half of civil servants (54%) indicated that the lack of funding is the biggest barrier to improving the training they offer. Another 26% of respondents indicated a lack of a culture that motivates employees to continue learning, and 14% noted a lack of understanding in the public sector regarding the needs of companies.

At the same time, civil servants believe that improving training aimed at the development of corporate innovations is not part of their job responsibilities. Three-quarters of the government officials surveyed (75%) believe that this is the sole responsibility of the employer. By comparison, 55% of corporate executives share this opinion. It is obvious that the state leaves the task of teaching creativity to the private sector, either because of budget constraints or because it believes that teaching creativity is not its mission.

Conclusion

Competitiveness through innovation

Many global companies are trying to quickly and flexibly respond to market and technological changes by developing a culture of innovation. Companies use a variety of methods to do this - they encourage employees to generate ideas, create systems for sharing ideas and information, convince episodic failures to be acceptable, and seek to eliminate communication deficiencies that arise within the organization.

To be successful in this endeavor, companies must be aware of the major barriers to building a culture of innovation. As this study shows, these barriers include a lack of focused attention on the part of management to innovation, poor skills in generating new ideas, poor communication and weak interaction between different departments and divisions located in different countries, as well as low employee confidence that share your ideas with the whole company. All of these factors need to be addressed if the goal is to create an effective culture of innovation.

Corporate culture itself is the product of a complex combination of factors, including organizational values, goals, key players, and the specifics of the business sector. This study demonstrates critical actions that companies of all types can take to improve their ability to innovate. These actions include the following:

Formation of an atmosphere in which the experimental approach is valued, and the possible failure of some experiments is taken for granted;
Ensuring that creativity is valued and nurtured in all corners of the organization so that innovation is not limited solely to game-changing "big ideas" but includes a continuous stream of smaller improvements in products, services and business processes;
Raising internal awareness of the importance of cooperation between different departments and countries in order for the organization to benefit from differences in approaches to solving problems;
Investing in improving communication skills, in particular those skills needed to understand colleagues from other cultural systems or other professional disciplines;
Creation of infrastructure and processes for the exchange of knowledge and ideas between different departments and countries;
Adjusting risk management concepts to allow for new ideas with unknown profitability.

Finally, it is the desire to think and try something new that fuels creativity and innovation. As companies become more focused on innovation, they need to put into practice what they preach - or, as Nokia's Fabian Schlage says, learn to be innovative in how they innovate. Indeed, the effort to improve a company's ability to innovate is in itself an exercise in experimentation and continuous learning.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

