Innovative activities in the field of culture. Innovation culture as a system. Assessing the organization's innovative culture

"Creating a Culture of Innovation: How Global Companies Unlock Creative Potential" is a research report from the Economist Intelligence Unit, sponsored by EF Education First. This paper examines the challenges faced by companies attempting to innovate across corporate and national boundaries. In particular, this study examines ways in which companies can create corporate cultures that promote creative cross-border collaboration to develop and stimulate innovation.

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

For the purpose of research and summarizing the results, two main sources were used in this work:

# Two global online surveys: the first among senior corporate executives; the second - among government officials. The surveys were conducted in October and November 2014.

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

The sample, which included government officials, included 57 respondents. All of them were involved in the development and implementation of adult education and training policies. Respondents in this group work at the municipal (56%), regional (32%) and federal (12%) levels of government. The annual budget of the majority of authorities (82%) represented by this group of respondents is less than $100 million. Almost all of those surveyed (88%) work in departments responsible for education or skills development. Almost two thirds of respondents (63%) are heads of departments or directors of institutions. Although this sample is global, there is a greater emphasis on countries in Western Europe and the Asia-Pacific region and a lesser emphasis on countries in North America.

# Detailed interviews with the following independent experts and executives of major companies:

• Jim Andrew, Director of Strategy and Innovation, Philips
• John Biggs, Director of R&D, Latin America, Dow Chemical
• Martin Clark, Consultant, Gadfly
• Jeff Dyer, Lecturer in Strategy at the Horace Beasley, Brigham Young University Marriott School of Management
• Katie Fish, Chief Technology Officer, Innovation Capability and Global R&D, Procter & Gamble
• Tammy Lowry, Global Head of Learning and Organizational Effectiveness, Roche
• Michelle Proctor, Chief Innovation Officer, FedEx
• Fabian Schlage, Head of Idea and Innovation Management, 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 important for all companies, regardless of their size, location or industry. Companies that cannot change their offerings or improve their performance in response to changes in the environment tend to fall by the wayside and be 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 challenge is closely linked to improved communication, which is the basis for more effective collaboration and exchange of ideas both within and across corporate and geographic boundaries. This study examines the ways that leading companies have found to foster collaborative innovation across the organizational landscape. The key findings of the study are the following:

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

Creating new products and services was one of the top three priorities for 54% of respondents to our corporate survey, more important than cutting costs or investing in talent. 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 (investment growth 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 in which there is significant room for improvement. When talking about their company's ability to innovate, two-thirds of respondents (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 characterizing an innovative business, respondents indicated that this is, firstly, a culture that stimulates the development of ideas from each employee (indicated by 53% of respondents), and secondly, a high degree of tolerance for failure (41% ) and thirdly, strong leadership (34%).

Many companies will not be able to benefit from these investments unless they rethink their approach to innovation. Employees' confidence in their ability to communicate with colleagues to develop innovative ideas declines steadily as they encounter various barriers. This confidence decreases from 95% - the percentage of employees who feel confident when communicating with colleagues in their department, to 72% - the percentage of employees who feel confident when communicating with colleagues from other countries. In addition, there is a hierarchical barrier - the processes of exchanging ideas are widely implemented by managers at the level of company directors, but lower down the management ladder the participation of employees decreases. Moreover, there are also cultural barriers. Thus, 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 for colleagues to share ideas.

Companies strive to create a culture conducive to experimentation, but often fail to follow through. A creative culture is one in which every employee is motivated to contribute 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 do not have a culture that encourages new ideas from every employee. 30% said their companies do not have a culture of tolerance for failure, and 34% said their companies do not give employees time to experiment with their own projects.

Companies need to build a base of employee skills and abilities to develop new ideas and disseminate them widely throughout the organization.

Our research shows that investing in increased communication confidence and communication skills training can be very beneficial. Four-fifths of respondents (81%) noted that improving staff communication skills could significantly improve their companies' ability to innovate. However, almost 30% of surveyed companies admit that their spending in this area is inadequate or non-existent. It's important to note that almost a quarter of CEOs (23%) have never received training in developing creative skills. This figure for CFOs rises to 47%.

There is a discrepancy between the skills that companies say are needed in the future and the skills that governments believe governments should develop through adult education programs. More than one-third of the companies surveyed (37%) indicated that the training offered in their countries is not enough to improve workers' ability to innovate. However, government officials appear reluctant 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. This study concludes that companies need to make greater efforts to address this mismatch by improving workers' communication skills and motivating them to share ideas throughout the organization.

Innovation as a strategic priority

Companies have long known that engaged and creative employees are critical to the ability to drive innovation and success. This key characteristic 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 Brigham Young University's Jeff Dyer, who co-wrote "The Innovator Method" with Nathan Furr, believe 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 creating new products and services is one of their company's top three priorities over the next three years, more important than cutting costs (42%) and investing in people (33%).

Over the past three years, 71% of companies surveyed have increased their investment in innovation, with 25% increasing investment by a significant amount, 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 planned to significantly increase investment in innovation.

The public sector also shows enthusiasm for investment in skills development among working-age adults, although to a lesser extent than companies. Compared with 76% of corporate respondents who indicated that their companies would increase investment in the next three years, 70% of government officials indicated that their governments would do the same.

This investment vector demonstrates 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 respondents rated their company's ability to innovate as “poor” or “very bad.” Moreover, the present study reveals a dichotomy in perceptions of the ability to innovate in the United States and Europe, with, surprisingly, respondents in the United States holding more reserved assessments. Thus, 77% of respondents from the US 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 apprehension in making risky decisions 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 three main factors characterizing an innovative business, respondents clearly indicated that this is, firstly, a culture that encourages each employee to come up with ideas (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 factor limiting 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 respondents rated their ability to innovate as “good” or “excellent,” while only 87% rated their companies the same. Among corporate board members, the discrepancy is even wider: 95% of them rated their own innovation capabilities positively, compared with 84% who gave the same assessment to their companies. This discrepancy is important because it shows the situation in the future: individuals can be phenomenal germminators of creative and useful ideas, but in a culture that is unable to nurture innovation, their ideas will fall into barren soil.

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

Leaders must model and reward the right behaviors, says Michelle Proctor, chief innovation officer at FedEx. “If company leaders say they support innovation but don't actually back up their words with action, then employees will see it as empty promises,” Ms. Proctor says.

Jim Andrew, director of strategy and innovation at Philips, also agrees. "People are very savvy and they know what really matters to their organization," says Mr Andrew. “That's why we spend a lot of time and effort making sure that it's 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 achieve this. More than a quarter of respondents (26%) listed “poor leadership” as one of the top three barriers to innovation at their companies.

Despite such shortcomings in leadership, companies tend to 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 does not mean they will put their new ideas into practice. Our research shows that even senior executives often hold back on innovative ideas. A fifth of all respondents (20%) and, significantly, 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 - effectively stimulating the creation 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 masks 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 to Europeans, believe that their companies have good or excellent ability to innovate). The share of companies where employees feel they are actively encouraged to come up with new ideas drops to 59% in Russia and 48% in Brazil.

How can companies address such shortcomings and ensure that a culture of innovation spreads throughout the organization? One approach is to create a formal process for proposing ideas, although this also has its drawbacks. More than half of the companies surveyed (58%) have formal processes for soliciting staff input. However, not everyone believes that investing in shared processes is effective.

Nokia, for example, has shied away from using such a process and prefers to take a more focused approach, says Fabian Schlage, head of the company's idea and innovation management 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 forefront.

In companies that have idea collection processes, these processes are used widely but not uniformly 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 job title shows that CEOs are more active in using such processes (95%). Further down the corporate ladder, the use of these processes declines - the figure is 78% for managers and 77% for department heads. This division calls into question the ability of formal processes to involve all employees in creating innovation.

The effectiveness of idea collection processes also varies across countries. Thus, 82% of all respondents noted that the process used in their companies is effective for generating ideas. However, satisfaction with this process drops to 53% in the United States. 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 suggest that US-based workers and managers are less confident in proposing new business options than European workers, perhaps due to less job security in the US compared to Europe.

Opinions also vary widely about the impact of idea collection 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 at their company, and 53% noted that it could increase the likelihood that they themselves would come up with new ideas. On the other hand, a significant minority of respondents disagreed with this statement. According to one fifth of 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 the likelihood that they themselves would come up with new ideas. Given these different assessments, it is not surprising that many companies that do not have idea collection processes are hesitant to implement them.

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

“We believe that innovation happens at the intersection of boundaries,” says Ms Lowry. Roche has two independent research and development centers because this promotes thought diversity. However, in general, isolationism in R&D can create difficulties in solving complex problems that span many functions. “What's important here is simplicity and a general global approach, which can sometimes open up room for innovation in other areas,” Ms Lowry says. “What is needed is an openness to ask questions and question the status quo, as well as a willingness to listen and an understanding of differences.”

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

Half of companies (50%) indicated that cross-cultural differences make it difficult to share ideas with colleagues. This proportion is 61% in Brazil, 66% in China and 67% in Germany. The lesson for companies is that the communication confidence to share ideas erodes when workers step outside their comfort zones. To develop collaboration 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 staff communication skills could significantly improve their companies' ability to innovate.

In summary, the existence of a culture conducive to innovation depends on a number of factors. Important among these factors are, first, to promote the understanding that the company welcomes all ideas, and, second, to recognize that not all proposed ideas will be successful. Because innovation is more likely to emerge at the intersection of departmental boundaries and national cultures, companies that work tirelessly to develop open communication across such boundaries have the best chance of increasing their innovation capabilities. Likewise, companies that consistently create systems for knowledge sharing across different internal boundaries will be more successful in creating creative and innovation-oriented cultures.

Nokia: A Call to All Innovators

Since announcing the sale of its once market-leading mobile phone division to Microsoft in September 2013, Nokia has been in the process of reinventing itself. Now this Finnish multinational telecommunications and IT company intends to become the largest player in the market of network technologies that make the Internet of Things possible. To do this, the company is changing the way it manages innovation across its geographically dispersed operations, which employ 90,000 people in 120 countries.

In the past, the company received ideas through a strictly controlled funnel. Potential innovations were formally identified, designed, developed and brought to market. Unsuccessful ideas were discarded during this process. This approach allowed for several profitable innovations, which, however, turned out to be insufficient. Fabian Schlage, head of the company's idea and innovation management division, has this to say: “The process looked at innovation management more as risk management,” says Mr. Schlage. The goal was to develop new ideas while controlling the risk of wasting resources on unsuccessful projects.

Fabian Schlage and his global team of 50 innovation managers are leading Nokia towards a different model. “Our ambition is to create a future that requires a more complete set of innovative capabilities,” says Mr. Schlage. And he believes it also requires a change in mindset. “Our new paradigm places innovation management into a broader dimension in which culture and change play leading roles.” A key element of this cultural transformation is encouraging every employee to contribute their own ideas and to share ideas with colleagues. To promote cooperation, Mr. Schlage tries to develop flexibility, trust, easy access to information, effective leadership, open communication and employee autonomy.

“There is no point in having a small 'disruptive ideas department' somewhere in the company - we need to make sure that innovation is everywhere,” says Mr. Schlage. However, in order to encourage participation from everyone in the company, “it is necessary to understand how innovation works in reality.”

Technological advances mean that, as Mr. Schlage puts it, “innovation now happens online,” so sharing ideas and collaborating online across departments and countries has greater potential for developing profitable ideas. According to Mr. Schlage, “this kind of interaction will not happen automatically.” “You have to understand how to connect people and how to orchestrate that interaction. You must offer people a rationale for their participation. Participation must be attractive enough to keep employees engaged in the process.”

