 |
| Inspirational Quote |
Leonid Gokhberg and Valentina Poliakova, National Research University – Higher School of Economics, Russian
Federation
With the transition to a knowledge-based economy, innovation has become
a driving force for economic and social change. It is already more than just a
factor in the production of goods and services—it has become a form of mass
awareness of both innovation and its implications.1 In this central role,
successful innovation requires the population to obtain a higher level of
education, to be more creative, and to boost their ability to perceive
essential achievements in science, technology, and innovation (STI) and
implement those in daily practices. Progress today therefore depends not only
on an economy’s level of development in STI, but also on the depth of its
penetration into society as well as the intellectual potential of the
population, its competence in generating and applying new knowledge, and its
ability to adapt to qualitatively new trends of STI development.
Population plays multiple roles in innovation.2 It acts as the subject of
production, a role that requires not only basic STI knowledge but also an ability
to continuously perfect professional and technical skills. As consumers, people
perceive and use new products and technologies.
As citizens, they may engage in discussions of critical STI issues and
of respective government policies. A lack of necessary skills in any particular
part of the population becomes an obstacle to the creation and distribution of
new technologies and social practices throughout society.
Because technological changes occur rather quickly and on a global scale,
such a lack puts nations that have not carried out a timely transition to the
new technological structure at risk of being left behind.3
For this reason, national governments seek to learn more about the types
of skills needed for innovation and about efficient ways to engage the population
in innovative activities, including, in a broad sense, the generation of
innovation and its implementation, social recognition, and dissemination. This
chapter provides some insights on human capital inputs into innovation on the basis
of relevant surveys (see Box 1).
Readiness to innovate
People perceive innovation at both macro- and micro-levels. While the former
is associated with a nation’s economic and social progress, the latter is
connected to the quality of an individual’s life. The balance of these interpretations
indicates social legitimation of innovation in the ‘lifeworld’ where ‘people
both create social reality and are constrained by the preexisting social and
cultural structures created by their predecessors’.4 The case of the European
Union (EU) is exemplar: the average ratio between the two groups that clearly recognize
the importance of innovation for both economic growth and personal lives is 1:1
(42% and 43%, respectively) (Figure 1). The picture for the Russian Federation
is rather different: it demonstrates a substantial gap between the perception
of innovation as a source of economic growth (39% of respondents in 2011) and its
actual impact on daily life (17%). Even though the first group has nearly tripled
during 2009–11, the second group remains stable.
Further to the work of Inglehart (1997), we suggest that such
discrepancies between perception and impact assessments correlate with an economy’s
position on a transition curve towards a post-industrial, innovation-based
economic model. The percentage of respondents who understand the economic value
of innovation—that is, its effects on the competitiveness of companies and
their products—in the Russian Federation is two- to threefold lower than the EU
average. The gap with countries notable for the highest shares of innovating
companies in industry, such as Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, and Sweden, is
even greater. In those EU countries with minimal scores of innovation
activities in industry, such as Lithuania, Bulgaria, Latvia, and Romania,
appreciation of the economic value of innovation is lower than the average by
10–20 percentage points. In other words, the larger the shares of innovating
companies and allied employment, the more operational the abovementioned population’s
function as producers of innovation. Ireland and Portugal, which have high
rankings for their industry innovation indicators, have been exceptions in this
regard: their populations’ disappointment, which is a result of the influence
of the recent economic downturn despite the innovativeness of industry, has been
translated into assessments similar to those of Eastern Europe.
For the Russian Federation, despite the yet-insufficient impact of innovation
on daily life, the overall tendency of public opinion regarding innovative
products looks rather favourable. During the last decade, the share of
‘technological enthusiasts’—those who actively exploit novelties reached 50%;
another 12% were represented by the ‘forced users,’ who are motivated to use
new technologies and methods by job requirements. Only a marginal stratum (5%)
are still frightened by modern technological equipment (Table 1).
Children have
become a strong factor affecting technology diffusion, a fact explained by its
deepening penetration into the contemporary lifestyle. However, nearly one out
of eight respondents remains isolated from technological innovation—a warning
signal reflecting the quality of life in certain population groups.
Four types of respondents can be distinguished according to their attitude
towards technological novelties: ‘admirers’ (9%), those who respond
‘positively’ (65%), those who respond ‘indifferently’ (16%), and those who
respond ‘negatively’ (5%). The first group is rather narrow and is represented
mostly by men (61% of all admirers), the younger generation between 18 and 35
years of age (67%); one-third belongs to a higher-income category (compared
with 16% for the overall sample); and 28% of admirers are university graduates
(vs. 21% among all respondents). Such an attitude is an attribute of a specific
lifestyle that is not generally widespread. The polar opposite groups offer
quite a contrast: those who are either indifferent to innovation (e.g., do not use
modern technological equipment in daily life or are not able to identify
themselves with any survey statements) or who are even negatively motivated
(i.e., frightened by technological novelties) are most frequently women, older
than 55 years, and of poor social strata. Low income and conservative attitudes
obviously hamper dissemination of innovative products.