innovative culture development implementation

Introduction
Conclusion
List of sources used
Introduction
The current stage of world development is characterized by the increasing acceleration of technical and technological development, which causes transformational processes in the world on an unprecedented scale. Innovative factors have become the fundamental factors in the development of any economic system. The predominant use of a combination of innovative factors in the development of the economy of any economic entity is the essence of its transfer to a qualitatively new type of development, which allows it to acquire the most important property in a market environment - competitiveness.
The relevance of the study is determined by the fact that Russia found itself in a difficult situation of choosing the path for further economic development and the formation of the country as one of the equal members of the world community. Russian economy in the second half of the 20th century. developed mainly on the basis of extensive factors (due to the exploitation of the raw material base and low-level technologies). The high level of fundamental science was accompanied by insufficient development of its applied aspects. The introduction of new scientific developments was associated with significant difficulties. This was one of the reasons for the formation of a technological gap between Russia and industrialized countries, especially in the information sphere.
Science cities are called upon to carry out scientific, scientific and technical, innovative activities, experimental developments, tests, as well as to train personnel in accordance with state priorities for the development of science and technology. However, today science cities are facing a number of serious problems that hinder the development and effective functioning of these research centers, and they are called upon to play a significant role in the system of science and education in our country. It is also important to note that the problems of science cities also affect society, as they have a great impact on the districts and regions in which they are located. From all this it follows that the study of the state of science cities and the analysis of their problems is especially relevant today.
The object of study of this work is the role of innovative culture in the country's economy.
This term paper is the analysis of innovation culture and the problems of its formation in Russia.
To achieve this goal, the following tasks will be solved:
· Considered the essence and significance of innovation culture;
· The analysis of problems of formation of innovative culture in Russia is carried out.
The methodological basis of the study is the structural-functional and comparative-historical approaches.
1. Role and importance of innovation culture
1.1 Innovation culture: concept and meaning
The problems of introducing innovations, carrying out innovative activities, realizing the innovative potential of society have always been in the focus of attention of states and governments. However, it was in the 80-90s. 20th century the issues of forming an innovative culture came to the fore when the processes taking place in the world community began to require new managerial, legal, organizational and technological approaches. The priority of the formation of professionals of a new formation, members of society - distributors of a new culture, generators of ideas and their embodyers, initiators of innovative processes, was sharply designated.
Members European Union, evaluating the nature and prospects of innovative activities of the leading states, came to the conclusion that it is necessary to create a program document that defines the main directions for the development of innovations. As a result of comprehensive discussions, on December 20, 1995, the Green Paper of Innovation in Europe was signed.
In June 1996, the European Commission approved The First Action Plan for Innovation in Europe, which established the principles of developing a "true innovation culture" in education, business and government. Analyzing the results of the implementation of the "Action Plan", as well as the recommendations of the "Green Book", it should be noted that not all provisions are reflected in the activities of the countries of the European Union.
In the Russian Federation, the problems of forming an innovative culture of society at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. determined the creation of the Institute for Strategic Innovations. On the initiative of the Institute, in 1999, the first policy document was signed - the Charter of Innovative Culture, which conceptually determined that "the sustainable development of the current civilization is possible only through constant innovations (innovations) in science, education, culture, economics, management ...". Giving a strategically decisive importance to the culture of innovation, representatives of science, culture, education, government and public administration, business circles identified the reasons for the lag of innovation processes in society and noted the need for an integrated approach to the problems of forming an innovation culture, developing the innovation potential of an individual, overcoming innovation stagnation in society.
In 2001, the Committee on Innovative Culture was established as part of the Commission of the Russian Federation for UNESCO. The business meetings, seminars and conferences initiated by him only confirmed the relevance of this issue. Giving priority to the areas of education, science, culture and communications, the activities of the Committee contributed to the dissemination of positive experience in the formation of an innovative culture in various industries and areas of activity.
At present, interest in an innovative culture is observed not only in scientific circles and specialized structures. The task of forming an innovative culture is a priority for the state and society. An increasing number of government and business representatives are paying close attention to the issues of innovative development, highlighting the problems of forming an innovative culture, since it is the innovative culture that will contribute to the development of an innovative society in Russia.
According to B. Santo, “an innovative society is highly intellectual society, moreover, on a global scale, this is the path of those who have chosen the goal and form of their activity as non-stop intellectual knowledge, the path of those whose existence is characterized by increased intellectual activity and the desire to realize their ideas. Tracing the features of the formation of the concept of "innovation" since the 1950s, the author believes that innovations reflect the essence of human activity. From the position of members of society, this is the ability for self-development and creative participation in the development of this society. This point of view assumes that the main characteristic of an innovative society is its high innovative culture and the developed innovative culture of its members.
The authors of the monograph “Philosophy of Creativity” present innovative culture as “knowledge, skills and experience of purposeful preparation, integrated implementation and comprehensive development of innovations in various areas of human life while maintaining the dynamic unity of the old, modern and new in the innovative system; in other words, it is the free creation of something new in compliance with the principle of continuity.” Researchers pay special attention to the social task of forming an innovative culture of society and the individual, equating it with the culture of creative activity. A developed innovative culture, in their opinion, is the basis of a modern innovative economy.