For example, Nokia holds regular internal competitions to attract new ideas from employees. To be effective, Mr. Schlage said, such competitions must address business objectives and offer specific rewards. Thus, in a recent request for proposals to improve the online security of Nokia customers, an Apple laptop was proposed for the best idea.

In parallel with such targeted requests, Nokia is also holding competitions for the most, in Mr. Schlage's words, “crazy ideas.” These competitions are judged by teams comprising employees from each Nokia division.

In these ideas they look for a high degree of novelty - a breakthrough that changes the rules of the game - and also evaluate the technical feasibility of the idea and the possible cost of its implementation. The latest call for proposals 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 hailed as innovation “champions” throughout the company. They may receive an award and/or training in methods for developing, capturing and sharing ideas.

Much of the innovation effort is focused on stimulating communication throughout the company. To achieve this, Nokia publishes ideas proposed by staff on the Global Innovation Center, a joint intranet portal. Here employees can explore these ideas, upload their own suggestions and comment. By tracking 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 encourage all employees to 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 startup incubators, universities and technology hubs.

Mr. Schlage encourages competition among these innovation centers by awarding "points" for each successful idea they develop and publishing their total scores on an internal company resource. “Nobody wants to lag behind, each of the innovation centers wants to achieve the status of the best,” says Mr. Schlage. This approach allows different centers to develop their capacities organically. For example, the innovation center in Budapest is very successful in innovation related to security. Some centers are great at improving existing capabilities, while others are best at finding completely fresh ideas.

According to Fabian Schlage, the transition to a culture that encourages collaboration has brought measurable results. Nokia approximately doubled - to 20% - the share of new ideas that ultimately became profitable products, services or process modifications. “There is no single blueprint or standard that creates innovation, just as there is no one ‘magic’ tool,” Mr. Schlage says. “There are many of them, and you have to know all of them and apply the right tools to the corresponding problem. So my approach is very simple: I want to provide flexibility. However, I measure everything so that I know what we have in the process chain, what our successes and results are.”

Empowering employees to innovate

As with 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 senior management thinks. In particular, the execution skills that are at the heart of MBA programs and highly valued in senior management are not well suited to the “messy and unpredictable” world of innovation, says Professor Dyer. Instead, CEOs must understand that fostering 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 need to move from being the main decision maker to being the main experimenter," says Professor Dyer.

One set of assumptions that is worth reconsidering involves the conventional view of how innovation works—or how it should work—in companies. Professor Dyer says it's often easier for managers to say "we're just not good at innovation" when what they really mean is that innovation is not within the management team's remit. “They need to recognize this fact and demonstrate a real desire to learn.” Better understanding the conditions that drive innovation can help leaders create a set of processes and culture that fit 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 consulting firm Deloitte that helps U.S. government agencies innovate, says leaders also need to show they are open to criticism. “They must give employees the opportunity to propose changes and improvements to the way things are done.” This means that managers must focus more on the desired results and less on controlling how those results are achieved.

As a number of executives have noted, part of the process of stimulating innovation is understanding the different types of innovation. This often involves adopting a dual approach, in which one centralized department concentrates 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 uses incentives in the form of rewards for those 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 focused on defining what we do in the future. They explore the latest technologies and ideas to create more value for our clients,” says Ms. Proctor. “They collaborate with colleagues from different countries, teams and projects to add value by challenging traditional thinking, introducing new perspectives, and bringing knowledge of development trends to identify opportunities.”

Dow Chemical is also trying to create a culture of innovation by combining specialized research and development units and a network approach that extends throughout the organization. “We had a lot of conversations about who is responsible for innovation, and we definitely didn't want to have a chief innovation officer or any innovation managers,” says John Biggs, director of R&D for Latin America at Dow Chemical. Although the company has large innovation labs in the US, "we created a network structure that included people in every division because we didn't want our people to think that innovation was just the responsibility of the R&D division."

Mr. Biggs said the approach has created a particular type of culture of innovation that is more suited to Dow Chemical's business in Latin America, which employs fewer people than the United States and is largely family-owned. One of the ways Dow Chemical tracks the effectiveness of its innovation management is by measuring 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 Mr. Biggs. “That percentage is growing, and I think we are more innovative and getting products to market faster.”

Professor Dyer believes that every innovation lab requires three different skill sets: 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 must also invest more heavily in training staff to be creative at work. As Stanford University professor David Kelley writes in his book Creative Confidence, the challenge for companies is to develop “in every employee.” confidence in the ability to achieve what is planned." “We believe that this kind of self-belief, this kind of belief in one’s own creative abilities, is at the heart of innovation.”

Martin Clarke, a creativity consultant at Gadfly, a consultancy specializing in developing creativity in organizations, says the issue is really less about teaching employees to be creative and more about 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 mindset of childhood: failure is okay, playing is okay, if what you do is different from what everyone else is doing, that's okay too,” Mr. Clarke says.

This approach is also used by Fabian Schlage at Nokia. “Children learn about the world through trial and error, without thinking about what will happen next. They learn by making decisions and handling situations. I can't 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 were rated differently on how well they had learned and implemented these lessons. On the positive side, as noted above, companies are committed to investing in improving the creative skills of their employees. Moreover, 67% of respondents felt that their company's level of investment in creativity training was adequate, and 62% indicated that they had personally received training to improve creativity skills in a current or past job. The downside is that 30% of respondents rated their companies' level of investment in training to improve creativity as inadequate or non-existent. Nearly a quarter of CEOs surveyed (23%) indicated that they had never received creativity training. Among CFOs, this proportion rises to 47%.

Respondents also suggest increased investment in improving communication between departments and countries. Almost four-tenths of respondents (38%) noted that such investments are necessary to develop communication between colleagues from different departments. For comparison, only 20% of respondents consider investments in improving communication within departments more necessary. 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 creativity-focused education programs compared to other types of adult education programs. In particular, respondents noted that the training available to them in communication and creative skills was not as effective as 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 results highlight an area of ​​concern that companies must consider when selecting funded training programs for employees.

Interestingly, government officials interviewed in this study expressed a contrasting view regarding the area of ​​concentration of adult education programs. When assessing opportunities to develop employee skills in their countries, 86% and 81% of civil servants, respectively, gave positive ratings to 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 who can innovate are a powerful driver of economic growth, should governments do more to help people develop the required skills? 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 workers' ability to innovate. Moreover, 44% of respondents indicated that training to improve innovation is not the sole responsibility of the employer, suggesting that government intervention is preferable.

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

Leaders who responded to our survey agree that public education needs to focus more on creativity. However, government officials, i.e. those who must carry out such a transformation, do not always see the problem in existing educational offerings. Two-thirds of corporate respondents (63%) indicated that skills development opportunities in their countries are adequate to improve workers' ability to innovate. Among government officials, 72% of respondents gave this answer. Civil servants see as their main task the need to better inform the adult population about the proposed training programs. More than half of government employees (56%) in our survey indicated that this is their top priority. By comparison, only 30% of government employees noted that their priority is working with companies to improve educational programs for adults.

More than half of civil servants (54%) indicated that lack of funding is the biggest barrier to improving the training they offer. A further 26% of respondents cited a lack of culture that motivates workers to continue learning, while 14% noted a lack of understanding within the public sector regarding company needs.

At the same time, civil servants believe that improving training aimed at developing corporate innovation is not part of their job responsibilities. Three quarters of 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 clear that the government leaves the task of teaching creativity to the private sector, either due to budgetary constraints or because it believes that teaching creativity is not its mission.

Conclusion

Competitiveness through innovation

Many global companies are trying to respond quickly and flexibly to market and technological changes by developing a culture of innovation. Companies do this in a variety of ways—encouraging employees to generate ideas, creating systems for sharing ideas and information, reassuring them that occasional failure is acceptable, and seeking to eliminate communication gaps that arise within the organization.

To be successful in this endeavor, companies must be aware of the key barriers to creating a culture of innovation. As this study shows, such barriers include a lack of management focus on innovation, weak skills in generating new ideas, poor communication and poor cooperation between different departments and units located in different countries, as well as low employee confidence in your ideas need to be shared 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 research demonstrates critical actions that companies of all types can take to improve their ability to innovate. These actions include the following:

• Creating an atmosphere in which the experimental approach is valued, and the possible failures of some experiments are taken for granted;
• Ensuring that creativity is valued and nurtured in every corner 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 cross-departmental and cross-country collaboration to enable the organization to benefit from differences in problem solving approaches;
• Investment 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 the implementation of new ideas with unknown profitability.

Finally, it is the desire to think and try new things that fuels creativity and innovation. As companies increasingly focus on innovation, they must practice what they preach - or, as Nokia's Fabian Schlage says, learn to be innovative in the way they innovate. Indeed, efforts to improve a company's ability to innovate are themselves exercises 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/

Introduction

Innovation is an introduced innovation that provides a qualitative increase in the efficiency of processes or products that is in demand by the market. It is the end result of a person’s intellectual activity, his imagination, creative process, discoveries, inventions and rationalization. An example of innovation is the introduction to the market of products (goods and services) with new consumer properties or a qualitative increase in the efficiency of production systems.

Innovation is the introduction of a new or significantly improved product (product, service) or process, a new sales method or a new organizational method in business practice, workplace organization or in external relations.

The term "innovation" comes from the Latin "novatio", which means "renewal" (or "change"), and the prefix "in", which is translated from Latin as "in the direction", if we literally translate "Innovatio" - "in the direction changes." The concept of innovation first appeared in scientific research in the 19th century. The concept of “innovation” received new life at the beginning of the 20th century. in the scientific works of the Austrian and American economist J. Schumpeter as a result of the analysis of “innovative combinations” and changes in the development of economic systems. It was Schumpeter who first introduced this term in economics.

Innovation is not any innovation or innovation, but only one that seriously increases the efficiency of the current system.

In general, this concept can also be applied to a creative idea that has been implemented.

Cultural innovations are cultural phenomena that did not exist at the previous stage of development of the culture of an ethnos, but which appeared at this stage and found a place for themselves in the general totality of culture. Innovations can appear either as a result of internal processes of cultural development such as inventions and innovations (cultural mutations), or can be associated with external influences.

Innovation culture is the knowledge, skills and experience of targeted 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 innovation system; in other words, it is the free creation of something new in compliance with the principle of continuity.

Man, as a subject of true culture, transforms (renews) the natural, material, spiritual worlds surrounding him and himself in such a way that these worlds and man himself are more and more fully permeated with human meaning, humanized, cultivated, i.e. are increasingly acquiring the features of the universal trinity of Truth, Goodness and Beauty. Of course, such a worldview in understanding culture (including innovative culture) is by no means the only one. In cultural studies, for example, there are extremely relativistic concepts that reject the very legitimacy of the “primitive - civilized” dichotomy as a Eurocentric prejudice. However, it seems that the understanding presented here of the essence, functions, and prerequisites for the development of an innovative culture makes it possible to reveal this phenomenon in the most holistic and logically consistent manner.

