Ijmet 10 01_127

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1251 editor@iaeme.com
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET)
Volume 10, Issue 01, January 2019, pp. 1251-1262, Article ID: IJMET_10_01_127
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&IType=01
ISSN Print: 0976-6340 and ISSN Online: 0976-6359
© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed
MANAGEMENT OF INNOVATIVE
DEVELOPMENTS OF EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS IN WORLD AND RUSSIAN
PRACTICE
Tatiana Viktorovna Krupa
GlobalLab, Ltd, Moscow, Russian Federation
ABSTRACT
The relevance of the study is determined by the fact that a higher education institution
allows for the implementation of innovative research based on its own development and
management of intellectual activity. In order to determine the possibility of managing
innovative developments, it is advisable at the university to integrate the system of
intelligent control and form an innovation management body.
The novelty of the research is determined by the fact that for the first time in the
domestic practice a question is being investigated regarding the intellectual management
of higher education institutions as well as the forms of integration of innovative activity.
Higher education institutions in various countries allow us to determine how innovative
forms can be implemented in a managerial aspect, depending on the capabilities of the
university and its technological focus. Each of the participants in innovation requires
constant monitoring and coordination of various bodies. In this regard, it is necessary to
clearly understand how to organize a particular activity in the framework of inter-
university cooperation.
Methodologically, the article is based on the study of historical and theoretical
experience, as well as a set of parameters, which are determined based on the general
conditions for the formation of management decisions.
The practical applicability of the article is revealed in the direction of the activity to
increase the share of innovative products, both technological and intellectual, in the
practical activities of the university.
Keywords: Management, Innovative developments, Structure, Promotion, Higher
education institutions, Russia.
Cite this Article: Tatiana Viktorovna Krupa, Management of Innovative Developments of
Educational Institutions in World and Russian Practice, International Journal of
Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 10(01), 2019, pp.1251–1262
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&Type=01

1. INTRODUCTION
Today in the Russian Federation there is an imbalance in innovative development, which is
characterized, in particular, by the discrepancy between the high innovative potential of higher
education institutions and the indicators of its implementation in RIA (results of intellectual
activity) commercialization, including small innovative enterprises created at universities [1].
Barriers to effective commercialization of RIA remain at the level of innovative development
of social and economic systems: the lack of an integrated innovation chain of RIA transfer with
the corresponding effective economic component from the position of the theory of open
innovations (universities -transfer of innovative developments created at small innovative
enterprises at the University and transformation of RIA into competitive products and services –
transfer of innovative developments to commercial organizations of various sectors of the
economy); the lack of comprehensive methodological support for the process of activities
monitoring aimed at the introduction of innovative developments into practical use; uncertainty
in the interaction of scientific, educational and production space; the lack of business
administration of the innovative profile of high-tech developments in the relevant areas of
commercialization, the system of market niches search through the demanded areas of their use
[2]. In this regard, there is a growing need for the development of theoretical and methodological,
scientific and practical base in the field of establishment and implementation of the RIA of
universities commercialization mechanism, covering its components, tools for implementation in
practical use of generated innovative developments, directions of their practical use [3].
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. C. Dahlborg, D. Lewensohn, R. Danell and C. J. Sundberg
Universities are structurally included in the research sector of the national innovation system in
article by C. Dahlborg, D. Lewensohn, R. Danell and C. J. Sundberg [4] — a subsystem of
knowledge generation, interacting with the public, private sector and the service sector.
2.2. C. Zagel, L. Grimm and X. Luo
Among the key elements of the national innovation system in article by C. Zagel, L. Grimm and
X. Luo [5] it is also necessary to note venture capital, small innovative enterprises, innovation
infrastructure, territorial economic clusters, regional innovation systems, public sector.
2.3. M. Lind and K. Barner
A distinctive feature of the universities activity in the national innovation system in article by M.
Lind and K. Barner [6] is their complex interaction with all the elements outlined above.
2.4. A. Francesconi and C. Dossena
Modern practice of implementation of innovative activity by universities in article by 2.4. A.
Francesconi and C. Dossena [7] emphasizes multi-level integrative (network) interaction in the
national innovation system, ensuring the effectiveness of the innovation process.
2.5. K. Gonchar and B. Kuznetsov
The essence of the models of universities functioning in the context of integrative interactions is
to describe the relationships of participants in innovation processes in article K. Gonchar and B.
Kuznetsov [8] including universities, at each stage of creating a knowledge-intensive, high-tech,
innovative product. At the same time, economists attach great importance to the interaction of
industrial structures and universities engaged in the development of high technologies, the