The Russian philosopher B.K. Lisin considers innovative culture as a form of universal culture, defines it as an area of the general cultural process, "characterizing the degree of susceptibility of a person, group, society to various innovations ranging from a tolerant attitude to readiness and ability to turn them into innovations." Innovative culture characterizes the conscious desire of society for material and spiritual self-renewal, being the initial prerequisite for qualitative changes in people's life and the methodological basis for progress and harmonization of all spheres of society's life. It is the innovative culture that determines the relationship between innovations that have grown from traditions and traditions that serve as the basis of the creative process, which in turn is the source of innovative culture.
L.A. Kholodkova distinguishes between cultures of "innovative" and "traditional" types. In her opinion, innovative culture can be considered as "a complex social phenomenon that organically combines the issues of science, education, culture with social and, above all, with professional practice in various areas of the community: in management, economics, education, culture." The author considers science and education to be the main determinants of the development of an innovative culture, which provide the definition of goals, objectives, methods and mechanisms for the formation of an innovative culture, as well as an empirical analysis of the components of an innovative culture, their state and interaction.
VV Zubenko points to the innovative culture of society as a historically established system of ideas, stereotypes, values, norms of behavior and knowledge aimed at improving all spheres of life. Describing innovative culture as an innovative component of the culture of society, he does not single it out as one of the types of culture, but takes the place of a common property that permeates each of the cultures (economic, legal, etc.), “since one of the characteristic features of any culture is its reciprocal influence.
The “duality” of innovative culture is emphasized in the works of V. I. Dolgova, who distinguishes it, on the one hand, as a special type of culture, and on the other hand, as an element that is present in every type of culture. It considers innovation culture as a certain area of intersection of different types of cultures (organizational, legal, political, professional, personal, etc.), reflecting their progressive development, progressive trends, and innovative character. Innovative culture, from the point of view of Dolgova, determines the entire life of society and man, relying on and developing existing traditions.
The Chinese philosopher Shang-kang He wrote: “The basis of an innovative culture is an innovative modeling of human life, behavior and thought. In addition, an innovative culture is a kind of innovative spirit, ideology and human environment.” Being a means of personal self-realization, innovation involves the development of a person's innovative abilities: he can take a fresh look at ordinary, familiar things, independently generate an idea, outline ways to implement it and reach the end in achieving the goal. The development of an innovative culture of a person can be considered as the development of his individual creative abilities and creative potential.
A.Yu. Eliseev, relying on the semantics of the phrase “innovative culture” of a personality, believes that this is “a culture of life where the motivation for human actions is the thirst for renewal, the birth of ideas and their implementation ...<…>The popularization of an “innovative” approach to life should be inevitable for every member of society, gradually causing a feeling of rejection of the principle “to live as one lives”. Step by step, she will be able to help a person make a choice in favor of “innovation”, that is, “to live thoughtfully, organizedly”, and, finally, creatively.” The author believes that an innovative culture helps to create an atmosphere in society in which a new idea is perceived as a value accepted by this society and supported by it.
The point of view of V. D. Tsvetkova is noteworthy, according to which the formation of an innovative culture of a personality at a conscious level allows a person “not only to generate external diversity in his activity, but also to acquire internal stability and unity in the face of an endless process of renewal… The humanistic potential of an innovative culture connected with its function of ensuring the unity of human existence in an innovative society. Being an element of the culture of a modern person, an innovative culture allows the individual, supported by the constructive attitude of society towards innovations, to reveal their inner capabilities and self-realization. Associated with the innovative culture of society, it contributes to the development of the individual.
Director of the Institute for Strategic Innovations A.I. Nikolaev, discussing the problems of innovative development and the formation of an innovative culture, noted: “Innovative culture reflects a holistic orientation of a person, fixed in motives, knowledge, skills, as well as in patterns and norms of behavior. It shows both the level of activity of the relevant social institutions and the degree of satisfaction of people with their participation in them and the results.” The level of the most innovative culture of the individual directly depends on the attitude of society towards innovations and the work that is carried out in society to form and develop an innovative culture.
Considers innovation culture as part of the culture of society S. G. Grigorieva. She presents the formation of an innovative culture of the individual as a dynamic process of "transition from ignorance to knowledge, from the improvement of some skills to the emergence of others, from some personal and mental properties and qualities to other neoplasms." In relation to the sphere of professional development of a personality, the author pays attention to the integration of innovative and professional activities, the transformation of the innovative behavior of a future member of the professional community.
1.2 Formation of an innovation culture within the framework of the modern economic system
Intellectual resources are a condition and basis for the development of an enterprise and society as a whole. Intellectual resources are a set of individual intellectual potentials of the enterprise's personnel that can cause a synergistic effect. In turn, the personal intellectual potential of an individual worker is his knowledge, skills, abilities for creativity and self-development.
If for an enterprise intellectual resources are a potential factor of production that should be used optimally at minimal cost, then for society as a whole it is the potential for economic growth and development, the degree of implementation of which is determined by the level of social and technical development.
Effective management of intellectual resources, which are further considered in the narrow sense of the word, and their active use, aimed at creating modern goods and services that meet the requirements of the market, provides significant competitive advantages and allows enterprises to realize their strategic goals and objectives. Management of intellectual resources at the level of a single enterprise is associated with the search for ways to effectively create and use knowledge and information to achieve set economic goals - such as profit growth, cost savings, and an increase in sales volumes.
Modern conditions impose special requirements on the organization of the intellectual resource management process and make it expedient to single out the intellectual resource management subsystem as an independent functional subsystem of a dynamically developing enterprise (see Fig. 1).

