3.3. Small innovative enterprises

Small innovative enterprises(IIP) are characterized by autonomy, relative independence, designed to address issues of restructuring production and improving the efficiency of indicators of socio-economic development. But the most important feature, characteristic only for small innovative enterprises, are specific ways to achieve the goals of an economic and social nature. Such ways are the development and implementation of various innovations (product, technological, managerial, etc.), increasing the competitiveness of products and production, creating an environment of innovation on the scale of the city, industry, region and country as a whole.

Such the most important feature cannot be taken into account when determining the content of a small innovative enterprise. With this in mind, the definition of a small innovative enterprise can be formulated as follows. Small innovative enterprises are relatively new economic entities in the market economy, characterized by independence and adaptability, designed to fulfill the tasks of restructuring production, expanding international scientific and technical cooperation and increasing the prestige of the country in the world based on the development, development and implementation of innovations (primarily new ones) and creating an environment receptive to various innovations.

3.3.1. Classification and stages of formation of small innovative enterprises

Small innovative enterprises can be classified according to different criteria. In the very general view they are classified according to the nature of the problems being solved (economic, social, environmental, etc.), the content of specific main tasks (production, scientific and technical, promotional, etc.), the types of needs satisfied (personal, industrial, scientific, etc.). From the point of view of practical use and taking into account the peculiarities of the functioning of the SIE, their classification can be carried out:

on the content of innovations (product, technological, managerial, organizational production-production and social innovations);

the degree of novelty of the development results (fundamentally new, modernized, improved in design and technological solutions);

content of specific works(scientific and technical, scientific and production, intermediary - implementation and advisory, scientific and technical services);

stages innovation process(development, experimental and industrial development, introduction into production, distribution, operation);

purpose of innovations (for the world market - export and domestic market, including own needs);

degree of risk (very risk, moderate risk, low-risk).

Let us explain the content of specific works related to intermediary and scientific and technical services. Intermediary services include consultations on various calculations (for example, strength, height, financial and economic, etc.), marketing, economic and other types of analysis. Intermediary services can be of an innovative nature. For example, the development of innovations at a particular enterprise, assistance in the industrial production of products, taking into account the

A. M. Mukhamedyarov. " Innovation management: tutorial"

water and technological features of enterprises, etc. Scientific and technical services include many types of services - registration of patents and inventions, standardization and quality control, storage and maintenance of scientific and technical documentation in good condition, ensuring information materials, accounting for intellectual property, etc.

This classification of small innovative enterprises is used for the following purposes: 1) their reasonable formation and development; 2) determination of forms and sources of financing; 3) finding progressive and economical organizational structures; 4) assessment of congruence, i.e., the correspondence between the real state of small innovative enterprises (what they really are) and our ideas about them (what they should be); 5) proper accounting and reporting, contributing to the creation statistical base. The latter is extremely important within the framework of the necessary comparative analysis data from various countries and in the context of joining the World trade organization(WTO), as well as in connection with the transition to international standards in this area, in particular to IFRS.

AT In their development, small innovative enterprises have gone through two stages: the first stage

– from the second half 1980s to late 1990s and the second - from 1999 to the present. The bulk of the small innovative enterprises that emerged in the first period were created to realize the innovative potential, the backlog of which was formed back in the Soviet period on state enterprises, in research institutes and design bureaus. With the creation of these enterprises, hopes were associated for the commercialization of many years of scientific and engineering developments, primarily in mechanical engineering, the chemical industry, and some other areas. high technology, including conversions.

AT In the initial period, there was virtually no infrastructure to support small businesses, which practically did not have a serious institutional support for the implementation of innovative projects. Some of them were self-financing, resorting to commercial activities as a source of subsequent investments in high-risk innovation activities with a fairly long payback period. Some of the small enterprises managed to find an outside investor who still has illusions about the possibility of quickly commercializing their scientific potential.

Thus, hallmarks the first period of the formation and functioning of the SIP were:

Use of ready-made scientific and technical developments;

Coverage of traditional industries (chemical, mechanical engineering, instrumentation);

Lack of infrastructure.

AT Subsequently, as the infrastructure for supporting small innovative enterprises was formed (for example, in the form of technology parks at large higher educational institutions), a second wave of small innovative enterprises arose. The sectoral structure of the SIE has shifted significantly towards the communications industry and information technologies. Small innovative enterprises have moved from the initial stage to the development stage, when efficiency and sustainability, activation of innovation activities and competitiveness. The second period of development of small innovative enterprises can be characterized by the following features:

Implementation in many cases of own developments;

Mastering them, as well as often organizing pilot production;

Changing the priority of industries (transition to biotechnology, telecommunications and information technology);

A. M. Mukhamedyarov. "Innovation Management: Study Guide"

availability of infrastructure, albeit underdeveloped;

their promotion of scientific and technical products to the market;

riskiness.

