Innovative prospects evaluation as a tool of managerial efficiency increase for complicated technical systems creation
Vorotnikov Vitalii Anatolievich Head of sector to ensure legal protection and commercialization of intellectual property in the department of patent-innovative research,
State Design Office Yuzhnoye, Ukraine
The article deals with problems of management for the complicated technical systems creation according to the competitiveness criteria. It is proposed to form an analytical apparatus using the expert-analytical tools of project management, technological forecasting, investment planning, innovation management and marketing. The concept of using forecasting innovation component step to assess the competitiveness of the integral index is based on the fact that through the use of patent-innovative parameters can compensate for the lack of technical and economic. The approach, which allows on the basis of conceptual patents of the R&D project to generate indicators of novelty, technological level, the degree of legal protection and linking it with the degree of feasibility in the group indicator of innovative competitiveness. Methodology linking patent-innovation and technical and economic parameters requires a high correlation of their group competitiveness indicators, which in turn leads to a correlation with the integral indicator.
1. Bilkic, N., Gries, T. and Wim, N. A. (2013). The Radical Innovation Investment Decision Refined IZA Discussion Paper No. 7338 April 2013. Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp7338.pdf (17.12.2015)
2. Fleisher, C., Bensoussan, B. (2003). Strategic and Competitive Analysis: Methods and Techniques for Analyzing Business Competition. Prentice Hall.
3. Frietsch, R., Schmoch, U., Looy, B., Walsh, J., Devroede, R., Du Plessis, M., Jung, T., Meng, Y., Neuhausler, P., Peeters, B., Schubert, T. (2010). The Value and Indicator Function of Patents. Berlin: Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI). – Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem. Nr. 15.
4. Greenhalgh, C., Rogers, M. (2010). Innovation, intellectual properly, and economic growth. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
5. Kumar, S., Phrommathed, P. (2005). New product development: an empirical study of the effects of innovation strategy, organization learning and market conditions. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. Inc.
6. Mescon, M., Albert, M., Khedouri, F. (1998) Management / 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA.
7. Smith, G., Parr, R. (2005). Intellectual Property: Valuation, Exploitation and Infringement Damages. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
8. Smits, R., Kuhlmann, S. and Teubal, M. (2010). A System-Evolutionary Approach for Innovation Policy. In Smits, R. E., Kuhlmann, S. and Shapira, P. (Ed.), The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy: An International Research Handbook (pp. 417-448). Cheltenham (UK) and Northampton, MA (USA): Edward Elgar
9. Walsh, C. (2006). Kay management ratios: The clearest guide to the critical numbers that drive your business. 4th ed. Glasgow: FT Prentice Hall.
10. WIPO (2010). Project paper on innovation and technology transfer support structure for national institutions (Recommendation 10). Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/cdip_3/cdip_3_inf_2_study_vii_inf_1.pdf (10.11.2014)
11. WIPO (2011). Management of academic intellectual property and early stage innovation in countries in transition. Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/dcea/en/pdf/tool_1.pdf (15.12.2014).
Vorotnikov V. A. Innovative prospects evaluation as a tool of managerial efficiency increase for complicated technical systems creation [Online] // Economic Processes Management: International Scientific E-Journal. 2016. 1. Available: http://epm.fem.sumdu.edu.ua/download/2016_1/2016_1_3.pdf