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Rice. 1. Intellectual resource management system in the overall enterprise management system
The prerequisites for organizing an independent intellectual resource management system as part of an enterprise management system are: a variety of forms and types of intellectual resources; the need to develop a comprehensive strategy in the field of managing the intellectual potential of enterprises; specificity of tools, methods and variety of intellectual resource management functions; a significant number of services and departments involved in the process of generating and converting information about intellectual resources; the need for coordination in the process of managing intellectual resources; high profitability of transactions with objects of intellectual property; high risk of unfair competition.
Creation and development of an intellectual resource management system, provision of conditions for its effective functioning, performance evaluation and search for ways to further improve the management organization - all these are the most important aspects of enterprise intellectual resource management.
A feature of the development of innovation processes in Russia is the identification of innovation policy and science and technology policy. With the unity of the strategic goal - a competitive economy, high quality life of the population and national security - they must differ in strategic tasks and methods for their solution. If the main task of scientific and technological policy and activity is to create scientific groundwork for the future, then the task of innovation policy and activity is to use science (the accumulated array of knowledge and technology) in the interests of the economy in the present.
When declaring the “implementation task” as a strategic priority of scientific policy, the scientific and technical sphere is doomed to investment unattractiveness. Science-intensive and high-tech projects may (or may not) be investment-attractive not because of the novelty and theoretical significance of the super-technologies used (implemented) in them and scientific achievements, but due to the high market potential (public demand) of their final product.
Thus, the motivation of scientific activity and innovative activity is different. Hence follows the task of correctly formulating the goals, priorities of a particular policy, and even organizing practical actions to ensure them.
For Russia, integration into the world market of science-intensive technologies is extremely important. At present, there is almost no solvent demand in the country for a significant part of science-intensive products, which leads to stagnation and aging of the most advanced technological base.
International scientific and technical cooperation is becoming increasingly important for the development of domestic science. In recent years, there has been an intensive involvement of Russian scientists in the global scientific environment.
New forms of international scientific and technical cooperation in Russia include the International Science and Technology Center (ISTC), which is an intergovernmental organization established in 1992 on the basis of an international agreement between the EU, the USA, Japan and the Russian Federation. The goals of the ICST are to "convert" researchers in the field of military technologies to civilian fields through the support of projects in Russia and other CIS countries. The Partnership Program, administered by the ISTC's Partnership and Sustainability Division, provides an opportunity for private sector enterprises, research institutes, governmental and non-governmental organizations to fund scientific research conducted by institutes from Russia and the CIS through the ISTC. To date, more than 380 government organizations and private companies have joined the ISTC Partnership Program and have funded approximately 700 joint R&D projects totaling $240 million. Participants from around the world hope that the Partnership Program will make it possible to realize the huge scientific and technical potential of the former "weapons" specialists in Russia and the CIS, as well as attract new international investments to further reorient their activities to work in civilian areas.
The most complete picture of the structure of the country's innovative potential and its place in the global world economy in certain areas of high technology is provided by the analysis of patent statistics. Until 1997, there was a decline in this direction. There were only 1.03 patent applications per 10,000 population. In 2006 this figure was 1.7. A total of 30,651 applications were submitted in 2006, but in 2011, only 27,491 such applications were submitted.
Unfortunately, in contrast to industrialized countries, inventive activity in Russia falls as it approaches the end of the scientific and technical chain. The number of own patents in Russia is steadily declining, which contains a threat to the scientific and technical independence of the country. If in 2006 24,726 patents were issued, then in 2011 - 23,028. There is every reason to believe that we are becoming not only a source of raw materials, but also an intellectual appendage of the "center" countries.
According to Rospatent, our country is not very attractive for foreign applicants, so most of the applications were filed by domestic "inventors". For comparison, in 2011 there were 27,491 domestic applicants and 18,431 foreign applicants. The most active applicants in Russia are the USA, Germany and Japan.
As for the thematic areas in which there is an increased interest of foreign applicants, the most promising among them include:
· Drugs and preparations, methods of their preparation and use for diagnostics, therapy and research;
· Chemical and physical processes of general purpose, catalysis, colloid chemistry, organic chemistry, methods of obtaining and chemical processing of macromolecular compounds, compositions based on these compounds.
The international exchange of objects of intellectual property has now become an independent sphere of economic relations. Hence, the condition for the successful integration of Russia into the international system of economic relations is the expansion and increase in the efficiency of Russian foreign trade in these types of goods and services with the improvement of the national system of legal protection and transfer of intellectual property.
The structure of exports confirms the low technical and economic level of domestic production, the deepening of the innovative backlog of production from global trends. In many countries, the basis of economic growth is the production and export of high-tech and knowledge-intensive products. An extremely low technical and economic characteristic of the fixed capital of enterprises is characterized by the indicator of the age structure of equipment. Average age equipment 18-20 years old. Lack of equipment replacement possibilities inevitably increases the period of its use.
However, there are absolute advantages to the Russian economy that are not limited to rich natural resources. It should be noted that the general educational level of the population is quite high. Russia occupies a leading position in the international market of nuclear technologies, space technology and services, products of the military-industrial complex.
There are almost four thousand research and development organizations in Russia today (Table 1). The institutional structure of science has a number of features that distinguish Russia from most of the developed countries of the world.
The basis of the scientific sector is formed by independent research organizations, isolated from production and education. In 2011, their number was 2036, and their share in the total set of organizations of the scientific and technical complex of the country was about 51.5% (see Table 1).
Table 1. Organizations performing research and development in Russia