The middle group—the positive users of innovation—is the most common and
comprises two-thirds of the Russian population. These users are typical
mainstream consumers;5 their proportion can be interpreted as an important
indicator of social demand for innovation, and is in fact a focal point of
modern innovation policies.6 The diffusion of positive attitudes reveals the increase
of the population’s receptivity to innovation. Subsequent changes in social
behaviour caused by the recognition of the impact of innovation on economic
growth and openness to novelties will stimulate the market supply of
technologically advanced products and services as well as public engagement in
new practices enabled by the latter.
Innovative behaviour: Skills and activities
For analytical purposes, we divide participants in innovative activities
into three basic categories: ‘innovators’, ‘team members’, and ‘users’.7 Each
category is notable for a specific set of skills that plays a crucial role in
each stage of the innovation cycle (see Box 2).
According to the Higher School of Economics (HSE) survey,
innovators—those who have been engaged in initiating and/or implementing
improvements at work (launching new or modifying existing products or services,
technologies, business processes, etc.)—amounted to roughly a quarter of the
sample population (27%). However, only 60% of them (or 16% of the total sample)
were identified as successful innovators who achieved their own desired goals.
Their distinctive feature is that they exhibit the widest range of relevant
skills among all the actors:
- Successful innovators are the most active in browsing professional information on the web (66% of respondents in this group); reading STI literature (68%); attending exhibitions and conferences (43%); and studying information about competitors, consumers, and/or suppliers (46%).
- They are technologically advanced because they are studying new professions (83%) and learning new work techniques (86%) and equipment (69%).
- They are notable for achieving the highest scores in e-skills: 75% of successful innovators use search engines (compared with 60% for the whole sample); 67% send e-mails with attached files (vs. 50%); 58% are able to install new devices (vs. 41%); and 47% use specialized software (vs.33%).
- In addition to strong cognitive skills, they are best equipped with the knowledge of business processes and are experienced in team building and steering, developing enterprise strategies, marketing, and external communications.
In terms of personal qualities, successful innovators, to a large degree,
exhibit entrepreneurship, leadership, self-confidence, and creativity (Table
2). Interestingly, unsuccessful innovators have similar psychographic profiles,
but their skill range is more restricted. This similarity implies that the
innovative potential of an individual is not an instinctive feature, and
essential skills for innovation can be learned. The same is true for personal
qualities, or ‘soft’ skills.8 National education systems are therefore motivated
to transform formal curricula and teaching techniques and to promote life-long
learning aimed at supporting the innovative patterns of a population’s
behaviour and attitudes.
Successful innovators are accompanied by skilled employees (team members)
who contribute to developing new ideas (15% of respondents). The percentage of
efficient team members whose innovative projects have been implemented is even
lower—7%. These workers are comparable to innovators in their skill profile,
though it is narrower: their e-skills are less advanced and their professional duties
are subjected to in-house operations. Even the efficient team members typically
visit exhibitions or conferences (33%) or participate in strategy planning,
fundraising, and communication activities less often than the successful
innovators.
Such team member employees are conscientious assistants rather than
leaders: their core personal qualities include a proactive attitude and
self-confidence, although they lack leadership, creativity, and risk propensity.
Efficient team members are somewhat older than innovators (44 vs. 41 years on
average) and less frequently have a university diploma (56% vs. 69%,
respectively), but they are better skilled than their inefficient colleagues.
This finding provides additional evidence of the impact of training on
technological capabilities and the innovative potential of firms.
The third important group engaged in the implementation of innovation
unites new knowledge and technology users. It covers almost half of employees
(48%) and is divided into two subgroups: ‘active users’ (22%) and ‘passive
users’ (26%). Active users include those who have upgraded competencies during
the last five years. This is the youngest group among all respondents, while the
passive users are the oldest. In terms of core competencies, active users stand
far behind both the innovators and the team members: they are insufficiently
motivated to use innovation and less ambitious, with weaker leadership,
creativity, and risk propensity qualities, but they are hard-working and
tolerant. Such characteristics allow younger members of this subgroup to
advance their position (by, for example, moving into the group of team members
or even to become successful innovators) in the course of improving their professional
qualities and developing their careers.
Beyond the abovementioned categories, 10% of employees with tertiary and
vocational secondary degrees are not engaged in any innovative activities. This
group is the least skilled and least well adapted for innovation, and its
members usually occupy lower positions and perform the jobs that do not require
special education. A large proportion of them have qualifications that do not meet
the needs of the labour market. Their lack of self-confidence and creativity
hampers learning and their ability to adapt to changing circumstances.
Policy implications
Surveys of public attitudes towards STI and public understanding of it shed
light on the linkages among social values, skills, and innovation. These
linkages have to be taken into account by national governments when designing
evidence-based policies aimed at building public trust to be shared among
different parts of the society. No single approach to such a complex task can work
in every instance, and a one size-fits-all model is insufficient when applied
to different countries. However, some successful practices are worth
considering.