In addition, the features of the functioning of SIE at the second stage include participation in the development and production of component parts for large enterprises and scientific and technical cooperation with foreign countries. At the second stage, the functions and areas of work of the SIE were significantly expanded; on the one hand, they have become complex, and on the other hand, they have become unique, highly specialized.

In recent years, positive trends in the innovative development of industry, the creation of flexible organizational structures and the active use of the innovative potential of small enterprises have been consolidated.

3.3.2. Advantages and importance of small innovative enterprises and their types

Over the past 15–20 years, in many countries of the world, a transition has begun from mass production within the framework of large industrial complexes and corporations to small industrial structures, to promptly taking into account the needs of consumers who place high demands on the quality of products and services provided. In this transition, a special role is assigned to SIE, which is explained by the advantages of their functioning. To the advantages of small innovative enterprises that contribute to improving the efficiency of introducing innovations, taking into account the peculiarities modern production, relate:

faster adaptation to market requirements;

flexibility of management and efficiency in the implementation of decisions;

a great opportunity for the individual to realize his ideas, to show his abilities;

flexibility of internal communications;

implementation of developments mainly at the first stages of the innovation process, the implementation of which requires relatively low costs (about 2% total amount);

lower need for initial capital and the ability to quickly make progressive changes in products and production process technology in response to the requirements of markets (local and regional);

relatively higher turnover equity and etc.

Small innovative enterprises have significant competitive advantages, often require less capital investment per employee compared to large enterprises widely use local scientific, labor and information resources. Owners of small businesses are more inclined to save and invest, they always have a high level of personal motivation to achieve success, which has a positive effect on the overall performance of the enterprise. Small innovative enterprises are better informed about the level of demand in local (local) markets, often goods are produced by order of specific consumers, provide a livelihood for a significant number of employees. Small enterprises contribute to the growth of employment of the population in comparison with large enterprises, thereby contributing to the training professional workers and dissemination of practical knowledge.

It is the presence of significant advantages that provides small businesses, located in conditions far less privileged and with much less funds for research and development, the opportunity to win their market share. It should be noted the flexibility and mobility of SIP, allowing it to quickly

A. M. Mukhamedyarov. "Innovation Management: Study Guide"

respond to consumer needs, quickly adapt to changing market conditions. Small innovative business can be qualified as a special creative type of economic behavior, which is characterized by an entrepreneurial spirit and initiative creative activity, associated at the same time with a certain risk for a limited number of its participants. The creation of such an atmosphere in small innovative business and the possibility of effective management is facilitated by the combination in one person of the owner and manager, which is typical for many small enterprises.

An important advantage of small business, which ensures its efficiency, is the interchangeability of employees. Between employees of a small team, mutual assistance and support for each other are characteristic, and, if necessary, duplication and interchangeability. A significant advantage of small businesses is the high speed of information passing. This is due to the smaller amount of information in small enterprises and direct communication between the manager and subordinates. The small size of the enterprise provides it with good manageability at relatively low management costs. Finally, we note that the organization of a small innovative enterprise does not require large investments in fixed assets. This advantage attracts many start-up entrepreneurs and has a positive effect on the cost of products and, in general, on the efficiency of a small business.

In the development of the economy, small innovative enterprises occupy a special place. Their significance is determined not so much by the high economic efficiency, how much is the focus of the SIE on the introduction of science-intensive products and technological processes, on increasing the competitiveness of production in individual industries and in the economy as a whole. Small enterprises in the scientific and technical sphere have allowed Russia to retain a significant part of highly qualified personnel. At present, about 40 thousand small enterprises (about 4.5% of their total number) are registered in the innovation sphere in Russia with a total number of employed 200–300 thousand people, of which up to 4000 enterprises actually work in the field of knowledge-intensive services with a total the number of employed is 20-30 thousand people.

Small technology enterprises carry out scientific research

and developments to the finished market product, the release of small series of products. They play a linking role between science, production and the market, carry out orders for market-oriented research and development, and promote development to the market. Funds invested in innovation infrastructure lead to increased employment and increased tax collection. Small enterprises take part in accelerating the processes of restructuring industries and reforming enterprises, introducing effective mechanisms for the interaction of large enterprises with small ones that can integrate into technological processes, produce the necessary components and provide all kinds of services. Specifically, the role of small innovative enterprises is manifested in the following: creation of new jobs; introduction of new products

and services; meeting the needs of large enterprises; provision of consumers special goods and services.

The creation of new jobs is the most important factor in the development of small enterprises. A small business quickly and relatively inexpensively creates new jobs, increases the average per capita income of the most socially vulnerable groups of the population (women, youth, retired military personnel, pensioners, migrants), reduces the “social burden” on the budget, and increases the efficiency of investments in the production of the most competitive products , smooths out imbalances in the level

and regional socio-economic development, etc. This is a factor, not only

A. M. Mukhamedyarov. "Innovation Management: Study Guide"

providing livelihoods for a significant part of the population, but also contributing to the stabilization of the situation in society, the solution of a number of social issues. Small businesses innovative business have the ability to quickly respond to changes in market conditions, master and use scientific and technological, managerial and organizational innovations, create new market niches, etc.