Number of organizations - total
including:
research organizations
design bureaus
design and design and survey organizations
pilot plants
higher education institutions
research and development departments in organizations
other organizations

Their number for the period 1990-2011. increased by 1.2 times. The marked growth was associated with both the disaggregation of existing and the creation of new scientific organizations. In particular, federal ministries and departments were endowed with such a right.
At the same time, the total number of organizations engaged in research and development over the same period decreased by 14.8%, and organizations involved in the design and implementation of production technologies - at times. Thus, the number of design organizations decreased by 12.1 times, design bureaus - by 1.9 times, industrial enterprises performing research and development - 1.7 times.
The main reason for this disproportion is the sharp decline in effective demand for the results of scientific and technical activities at the beginning of economic reforms. In the 1990s, the situation in almost all sectors of the economy was assessed as critical. As a result, it was precisely those scientific organizations that were directly tied to production that suffered the most. Despite the fact that the economic situation has improved markedly in recent years, the massive demand for scientific results has not yet been restored.
Research organizations, for various reasons, have proven to be more resilient to market transformations than other types of scientific organizations. They concentrated 59.3% of scientific personnel, design organizations - 22.5%.
In Russia, corporate science is underdeveloped - scientific divisions at industrial enterprises. In 2011, the share of industrial enterprises performing research and development together with pilot plants in the total number of scientific organizations was approximately 8.2%. As the experience of developed countries shows, it is the scientific and technical laboratories of large industrial companies that have a clear advantage in the markets for innovative products. We are talking about the ability to concentrate resources on the development of scientific and technical products that are in demand, to carry out a wider range of research and selection of promising developments on their basis.
Analyzing the above points of view regarding innovation culture, as well as the approaches of various researchers to the issues of its formation and development, we can draw a number of conclusions:
1. Within the framework of social philosophy, no common approaches to understanding innovation culture have yet been formed. Researchers consider it as an area of the general cultural process, a special kind of culture, part of the culture of society, a property or element of culture. Therefore, it is necessary to consolidate the efforts of scientists and specialists to improve the conceptual and categorical apparatus of innovation culture.
2. Despite different approaches to defining the phenomenon of innovative culture, all researchers consider it as the basis for the innovative development of society. Representatives of the authorities and business circles adhere to the same point of view, paying close attention to the formation and development of an innovative culture of society and the individual. And, therefore, the definition of directions for the development of innovative culture, the identification of factors contributing to or, on the contrary, preventing its formation should be reflected in the works of scientists and researchers.
3. The innovative culture of society lies in the fact that all possible types of innovations are implemented and supported in it, and a person is actively involved in the innovative processes taking place in society, which affects his spiritual improvement and the desire for self-realization and self-development.
4. Being the subject of an innovative culture, a person is simultaneously a part of society and a product of the innovative culture of this society. The interaction of the innovative culture of the individual and the innovative culture of society is a prerequisite for its formation. There is a so-called interchange or transition of the innovative culture of the individual into the innovative culture of society and vice versa. Contributing to the formation of highly intelligent and creative individuals, society ensures its innovative development and the formation of an innovative culture.
2. Problems of innovation culture
2.1 Main trends in the formation of an innovative culture and innovative development
Enterprise management presupposes the existence of certain ideas about the formation, use and features of the reproduction of intellectual resources. All the accumulated knowledge, abilities, skills, creative possibilities, actually included in the production of goods and services, and bringing income to their owner, will act in the form of intellectual capital. The ability to work acquires the properties of intellectual capital when there is a fundamental, qualitative modification of the entire set of properties that make up the quality of the labor force, which makes its owner able to create a stable, excess, surplus product demanded by society, and, accordingly, an excess surplus value, which becomes stable. source of additional capital income.
The management of intellectual resources involves the performance of a number of functions aimed at the rational formation, use and development of the intellectual resources of an enterprise, which can be systematized in separate areas of activity (see Table 2).
When evaluating intellectual capital, firms face a lot of problems. These include:
· limited opportunities strictly formal and adequate description and measurement of intellectual resources;
a high degree of uncertainty (entropy) of the results of scientific research;
· methodological problems of determining the standards of creative work (or even creativity itself) and their reliability.
Table 2. Functional subsystems for managing enterprise intellectual resources

Elements of the enterprise intellectual resource management system
1. R&D and technological innovation management subsystem	- planning, organization, control and regulation of the process of development of scientific and technical knowledge of specialists; - formation of an intellectual-information environment conducive to the generation of new ideas, the development of creativity, ingenuity, rationalization; Formation of an intellectual base that allows the enterprise to adapt and maintain its position in a changing external environment;
2. Subsystem for managing innovation potential and employee development	- formation and effective use of knowledge funds; - forecasting the need for intellectual resources; -identification of the emotional, psychological and intellectual potential of employees; -providing conditions for continuous improvement and development of personnel; Development of action programs for the improvement and development of intellectual resources;
3. Subsystem for managing internal and external information and communications	- coordination of actions of specialists involved in the process of managing intellectual resources, through the formalization and regulation of various procedures; Formation of a system for collecting, transmitting, processing, storing and using internal and external information;
4. Subsystem for managing a portfolio of rights to intellectual resources	- optimization of the composition of the portfolio of ownership of intellectual resources in accordance with the development strategy of the enterprise; Development of organizational and technical measures to ensure the protection of intellectual resources;
5. Subsystem for managing the commercialization of intellectual resources	-providing conditions for obtaining the maximum benefit from the use of intellectual resources; Analysis and evaluation of the value of intellectual property rights, monitoring of the commercial potential of intellectual resources.