Innovation

INNOVATION (Late Latin inovatio, English innovation - innovation) - cultural phenomena that did not exist at the previous stages of its development, but which appeared at this stage and received recognition in it ("socialized"); fixed (fixed) in symbolic form and (or) in activity through changes in the methods, mechanisms, results, contents of this activity itself. In the second case, the concept of innovation is more often used, expressing its essence in terms of innovative activity and innovation processes (if the process of associated changes in the environment is taken into account) and revealing its content as a complex process of creation, dissemination and use of a new practical means (innovation) to meet human needs, changing during the development of sociocultural systems and subjects. However, this is a judgment and subjectification of the concept of information to the tasks of specific spheres of human activity - management and the theory (sociology) of management. The second understanding of information can be considered in a broader framework of culture as a technologization of the first understanding of information. In this general case, the initial (basic) idea is the idea of ​​culture as a complexly organized integrity formed by two types of multidirectional processes. This is the vector of creativity (change, renewal, creativity, etc.) of culture and the vector of structuring (ordering, normativity, traditionalization, etc.). The essence of the ordering intentions of culture is the stereotyping of possible forms of activity within it (activity, communication, thinking) and the standardization and habituation (habituation) of the existing contents in it, which is fixed structurally and institutionally. The nuclear structure here is a cultural tradition as a universal information-regulatory mechanism that carries out selection, design, and thereby modification and consolidation, i.e. integration in a culture of innovations that fall within its field of action, both those created within a given culture (I. cultures associated with author’s or anonymous creativity, “creation” I.), and borrowed from other cultures. The ultimate goal of these processes and activities is to transform them into a norm and tradition Akhiezer A.S. From cultural to sociocultural analysis of innovation in society. - Bulletin of Moscow State University, ser.12, 1996, No. 2.. Creative processes and activities in culture are aimed at destereotyping activities, communication, thinking, destandardizing existing existing contents, problematizing “evidence,” destructuring and deinstitutionalization (within certain limits) established integrity. The core “structure” in this case is the processuality of creativity, which is understood as “the creation of something new in a qualitatively new way, according to essentially new rules,” i.e. the production of creational I., as well as the introduction as such into the culture of I. - “borrowings”. (The problem of cultural borrowing was specifically developed in the paradigm of diffusionism in anthropology; one of the latest versions of the role of innovative borrowing was proposed by G. Gachev in the concept of “accelerated development of literatures”). The ultimate goal of these processes and activities is to change existing norms and traditions through information, or to ensure the possibility of generating other traditions and norms. In addition, under the influence of I. and the restructuring of existing normative systems and traditions in cultural systems, resonating effects of cultural mutations (the influence of primarily “creative” I.) and cultural transformations (the influence of primarily I. - “borrowings”) can be generated. The vectors of creativity and structuring (with all their multidirectionality) not only presuppose the simultaneous existence of the corresponding processes and activities, but also their real combination in the functioning and development of cultural phenomena. Any information becomes the property of culture only by being integrated into existing systems of norms and traditions, i.e. being stereotyped and standardized. But every stereotype and standard is genetically derived from what took place in the culture of I. However, in specific historical and social aspects, the relationship of these vectors allows us to distinguish between cultures of “innovative” and “traditional” types (respectively, “cultures of grammars” and “cultures of texts”, in terminology Lotman). In both cases, we are talking, first of all, about the different relationship between traditions and history in culture, as well as the specific ways of introducing history into tradition, i.e. about different innovation technologies.

In this regard, archaic, traditional and modern social structures and (in Petrov’s terminology) different types of cultural coding are distinguishable: personal-nominal (model - hunting society); professional-nominal (model - caste system); universal-conceptual (foundations laid in antiquity, developed in Christianity, further developed in modern times, model - industrial society) Akhiezer A.S. From cultural to sociocultural analysis of innovation in society. - Bulletin of Moscow State University, Ser. 12, 1996, No. 2. . The sociocultural code specifies various mechanisms of differentiation (fragmentation) and integration of existing bodies of knowledge and cultural experience, ways of bringing them to consumers, and most importantly, various mechanisms of transmutation - the appearance of new elements or modifications of existing elements in the sociocode, in any of its fragments and in the corresponding channel transmission of knowledge and experience, which also changes the mechanisms of succession of inherited circumstances and the “interiors” of activity that reinforce them. (Changes in the “interiors” of activities are essentially secondary, and can be considered as the “technologization” of “primary”, semantic cultural ideas). “In the overwhelming majority of cases, an individual has no other way to influence the general social “sum of circumstances” except to change the fragment of knowledge he has inherited...” (Petrov). By increasing its fragment of text, the subject creates the threat of it going beyond its own boundaries (the problem of the “capacity” of the fragment) and sets the task for the need to compress and reduce the text. At the same time, the problem of symbolic design and implementation of information (its recognition) in the integration integrity of fragments of knowledge is being solved. The “capacity” of a fragment, the type of reduction and the mechanisms of symbolic design and recognition of information distinguish sociocodes from each other, divide cultures into “traditional”, “cultures of the text” (in Petrov, rather, “cultures of the name”), on the one hand, and “ innovative”, “cultures of grammars” (universally conceptually encoded by Petrov) - on the other. The life cycle of information in the latter type of culture is well described by analogy with a change in the body of disciplinary (scientific) knowledge under the influence of a new result obtained and its publication, on the one hand, and by analogy with the mechanism of the appearance of new symbols in the process of speech communication (due to a shift in meanings in dialogue) - on the other. At the same time, the structure of a scientific discipline can be considered as a universal grammatical structure that provides within itself a connection between the new (localized in the future tense of the discipline, limited by its paradigmatic given subject) with the present (the past of the discipline, limited by the time of the last publication and localized in its present tense as the area of ​​​​solved decisions). questions to be broadcast in educational mode) Akhiezer A. C. From cultural to sociocultural analysis of innovation in society. - Bulletin of Moscow State University, ser.12, 1996, No. 2.. Mediation by the present (past and present, i.e. general) makes speech understandable for communicators and allows the introduction of new (future) meanings through an alternating shift of meanings with switching the position of the listener (experiencer) impact) on the position of the speaker (producing the impact), thereby changing the array of available results through the introduction of new values ​​(meanings) into it. Changes in the array must be consolidated through publication - institutionalization (whether in the form of a scientific article, myth or some other form, for example, dance in an archaic culture). A different layer and level of work with new contents, analysis and reflection of the possibilities for the emergence of information are represented by philosophical approaches that are disciplinary consolidated and developed within the framework of psychology (in particular, in Piaget’s genetic epistemology, in Vygotsky’s concept of working with signs, etc.), as well as in the postpositivist methodology of knowledge (Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos, etc.). The concept of knowledge has been radically rethought in various variants of postmodern orientation in philosophy and in the sociology of knowledge Akhiezer A.S. From cultural to sociocultural analysis of innovation in society. - Bulletin of Moscow State University, Ser. 12, 1996, No. 2..

INNOVATION CULTURE

Innovation culture is the knowledge, skills and experience of targeted 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 innovation system; in other words, it is the free creation of something new in compliance with the principle of continuity. Man, as a subject of culture, transforms (renews) the natural, material, spiritual worlds surrounding him and himself in such a way that these worlds and man himself are more and more fully permeated with human meaning, humanized, cultivated, i.e. are increasingly acquiring the features of the universal cultural trinity of Truth, Goodness and Beauty.

The very concept of “innovation” first appeared in the scientific research of cultural scientists (primarily German) back in the middle of the 19th century and meant the introduction (infiltration) of certain elements of one culture into another. In this case, the talk was usually about the introduction of European methods of organizing production and life activities into traditional (archaic) Asian and African societies. In the 20s of the last century, the patterns of technical innovations (innovations) began to be studied. Later (in the 60-70s), a special interdisciplinary field of scientific knowledge began to take shape - innovation. Specialists in innovation use accumulated data from a variety of sciences - engineering, economics, sociology, psychology, acmeology, technical aesthetics, cultural studies, etc. One of the most developed modern applied scientific disciplines is innovation management, understood as a body of knowledge and a system of actions aimed at achieving the competitiveness of created innovations (F., 10) http://www.sociology.mephi.ru/docs/innovatika/html/ innovacionnya_kultura.htm (11.01.14).

Innovation today is the science of what technologies for creating new things should be (in the broad sense of the word) and what are the social, technical, economic, psychological and other prerequisites that ensure increased efficiency of such innovative technologies.

It is a generally accepted fact that modern post-industrial civilization is associated with a radical turn in the system of relations “man - production”, namely with the fact that the modern economy is becoming increasingly innovative in nature Poskryakov A.A. Innovative culture: the search for “ecodynamics”. / Scientific session MEPhI-2000. Collection of scientific papers. T.6. M., MEPhI, 2000..

Among other things, this means that material and material factors of production cease to be the main ones, because become obsolete every 5-6 years. Tools, machines, machine tools, various types of equipment are changing right before our eyes. An additional impetus to this process is given by the large-scale informatization of production and all life activities of society. The main factor in updating production and increasing its efficiency is the person, his knowledge, skills, experience, and creativity.

In this regard, the entire social organism undergoes dramatic transformations, and the division of societies according to socio-economic, technological or socio-political criteria is replaced by the classification of social systems with “fast” or “slow” economies. “Fast” economies are based on innovation, on the principle of uniqueness and originality. Imitation and repetitions here, as a rule, do not have social recognition, and are often simply condemned. “Slow” economies are stably traditional and inertial. Here, changes are usually introduced haphazardly and within the framework of existing traditions. In the East, for example, if they wished trouble for someone, they said: “May you live in an era of change!” Berdyaev N.A. The meaning of creativity. / Philosophy of freedom. The meaning of creativity. M., 1989. (P. 325-399)..

At the same time, we note that innovation and traditionality are interconnected aspects in the development of production, science, technology, economics, art, etc. In a broad cultural context, traditions can (and should!) be considered as a necessary condition for any development. A society that has lost its traditions and its historical memory ceases to develop and degrades, since the connection between generations is interrupted and marginalization (from the French margo - edge) of large social groups and other destructive processes occur. On the other hand, society cannot exist without changing.

Thus, the unity of innovation and traditionality, which is fixed in the general cultural principle of continuity, is the most important prerequisite for social progress. The connecting link in such a dynamically changing unity are those elements of culture that we usually attribute to the modern - modern science, modern technology, modern economics, etc. It is in this sense that we can talk about the main task of innovative culture as the task of achieving a kind of innovative “ecodynamics”, i.e. searching for an optimal (in specific historical terms) balance between the old (past, “classics”), modern (present, “modern”) and new (future, “futurom”) http://www.sociology.mephi.ru/docs /innovatika/html/innovacionnya_kultura.html (11.01.14). And since the threshold of innovative receptivity for the old, modern and new is not the same, the innovative “section” of this multidimensional space in given specific historical parameters (social, economic, political, technical, religious, informational, etc.) leads to an uneven change in energy the potential of each of the interdependent elements of this triad. In other words, any innovation as a type of normative (cultural) deviation provokes the rejection of the old, the mobilization of the modern and the expansion of the new. At the same time, however, preserving the identity of the sociocultural system as a whole turns out to be possible precisely as such a triune interdependence, i.e. holistic interdependence. But archaic or, say, “fantasy” only corresponds, i.e. coexist on the periphery of this ecumene.

At the same time, it is obvious that in each specific case, innovation, associated with the necessary negation of previous norms and rules, begins with the manifestation of creativity, originality, and a departure from existing generally accepted traditions. Naturally, such abilities are possessed by selected members of society, the so-called “minority”. However, with the help of various means of suppression, strict social control, censorship, all kinds of prohibitions, legislative obstruction, etc. the conservative (and sometimes aggressive) part of society may prevent the wider social community from realizing or initially accepting innovations. Here, one of the main questions is the question of the selection criteria or selectors accepted in a given culture, which prevent some innovations from spreading, while allowing others to break through. It is legitimate to assume that the most important selection criterion, operating over large time intervals, is the objectively expressed interests of the majority of members of society. But, as we know, the majority can often be mistaken, and even quite willingly. In a historically short period of time, before the final result of an innovation establishes itself, selection occurs either due to the distorted interests of the majority (“false consciousness”, ideology), or due to the imposed interests of those who have power and are able to suppress any claims on the part of adherents of alternative (innovative) ) norms and values. A textbook example from the history of science in this regard is the persecution of supporters of the development of genetics and cybernetics in our country in the middle of the last century. Academician Dubinin was then accused of “using people’s money to work on some kind of fly” (meaning his experiments on studying the mechanisms of heredity in the Drosophila fly), instead of working on the problem of increasing the number of cattle. And cybernetics was never called anything other than “bourgeois pseudoscience.”