By their nature and peculiarities of functioning, SIE tend to regional and local conditions. Therefore, in recent years, SIE began to develop intensively in the regions of Russia. This is facilitated by the fact that the regions have greater autonomy in expanding the range of products, financial support for the innovative development of the economy and international scientific and technical cooperation. Each region is a specific economic entity with clearly defined boundaries not only geographical, but also intellectual, scientific, financial, economic, organizational and legal. In addition, the approach to the formation and functioning of a small innovative business enterprise with a regional focus is also expedient from the point of view of the federal type of state and budgetary federalism.

Taking into account the peculiarities of the national economy, three types of small innovative enterprises (firms) can be created. Enterprises of the first type can carry out the development and development of products industrial purpose. They enter the market and face competition from large enterprises. Such enterprises can be effective in industries where the costs of entering the market of specialized goods are relatively low, for example, in mechanical engineering, instrument making, and in the production of communications equipment. Small innovative enterprises that create devices and installations for genetic engineering and medicine can be very effective.

Enterprises of the second type can successfully operate in the consumer goods market and compete with large enterprises (associations). In this case, three types of small enterprises are possible: 1) they compete with large ones, mastering and producing products more than High Quality; 2) do not compete with large ones, but find their own market niche; 3) specialize in the development and marketing of consumer goods related to individual needs, fast fashion changes, perishable products. Such small innovative enterprises can effectively function in the light, food and woodworking industries, as well as in the agro-industrial complex.

Enterprises of the third type can work together with large ones, developing and mastering intermediate products, semi-finished products, component parts and products. They can be effective in the petrochemical and chemical industries, and in some cases in mechanical engineering.

In the face of increasing importance of introducing new knowledge and technologies small innovative enterprises(MIR), having organizational and technological flexibility, have a positive impact on national economy. Due to creative freedom, lack of bureaucratic barriers, interest in finding consumers for their innovative products, small innovative enterprises have a high ability to innovate.

Representatives of the main economic schools within the framework of the theories of the firm differently assess the goals of the firm and the comparative advantages of large and small enterprises. Neoclassical theory of the firm, which states that main task firms is the production of products with minimal costs, the main goal is profit maximization, and the entrepreneur, in order to remain competitive within the industry, does not need new knowledge, cannot be used to describe the characteristics of small innovative enterprises. The theoretical argument for substantiating and using the advantages of small innovative enterprises is given by: the entrepreneurial theory of the firm, which defines the function of the firm as creative; resource theory of the firm, for which the goal of the firm is to obtain competitive advantage; evolutionary theory, which considers the purpose of the firm sustainable development economy of the country and highlighting the economic, social and institutional functions of the firm; network theory of the firm, proving the advantages of development within a network of small enterprises.

The institutional theory of the firm, which explains not so much the prerequisites for maximizing the profit of an enterprise, as the conditions for its emergence and development, is effective for studying a modern innovative small enterprise. Taking into account production and transaction costs, the optimal size of the firm is determined. For innovative enterprises, whose activities are characterized by high risk, the efficiency point determines the smaller size of the enterprise, which allows to get rid of unnecessary management costs.

The World Bank, when analyzing the criteria that apply in different countries to classify an organization as a small enterprise, considers more than 40 indicators, but highlights as the main ones: the number of employees, the annual turnover and the balance sheet currency of the enterprise. For Russia, Law No. 209-FZ provides the following criteria for classifying enterprises as small:

• average number of employees for the previous calendar year no more than 100 people (micro-enterprise - up to 15 people);
• revenue (excluding VAT), or the book value of assets for the previous calendar year, must be less than 800 million R.

The provision that the share of participation of the state and legal entities in the capital of a small enterprise should not exceed 49%, in Russia it was canceled for enterprises implementing the results of intellectual activity, as well as for enterprises whose founders are autonomous and educational institutions.

Comparison of the role of small enterprises in economic development in Russia and European c The union is difficult, since in the EU small enterprises include organizations with up to 50 employees, and medium enterprises from 50 to 250 people. The Russian and European classifications are the same if we consider small and medium-sized enterprises together. To improve the financial mechanism for stimulating the development of small investment enterprises in Russia it is useful to use the experience of OECD countries in this area. Measures to improve the management of innovative development in a number of developed countries were taken after the weakening by the early 1980sgg. investment activity and slowdown economic growth. The reason for this phenomenon was the reduction of funding sources, on the one hand, and the need to modernize the industry through the renewal of production potential, on the other. OECD countries choose different methods to support innovative development. If in Sweden, Holland and Mexico the state uses only direct methods of supporting innovative development, in the USA and Italy direct support accounts for up to 80% of funds, while in Japan and Canada indirect measures in the form of fiscal incentives are most widely used.