All this not only complicates, but also casts doubt on the correctness of the formulation of the very task of normalizing intellectual processes and creative types activities. But on the other hand, in the conditions of market pricing, this intellectual potential of the company can be assessed or correlated with cost categories.
The first (rather controversial, approximate, although not the only) sign of an intellectual company is the level of its market capitalization, which exceeds the book value of fixed assets, tangible and financial assets. The excess of the company's market value over its book value is formed precisely due to intellectual assets: novelty and prospects of the offered products or services, expectations to occupy new market segments, expected profit from patents, trademark (prestige), business control, relationships with consumers, etc. .d. The degree of excess also matters: not every company that is successful in the stock market is intellectual.
According to experts, the excess should be multiple and stable, not subject to sporadic market fluctuations. Some experts believe that the intellectual capital of a high-tech company is usually 3-4 times higher than the book value of its income; others that the ratio of intellectual capital to the value of tangible means of production and financial capital in such companies should be in the range from 5:1 to 16:1 (Stewart, 1998). The market capitalization of a large corporation like Microsoft is estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars, but the value of the material assets on the company's balance sheet is only a few billion dollars. At the same time, the absence on the balance sheet of a significant amount of material resources in the form of fixed assets and working capital is not fundamental, since a modern intellectual company can attract them from outside, paying as services.
An important sign of an intellectual company is the amount of investment directed to research and development: if they exceeded the amount of investment in fixed assets, then this indicator can also serve as a defining characteristic of an intellectual company.
In the context of large-scale economic reforms carried out in Russia in recent decades, one of the important tasks is to create conditions for the preservation and development of the country's scientific and technical potential.
The prerequisite for the emergence of a movement for the creation of science cities was the uncertain status of a closed administrative-territorial entity (ZATO).
The term science city was introduced for the first time in the city of Zhukovsky, Moscow Region, by famous scientists S.P. Nikanorov and N.K. Nikitina in 1991 during the creation of the movement "Union for the development of science cities" to develop coordinated positions on the most important issues of their life. The movement took the initiative to develop a draft Concept of State Policy for the Preservation and Development of Science Cities. The first versions of the draft law "On the Status of the Science City of the Russian Federation", developed one - in the Federation Council, the other - in the State Duma, appeared in 1995.
The law on science cities was adopted on April 7, 1999. In accordance with this law, a science city is a municipal formation with the status of an urban district, which has a high scientific and technical potential, with a city-forming scientific and production complex. Legal regulation of the science city status is carried out in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal laws on general principles organizations of local self-government, on science and state scientific and technical policy, other federal laws, the Federal Law "On the Status of the Science City of the Russian Federation", constitutions, charters and laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
The status of a science city is assigned to a municipal formation by the Government of the Russian Federation for a certain period. A municipality applying for the status of a science city must have a research and production complex located on the territory of this municipality. The research and production complex of a science city is understood as a set of organizations engaged in scientific, scientific, technical, innovative activities, experimental development, testing, training in accordance with the state priority areas for the development of science, technology and technology.
The research and production complex of a municipality applying for the status of a science city must be a city-forming complex and meet the following criteria:
· the number of employees in organizations of the research and production complex is at least 15% of the total number of employees;
the volume of scientific and technical products (corresponding to the priority areas of development of science, technology and technology of the Russian Federation) in value terms is at least 50% of the total output of all economic entities located on the territory of this municipality, or the cost of fixed assets of the complex actually used in production scientific and technical products, is not less than 50% of the cost of actually used fixed assets of all business entities located on the territory of the municipality, with the exception of housing and communal and social spheres.
The research and production complex includes legal entities registered on the territory of this municipality:
1. scientific organizations, institutions of higher professional education and other organizations engaged in scientific, scientific, technical and innovative activities, experimental development, testing, training of personnel, if they have, if necessary, state accreditation;
2. organizations, regardless of organizational and legal forms, engaged in the production of products, performance of work and provision of services, provided that the share of production of science-intensive products (in value terms) corresponding to the priority areas of development of science, technology and technology of the Russian Federation during the previous three years, is at least 50 percent of their total production.
The first Russian science city, in 2000, was Obninsk, where developments in the field of peaceful atom were and are being carried out. In this city, testing of the institutional mechanisms for the functioning of science cities in Russia was previously carried out. This event gave impetus to the further development of science cities in Russia.
When assigning the status of a science city to a municipal formation, the government approves the priority areas for this science city of scientific, scientific, technical, innovative activities, experimental development, testing, and training. In this regard, it is customary to single out seven main specializations of science cities in Russia:
1. aviation, rocket science and space research;
2. electronics and radio engineering;
3. automation, machine and instrument making;
4. chemistry, chemical physics and creation of new materials;
5. nuclear complex;
6. energy;
7. biology and biotechnology.
These science cities are different not only in terms of sectoral focus, but also in terms of population, budget volumes and revenues mobilized to the budget, the volume of innovative products, etc.
According to the nature and profile of scientific complexes, science cities are divided into single-profile, mono-oriented and complex.
Mono-oriented science cities have several city-forming enterprises of the same sphere of scientific and technical activity. These are, for example, Zhukovsky, where the largest research and testing complexes of the aviation profile are located; Chernogolovka is a scientific center of the Russian Academy of Sciences with research institutes and laboratories in the field of chemical physics.
Most typical example complex science city is Dubna, where, in addition to the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, there are scientific, design and research and production centers of the aerospace, instrument-making, shipbuilding profile, an international university.
Today, the status of a science city has been officially assigned to 14 settlements in Russia that specialize in any certain direction science.