According to the famous American philosopher and sociologist R. Merton, a certain degree of deviation from existing norms is functional (in a positive sense) for the basic goals of all major social groups. Innovation that has reached a certain critical level can result in the formation of new institutional models of behavior that will turn out to be more adaptive than the old ones. If innovations break through all the filtering mechanisms and gain widespread public acceptance, the diffusion phase begins. Here you can observe several options for further development or, conversely, regression of innovation:

a) so-called “compensation” can occur when initial innovative changes cause negative feedbacks that tend to reduce the significance of innovations, or even completely destroy them through counter-reforms;

b) “excessive compensation” can also occur, when the resistance to the introduced innovation is so great that the compensatory mechanism reacts too strongly and, as it were, “overwhelms”, i.e. not only preserves the existing state of affairs (status quo), but also finally changes this structure in the direction opposite to what was intended by the innovators. This blowback is called the “boomerang effect”;

c) changes caused by the introduction of innovation can be limited to a given local area (production, science, technology, etc.) without any consequences for other spheres of social life;

d) there are situations when some initial innovations in any area lead to random transformations of a certain limited number of components in other related sociocultural subsystems; this gives the existing social (economic, political, spiritual) space a chaotic character; some modifications occur in its various fragments, but ultimately it remains in its original form http://www.sociology.mephi.ru/docs/innovatika/html/innovacionnya_kultura.html (11.01.14);

e) finally, the most important option for the development of innovation is to systematically enhance changes due to the action of positive feedback, or “second cybernetics” (“snowball”?); here, initial innovative changes entail a chain of successive shifts in other components of the megasystem without the direct participation of the initiators of innovation until its complete transformation. This often happens in the field of technology: for example, with the invention of the car, airplane, assembly line production, computer, the very way of life of millions of people radically changes http://www.sociology.mephi.ru/docs/innovatika/html/innovacionnya_kultura.html (11.01. 14).

The ironic R. Musil, author of the satirical novel “The Man Without Qualities” (1942), was convinced that one could write German better with a quill pen than with a steel pen, and better with a steel pen than with a fountain pen. When the dictaphone is “improved,” he believed, they will stop writing in German altogether. The complete innovative shift, apparently, is also three-stage: the “steel pen” and even the “fountain pen” still remain adequate means of “writing in German,” but the “dictaphone” turns out to be an absolutely foreign new formation in the organics of German “writing,” as well as , and German “reading”: the era of the “dictaphone” can no longer authentically read what is written with a “quill pen”.

The dynamic impulse of the innovative cultural gestalt (“classic-modern-futurum”) reconstructs both institutional, i.e. formalized and extra-institutional, i.e. non-normative, segments of social space. The radicalism of such a reconstruction is determined by the levels of institutional and extra-institutional tolerance of society to innovative deviations, as well as the degree of conjugation of these levels. Obviously, restoration (as well as overcompensation or the “boomerang effect”) is revealed, among other things, as a consequence of the sharp dissonance of various social fragments. Normal innovation presupposes the presence of precisely necessary and sufficient similarities and differences between them. In this case, the socio-cultural outskirts (for example, argot, slang, underground, etc.), at the sharp turns of the historical spiral, either plunge into the archaic, or break into the modern cultural background with some kind of exoticism (the newest example of such a “cultural innovation”: the thieves “Everything” way!” on the T-shirts of young people rallying in support of the president).

Today it is generally accepted that cultural deviations, even if committed secretly and deliberately as asocial, constitute a necessary functionally significant link in the chain of innovative changes. See: Fonotov A.G. Russia: from a mobilization society to an innovative one. M., 1993. Moreover, there may come a time when the majority begins to openly accept cultural deviations (especially if the “violators” succeed), and when, as R. Merton aptly notes, “these successful swindlers become role models.” But if the apology of postmodern pastiche turns out to be all-pervasive, and the social structure and social institutions become fragmented into a scattering of incompatible puzzles, then the dam of modernity overturns, the classics, like Atlantis once, plunges into the abyss (to the extra-institutional “intellectual bottom”), and the entire innovative cultural gestalt with its “novelty” ” as the self turns into a kind of infantile-nudist (barbaric, plebeian) “festival of disobedience” with balloons, video clips, “fingers fanned out”, “geshefts”, soap operas, etc.

“The syndrome of novelty” (novelty, at any cost) and its countless quasi-surprises (fake products) is one of the most common types of innovative pathology, and its carrier is a kind of mutant of postmodern acculturation, the tragic farce of which is permeated by its impossibility of “ascension into tradition.” ”, which he (like a respectable modernist) secretly desires from others and from himself.

The effectiveness of the innovation activities of social actors is largely determined by the state of the so-called innovation climate of society, which, in turn, depends on the nature of the attitude towards innovation on the part of the main social groups, on the part of different generations. As a rule, innovation leads to an increase in conflict in society, which, in turn, slows down the implementation of innovations. This phenomenon is referred to as the innovative inertia (incapacity) of society.

At the same time, the following tendency is noted in society’s attitude towards so-called “epoch-making” innovations: the shorter the duration of such an innovation, the more resistance it encounters. Therefore, the innovative culture here is manifested in the fact that such changes are carried out evolutionarily, gradually.

The world of innovation is not limited to technology and engineering. Improving management, for example, is also carried out through the introduction of innovations. What all these changes have in common is that they represent renewal activities, i.e. transformation of someone else's activity http://www.sociology.mephi.ru/docs/innovatika/html/innovacionnya_kultura.html (11.01.14).

The main constitutive (driving) contradiction of this world is the contradiction between the “old” and the “new”, and the attitude towards this contradiction, according to the fair remark of N.F. Fedorov, expressed almost a hundred years ago, essentially has an attitude towards progress itself with all the ensuing philosophical, political, moral, economic and other consequences. See: Fonotov A.G. Russia: from a mobilization society to an innovative one. M., 1993.

Although in themselves, objectively, the categories of “old” and “new” are not axiologically loaded, in a specific sociocultural context they are perceived precisely in terms of their value, forming the very need for either the new or the old.

Recognizing that, in general historical terms, the contradiction between the old and the new is fixed primarily in modern times, it should, at the same time, note the tradition of its philosophical reflection going back centuries.

At the same time, we note that “new” and “old” are considered exclusively as dynamic (historical) categories. In the socio-historical context, the contradiction between the old and the new is revealed as a relationship between the past, present and future.

The new often undergoes various metamorphoses. Thus, it can mimic the old or use other forms of “conspiracy,” the varieties of which are determined by the functions that the new carries. In the modern history of Russia, for example, nameless voucher privatization (an obvious element of “shock therapy”) was mimicked as a social program designed to ensure an increase in the well-being of the majority of the country’s population (a well-known economist and politician, without any hesitation, publicly equated the cost of one voucher to the cost of two Volga cars). .

The very need for something new as a sociocultural phenomenon is a relatively young formation, which is characteristic of the new European rationalistic (scientist) consciousness in its difference from religious and mythological consciousness.

On the problem of the relationship between the new and the old, their main social functions, there are at least two points of view.

According to one of them, the need for something new is socially destructive and represents a random fluctuation, while the main pattern of social development is traditionalist continuity.

Conversely, opponents of this point of view believe that it is the need for something new that is the source of self-propulsion of social systems. The conclusions of modern systems research are consistent with this view: systems strategically oriented towards stability, harmony, etc., are sooner or later doomed to stagnation.

In concrete scientific studies of the problems of innovative culture, a very wide range of concepts, views and interpretations is also revealed.

For example, in cultural theory there is a point of view according to which innovation in art is a so-called “secondary processing”, i.e. exchange between the sphere of valuable and non-valuable. An example is avant-garde art precisely as a secondary processing of archaic and primitive art, which during the Renaissance and Enlightenment was in the realm of non-value. In other words, innovation acts as a rejection of traditional answers and the search for a new answer in the non-valuable (see B. Groys).

This interpretation echoes the understanding of innovativeness proposed by the famous Italian philosopher A. Meneghetti. He believes that a true (“free”) innovator can only be an individual who has completely “eliminated the system from himself” and thereby gains the opportunity to use any “system” as a means, as if it were simply a typewriter, those. such an individual would be a person of the so-called “Mephistophelian” type. And this “innovator,” not just with new means, but with the new use of old means, can achieve a completely new social, economic, political or technical goal.

In innovation, it is the innovation system that is considered as a system object, which includes: 1) material and intellectual resources of innovation - “input”; 2) the innovation being created is the goal (“output”); 3) the market, which is the external environment for the innovative system and determines the very need and parameters of the created innovation (“feedback”) See: Fonotov A.G. Russia: from a mobilization society to an innovative one. M., 1993..

It should be especially noted that when theoretically analyzing innovation systems and rationalizing their functioning, it is necessary to avoid in every possible way the following logical substitution: using a systems approach in the study of innovation activity does not mean that this activity is in all cases the system itself, especially in some of its complete forms form. The system-forming category that integrates a certain set of elements into a holistic innovation system is the concept of “new”, understood as a relation (thing, property) that marks the transition of a measure that determined the qualitative specificity of the previous (proto) system. Therefore, by the way, only those that carry this characteristic (ensuring the transition of a measure) as an essential element can be interconnected elements of an innovation system in the strict sense. Therefore, no other elements (things, properties, relationships) can be included in the structure of the innovation system as such. They can only coexist in it along with the actual basic elements that ensure its systemic quality (novelty).

According to the fundamental system principle, a particular innovation system includes only those elements, the connections between which within a given system are essential, and also fundamentally more stable and more interdependent than the connections between these elements and any extra-system formations (things, properties , relationships). Simply put, these must be elements that provide the necessary integrity of the system. As already mentioned, in our case (in the context of increasing an innovative culture) we are talking about ensuring the harmonious integrity of the old, modern and new.

Bearing in mind that too great a desire for accuracy is not useful, and often even becomes a hindrance in research, nevertheless, we define any innovation system as open (receiving resources from the outside, at the “input”) and discrete (parts of which are interconnected and as if they need each other). A classic example here (given by L.N. Gumilyov in his book “The Geography of an Ethnic Group in the Historical Period”; see L.G., 26) can be a family. It is based on the fact that a husband and wife love each other (or it can be one-sided love). And children, mother-in-law, mother-in-law, other relatives - although all of them are elements of this system, you can do without them. The only connecting thread that matters is love. But as soon as this invisible connection ends, the system falls apart, and its elements immediately enter into some other systemic integrity. One can, of course, argue about the example itself. But still, what makes it classic (that is, true for all times) is precisely the emphasis on the only necessary, essential feature of a family - love A. A. Poskryakov. Innovation: science and educational subject. / Scientific session MEPhI-98. Collection of scientific papers. Part 1. M., MEPhI, 1998..