Management of Innovative Developments of Educational Institutions in World and Russian Practice
introduction of new technologies for production based on the achievements of fundamental and
applied science.
2.6. R. Moloney and H. L. Xu.
One of the main tasks of universities in this interaction is the generation of new knowledge and
the initiation of innovative projects based on them in article by R. Moloney and H. L. Xu [9].
2.7. Abramov
For example, the triple helix model conceptualizes the entrepreneurial and innovative potential
of the University and substantiates [10] the possibility of its implementation in the framework of
inter-organizational interactions "science-state-business" [11], contributing to the generation of
innovative component. In the model the "tetrahedron" University innovation infrastructure is a
"laboratory base" [12] for the training of professionals able to participate in innovation activities
in their areas of expertise.
Empirical and theoretical experience of the scientific community in the field of innovative
processes study influenced the further study of the science and practice integration and the
creation of theoretical models of universities integration interactions, revealing the features of
cooperation of institutions of knowledge economy in innovative ecosystems, leading to the
activation of innovation using innovative mechanisms.
2.8. A. N. Khorin, Y. M. Potanina and A. V. Brovkin
It should be noted that modern universities are an innovative scientific and entrepreneurial
complex, which carries out the following activities and their respective functions [1]:
• educational activities – perform training and qualification functions, the additional
and continuous education [1];
• R & D implementation (research and development) - research and intellectual function
[2];
• business activity - economic function;
• innovation activity - the function of innovation;
• strategic planning and forecasting is a function of long-term planning.
2.9. Features of the functioning of modern universities
Foreign and domestic researchers and economists distinguish the following features of the
functioning of modern universities, formed under the mutual influence of the existing conditions
and trends in the development of science, technology and innovation [13]:
• central participation in the transfer of generated knowledge and technology to
production and services;
• implementation of business management models that form an open and flexible
organizational and management structure and contribute to the strengthening of the
University's management core;
• regional distribution of educational "campuses" of the University;
• increasing importance of the economic function of the University, based on
comprehensive entrepreneurial culture development, solving the problems of
commercialization of RIA;

• the development of innovative activities of the University with the creation of an
appropriate innovation infrastructure, including a belt of small innovative enterprises,
which allows us to characterize the University as an innovative and entrepreneurial;
• functioning of the University in systems of different levels and nature (regional
system of transfer of knowledge and technology, innovation ecosystem, system of
scientific and technological complex, socio-economic system of the region and the
state as a whole, the system of world economic space, etc.);
• close interaction and cooperation of universities with the public sector, production and
services;
• development of interdisciplinary connections in the implementation of innovation
activities which resulted from the need to implement joint innovation projects in
different fields of science;
• changes in the structure of sources of financing of innovation activities with a
predominance of the share of private investors;
• focus on fundamental research that are included in the list of promising research areas
and allow us to create a scientific and technical reserve, possible for practical use in
the future;
• high degree of integration in the global scientific, educational and economic system;
• making a contribution to regional economic development;
• active involvement of young scientists and students from other countries;
• positioning and leadership in certain areas of research;
• active participation of universities in the formation of independent expert
communities.
Summing up the above, it should be noted that the presented models refer to the new
innovative models of development of universities that use administrative, intellectual, financial,
material, labor resources and participate in innovative processes in society [8]. The generalized
model of modern universities functioning emphasizes the implementation of their educational,
research and economic activities, and also has the objects of innovation infrastructure in its
structure [14]. Thus, the University builds models for training specialists, which are aimed, on
the one hand, at the preparation and production of generations of innovators, on the other hand,
at the production of innovative ideas and products for different sectors of the economy [15]. At
the same time, these features of the modern University functioning emphasize the need to solve
the problems of generated innovative solutions transfer (technologies) as well as their
commercialization [16].
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The theoretical and methodological basis of the study is the scientific works of domestic and
foreign scientists on the transfer and implementation in practical use of RIA, in particular, the
establishing and implementation of mechanisms of RIA commercialization. The work also used
applied developments in the field of innovative activity organization in universities, small
innovative enterprises created at universities, departments for the implementation of intellectual
activity results. Methodological basis of the study were system, process and integrated
approaches to the study and modeling of social economic phenomena. Such methods were used:
generalization, analysis and synthesis, schematization, structuring and modeling, comparison and
grouping, scientific abstraction, expert assessments. In the study of economic processes and
phenomena also methods of financial and economic analysis, statistical methods, functional
modeling methodology were used.