At the same time, the status of a science city is claimed by:

· 19 municipalities in the rocket and space industry;

· 14 municipalities in the nuclear industry;

· in the field of biotechnology 4 municipalities;

· in the field of electronics and radio engineering 3 municipalities;

· in the field of mechanical engineering 5 municipalities;

· in the field of chemistry and physical chemistry 5 municipalities.

Another 5 municipalities also claim the status of a science city, the sectoral affiliation of which is difficult to unequivocally assess. Already today these applicants are equated by experts with official science cities.

The analogue of science cities abroad are technopolises, the development of which on a large scale unfolded in the leading countries in the second half of the 20th century, in particular the famous Silicon Valley, a region in the state of California, characterized by a high density of high-tech companies associated with the development and production of computers and their components, especially microprocessors, as well as software, mobile communication devices, biotechnology, etc. The emergence and development of this technology center is associated with the concentration of leading universities, large cities at a distance of less than an hour, sources of financing for new companies, and a mild climate. At first glance, the structures of science cities and Silicon Valley are similar, but there is one very significant difference. It consists in the fact that the investment climate in Silicon Valley favors the emergence of new innovative companies. In our country, such infrastructures are very poorly developed.

The state assigns a number of functions to the science cities, the implementation of which is monitored and, if violations are detected, the science city may lose its status ahead of schedule. It also checks the target nature of spending the allocated funds.

Thus, support for science cities specializing in priority areas of development of science, technology and technology is one of the most important conditions for Russia's competitiveness in the global economy.

To date, there are 14 cities in the country that have officially received the status of science cities, and about 70 have declared their desire to receive this status. Science cities were conditionally divided into categories of "status" and "candidates". However, practice shows that many applicants had to refuse to obtain the status of science cities, since the procedure for approving the status turned out to be lengthy and scrupulous, and additional budget funding is not guaranteed and is regulated in detail. Over time, other problems of science cities began to appear - the aging of the research base and personnel, conflicts with the public, corruption scandals, and others.

Individual problems specific to science cities in Russia are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Selected problems specific to science cities in Russia

science cities	Problems
	there is no comprehensive development program, there is no permission to use land, there is no comprehensive nature of the formation of the list of projects (it is formed only at the expense of the federal budget)
	the problems of the science city are the inability to use unloaded federal property for commercial orders and the absence of a regional legislative framework for science cities
	there are no incentives for the development of commercial activities by research and production enterprises
	the problem of science city Reutov lies in the requirement of the law to spend budget subsidies only on infrastructure
	lack of extrabudgetary funding
	In 2010, the mayor of the science city was accused of corruption
Koltsovo	the problem of the outflow of young people from science; conflicting relations with local authorities over land. 3 criminal cases were opened against the head of the science city
Peterhof	the main problem is that Peterhof does not have the status of an urban district

Another key problem that deserves separate detailed consideration is the problem of legislation in the field of creation and development of science cities. According to the Federal Law of April 7, 1999 No. 70-FZ "On the Status of the Science City of the Russian Federation", the status of "Science City" was granted for 25 years. It was assumed that a presidential decree would be issued for each city, defining its specialization - space, nuclear physics, medicine, etc. - and to approve the development program for 5-6 years. And according to the concluded tripartite agreement (government - governor - municipality), each level of government had to assume certain obligations to implement the program.

In 2004, the law was amended, according to which the decision to assign scientific status was taken by the government, and it was granted only for five years. But the main change was the introduction of the per capita support method, instead of the software one. In practice, it looks like this: the money allocated from the federal budget for all science cities is distributed among them depending on the number of inhabitants.