The most common method of indirect incentives for innovative enterprises is to provide tax credits R&D expenditures using the volumetric or incremental method. Investment tax credit is most often provided for the introduction of new equipment and technologies. Benefits related to the depreciation of fixed assets for innovative enterprises are provided in the form of accelerated depreciation of equipment, depreciation premiums. When merging educational institutions and manufacturing enterprises into territorial clusters, enterprises included in the cluster receive additional benefits. Evaluation of the effectiveness of financial and non-financial incentives for SIE can be carried out within the framework of a technopark, which allows a number of support mechanisms to be implemented at once: financial (taxes, subsidies, special credit conditions for financing investments) and non-financial (personnel, information, advisory, preferential lease of premises and equipment).

In accordance with the national standards of the Russian Federation, a technopark is a managed management company a complex of utility, transport and technological infrastructure facilities that provides a full cycle of services for the placement and development of innovative companies that are residents of the technology park. In the field of high technologies, 12 technoparks have been created in Russia, with an area of ​​more than 450,000 sq.m 2, with the number of employees 20thousand. These are technoparks in the cities of Tolyatti, Penza, Moscow, Saransk, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan, Naberezhnye Chelny, Yekaterinburg, Tyumen, Novosibirsk and Kemerovo. The functioning of technoparks is implemented within the framework of the state program created in 2007d. Under the Comprehensive Program from 2007 to 201430.45 billion was allocated for the creation of technology parks in the field of high technologiesr., of which: federal budget funds - 42.4%, and budget funds of the subjects of the Russian Federation - 57.6%. The results of the functioning of technoparks in the field of high technologies are: a large number of R&D, an increase in the number of patents received, the release of innovative goods, works and services.

Technoparks have a positive impact on the activities of its residents. Using the example of the Science Park of Moscow State University, it is possible to assess the effectiveness of the impact of financial and non-financial support instruments on the performance of small innovative enterprises. The Science Park of Moscow State University is one of the oldest technoparks in Russia - the protocol on its creation dates back to October 15, 1990g /, and the active construction of buildings with office, laboratory and industrial premises began in 1992. Its founders were Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov and the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation represented by the Innovation Fund under State Committee in Science and Technology (GKNT USSR). The MSU Technopark actively developed and in 2008 became a member of the International Association of Science Parks ( IASP - International Association of Science Park ). The MSU Science Park supports projects and companies in the field of innovation and high technology. The activities of the technopark are aimed not only at supporting companies created by the university departments, or start-ups of scientists, graduate students, students and graduates of Moscow State University, but also at creating a favorable environment for all small innovative companies and start-ups interested in cooperation and interaction with the university.

At the moment, the Science Park of Moscow State University is more than 11.5 thousand m 2 of specialized and office space, more than 70 micro, small and medium-sized resident enterprises with a total turnover exceeding 5 billion rubles. per year, as well as more than 2.5 thousand employees. Residents of the Science Park of Moscow State University have the opportunity to use the developed infrastructure of the technopark, which allows them to take a leading position among the country's SIE. Five resident companies of the MSU technopark entered the TOP-50 of the TechUp rating of fast-growing Russian innovative companies. Company Bank Soft Systems (BSS) ), founded in the technopark in 1994 by graduates of Moscow State University, took 35th place in 2014 among the largest IT -companies, according to the rating of RA "Expert", and 11th place among the most dynamically developing companies in Russia, according to the rating CNews Analytics . Also good example successful development of an innovative enterprise in the technopark is the company OJSC RTKOMM.RU, founded in the technopark in 2000, which occupies the 32nd place in the rating of companies in the field of IT "Communication and Internet", according to data Global MSK.

In addition to providing the residents of the technopark with rented premises, the MSU Science Park additionally leases a number of laboratory and administrative premises, as well as, if necessary, the opportunity to use the extensive infrastructure of MSU, including various types of laboratory equipment, as well as the facilities of the University Research Equipment Shared Use Center.

The MSU Technopark provides its residents with a range of services that can be classified according to demand among companies at different levels of development.