Strict adherence to the principles of consistency is intended to contribute to enhancing the innovative culture when designing and implementing various types of innovations. Some of the basic principles of the systems approach in relation to innovation are modified as follows: A. A. Poskryakov. Innovation: science and educational subject. / Scientific session MEPhI-98. Collection of scientific papers. Part 1. M., MEPhI, 1998.:

a) the most important principle is the primacy of the whole in relation to its constituent parts. For an innovation system as an integrity (the essential characteristic of which is novelty), its parts are old, modern and new. It is the dynamic unity of the old, modern and new that is primary in relation to each of these elements (including the new!) and ensures the optimal functioning of the innovation complex as a whole;

b) the principle of non-additivity (irreducibility of the properties of a system to the sum of the properties of its constituent elements) in relation to innovation is manifested in the non-identity of the characteristics of the old, modern and new (!), as parts of an innovative object, its dominant characteristics as an integrity. Thus, economic liberalization cannot be reduced to the free purchase and sale of state property (new), since true freedom is one that promotes the good of all, which is by no means a consequence of privatization;

c) the principle of synergy (unidirectional action of system elements enhances the efficiency of the entire system) necessitates finding a balance of goals of the old, modern and new in a single innovation complex while maintaining essential differences (novelty);

d) the principle of emergence (incomplete coincidence of the goals of the system with the goals of its components) when implementing an innovative project requires the construction of a tree of goals (hierarchy of parameters) for the system as a whole and each of its component parts;

e) when designing innovative systems, the multiplicative principle should be taken into account, meaning that the effects of the functioning of components in the system (positive and negative) have the property of multiplication and not addition (for example, the probability of failure-free operation of a computer network is equal to the product of the probabilities of failure-free operation of its components);

f) the principle of structure suggests that the optimal structure of innovation should have a minimum number of components; at the same time, these components must fully perform the given functions and maintain the dominant properties of the innovation system, i.e. those that ensure its novelty Poskryakov A. A. Innovation: science and educational subject. / Scientific session MEPhI-98. Collection of scientific papers. Part 1. M., MEPhI, 1998;

g) in this case, the structure of systemic innovation must be mobile, i.e. easily adaptable to changing requirements and goals, which follows from the principle of adaptability;

h) effective innovative design also presupposes, as a prerequisite, the implementation of the principle of alternativeness, according to which it is necessary to develop several interchangeable innovative versions. For example, the higher the uncertainty of the situation in the proposed sales market or its segments, the more options for alternative development (number of versions, forms of implementation, replication, etc.) of the designed innovation should be;

i) finally, the principle of continuity requires providing opportunities for the productive existence of the old in the appropriate innovation space and, conversely, the effective functioning of the new in the conditions of the persistence of the old. Culture, like any dialectically developing process, has a stable and developing (innovative) side.

The sustainable side of culture is a cultural tradition, thanks to which the accumulation and transmission of human experience in history occurs, and each new generation of people can actualize this experience, relying in their activities on what was created by previous generations.

In so-called traditional societies, people, assimilating culture
, reproduce its samples, and if they make any changes, then within the framework of tradition. On its basis, culture functions.
Tradition prevails over creativity. Creativity in this case is manifested in the fact that a person forms himself as a subject of culture, which acts as a certain set of ready-made, stereotypical programs (customs, rituals, etc.) for activities with material and ideal objects. Changes in the programs themselves occur extremely slowly. This is basically the culture of primitive society and later traditional culture.

Such a stable cultural tradition under certain conditions is necessary for the survival of human groups. But if certain societies abandon hypertrophied traditionalism and develop more dynamic types of culture, this does not mean that they can abandon cultural traditions altogether. Culture cannot exist without traditions Poskryakov A. A. Innovation: science and educational subject. / Scientific session MEPhI-98. Collection of scientific papers. Part 1. M., MEPhI, 1998..

Cultural traditions as historical memory are an indispensable condition not only for the existence, but also for the development of culture, even in the case of the creative qualities of a new culture, dialectically denying, includes continuity, assimilation of the positive results of previous activities - this is a general law of development that operates in the sphere of culture, having a special important. The experience of our country shows how important this issue is in practice. After the October Revolution and in the circumstances of the general revolutionary situation in the society of artistic culture, a movement arose whose leaders wanted to build a new, progressive culture on the basis of the complete negation and destruction of the previous culture. And this has led in many cases to losses in the cultural sphere and the destruction of its material monuments.

Since culture reflects differences in worldviews in the value system in ideological attitudes, it is therefore legitimate to talk about reactionary and progressive tendencies in culture. But it does not follow from this that the previous culture can be discarded - it is impossible to create a new higher culture from scratch Poskryakov A. A. Innovation: science and educational subject. / Scientific session MEPhI-98. Collection of scientific papers. Part 1. M., MEPhI, 1998..

The question of traditions in culture and the attitude towards cultural heritage concerns not only the preservation, but also the development of culture, i.e. creation of something new, increase in cultural wealth in the process of creativity. Although the creative process has objective prerequisites both in reality itself and in the cultural heritage, it is directly carried out by the subject of creative activity. It should be noted right away that not every innovation is a cultural creation. The creation of new things simultaneously becomes the creation of cultural values ​​when it does not carry a universal content, acquiring general significance and receiving echoes from other people.

In the creativity of culture, the universal organic is merged with uniqueness: each cultural value is unique, whether we are talking about a work of art, an invention, etc. Replicating in one form or another what is already known, what has already been created earlier is dissemination, not the creation of culture. But it is also necessary, since it involves a wide range of people in the process of the functioning of culture in society. And cultural creativity necessarily presupposes the inclusion of something new in the process of historical development of human culture-creating activity, therefore, it is a source of innovation Poskryakov A.A. Innovative culture: the search for “ecodynamics”. / Scientific session MEPhI-2000. Collection of scientific papers. T.6. M., MEPhI, 2000.. But just as not every innovation is a cultural phenomenon, not everything new that is included in the cultural process is advanced, progressive, corresponding to the humanistic intentions of culture. There are both progressive and reactionary tendencies in culture. The development of culture is a contradictory process, which reflects a wide range of sometimes opposing and conflicting social class and national interests of a given historical era. We must fight for the establishment of the advanced and progressive in culture. This is the concept of culture, which was developed in Soviet philosophical literature.

Social innovation is a modern branch of scientific knowledge that allows us to understand modern changes occurring both in the object and in the subject of management. Today, the management process is increasingly associated with the creation, development and dissemination of innovations.

The word innovation is synonymous with innovation or novelty and can be used alongside them.

Culture is everything that is created or is being created by creative human activity. Culture characterizes the characteristics of consciousness, behavior and activity of people in specific spheres of public life.

Analysis of various definitions of innovation leads to the conclusion that the specific content of innovation is change, and the main function of innovation activity is the function of change.

Innovation arises as a result of using the results of scientific research and development aimed at improving the process of production activity, economic, legal and social relations in the field of science, culture, education, and other areas of society.

The complex nature of innovations, their versatility and diversity of areas and methods of use requires the development of their classification. Social innovations are aimed at improving working conditions, solving problems of health care, education, and culture.

The concept of tradition and innovation can be correlated with different layers of human culture and human history. The tradition arose and developed in primitive culture, where a certain set of symbols and knowledge was passed on from generation to generation and mastered by all members of the primitive community. While the birth of civilizations as centers in the midst of the primitive periphery required something more, namely the emergence of cultural innovations. Civilization is formed on the basis of a Neolithic village, whose collective was united by the tradition of Poskryakov A.A. Innovative team and its psychotypes. / Scientific session MEPhI-2003. Collection of scientific papers. T.6. M., MEPhI, 2003. Collective cohesion had the character of conservation, holding in one place. Despite this, the Neolithic community had rich cultural potential; the needs of community members gradually increased, which led to an increase in cultural variability and individuality. Creative forces begin to concentrate and localize in the midst of the primitive periphery, which gives rise to the process of the formation of civilizations as large cultural new formations.

For civilization to grow, it was necessary to have a constant innovation process. But in order to establish a constant process of growth, it was necessary to have a core base on which the innovation process could rely. It is tradition that has become the cultural core on which civilization is based. Because the first civilizations arise as a result of creativity that goes beyond tradition. But the process of growth of civilizations could not occur on its own. Despite the fact that civilization arises spontaneously and spontaneously, civilizational processes are the result of human thinking and human activity. Civilization can be defined as a cultural unity, a way of survival of representatives of different cultures on the same landscape. For the further cultural process, constant innovative growth, a mechanism was needed that would overcome the conservation of tradition, but at the same time would not destroy the very foundations of traditional ideas.

Such a mechanism in civilization was a patriarchal society, where the cruel dictate of the older generation contributed to the birth of protest in the souls of the younger generation, which, as a rule, led to innovative processes in society. The younger generation sought to separate itself from the older generation, acquire new values, and localize a new family, in which the next younger generation would follow a similar path of dissociation from the older generation.

It should be noted that the patriarchal family begins to form in the Neolithic village, which was characterized by a sedentary, measured way of life. The head of a patriarchal family becomes the oldest man in the clan, who with his power unites several generations of closest relatives. In principle, a Neolithic village could become home to one or more patriarchal families. The development of agriculture, cattle breeding, and crafts required the involvement of male physical strength, while the woman was assigned the function of homemaker Poskryakov A.A. Innovative team and its psychotypes. / Scientific session MEPhI-2003. Collection of scientific papers. T.6. M., MEPhI, 2003..

In a patriarchal society, religious systems take shape, where at the head of the pantheon of gods is the supreme god - the creator, whose formidable power extended over gods and people. In religious systems, patriarchs and forefathers stand apart - people who continue to create peace at the level of human history. The patriarchs were called upon to convey sacred knowledge about the creator, the beginnings of ethics and the necessary knowledge about life and society. In religious systems, a special place is occupied by the image of the house as a microcosm in the macrocosm, and the principle of human activity as the arrangement of primitive, primordial chaos, transforming it into an ordered cosmos.

Patriarchy presupposes patrilineal relationships, where kinship is counted through the paternal line and the wife goes to live with her husband's family. Property is transferred either according to the principle of primogeniture, or is distributed only among sons. Later, property could be distributed unevenly between sons and daughters in favor of the sons.

Productivity in a civilization differs sharply even from productivity in a Neolithic community. Civilization, whose integral feature is the social pyramid, is a complex interweaving of traditions and innovations. Those members of society who were the direct producers of innovations belonged to the lower classes, the keepers of traditions. And the social elite, who were consumers of innovations, most often acted as innovators in politics and art. Reform activities have long been the province of representatives of the ruling minority, who sometimes called for a return to traditional values.

In civilization, the patriarchal form of the family has become entrenched, acquiring more prominent features. The relationships between members of society in civilization take the form of a social pyramid, with belonging to a social stratum or social group coming to the fore. The formation of social and state institutions, the emergence of the figure of the ruler leads to the projection of patrician relations onto members of society. The image of the state and the ruler is interpreted as a father figure. The main requirement for social and state institutions is a fatherly attitude, fatherly care for members of society. Relations between social strata and groups represent an interweaving of traditions and innovations Poskryakov A.A. Innovative team and its psychotypes. / Scientific session

MEPhI-2003. Collection of scientific papers. T.6. M., MEPhI, 2003..

It should be noted that the patriarchal family performs a number of functions:

1. The patriarchal family becomes the basic social unit in civilization, patriarchal relations are the prototype and basis of religious, economic, political, social and cultural relations in society.

2. Patrisamily relations contribute to the preservation and maintenance of traditions, as well as the constant innovation process in civilization. At the same time, the innovation process in civilization is associated with the destruction of old traditions and the creation of new traditions.