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS
One of the generalizing relative indicators of the commercialization of IPO at the state level is
the "Share of cash proceeds from the sale, licensing of IPO in the total amount of trade
operations." [17] The dynamics of this indicator in the rating "Global innovation index" for 2014-
2018 is presented in table 1.
Table 1. Dynamics of changes in the indicator "Share of cash receipts from sales, IPO licensing in the
total amount of trade operations, %" in some countries of the world according to the rating “Global
innovation index”
Name of the
country
The rating for considered
indicator in 2018
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Changes
compared to
2014, +/– %
USA 1 5.08 5.13 5.10 5.09 5.00 -1.6
Japan 1 3.31 3.53 3.98 4.71 5.00 33.8
Sweden 1 2.85 2.60 3.68 4.21 3.40 16.2
Switzerland 1 4.99 7.15 4.13 3.82 4.40 -13.4
Finland 1 3.51 3.55 3.16 2.9 3.20 -9.7
Germany 16 0.80 1.06 0.82 0.94 1.20 33.3
Republic of
Korea
15 0.54 0.63 0.75 1.04 1.20 55.0
Singapore 17 0.31 0.38 0.58 0.69 1.10 71.8
Israel 19 1.25 1.07 0.55 0.87 1.00 -25.0
Russia 41 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.22 0.20 35.0
A significant impact on the positive results of registration of security documents on the results
and their practical use has a qualitatively executed application [16]. The analysis of statistical
data in the field of effectiveness of research and development allows to indirectly assess the
quality allocated for the consideration of applications through the indicator "Share of patents
granted in the total volume of the submitted applications" (table 2).
For the period from 2011 to 2017, the average value of the share of granted patents in the
total volume of applications filed by Russian applicants was 0.81. The average value of the share
of granted patents in the total volume of applications filed by foreign applicants was 0.75. On
average, 23% of applications submitted by Russian applicants are returned for revision or
rejected. Despite the presence on the Rospatent official website of quite capacious and complete
information on the filling of the patent application, for many inventors, including universities, it
is difficult to navigate in the field of patent business due to lack of experience and time, especially
among young researchers, due to the complexity of the process.