The Strategy for Innovative Development until 2020, adopted by the
Russian government in
December 2011, centres around promoting innovation culture, improving
allied competencies, creating a positive image of innovative entrepreneurship, increasing
the societal prestige of STI activities, and developing an innovation-friendly
environment. An earmarked President’s Decree of May 2012 urged all governmental
agencies to ensure the coordination of sectoral policies and programmes with
this document, which consequently allowed a comprehensive action plan as a
whole-of-the-government policy to be established.
The primary component of this action plan is the reform of education,
with the goal of supporting the development of innovative skills and personal
qualities from early childhood. The plan is envisaged to upgrade education
programmes by placing particular emphasis on modern information and
communication technology (ICT)-enabled techniques and information resources,
enlarging public support for kindergartens and schools, and establishing
necessary outreach to parents and raising their awareness about the benefits of
innovation. An infrastructure that helps to identify particular talents of
students early and to promote those talents through individual advanced
education services is being developed in collaboration with leading
universities. The training of qualified teachers is given particular attention,
and certain measures are being taken to reconsider respective education standards
for teacher training.
Government-supported federal student Olympiads in mathematics, natural
and social sciences, and information technology take place every year, and the
winners are accepted by the best national universities. Tertiary education reforms
include offering college-level applied baccalaureate degrees that combine
fundamental knowledge with advanced technological skills in specific areas,
stronger integration of courses in management and entrepreneurship into
university programmes (especially for engineering), and strengthening
universities’ innovative infrastructures (with technoparks, business
incubators, technology transfer centres, spin-off firms, etc.) and cooperation on
research and development with companies.9 Training in innovative entrepreneurship
has also become a key priority for multiple life-long learning programmes and
networks supported by universities, venture companies, industry, and regional authorities.
Large-scale inclusive innovation policy actions have been implemented at
national and regional levels to broaden access to new technology and combat
social exclusion. Several government programmes envisage funding to promote
e-government public services, high-tech health aid and telemedicine, and
Internet penetration to remote areas. An important role in promoting innovative
culture is played by innovation-development institutions—the Russian Venture
Company, RUSNANO, the Agency for Strategic Initiatives, and a few others—which
together have created a joint task force for popularizing innovation. The task
force provides subsidies to STI museums, exhibitions, and media; organizes contests
for individual innovators; and supports the innovation projects of young
inventors and start-up communities. Information centres in sensitive high-tech
sectors (such as the 17 centres established by the nuclear energy corporation
Rosatom in the areas of its enterprises’ presence) contribute greatly to the
communication of STI knowledge to the general public and the popularization of
science education among children. Another successful example of promoting
innovation is the national Science Festival initiated by the Moscow City
Government in 2006. Since its inception, the Science Festival has spread to 70
regions and involved more than 500 organizations—universities, research
centres, innovating companies, museums, and so on. The Festival enjoyed over a
million visitors across the whole country in 2013.
Conclusion
The population’s engagement with innovation requires greater attention
from policy makers and from society at large. The findings analysed in this
chapter suggest that, in most cases, people recognize the importance of
innovation for socioeconomic development, although such an appreciation is not
always coupled with intensive penetration of innovation into individual
lifestyles. A large part of the population remains isolated from technological advancements
and uninvolved with any innovative activities. This isolation is explained by
social barriers and the lack of personal attitudes, skills, and abilities
needed to master knowledge and technology.
This mixture represents a societal mindset,10 reflecting the actual
status of innovation-related values that embody people’s active involvement with
the social environment and its improvement by finding better solutions for
specific situations at work or in everyday life. At the individual level, taken
together with a composite of skills and personal qualities, it determines the
role of a person in innovative processes and his or her intellectual and
material progress that can result from seizing opportunities for life-long
learning. Groups of the population that do not participate in the
implementation and consumption of innovation are at risk of being left behind
by social exclusion and subsequent backwardness. This may occur because of a
lack of means and adequate skills, but it may also be deliberate because of
poor self-confidence and an inability to adjust to a changing environment. All
these factors can significantly hamper innovation processes and, consequently,
mark a space for inclusive policy actions. Popularizing innovation and allied novel
practices aimed at upgrading competencies and developing an innovation-friendly
environment are also important components of boosting competitiveness. Another critical
element is the modernization of education systems so that they will ensure the
development of knowledge, innovative skills, and personal qualities (such as
entrepreneurship, tolerance, self-confidence, leadership, creativity,
activeness, and risk propensity) from early childhood.
Given the changing nature of innovation and the long-term character of
public awareness and trust building processes, the policies that address these
areas have to be adaptive and continuous, and their efficiency will, to a great
extent, determine the global competitiveness of nations.
Culled from 2014 Global
Innovation Index. ALL REFERENCES ARE IN ORIGINAL PUBLICATION.
No comments :
Post a Comment