As civilization develops, patrician relationships are transformed and modified. It should be added that civilization consists of many centers and peripheries. The intracivilizational periphery is based on a fossilized Neolithic village in which a patriarchal family arose. The intracivilizational periphery is the cultural core on which the individuality of each civilization is based. And innovative processes are associated with civilizational centers, where large influxes of population from the periphery are concentrated. Centers are cities, authorities and institutions that promote innovation processes in society. Social processes in society are characterized by a temporal experience of what is happening. Therefore, the rhythm of social life in the center is subject to quantitative and qualitative changes. Civilization processes in the centers are modified and innovative.

Similar documents

Location of Spain. San Andre de Teixido - the beginning of the pilgrimage. Holidays and cultural traditions of Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, Guernica, the Basque country. Festivals, folklore traditions, cultural events and theatrical performances of the provinces of Spain.

abstract, added 10/24/2008


Comparative analysis of 3D screen technology of old and new generations in accordance with their impact on demand and conducting additional developments for development and improvement. Cost assessment of the use of technical devices, cost composition.

abstract, added 03/29/2016


The emergence of culture as an object of humanitarian knowledge. Interdisciplinary connections of cultural studies. Concepts of civilization, cultural identity, enculturation and socialization. Information-semiotic approach to science. Cultural traditions and innovations.

tutorial, added 12/20/2010


The relationship between culture and society. Analysis of the main approaches to understanding culture and its functions. Social functions of culture. Improving man as a spiritual and moral subject of culture. Cultural differences and mutual understanding between people.

abstract, added 02/18/2010


Brief historical background. Japanese traditions. Types of culture and art of Japan. Cultural attractions and holidays of Japan. Religion of Japan. Increased dynamism and special sensitivity to the perception of foreign influences.

abstract, added 09/01/2006


Traditions and holidays of Ukraine. Religion, national clothes. Cultural traditions of Kievan Rus. Education, literature and art. Differences between costumes in different parts of the country. The use of national costume motifs in everyday clothing.

presentation, added 11/07/2013


Cultural norms and their observance. Functions, classification, main types of cultural norms. Habits and manners, etiquette, customs, traditions and rituals, ceremony and ritual, mores and prohibitions, law and justice, beliefs, knowledge and myths. Normative system of culture.

abstract, added 09/06/2015


Essence, functions, basic forms of culture. Subcultures are small cultural worlds, a system of values, attitudes, behaviors and lifestyles that is inherent in a smaller social community. Youth culture as an example of a subculture.

presentation, added 11/13/2013


Construction of the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus and the giant statue of the Colossus of Rhodes. Construction of the Halicarnassus Mausoleum as a funerary monument for the Carian ruler Mausolus. The historical value of the Great Pyramid of Giza, the famous Colosseum amphitheater in Rome.

presentation, added 02/16/2015


Social system and material culture of the ancient Germans, features of their economic system, stages and directions of development. Cultural values, traditions and way of life of a given people, their historical significance and role in the formation of the culture of the peoples of Europe.

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 an increasing acceleration of technical and technological development, which determines transformation processes in the world of unprecedented scale. Innovation factors have become the fundamental factors in the development of any economic system. The predominant use of a set 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, allowing it to acquire the most important property in a market environment - competitiveness.
• The relevance of the study is determined by the fact that Russia finds itself in a difficult situation in choosing the path for further economic development and the establishment of the country as one of the equal members of the world community. Russian economy in the second half of the 20th century. developed primarily 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 fraught with significant difficulties. This was one of the reasons for the formation of a gap between Russia and industrialized countries in technological terms, 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 conduct personnel training in accordance with state priorities for the development of science and technology. However, today science cities are faced with a number of serious problems that hinder the development and effective functioning of these research centers, but they are called upon to play a significant role in the system of science and education of our country. It is also important to note that the problems of science cities also affect society, since they have a great impact on the areas and regions in which they are located. From all this it follows that studying the state of science cities and analyzing their problems is especially relevant today.
• The object of study of this work is the role of innovative culture in the country's economy.
• The purpose of this course work is to analyze the innovative culture and the problems of its formation in Russia.
• To achieve this goal, the following tasks will be solved:
• · The essence and significance of innovative culture is considered;
• · An analysis of the problems of forming an innovative culture in Russia was carried out.
• The methodological basis of the study is structural-functional and comparative-historical approaches.
• 1. The role and importance of innovation culture
• 1.1 Innovation culture: concept and meaning
• The problems of introducing innovations, carrying out innovative activities, and realizing the innovative potential of society have always been the focus of attention of states and governments. However, it was precisely in the 80-90s. XX century 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 forming professionals of a new formation, members of society - disseminators of a new culture, generators of ideas and their implementers, initiators of innovative processes has become acutely clear.
• Members of the European Union, assessing the nature and prospects of innovative activities of leading states, came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create a policy document that would define the main directions for the development of innovation. 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 set out the principles for 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 of Strategic Innovation. On the initiative of the Institute, the first program document was signed in 1999 - the Charter of Innovative Culture, which conceptually determined that “sustainable development of the current civilization is possible only thanks to constant innovations in science, education, culture, economics, management...”. Attaching strategically decisive importance to the culture of innovation, representatives of science, culture, education, government and public administration bodies, and the business community 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 innovative potential of the individual, and overcoming innovation stagnation in society.
• In 2001, the Committee on Innovative Culture was created within the Commission of the Russian Federation for UNESCO. The business meetings, seminars and conferences he initiated only confirmed the relevance of this issue. Giving priority to the areas of education, science, culture and communications, the Committee’s activities contributed to the dissemination of positive experience in the formation of an innovative culture in various industries and areas of activity.
• Currently, interest in innovative culture is observed not only in scientific circles and specialized structures. The task of creating an innovative culture is a priority of the state and society. An increasing number of government and business representatives are paying close attention to issues of innovative development, especially highlighting the problems of creating 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 a highly intellectual society, moreover, on a global scale, it is the path of those who have chosen non-stop intellectual knowledge as the goal and form of their activity, the path of those whose existence is characterized by increased intellectual activity and the desire to realize your ideas." Tracing the features of the formation of the concept of “innovation” since the 1950s, the author believes that innovation reflects the essence of human activity. From the perspective 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 targeted preparation, integrated implementation and comprehensive development of innovations in various areas of human activity while maintaining the dynamic unity of the old, modern and new in the innovation 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 to a culture of creative activity. A developed innovation culture, in their opinion, is the basis of a modern innovation economy.
• Russian philosopher B.K. Lisin considers innovative culture as a form of universal human culture, defines it as an area of ​​the general cultural process, “characterizing the degree of receptivity of an individual, group, society to various innovations ranging from a tolerant attitude to the readiness and ability to transform them into innovations.” Innovative culture characterizes society's conscious desire for material and spiritual self-renewal, being the initial prerequisite for qualitative changes in people's lives and the methodological basis for progress and harmonization of all spheres of society. It is the innovative culture that determines the relationship between innovations that have grown out of traditions and traditions that serve as the basis for 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 issues of science, education, culture with social and, above all, professional practice in various spheres of the community: management, economics, education, culture.” The author considers science and education to be the main determinants of the development of innovative culture, which ensure the definition of goals, objectives, methods and mechanisms for the formation of innovative culture, as well as empirical analysis of the components of innovative culture, their state and interaction.
• V.V. 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. Characterizing 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 assigns a place to 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 present in every type of culture. She views innovative 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 nature. Innovative culture, from Dolgova’s point of view, determines the entire life activity of society and people, relying on and developing existing traditions.
• The Chinese philosopher Shan-kang He wrote: “The basis of an innovative culture is the innovative modeling of human life, behavior and thought. In addition, innovative culture is a kind of innovative spirit, ideology and human environment.” Being a means of personal self-realization, innovation presupposes the development of a person’s innovative abilities: he can take a fresh look at ordinary, familiar things, independently generate an idea, outline ways of its implementation and reach the end of achieving his goal. The development of an individual’s innovative culture 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 an individual, believes that this is “a culture of life where the basis for motivating a person’s 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 of “living as one lives.” Step by step, she will be able to help a person, make a choice in favor of “innovation,” that is, “live thoughtfully, organized,” and, finally, creatively.” The author believes that an innovative culture helps create an atmosphere in society in which a new idea is perceived as a value accepted and supported by this society.
• Noteworthy is the point of view of V. D. Tsvetkova, according to which the formation of an innovative culture of the individual at a conscious level allows a person “not only to generate external diversity in his activities, but also to gain internal stability and unity in the face of the endless process of renewal... The humanistic potential of innovative culture associated with its function of ensuring the unity of human existence in an innovative society.” As an element of the culture of modern man, innovative culture allows an individual, supported by society’s constructive attitude towards innovation, to identify his internal capabilities and self-realization. Associated with the innovative culture of society, it contributes to the development of personality.
• Director of the Institute of Strategic Innovations A.I. Nikolaev, discussing the problems of innovative development and the formation of an innovative culture, noted: “Innovative culture reflects the holistic orientation of a person, enshrined in motives, knowledge, abilities and 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 participation in them and the results.” The level of the individual’s innovative culture directly depends on the attitude of society towards innovation and the work that is carried out in society to form and develop an innovative culture.
• Considers innovative culture as part of the culture of society by S. G. Grigoriev. She presents the formation of an innovative culture of personality 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 new formations.” In relation to the sphere of professional development of an individual, the author pays attention to the integration of innovative and professional activities, the transformation of innovative behavior of a future member of the professional community.
• 1.2 Formation of an innovative culture within the framework of the modern economic system
• Intellectual resources are the condition and basis for the development of an enterprise and society as a whole. Intellectual resources are a set of individual intellectual potentials of enterprise personnel that can cause a synergistic effect. In turn, the personal intellectual potential of an individual employee is his knowledge, skills, abilities for creativity and self-development.
• If for an enterprise intellectual resources are a potential factor of production that must 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 market requirements, provides significant competitive advantages and allows enterprises to realize their strategic goals and objectives. Management of intellectual resources at the level of an individual 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 increased product sales volumes.
• Modern conditions place special demands on the organization of the process of managing intellectual resources and determine the advisability of identifying the subsystem for managing intellectual resources 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: the 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 functions for managing intellectual resources; 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 intellectual property; high risk of unfair competition.
• Creating and developing an intellectual resource management system, providing conditions for its effective functioning, assessing performance and finding ways to further improve the management organization - all these are the most important aspects of managing an enterprise’s intellectual resources.
• A feature of the development of innovation processes in Russia is the identification of innovation policy and scientific and technical policy. Given the unity of the strategic goal - a competitive economy, a high quality of life for the population and national security - they must differ in strategic tasks and methods of solving them. If the main task of scientific and technological policy and activity is to create scientific foundations for the future, then the task of innovation policy and activity is to use science (the accumulated body of knowledge and technology) in the interests of the economy in the present.
• When the “implementation task” is declared a strategic priority of scientific policy, the scientific and technical sphere is doomed to be unattractive for investment. 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 and scientific achievements used (implemented) in them, but because of the high market potential (public demand) of their final product.
• Thus, the motivation for scientific activity and innovation activity is different. This entails the task of correctly formulating goals, priorities of a particular policy, and even organizing practical actions to ensure them.
• Integration into the global market of science-intensive technologies is extremely important for Russia. Currently, there is almost no effective demand in the country for a significant part of high-tech 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 Scientific and Technical Center (ICSTC), which is an intergovernmental organization created in 1992 on the basis of an international agreement between the EU, USA, Japan and the Russian Federation. The goals of the ICST are the “conversion” of researchers in the field of military technologies into civilian fields through the support of projects in Russia and other CIS countries. The partnership program, which is administered by the ISTC Division of Partnerships and Sustainable Development, provides an opportunity for private sector enterprises, scientific institutions, government and non-governmental organizations to finance scientific research conducted by institutes in Russia and the CIS through the ISTC. Currently, the ISTC Partnership Program has already been joined by more than 380 government agencies and private companies, which have provided funds to finance 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 enormous scientific and technical potential of 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 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 thousand 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, unlike industrialized countries, inventive activity in Russia declines as it approaches the end of the scientific and technological chain. The number of proprietary patents in Russia is steadily declining, which poses a threat to the country's scientific and technical independence. 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 raw material, but also an intellectual appendage of the countries of the “center”.
• According to Rospatent, our country is not very attractive to foreign applicants, so most applications were submitted by domestic “inventors.” For comparison: 27,491 were submitted by domestic applicants in 2011, and 18,431 by foreign applicants. The most active applicants in Russia are the USA, Germany and Japan.
• As for the thematic areas in which foreign applicants are showing increased interest, the most promising among them include:
• · Medicines and preparations, methods of their preparation and use for diagnosis, therapy and research;
• · General-purpose chemical and physical processes, catalysis, colloid chemistry, organic chemistry, methods for the preparation and chemical processing of high-molecular compounds, compositions based on these compounds.
• The international exchange of intellectual property has now become an independent sphere of economic relations. Hence, the condition for Russia’s successful integration into the international system of economic relations becomes 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 and the deepening innovative gap between production and global trends. In many countries, the basis of economic growth is the production and export of high-tech and knowledge-intensive products. The extremely low technical and economic characteristics of the fixed capital of enterprises are characterized by the indicator of the age structure of the equipment. The average age of equipment is 18-20 years. The lack of opportunities to replace equipment inevitably increases its service life.
• However, there are absolute advantages in the Russian economy that are not limited to rich reserves of 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, and products of the military-industrial complex.
• In Russia today there are almost four thousand organizations performing research and development (Table 1). The institutional structure of science is characterized by a number of features that distinguish Russia from most developed countries of the world.
• The basis of the scientific sector is made up of independent research organizations, separate from production and education. In 2011, their number was 2036, and their share in the total set of organizations in the country’s scientific and technical complex 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 observed growth was associated both with the disaggregation of existing and with the creation of new scientific organizations. In particular, federal ministries and departments were vested with this right.
• At the same time, the total number of organizations performing research and development decreased by 14.8% over the same period, and organizations engaged in the design and implementation of production technologies decreased by several times. Thus, the number of design organizations decreased by 12.1 times, design bureaus by 1.9 times, and industrial enterprises performing research and development by 1.7 times.
• The main reason for this disproportion is the sharp decrease 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, those scientific organizations that were directly linked to production suffered the most. Despite the fact that the economic situation has improved markedly in recent years, large-scale demand for scientific results has not yet been restored.
• Research organizations, for various reasons, have proven to be more resistant to market change than other types of research organizations. They concentrated 59.3% of scientific personnel, design organizations - 22.5%.
• In Russia, proprietary science—research units at industrial enterprises—is underdeveloped. In 2011, the share of industrial enterprises carrying out 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 opportunity to concentrate resources on the development of scientific and technical products that are in demand, to carry out a wider range of research and to select 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, a number of conclusions can be drawn:
• 1. Within the framework of social philosophy, no general approaches to understanding innovation culture have yet been formed. Researchers consider it as an area of ​​the general cultural process, a special type of culture, part of the culture of society, a property or element of culture. Consequently, it is necessary to consolidate the efforts of scientists and specialists to improve the conceptual and categorical apparatus of innovative 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 government 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, determining the directions for the development of an innovative culture, identifying factors that promote or, on the contrary, hinder 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 innovation are implemented and supported in it, and also that a person is actively involved in the innovative processes taking place in society, which influences his spiritual improvement and the desire for self-realization and self-development.
• 4. Being a subject of 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. By promoting the formation of highly intelligent and creative individuals, society ensures its innovative development and the formation of an innovative culture.
• 2. Problems of innovative culture
• 2.1 Main trends in the formation of an innovative culture and innovative development
• Enterprise management presupposes the presence of certain ideas about the formation, use and characteristics of the reproduction of intellectual resources. All accumulated knowledge, abilities, skills, and creative capabilities that are actually included in the production of goods and services and that generate income for 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 capable of creating a stable, surplus, surplus product in demand by society, and, accordingly, surplus surplus value, which becomes sustainable a source of additional income on capital.
• Intellectual resource management involves performing a number of functions aimed at the rational formation, use and development of an enterprise’s intellectual resources, which can be systematized into individual areas of activity (see Table 2).
• When assessing intellectual capital, firms face a large number of problems. These include:
• · limited possibilities for a strictly formal and adequate description and measurement of intellectual resources;
• · high degree of uncertainty (entropy) of scientific research results;
• · methodological problems of determining standards for creative work (or even creativity itself) and their reliability.
• Table 2. Functional subsystems for managing enterprise intellectual resources