1. Companies at the level "Idea"- stage " Pre-seed » - at this stage there is only initial idea The project usually does not even have a business plan. At this stage, Technopark provides free consulting services to determine the overall strategy for the commercialization of the project, protection of intellectual property, selection of funding sources, team building.
2. seed companies - the next stage is "Seed". At this stage, assistance is provided in (a) elaboration and specification of the vision for the medium and long-term development of the company with the involvement of the existing innovation infrastructure; (b) strengthening the project team (search for young managers through specialized educational programs Science Park of Moscow State University "Formula of Success", "Formula Bio", "Formula IT", attracting students, graduate students, young scientists of Moscow University to the development of projects); (c) attracting funding from the state (programs of the Fund for Assistance to the Development of Small Forms of Enterprises in the Scientific and Technical Sphere, Funds of the Russian venture company, grants from the Skolkovo Foundation, programs of the Department of Science of Industrial Policy and Entrepreneurship of Moscow, etc.) and private sources.
3. Startups -the stage of the beginning of the appearance of the product itself and the monetization of the project. At this stage, MSU Park provides support in the creation financial models, preparation of business plans, development of investment memorandums, presentations, holding marketing research, risk assessment, technological and production, legal expertise, protection of intellectual property, as well as attraction of investments (including from RUSNANO, private and private-state venture funds).
4. Anchor companies - functioning "mature" companies that occupy their share in the market of high-tech products. For such companies, MSU Park offers the following support: attracting additional funding, searching for potential partners and opportunities for interaction with the public sector, searching for R&D performers among the faculties of Moscow State University, searching for personnel from among students, graduate students, trainees, graduates of Moscow State University, as well as other best universities in Moscow.

Also, the Science Park of Moscow State University, represented by the Center for Youth Innovative Creativity functioning within its framework, provides innovative companies services of prototyping, manufacturing of parts and creation of product samples from various materials.

Residents of the MSU Technopark are not only high-tech companies. Based on the analysis of the areas of activity of the residents of the technopark of Moscow State University, the following classification was made.

1. Group IDevelopment of programs, databases, other software products, information and communication technologies, provision and maintenance of activities on the Internet. (12 companies were classified as enterprises engaged in this area.)
2. GroupII. Development and design of equipment and technologies (including bio-medical and chemical), production and sale of high-tech products (including equipment and devices) and services (including design). (48 companies were classified as enterprises engaged in this area.)
3. GroupIII. Analytics, consulting (including in the field of public interest), investments and asset management. (15 companies were classified as enterprises engaged in this area.)

In the technopark, the bulk is occupied by micro- (less than 15 employees and less than 120 million rubles in revenue) and small enterprises (less than 100 employees and less than 800 million rubles in revenue), there are also two medium-sized enterprises among residents. Most of the resident companies are micro-enterprises (69%). They make the main contribution to the production of high-tech products (71%) and the number of patent applications (59%). Small business entities, despite the fact that they make up 20% of the total number of residents, play an important role in the activities of the MSU Science Park. They hold a major share in turnover (62%), R&D funding (68%), patent applications (67%), international patents received (67%), and total projects (94%). The latter suggests that it is small businesses that have joint projects with the public sector or big companies. In addition, it is small businesses that occupy the most a large number of trainees, graduate students and graduates of Moscow State University.

If we consider the types of financial support, the largest number of residents received direct subsidies from the Moscow Government. The second place is occupied by federal subsidies issued under state programs to support SIE, the third place is occupied by subsidies from the State Fund for Assistance to the Development of Small Forms of Enterprises in the Scientific and Technical Sphere.

Tax incentives were provided to four residents of the Science Park as participants in the Skolkovo project. Organizations that have received the status of project participants are entitled to exemption from certain taxes for 10 years (profit tax = 0, VAT = 0).

If we consider the average indicators for 2014, then the average indicators of enterprises that received financial support in 2013, better than similar indicators for enterprises that do not have them. The averages are lower in terms of tax deductions, as half of the supported enterprises have tax benefits. Note that such a difference in the average turnover of residents may be associated with significant differences in structural characteristics companies. For example, among the enterprises that did not receive financial support, there is a large medium-sized company, whose turnover in the total share is more than a third (33.5%).

The analysis showed that for all indicators, the share of residents who received financial support, showing a positive trend, is greater than that of enterprises that did not receive such support. In terms of turnover, 90% of the companies that received financial support showed growth. At the same time, among other companies, only 57.9% of companies had growth in terms of turnover. Small businesses that receive financial support ( different kinds subsidies and tax incentives) function more efficiently in the future, demonstrating on average higher performance indicators and higher growth dynamics of these indicators than enterprises that financial help did not appear. Even operating within the framework of a technology park, where all residents can use all types of infrastructure support, it is the companies to which financial support mechanisms have been applied that develop most successfully.

With In order to determine the degree of influence of residence in the technopark on the activities and performance of small innovative enterprises, a survey was conducted among the heads of resident companies, as a result of which the following data were obtained.

The majority of enterprises in the Science Park of Moscow State University have existed for more than 6 years (6-10 years - 44% of residents participating in the survey; more than 10 years - 36%). Basically, resident enterprises functioned even before they joined the MSU technopark. Only 16% of the respondents began to operate within the technopark. Pafter joining the technopark of Moscow State University, financial and non-financial indicators residents are mostly growing. When we asked about financial indicators, then 48% of the respondents answered that obtaining the status of a resident of the MSU Science Park had a positive effect on the performance of their companies, 32% answered that the residence had no effect, and 20% of the respondents found it difficult to answer.