Table 2. Share of granted patents for inventions in the total volume of applications filed in the Russian
Federation
Name of indicator 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Number of applications submitted, total 41 414 44 211 44 914 40308 45 517 41 587 53 584
including Russian applicants 26 495 28 701 28 765 24 072 29 269 26 795 36 192
foreign applicant 14 919 15 510 16 149 16 236 16 248 14 792 17 392
Patents granted, total 29 999 32 880 31 638 33 950 34 706 34 283 48 367
including Russian applicants 20 339 22 481 21 378 23 065 22 560 21 054 31 607
foreign applicant 9660 10 399 10 260 10 885 12 146 13 229 16 760
Share of granted patents in total volume of
submitted applications
0.72 0.74 0.70 0.84 0.76 0.72 0.90
Share of patents granted in the total amount of
applications filed by Russian applicants
0.77 0.78 0.74 0.96 0.77 0.79 0.87
Share of granted patents in total volume of
submitted applications by foreign applicants
0.65 0.67 0.64 0.67 0.75 0.89 0.96
The complexity of the application for registration of IPO due to the specifics of the activities
for the implementation of R&D (compliance with the sequence of filling in the documents, the
implementation of formal requirements, competent preparation of the rationale for the practical
applicability of the new development), of course, causes difficulties for the inventor [18]. The
existence of problem at the stage of filling in an application for registration of intellectual
property is also results from the lack of sufficient information base for the inventor in the field of
patents, active promotion and "propaganda" of scientific activity in universities, lack of interest
in it from talented young people. In terms of access to international markets, there are also
difficulties: financial, legal, organizational. Patent activity of domestic applicants abroad is
extremely low. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 2016, the
top three in the number of patent applications PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) includes the
United States, Japan, China. The list of leading countries in 2016 in terms of indicators "Number
of PCT patent applications (Patent Cooperation Treaty)", "Share of patent applications from the
global indicator" is in table 3. It should be noted that the patent activity at the international level
of some universities in the world is also noted in the WIPO annual report.
Table 3. List of leading countries in 2016 by indicators "Number of PCT patent applications (Patent
Cooperation Treaty)", "Share of patent applications from the global indicator»
№
п/п
Name of the
country
Number of patent applications
(Patent
Cooperation Treaty)
Share of patent applications
from
Universities, %
Number of PCT patent
applications
1 USA 56 595 7.3 4122
2 Japan 45 239 2.3 1019
3 China 43 168 4.1 1785
4 Germany 18 315 2.3 414
5 Republic of korea 15 601 8.2 1277
6 France 8208 2.9 240
7 Britain 5496 8.6 473
8 Netherlands 4679 2.9 136
9 Switzerland 4365 3.5 154
10 Sweden 3720 0 0
11 Russia 1037 0.3 3
The classical innovation chain, which determines the order of research and implementation
of their results on the market, includes the following components: basic research - search and
applied research - scientific and technical (developmental-implementational) developments in

practical use of RIA — production of products and services, cooperation of initiators of
commercialization of RIA — distribution to consumers [19]. Despite the apparent linearity of the
chain, the sequence of implementation of innovative processes is not linear, since research and
development typically are based on the actual technological development, research and
production sectors and, therefore, are influenced by the needs of the society's current needs. The
source of innovation processes is the "consumer market", which is characterized by the
complication of existing products and services, the growth of their knowledge intensity.
Therefore, on the one hand, it is very important to conduct high-quality fundamental and
subsequent research (exploratory and applied research), as it gives a broader idea of the potential
of technology and direct business opportunities for business. On the other hand, the results of R
& D should have some potential for demand and competitiveness in the implementation of
products and services based on them, to meet the needs of society. The low level of demand and
implementation in the practical use of RIA universities of the Russian Federation is justified in
tables 4-6.
Another important criterion for determining the problem areas of commercialization of RIA
universities of the Russian Federation is the presence of factors conducive to the development of
innovation. The emergence of competitive technologies and knowledge-intensive products and
services is the result of the complex interaction of various actors of innovation in the market. It
seems to us that institutional factors (high role of the state, institutions of development (support),
investors, including venture capital, in the process of commercialization of RIA), the
development of regulatory, information, investment and business environment are the factors
conducive to the development of innovation.
To determine the state of the factors conducive to the development of innovative activity in
the Russian Federation, let us turn to the world practice of measuring and evaluating innovations.
As indicators of innovative development, as a rule, a set of indicators is proposed. One example
of such measurement is the determination of the implementation of innovation rating (innovation
index) for the countries of the world according to the methodology proposed jointly by the World
intellectual property organization, Cornell University in the USA, the French research Institute
INSEAD (The Global Innovation Index – GII). In general, the dynamics of the complex indicator
the "Global innovation index" of the Russian Federation for the period from 2011 to 2018 is
positive. However, there is a gap between the groups of indicators "Potential (resources) of
innovation", "Development of technologies and knowledge economy" and "Efficiency of
innovation" (table 4).
Table 4. Dynamics of indicators "Global innovation index" of the Russian Federation (according to the
position in the rating)
Rating years
Name of the indicator
Final rating
Potential
(resources) of
innovation
The development of technology and the
knowledge economy
Innovation efficiency
2011 59 34 75 56
2012 60 32 84 51
2013 52 48 101 62
2014 56 45 69 49
2015 52 49 60 48
2016 44 47 49 43
2017 43 51 75 45
2018 43 56 77 46
Absolute change
over the period
–16 –22 –2 –10
The improving of the
position
The deterioration of the position
The deterioration of the
position
The improving of the
position