Elements of an 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 and information environment that promotes the generation of new ideas, the development of creativity, ingenuity, and innovation; 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; - identifying the emotional, psychological and intellectual potential of employees; - providing conditions for continuous improvement and development of personnel; Development of action programs to improve and develop intellectual resources;
3. Subsystem for managing internal and external information and communications	-coordination of the 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 property rights to intellectual resources in accordance with the enterprise development strategy; 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 maximum benefits from the use of intellectual resources; Analysis and assessment of the value of intellectual property rights, monitoring the commercial potential of intellectual resources.

• All this not only complicates, but also casts doubt on the correctness of the very task of regulating intellectual processes and creative activities. But 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 accounting value of fixed assets, material and financial assets. The excess of the company's market value over its accounting value is formed precisely due to intellectual assets: the novelty and prospects of the products or services offered, expectations to occupy new market segments, expected profits from patents, trademark (prestige), control over the business, relationships with consumers, etc. .d. The degree of excess also matters: not every successful company on the stock market is an intellectual one.
• According to experts, the excess should be multiple and have a stable nature, not subject to sporadic market fluctuations. Some experts believe that a high-tech company's intellectual capital is typically 3 to 4 times the book value of its earnings; others that the ratio of intellectual capital to the cost of physical assets and financial capital in such companies should 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 physical assets on the company's balance sheet is only a few billion dollars. At the same time, the absence of a significant amount of material resources on the balance sheet 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 feature of an intellectual company is the volume of investments allocated to research and development: if they exceed the volume of investments 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 the 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 the famous scientists S. P. Nikanorov and N. K. Nikitina in 1991 when creating the movement “Union for the Development of Science Cities” to develop agreed positions on the most important issues of their life. The movement proactively developed 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 entity with the status of an urban district, which has high scientific and technical potential, with a city-forming scientific and production complex. Legal regulation of the status of a science city is carried out in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal laws on the general principles of the organization of local self-government, on science and state scientific and technical policy, other federal laws, the Federal Law “On the status of a science city of the Russian Federation”, constitutions, charters and laws of constituent entities 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 municipal entity applying for the status of a science city must have a research and production complex located on the territory of this municipal entity. The scientific and production complex of a science city is understood as a set of organizations carrying out scientific, scientific-technical, innovative activities, experimental developments, tests, personnel training in accordance with state priority areas for the development of science, technology and engineering.
• The research and production complex of a municipal entity applying for the status of a science city must be city-forming and meet the following criteria:
• · the number of employees in organizations of the scientific and production complex is at least 15% of the number of all employees;
• · the volume of scientific and technical products (corresponding to the priority directions of development of science, technology and engineering of the Russian Federation) in value terms is at least 50% of the total volume of production of all economic entities located on the territory of a given municipality, or the cost of the fixed assets of the complex actually used in production scientific and technical products is at least 50% of the cost of actually used fixed assets of all economic entities located on the territory of the municipality, with the exception of housing, 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 carrying out scientific, scientific-technical and innovative activities, experimental developments, tests, personnel training, if they have state accreditation if necessary;
• 2. organizations, regardless of organizational and legal forms, carrying out production of products, performance of work and provision of services, provided that the share of production of high-tech products (in value terms) corresponds to the priority areas of development of science, technology and engineering of the Russian Federation over the previous three years, constitutes at least 50 percent of their total production.
• Obninsk became the first Russian science city in 2000, where developments in the field of peaceful atom were and are being carried out. In this city, the institutional mechanisms for the functioning of science cities in Russia were previously tested. This event gave impetus to the further development of Russian science cities.
• When assigning the status of a science city to a municipal formation, the government approves the priority areas for this science city in scientific, scientific and technical, innovative activities, experimental developments, tests, and personnel training. In this regard, it is customary to distinguish seven main specializations of Russian science cities:
• 1. aviation, rocketry and space research;
• 2. electronics and radio engineering;
• 3. automation, mechanical and instrument engineering;
• 4. chemistry, chemical physics and the creation of new materials;
• 5. nuclear complex;
• 6. energy;
• 7. biology and biotechnology.
• These science cities differ not only in their sectoral focus, but also in population size, budget volumes and revenues mobilized into the budget, volume of innovative products, etc.
• Based on the nature and profile of scientific complexes, science cities are divided into single-industry, mono-oriented and complex.
• Mono-oriented science cities have several city-forming enterprises in the same field of scientific and technical activity. This is, for example, Zhukovsky, which houses the largest aviation research and testing complexes; Chernogolovka is a scientific center of the Russian Academy of Sciences with research institutes and laboratories in the field of chemical physics.
• The most typical example of a comprehensive science city is Dubna, where, in addition to the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, there are scientific, design and research and production centers for aerospace, instrument making, shipbuilding, and an international university.
• The status of a science city is currently officially assigned to 14 settlements in Russia that specialize in a particular area of ​​science.

At the same time, the following are applying for the status of a science city:

· in the rocket and space industry there are 19 municipalities;

· there are 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 there are 5 municipalities.

Five more municipalities are also vying for the status of a science city, the sectoral affiliation of which is difficult to assess unambiguously. Already today, these applicants are equated by experts to official science cities.

An analogue of science cities abroad are technopolises, the development of which began on a large scale in 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 less than an hour's drive away, 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 is that the investment climate in Silicon Valley is conducive to the emergence of new innovative companies. In our country, such infrastructures are very poorly developed.

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

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

Today, 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 are conventionally divided into categories of “status” and “contenders”. 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 was not guaranteed and regulated in detail. Over time, other problems of science cities began to emerge - the aging of the research base and personnel, conflicts with the public, corruption scandals and others.

Selected problems characteristic of Russian science cities are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Selected problems typical for 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 a list of projects (formed only at the expense of the federal budget)
	The problems of the science city are the inability to use unused federal property for commercial orders and the lack 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 the Reutov science city is the legal requirement 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 Peterhof’s lack of urban district status

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 a 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 a development program for 5-6 years is approved. And according to the concluded triple 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 began to be made by the government, and it was granted only for five years. But the main change was the introduction of a per capita support method, instead of a programmatic one. In practice, it looks like this: money allocated from the federal budget for all science cities is distributed among them depending on the number of residents.

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 reviewed 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 Union for the Development of Science Cities of Russia, 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 at the National Research University of Moscow State Institute of Electronic Technology, the Ministry of Education and Science does not fully understand how science cities are structured and what the main goals of their activities are.

Another significant problem that can be attributed to 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 a law on tax incentives, similar to those established in Skolkovo. Let us remind you: 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 innovative culture

Insufficient 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, questioning the possibility and necessity of their existence, was the Skolkovo innovation city.

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

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 built, 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 to develop innovation. The name “science city” was replaced by “innocity”.