A survey on non-financial performance indicators (such as the number of patents filed and received, the volume of high-tech products, R&D funding, etc.) showed that residency had an even more important positive impact than financial indicators. Of the residents surveyed, 68% answered that joining the technopark had a positive impact on their non-financial indicators, 20% - that it had no effect at all, and only 12% found it difficult to answer.

The services most frequently used by residents are legal and financial consulting (68%); assistance in creating financial models, business plans, marketing research, risk assessment, etc. (56%); assistance in attracting financing, investment (52%). Next come services such as searching for potential partners, organizing interaction B2G (with the public sector); the proximity of specialists in related industries (to exchange ideas) and other services. It should be noted that only 8% said that rental rates are profitable (Fig. 1).

Regardless of which services companies use, they may also have needs for another type of service, that is, not necessarily the most frequently used services, but the most necessary for the development of small enterprises. When asked what resident companies would like to improve in the work of the science park, the majority supported the provision of tax incentives (recall that tax incentives are not provided for today within the Science Park of Moscow State University) - 76%, the second place in terms of the number of votes - reduction in rental rates (52%), the third is the improvement of infrastructure facilities (32%) (Fig. 1).

Rice. 1. Wishes of residents for the development of the MSU Science Park

The purpose of the survey of residents of the Science Park of Moscow State University was to determine the most effective mechanisms for stimulating small innovative businesses. To do this, a question was asked to residents about what type of incentive was most in demand and needed by their company for development. Financial mechanisms for stimulating small innovative entrepreneurship were recognized as the most effective by 96% of respondents. Infrastructural types of support are considered important, which includelegal, accounting and other consulting services 60% of respondents. Improvement of scientific and technical types of support, which include the possibility of using special premises, laboratories, specialized high-tech equipment, is important for 36% of respondents.

On the basis of a survey of residents of the science park, conclusions can be drawn. The influence of the technopark on the activities of small innovative enterprises should be strengthened, since a positive increase was observed only in 8 out of 14 indicators. At the same time, the results of the survey indicate that joining the Science Park of Moscow State University in general had a positive impact on the financial and non-financial performance of their activities. It can be assumed that part of the decline in some indicators of SIP activity is due to changes in the market and the crisis situation.

Financial incentive mechanisms have a positive impact on the activities of small innovative enterprises. If we consider the dynamics of the performance indicators of residents, then the companies that received financial support showed a decline in only three indicators, one of which is tax deductions, the second and third are the number of employees, the number of trainees.

How much small innovative enterprises earned at the end of last year, in what direction our education is moving, and why we need to rank universities - this and much more was discussed at the All-Russian Conference “State. The science. Business: Mechanisms of Interaction in the Innovation Environment”.

It has been three and a half years since the the federal law No. 217, which enables scientific and educational institutions create small innovative enterprises (SIEs) for practical application(implementation) of the results of intellectual activity. This was recalled by Sergey Matveev, Deputy Director of the Department of State Scientific, Technical and Innovation Policy of the Ministry of Education and Science. According to him, the share of products of such enterprises in the nine months of last year amounted to 0.19% of the gross product. However, positive developments in this area are indisputable: if in 2011 the income of one SIE was on average 800 thousand rubles, then by the end of 2012 this figure increased to 2.7 million rubles, that is, more than three times. In total, about 1800 MIPs have already been created in Russia at the moment.

A positive experience in creating small innovative enterprises has been achieved, in particular, at the Belgorod State Technological University (BSTU). Although, it is worth recognizing that this is facilitated by the “successful” specialization of the university: construction, production technologies building materials, energy saving technologies, etc. According to S. Matveev, in recent times the university has changed its educational programs - a course " Innovative Entrepreneurship". Thanks to this, graduate students, among other things, began to work on the preparation of business plans. It may seem that the quality of these business plans is not high, but 10% of them are executed at a very decent level. This made it possible to create 67 small innovative enterprises on their basis from 2009 to 2012.

“These enterprises turned to our development institutions, first of all, to the Fund for Assistance to the Development of Small Forms of Enterprises, which supports start-ups,” said S. Matveev. – You need to understand very clearly what a startup is. This is an attempt to bring the idea that is “carried out” in the head to a form where the idea becomes less risky. For example, a device, technology, service is invented. Where is the guarantee that they will go to the market? Approbation is needed to answer this question, and money is needed to implement it. And the state allocates this money to startups.”

Thus, in 2010-2011, 67 Belgorod SIEs received about 30 million rubles as state support in order to create trial products and minimize risks. And already in 2012, the income of these enterprises amounted to 140 million rubles, they provide jobs for 400 people. According to Matveev, the creation and successful operation of SIEs by universities is an indicator that education in Russia is becoming practice-oriented, and SIEs themselves are becoming attractive for business investment. Matveev also noted that it is possible to create such enterprises in the form of economic partnerships. They may also include individuals- developers, and universities, and scientific organizations, and one or more enterprises. True, little is known about this form of management, there is practically no experience in creating such organizations, the speaker complained. However, he said that his department is ready to organize refresher courses in this area.

