IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aiy/journl/v2y2016i3p314-323.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Institutional Analysis of Resource Potential for Knowledge Generation in the Enterprises of the Regional Defense-Industrial Sector

Author

Listed:
  • Popov, E. V.
  • Vlasov, M. V.
  • Shishkina, A. Yu.
  • Yakimova, A. V.

Abstract

This article discusses the processes of knowledge generation in the enterprises of the military-industrial sector that are the leaders of innovation in the region. The purpose of the study is to develop a methodology based on using the resource potential to improve the efficiency of knowledge generation in the instrument-making enterprises of the military-industrial sector. The authors conducted a system analysis of knowledge generation in one of the enterprises of the military-industrial sector that led to the conclusion on the chaotic character of knowledge generation in such enterprises and its insufficient provision with institutions. The authors proposed a method for designing a knowledge generation system in the enterprises of the regional military-industrial sector by taking into account the means and capabilities of the enterprise in the implementation of intellectual activities. The developed method is based on defining the horizontal resource potential of knowledge generation and allows to determine the potential use of resources at each stage of the product lifecycle. The comparison of actual and theoretical values of horizontal resource potential will allow to adjust the allocation of share held by each of the resources within the stage, and thereby optimize the implementation of tasks at a particular stage. The proposed tools were tested in 2015 in one of the enterprises of the regional military-industrial sector. The methodological tools used in this study include such methods as the expert assessment, mathematical statistics and institutional analysis. The proposed methodology and empirical results have been used as a basis to develop the institutional spiral of knowledge generation during the performance of state order in the enterprises of the military-industrial sector, the implementation of which will help to reduce the level of uncertainty throughout the entire lifecycle of innovative product. The developed institutional spiral of knowledge generation in the instrument-making enterprises of the military-industrial sector involves the provision of incentives for knowledge generation at each stage of the product lifecycle. The results of this study can be used to build the diagram of knowledge generation and apply the procedures for increasing the efficiency of knowledge generation in the enterprises of the military-industrial sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Popov, E. V. & Vlasov, M. V. & Shishkina, A. Yu. & Yakimova, A. V., 2016. "Institutional Analysis of Resource Potential for Knowledge Generation in the Enterprises of the Regional Defense-Industrial Sector," R-Economy, Ural Federal University, Graduate School of Economics and Management, vol. 2(3), pages 314-323.
    • Handle: RePEc:aiy:journl:v:2:y:2016:i:3:p:314-323
    DOI: 10.15826/recon.2016.2.3.028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10995/47041
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.15826/recon.2016.2.3.028?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1983. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 741-748, September.
    2. Robert M. Grant, 1996. "Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environments: Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 375-387, August.
    3. Ferrary, Michel, 2011. "Specialized organizations and ambidextrous clusters in the open innovation paradigm," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 181-192, June.
    4. Flavio Delbono & Vincenzo Denicolo, 1991. "Incentives to Innovate in a Cournot Oligopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(3), pages 951-961.
    5. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M., 2010. "How open is innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 699-709, July.
    6. García-Manjón, Juan V. & Romero-Merino, M. Elena, 2012. "Research, development, and firm growth. Empirical evidence from European top R&D spending firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1084-1092.
    7. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    8. Robert M. Hunt, 2004. "Patentability, Industry Structure, and Innovation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(3), pages 401-425, September.
    9. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Tom Lee & Louis L. Wilde, 1980. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Reformulation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 94(2), pages 429-436.
    11. Raaj Kumar Sah & Joseph E. Stiglitz, 1987. "The Invariance of Market Innovation to the Number of Firms," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(1), pages 98-108, Spring.
    12. Ted O'Donoghue & Suzanne Scotchmer & Jacques‐François Thisse, 1998. "Patent Breadth, Patent Life, and the Pace of Technological Progress," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(1), pages 1-32, March.
    13. Glenn C. Loury, 1979. "Market Structure and Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 93(3), pages 395-410.
    14. Suzanne Scotchmer, 1991. "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 29-41, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Svetlana Panikarova & Maxim Vlasov, 2016. "Knowledge Generation Strategies: Empirical Analysis of Industrial Enterprises," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(02), pages 1-11, June.
    2. Yevgeniy Popov & Maksim Vlasov & Anna Shishkina & Anastasia Yakimova, 2016. "Institutional Analysis of Knowledge Generation Resource Potential at the Enterprises of Regional Military-Industrial Complex," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(3), pages 839-851.
    3. Langinier, Corinne & Moschini, GianCarlo, 2002. "Economics of Patents: An Overview, The," Staff General Research Papers Archive 2061, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 51-78, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. James Bessen & Eric Maskin, 2009. "Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(4), pages 611-635, December.
    6. Ronald Goettler & Brett Gordon, 2014. "Competition and product innovation in dynamic oligopoly," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-42, March.
    7. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    8. Joshua S. Gans & Scott Stern, 2000. "Incumbency and R&D Incentives: Licensing the Gale of Creative Destruction," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(4), pages 485-511, December.
    9. Kiedaisch, Christian, 2015. "Intellectual property rights in a quality-ladder model with persistent leadership," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 194-213.
    10. Isabelle Brocas, 2003. "Les enjeux de la réglementation de la recherche et développement," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 113(1), pages 125-148.
    11. Erkal, Nisvan, 2005. "The decision to patent, cumulative innovation, and optimal policy," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(7-8), pages 535-562, September.
    12. GianCarlo Moschini & Oleg Yerokhin, 2008. "Patents, Research Exemption, and the Incentive for Sequential Innovation," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(2), pages 379-412, June.
    13. De Bondt, Raymond, 1997. "Spillovers and innovative activities," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 1-28, February.
    14. Jorge Andrés Ferrando Yanez, 2003. "Innovate AND Imitate ? : Dynamic Innovation, Patents, and Costly Imitation," Working Papers 2003-31, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    15. Clément Bonnet, 2016. "Revisiting the optimal patent policy tradeoff for environmental technologies," EconomiX Working Papers 2016-34, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    16. Flavio DelbonoBy & Luca Lambertini, 2022. "Innovation and product market concentration: Schumpeter, arrow, and the inverted U-shape curve [Lessons from schumpeterian growth theory]," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 74(1), pages 297-311.
    17. David Moroz, 2005. "Production of Scientific Knowledge and Radical Uncertainty: The Limits of the Normative Approach in Innovation Economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, November.
    18. Leibowicz, Benjamin D., 2018. "Welfare improvement windows for innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 390-398.
    19. Brüggemann, Julia & Crosetto, Paolo & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2016. "Intellectual property rights hinder sequential innovation. Experimental evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2054-2068.
    20. Guido Cozzi & Silvia Galli, 2009. "Science‐Based R&D In Schumpeterian Growth," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 56(4), pages 474-491, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aiy:journl:v:2:y:2016:i:3:p:314-323. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Irina Turgel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/seurfru.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.