In March, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev named five priority areas for this center - telecommunications, IT, energy, biomedical and nuclear technologies. It is worth noting here 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 closed administrative towns in Russia that deal with nuclear issues; Among the biomedical centers we can mention Pushchino or Koltsovo in the Novosibirsk region. The science cities were not involved in 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 areas that developed most actively after the departure from the Soviet model of scientific 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 current global scientific trends. According to the creators’ plans, the Skolkovo innovation city should catch up with lost time in these areas of science.

Innovation activity in Russia now faces many problems. An attempt to restore the traditional model of science development through state funding (within the framework of which, by the way, science cities received their status) showed that significant breakthroughs in this direction cannot yet be expected. Innograd should work differently, integrating the Western venture model of financing innovation into Russian reality.

However, independent experts are confident that even if individual projects are successful, the Skolkovo experience will not bring Russia any closer to building an innovative economy. “An innovative economy is created in countries with a high level of competition, where innovation becomes an urgent necessity for business, since without it, enterprises are simply doomed to lose in the competition. For us, the guarantee of success is friendship with the governor, and not the introduction of any technologies. Therefore, the current Russian economy does not create market demand for innovation. And without market demand, the Skolkovo project will have virtually no impact on the development of the domestic economy,” says Igor Nikolaev, director of the strategic analysis department at FBK. Thus, the main obstacles to an innovative economy are not mutual misunderstandings between scientists and businessmen, but more important reasons. Experts are confident that even if the projects developed in Skolkovo are commercially successful, Russia will receive nothing more than another state-sponsored science city, “and far from the best.”

Similar documents

Problems of corporate culture formation, typology and description of effective and ineffective corporate cultures. Key indicators of internal corporate behavior. System of motivation, training of students and professional development of employees.

abstract, added 02/07/2010


The concept of innovation as a competitive resource in the activities of companies. The importance of innovative activity in the process of forming the company's goals and strategy. Analysis of methods for assessing innovation potential and assessing the effectiveness of innovation activities.

course work, added 10/03/2011


Innovation strategy of the Republic of Bashkortostan. Industry priorities for innovative development. Creation of favorable conditions for innovation activity. Increasing the innovative activity of the population. Investment support for innovative projects.

abstract, added 05/06/2011


Objectives of the innovative activity of the enterprise. Basic principles, goals and objectives of innovation policy in St. Petersburg, features of creating innovation infrastructure. Studying the prospects for the development of innovative activities in enterprises.

abstract, added 11/16/2009


Characteristics of innovation activity: concept and types of innovation, stages of the innovation process and organizational forms. Market factors influencing the nature of innovation activity. Main trends in the development of the domestic innovation system.

course work, added 11/13/2009


Successful business management. Internal integration. The concept and essence of corporate management culture. A corporate culture that is profit-oriented, task-oriented, person-oriented, and power-oriented. The concept and essence of innovative management culture.

course work, added 02/19/2009


Theoretical foundations of innovative activity. Analysis of the theory and practice of innovative development of regions. Main directions of regional innovation policy. Managing the creation and improvement of the regional innovation system.

master's thesis, added 09/24/2009


Current state of the innovation process and development prospects. Comparison of Russian technologies with the world level. Instruments of state innovation policy and targeted programs in this area. Creation of a national innovation system.

course work, added 10/31/2007


Studying the main elements of the personnel management system of an innovative organization. Consideration of various forms and methods of stimulating and motivating the work activity of employees. Characteristics of the development of a culture of continuous learning and change.

abstract, added 01/17/2012


The mechanism for forming the state's innovation policy. features of the formation of state innovation policy in foreign countries: Western Europe, USA, Japan. Methods of government influence in the field of innovation.

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

Innovation concept

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

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

The influence of new technologies on artistic culture

Dramatic 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, which have become familiar and are already 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. Wide 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 expression has emerged.
Virtual reality stimulates the effect of sensory authenticity.

The use of interactive mode allows the viewer to come into contact with the artist and participate in the creation of the work.

Computer games are a striking 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.

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

Assessment of the impact of new technologies on artistic culture is ambiguous. Art critics were 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 contradictory assessment of innovations is a typical problem in the early stages of the spread of any innovation.

Mechanism for the dissemination of cultural innovations

Society goes through several stages.

1. Selection stage. In a highly developed community with a fast economy, new products are constantly emerging, but many of them are eliminated. Borrowing is also selective. The main selection criterion is practical benefit for a given 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 in their daily lives.
2. Modification of an innovative idea. Occurs, as a rule, in the sphere of cultural borrowing in order to facilitate the integration of new cultural attitudes by an ethnic group. For example, many Christian holidays and rituals are built on the basis of pre-existing pagan ones.
3. 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 is welcomed in some cultures, while in others it is viewed with skepticism at best, if not declared war on, as something clearly negative. The nature of the attitude towards innovation allows us 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 innovation implementation, which depend on the level of the innovative culture of society.

That is, openness to innovation, readiness to implement an innovative idea on the part of dominant social groups, representatives of different generations. Moreover, attitudes towards 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 innovative culture

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

If there is no favorable climate for innovation, it needs to be created. To do this, the innovative product is first offered to a small experimental group. High evaluation of the product by individual members of society contributes to the trust of the innovative introduction on the part of the wider social community. The product is being implemented at individual 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 further development.

Innovation and traditionality must be in a delicate balance. When introducing innovations, anti-progressive policies and a critical attitude towards innovations should be distinguished from constructive criticism when evaluating innovations. Only if the experience of previous generations is assimilated and taken into account are transformations initiated that contribute to real progress in creating a new culture.

Formation of innovative educational culture

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

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

1. The essence of the innovation phenomenon……………………………..………….4

   Cultural interaction of the processes of training and education in the field of innovative technologies…………………………………...….….5

SECTION 2. Innovative activities in the system of scientific and methodological work of teachers………………………………...…………....6

2.1. Innovative culture of a teacher: 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 teacher culture in the system of intra-school methodological work………….………………………………….9

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

LIST OF REFERENCES………………...……..11

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

INTRODUCTION

In modern conditions of reforming the educational system, the contradiction between the required and real level of culture of pedagogical activity, necessary for the implementation of the most important functions, is deepening. This contradiction can be resolved if, in any educational institution, optimal conditions are created for the manifestation of a high culture of innovative pedagogical activity. Currently relevant There are certain problems in training an innovative teacher who is competent, ready to use and create innovations, and the ability to conduct experimental work. Hence, 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 activities of all participants in the educational process, and the unpreparedness of a significant part of teachers for the corresponding changes.

Purpose Research work is to determine the role of innovative activity in the system of scientific and methodological work of a teacher and highlight the process of formation of an innovative educational culture at various stages of the teaching and educational process.

The stated goal assumes 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 innovative culture of a teacher;

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

Research material became the process of forming a professional culture of a teacher, 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.

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 a teacher aimed at achieving the best possible results in the training, education and development of students.

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

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

Materials and results obtained 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

1. The essence of the phenomenon of innovation

The basic definition of the concept of “innovation” is the well-established understanding in professional communication of innovation as an implemented 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. Consequently, the innovation cycle is preceded by research, experimental or design work. Their results basically create the groundwork on the basis of which innovative activity begins in a specific area of ​​their application.

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

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

1. Cultural interaction of training and education processes in the field of innovative technologies

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 of pedagogical experience, and on the other hand, with the problem of developing and implementing pedagogical innovations.

The innovative focus of the formation of the professional pedagogical culture of a pedagogical worker of an educational institution involves his inclusion in the creation, development and use of pedagogical innovations in the practice of teaching and raising children, the creation of an innovative cultural environment in an educational institution.

The innovation process in the education system is causally determined by the influence of many factors. The actions of innovators are nothing more than 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 exactly the opposite. The complex structure of needs gives rise to many contradictions between society and the education system, and between the subjects of the education system itself. Every innovation finds both support and opposition. This is objective reality. Consequently, in matters of managing the education system, a clear orientation is necessary in the essential nature of innovation, which is reflected in the principles of state policy, the criteria for selecting knowledge from the field of science and production into the education system, taking into account the objective conditions for the transfer of knowledge to students and the factors that promote and oppose the implementation of this tasks .

SECTION 2

Innovative activities in the system of scientific and methodological work of teachers

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

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

The innovative culture of a teacher is a component of professional pedagogical culture. Through participation in it, the teacher has the opportunity to self-realize, reveal creative potential, use intellectual abilities and translate 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. Rubinstein, A.R. Luria).

The issue of the pedagogical aspect of understanding professional culture by the majority of researchers (V.M. Grineva, N.B. Krylova, I.F. Isaev) is defined 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 a teacher’s professional and pedagogical activity, including innovative ones, led to the identification of pedagogical culture as one of the most important components of the culture of society. In the work of V.M. Grineva states that “through the culture of a teacher, his professional goals, motives, knowledge, skills, qualities, abilities, and attitudes are reflected. That is, pedagogical culture is the phenomenon of a teacher’s manifestation of his own “I” in professional pedagogical activities through the unity of his goals, motives, knowledge, skills, qualities, abilities, relationships, united in a certain system of pedagogical values.”

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

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

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

Khoruzha L.L. determines that each of the components of a teacher’s culture is derived from the basic components of education: the professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills of the 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 universal human culture and the professional culture of a teacher. The Ukrainian Pedagogical Dictionary (Goncharenko S.U.) defines spirituality as “an individual expression in a 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 pedagogical ethics. It acts as a defining characteristic of a 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 a teacher’s behavior is a projection of his personal attitude towards various objects of professional activity: students, himself as an individual, the profession of a teacher, the introduction of innovations. It is through the system of relationships that the teacher’s personal, moral and professional readiness to understand the characteristics of innovative activity and methods of its implementation is manifested.

Another equally important professional skill of a teacher in the works of scientists is considered pedagogical tact, “with the help of which he, in each specific case, applies to students the most effective method of educational influence in certain circumstances.” A way to regulate pedagogical tact is tolerance, which is characterized by the absence or restraint of the teacher’s reaction to any unfavorable influence factors, and emotional stability.

1. Formation of an innovative teacher culture in the system of intra-school methodological work

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 appropriate organization of a set of incentives that would encourage the development of pedagogical innovative thinking and teachers’ interest in innovative activities. Creating an atmosphere of creative interpersonal interaction between subjects of the educational process is the next stage on the path to the development of innovative cultural space. This is followed by familiarization of teachers with algorithms for implementing innovative activities, comprehension and participation in it through their own creativity. This model ends with promoting the activation of social activity of all participants in innovation activities and 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 humanistic-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 well-established understanding in professional communication of innovation as an implemented innovation, regardless of the scope of application.

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

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

5. The specifics of a teacher’s professional and pedagogical activity, including innovative ones, led to the identification of pedagogical culture as one of the most important components of the culture of society.

LIST OF REFERENCES USED

Bespalko V.P. Components of pedagogical technology. – M.: Pedagogy, 1990.

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

Vashchenko G. Advanced learning methods: A handbook for teachers. – K.: Ukr. Vidavnica spilka, 1997.

Goncharenko S. U. Ukrainian pedagogical dictionary. – K.: Libid, 1997.

Grinova 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. Information and methodological support for the design and technological activities of the teacher. – H.: View. gr. "Osnova", 2007.

Ksenzova G. Yu. Promising school technologies. – M.: Pedagogical Society of Russia, 2000.

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

Pedagogical ethics: Textbook / Ed. E. A. Grishina. – Vladimir, 1975.

Pedagogical dictionary / 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. University, 2000.

Professional ethics of a teacher: hours and benefits / For the past. ed. B. M. Zhebrovsky. – K., 2001

Sinitsya I. O. Pedagogical tact and mastery of the teacher. – K.: Radyanska School, 1981.

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

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