In turn, Irina Arzhanova, Executive Director The National Training Foundation said that her organization had developed a methodology for ranking Russian universities. Ranking is another modern way evaluate the work of universities. Moreover, this is not just an assessment as an end in itself - it is carried out in order to make informed decisions on its basis in the future. With its help, the state will be able to determine the necessary state support for a particular university, citizens will be able to choose a worthy educational institution for their children, and companies will be able to identify partners from among universities.

The key difference between ranking and ranking is that ranking can take into account different missions and profiles of universities, and divide them into clusters. The ranking results can be used by universities for self-development and implementation of their strategic programs.

During the ranking, universities are evaluated according to five criteria: science, education, International activity, knowledge transfer, interaction with the region. It turned out that there are 3 national research universities in the country that are leaders in all of the above criteria (although I. Arzhanova preferred not to name them). Another 5 national research universities are leaders in science and education. In total, 103 domestic universities participated in the ranking procedure.

Trial ranking - although, by and large, this is so obvious - showed that different groups of universities should have their own support from the state, especially financial. First of all, it must be provided to those higher educational institutions that do not have a strong connection with the industry, which do not have enough developments for implementation.

Science and life // Illustrations

Science and life // Illustrations

Science and life // Illustrations

Science and life // Illustrations

Science and life // Illustrations

Despite the proclaimed by the Concept of long-term socio-economic development Russian Federation for the period up to 2020, the direction of promoting the development of small and medium-sized businesses, today the number of small, including small innovative enterprises (hereinafter referred to as SIE), in Russia is insignificant. The dynamics of small enterprises registered in the "Science and Scientific Service" industry is steadily negative. If in 1995 almost 50 thousand SIEs were registered, by 2000 their number barely exceeded 30 thousand, and by 2002 it was about 23 thousand. At the same time, it should be noted that such enterprises are actively working in various industries industry. According to experts, in 2009 about 78 thousand small enterprises were concentrated in this sector. If we assume that about a quarter of them are innovative, then the total number of SIEs can be about 19-20 thousand. However, there are no exact data on the number of such firms, so only trends in this area can be recorded with a certain degree of confidence.

Small innovative business enterprises are the most important element of the national innovation system, and they need active organizational and financial incentive mechanisms. It is these economic entities that are capable of as soon as possible solve the problems of bringing competitive innovations to the market. At the same time, small businesses suffer more than other participants in economic relations from an increase in the fiscal burden, even its slight fluctuations in the economy can lead to a decrease in the sector. This trend is confirmed by the reform of the unified social tax, which increased the fiscal burden on the bulk of small businesses by 20 percentage points, which led to the massive closure of such enterprises in 2011.

All aspects of innovation management inevitably face the definition of an innovative enterprise as an object of stimulating action. As the world and domestic experience, there are a number of administrative difficulties that impede large-scale tax incentives for innovative activity related to the lack of clarity in the definition and criteria for identifying innovative enterprises: the lack of uniformity in the definitions and criteria for innovative activity and the impossibility of an independent reliable assessment of the potential availability of incentives for planning purposes; unreasonable refusals and abuses when agreeing on benefits; lack of criteria and a transparent mechanism for monitoring compliance with the conditions for granting benefits.

To manage the development of SIE in Russia, as well as to create a system of adequate tax benefits, an effective system for monitoring the activities of such organizations is required, based on a system of criteria necessary for their registration, accounting and classification. Based on the developments of the Center for Research and Statistics of Science, for tax purposes, small technological enterprises can be classified into the following groups:

Small innovative enterprises (SIE) – commercial organizations that produce products (works, services). At the same time, the structure of output products should contain new (improved) types of products (works, services);

Small Scientific and Technological Enterprises (MSTP) are commercial organizations that carry out research, development, technological training production on orders of organizations of the business and public sector, as well as the sector higher education. Here it is necessary to highlight the organizations associated with universities. Moreover, it can be assumed that the search for and identification of these enterprises as innovative should not cause serious difficulties due to their organizational ties with higher educational institutions guaranteeing the innovative orientation of their activities;

Small Innovation Infrastructure Enterprises (MII) are organizations that assist SIE and ISTP in organizing their joint activities and cooperation with large business organizations.

In accordance with the above classification, for the purposes of taxation, the following criteria for classifying small businesses as small enterprises of a technological profile can be used (see: Table 1):

Table 1 - Criteria for classifying small businesses as small enterprises of a technological profile

Compiled by:

Also important is the question of who will determine how innovative the product or technology used by the enterprise is. Obviously, the answer to this question can only be obtained based on the results of the corresponding expert opinion of a specially authorized structure, for example, in the Federal State Institution "Research Institute - Republican Research Scientific and Consulting Center for Expertise" (FGU NII RINKCE). At the same time, it is necessary to have relevant departments in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, which will be responsible for making a decision on the compliance of the manufactured products or the implemented technology with the requirements established for obtaining benefits.