At the end of 2011, the Ministry of Education and Science prepared a bill that could radically change the system of science cities. First of all, the document proposes to change the mechanism for assigning and maintaining the status of a science city. Now the document is being considered by other departments and by the heads of regions in which there are science cities. If it does not fundamentally change, then the status of a science city will be assigned indefinitely, but it will have to be confirmed every ten years.

However, experts, including members of the Russian Science City Development Union, are dissatisfied with the new bill and believe that it contradicts the policy of the President of the Russian Federation in terms of supporting the development of scientific infrastructure in general, and supporting science cities in particular. According to Mikhail Korolev, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor of the National Research University of Moscow state institution electronic technology, the Ministry of Education and Science does not fully understand how science cities are organized and what are the main goals of their activities.

Another significant problem that can be attributed to the sphere of legislation is the problem of taxation. As stated in the explanatory note to the bill discussed above, "it is aimed at stimulating scientific and innovative activities in science cities." However, according to experts, science cities need more a law on tax incentives, similar to those established in Skolkovo. Recall that according to the law recently signed by the president, Skolkovo is exempt from almost all taxes. All profits will go to the developers.

2.2 Prospects for the implementation of an innovation culture

Insufficiency of budget funding, an ill-conceived mechanism for its distribution and problems in legislative support are not the only problems of science cities. The largest and “richest” problem in 2011 for all cities of science, which calls into question the possibility and necessity of their existence, was the innovation city of Skolkovo.

In fact, Skolkovo is the same science city, which differs from the traditional ones in that it is not officially called a city. This is an innovative center, within which, however, it is planned to build a very real urban infrastructure suitable for both work and residence.

At the same time, the concept of a new science city from scratch did not win immediately. At first, it was proposed to create a center on the basis of existing scientific centers, for example, on the basis of Obninsk, where the first Russian nuclear reactor was made, or in Tomsk, which is the largest university city in Siberia. The name "Skolkovo" was officially announced in March. Until now, this small village near Moscow was known only for the business school of the same name. It was decided to build a full-fledged city in its place for the development of innovations. The name "science city" was replaced by "innovation city".

In March, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev named five areas of priority for this center - telecommunications, IT, energy, biomedical and nuclear technologies. Here it is worth noting that only the first two directions can be considered completely new for traditional Russian research centers. For example, there are about a dozen different science cities and ZATOs dealing with nuclear issues in Russia; from biomedical centers we can mention Pushchino or Koltsovo in the Novosibirsk region. The science cities did not deal with energy in its pure form (excluding the nuclear industry), but it is also impossible to say that this industry is new for domestic science and engineering.

Telecommunications and IT are the areas that developed most actively after the departure from the Soviet model of science development. Most modern technologies were created at the end of the last century and in this decade, domestic research centers, for various reasons, could no longer keep up with the current global scientific trends. Catch up in these areas of science, according to the ideas of the creators, should innograd Skolkovo.

Innovative activity in Russia now has many problems. An attempt to restore the traditional model for the development of science through state funding (in which, by the way, science cities received their status) has shown that significant breakthroughs in this area are not yet to be expected. Innograd should work differently, integrating the Western venture capital model of innovation financing into Russian reality.

However, independent experts are confident that even if individual projects are successful, the experience of Skolkovo will not bring Russia any closer to building an innovative economy. “The innovative economy is being created in countries with a high level of competition, where innovation becomes an urgent need for business, because without it, enterprises are simply doomed to defeat in the competition. With us, the guarantee of success is friendship with the governor, and not at all the introduction of any technology. Therefore, the current Russian economy does not create market demand for innovation. And without market demand, the Skolkovo project will have virtually no effect on the development of the domestic economy,” says Igor Nikolaev, Director of the Strategic Analysis Department at FBK. Thus, the main obstacles on the way to an innovative economy are not mutual misunderstandings between scientists and businessmen, but more important reasons. Experts believe that even if commercial success projects developed in Skolkovo, Russia will receive no more than one more science city patronized by the state, "and far from the best."

Women's Portal Flero

Formation of a culture of innovation. Cultural innovation

The concept of innovation

The impact of new technologies on artistic culture

Mechanism for dissemination of cultural innovations

Formation of an innovation culture

Basic provisions

Innovation as a strategic priority

Reducing Barriers to Innovation

Nokia: A call to all innovators

Empowering employees to create innovation

Back to School: Teaching Creativity for Adults

Conclusion

Competitiveness through innovation

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar Documents

Women's Portal Flero

The concept of innovation

The impact of new technologies on artistic culture

Mechanism for dissemination of cultural innovations

Formation of an innovation culture

Basic provisions

Innovation as a strategic priority

Reducing Barriers to Innovation

Nokia: A call to all innovators

Empowering employees to create innovation

Back to School: Teaching Creativity for Adults

Conclusion

Competitiveness through innovation

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar Documents

RELATED ARTICLES