In conditions when the main systemic problem in the development of science and technology today is the mismatch between the pace of development and the structure of the Russian research and development sector with the needs of the national security system and the growing demand for advanced technologies, tax incentives for the commercialization of research and development results play a special role. The creation and development of a taxpayer identification system is an important step in the tax reform, which is necessary to maintain the pace of modernization of the Russian economy, the transition from raw materials export to an innovative socially oriented type of development.

The current system for determining the objects of application of incentives in the innovation sector does not meet the modernization needs, the tax policy of the Government of the Russian Federation in this area is conservative. Thus, the depreciation bonus, the amount of which has been increased to 30%, is recognized by most experts as the most effective stimulus measure that motivates domestic enterprises to upgrade the main production assets. Due to the budget imbalance, by 2013 it is expected to return to the pre-crisis level (10%). There is a fear that such a measure will increase the tax burden on the economy, which will inevitably lead to a decrease in the innovative activity of companies.

In the domestic system of tax incentives for the sphere of innovation, narrowly targeted instruments prevail: for residents of special economic zones - benefits on VAT, corporate income taxes, property taxes, land and insurance premiums; for participants in the Skolkovo project and IT companies that meet certain criteria - a special taxation regime; VAT exemption and customs duties on the import of equipment, analogues of which are not produced in Russia; the possibility of recognizing the taxpayer's expenses for R&D in the amount of one and a half times; an increased standard for the formation of the Russian Fund for Technological Development.

Most of these measures are ineffective and are poorly applied by domestic companies due to the underdevelopment of the same mechanism for identifying objects of stimulating impact. There is no detailed official information on the application of tax incentives, which is necessary for a clear understanding of the number of organizations using them, their distribution by sectors of the economy. So far, the effectiveness of a particular benefit is assessed on the basis of data from various surveys, expert assessments, without relying on objective official data, and the innovativeness of companies is determined through the volume of shipped products. The vector of stimulating impact is directed to the areas of activity, projects, equipment, the list of which is approved by the state. This approach creates the risk of producing innovations that are not in demand by the market.

To eliminate difficulties in the administration of tax incentives, it is possible to apply solutions adopted in world practice: when describing a benefit and its recipients, use unambiguously interpreted concepts fixed in tax or other legislation (for example, the use of concepts enshrined in the OECD in determining benefits); to the level professional organizations who are competent in the subject of approval; providing the taxpayer with freedom in choosing a coordinating organization; using a clear and measurable system of criteria and a transparent procedure for verifying the validity of the application of benefits; introducing preliminary criteria that allow for an objective and simple assessment of the availability of benefits: belonging to a certain industry; place of establishment / main activity; the amount and/or composition of R&D expenditures in past periods; number of jobs for R&D specialists, etc.

References: Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 11/17/2008 No. 1662-r (as amended on 08/08/2009)<О концепции долгосрочного социально-экономического развития Российской Федерации на период до 2020 года>(together with the "Concept for the long-term socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2020"). This document has not been published in this form. Access from the legal reference system "Consultant Plus". Dezhina I. Does Russia need a small science-intensive business? // Man and labor. - 2005. - No. 3. - URL: http://www.chelt.ru/2005/3-05/dezgina_3-05.html (date of access: 04/18/2011). PricewaterhouseCoopers Study: Tax and Fiscal Mechanisms to Incentivize Innovation in the System state regulation// GosBuk - Expert Network on government controlled, 2011. - 62 p. (last update date: 02/13/2011). Syst. Requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. – URL: http://www.gosbook.ru/system/files/blog_files/2011/02/03/PWC.pdf (date of access: 04/18/2011). Kazantsev A.K., Leora S.N., Nikitina I.A., Firsova S.A. Identification of small enterprises of innovative profile // Information and analytical bulletin of TsISN. - 2010. - No. 4. Information and analytical publications of TsISN. Syst. Requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. – URL: http://77.108.127.29/inform/IAB/inf4_2010.pdf (date of access: 04/19/2011).

The Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations continues to develop the innovation infrastructure of scientific organizations subordinate to the Agency.

According to the results of the performance monitoring, the number of small innovative enterprises created on the basis of scientific organizations increased by 4% - from 313 in 2015 to 326 in 2016.

In addition, last year the number of results of intellectual activity (hereinafter referred to as RIA) increased from 2979 to 3369.

The development of the innovative potential of scientific organizations, including the material and technical infrastructure, the management of rights to RIA and their involvement in economic circulation are the priority tasks of the FASO of Russia.

Reference:

Small innovative enterprises are enterprises that develop and introduce science-intensive technologies and products into production, acting as a link between science and production.

Sources

Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations (fano.gov.ru), 14/11/2017