It should be noted that the impact of University activities on the innovative development of
countries is indicated in the ranking of "Global innovation index" through indicators such as
"Scientific cooperation of universities with industry", "Ranking of the best universities in the
world". According to the first indicator, there is no significant improvement (table 5), the final
rating on the factor-component "Innovative relations" in 2018 also amounted to a low position of
the Russian Federation.
Table 5. Ranking of the Russian Federation in terms Of "Scientific cooperation of universities with
industry", "Ranking of the best universities in the world"
Rating years
Scientific cooperation between universities and
industry (rating)
Ranking of the best universities in
the world
2011 55 -
2012 72 -
2013 83 25
2014 62 25
2015 65 25
2016 65 27
2017 44 25
2018 41 22
Average value
for the period
60,9 24,8
Institutional factors (political situation, legal framework, business environment) are among
the factors proposed in the rating, which have an impact on the implementation of innovation
activities of countries.
The need to develop technological entrepreneurship and innovative business is also the main
criterion for determining the problem areas of commercialization of RIA universities of the
Russian Federation. The participation of entrepreneurial initiatives in the process of introducing
RIA to the market, the implementation of business processes and the survival of more successful
enterprises in the field of high-tech innovations are considered as the main driving forces of
economic renewal. Therefore, the development of technological entrepreneurship is recognized
as the main aspect of technological progress and effective implementation and commercialization
of RIA.
The generalized structural and logical model of commercialization of RIA of universities
covers not only the initiatives of higher education institutions in terms of introducing RIA to the
market, but also entrepreneurial initiatives that Refine the results and organize on their basis
knowledge-intensive production [20]. According to the Federal state statistics service of the
Russian Federation, the share of innovative entrepreneurship in the structure of small business is
extremely small. The share of small enterprises implementing technological innovations in the
total number of small enterprises in 2017 amounted to 5.2%, respectively. The same low values
are observed in the indicator "Share of innovative goods, works and services in the total volume
of shipped goods, performed works and services of small enterprises". In 2017, the value of the
indicator was 1.6%. In the practice of foreign countries, the innovative component of small
enterprises is much higher. For example, in Germany, the average share of small innovative
businesses in the total number of industrial enterprises is 62%, in France – 38%, Norway – 49%,
the share of innovative small business structures among EU companies is 38.1%, in OECD
countries, the share of business structures engaged in technological innovations, for the entire
population of organizations averages 27.7%.

To date, support for entrepreneurial initiatives in the field of technology introduction to the
market, the sector of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), is one of the strategic
objectives [21]. The development of technological entrepreneurship is recognized as a major
aspect of technological progress. The study showed that the Russian Federation has sufficient
potential for the development of high-tech entrepreneurship, as evidenced by the data of Rosstat
(table 6).
Table 6. Share of high-tech and high-tech industries in the gross domestic product of the Russian
Federation
Years 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Proportion, % 21.2 21.4 22.5 22.8 24.4 22.8 19.6 20.1 21.0 21.6 21.3 22.0
The average value over the period,
%
21.8
Special attention should be paid to such direction of investment activity as venture
investment, which has a positive impact on the performance of technological entrepreneurship.
Recently, the development of venture capital as a tool for the commercialization of RIA has
become widespread [22–24]. According to the annual report "Global innovation index 2017" the
number of transactions for venture capital investment in total amounted to 13 703 agreements.
Table 7 shows a comparative rating of some countries in the world on the indicator “Number
of transactions on venture capital investments per 1 trillion rubles. GDP” The five leaders in the
2018 ranking in terms of the "Number of transactions for venture capital investment, accounting
for $ 1 billion. GDP (at purchasing power parity)" was represented by Canada, Israel, USA,
France, Finland [25, 26].
Table 7. The Number of deals in venture capital investment per $ 1 billion. GDP (in terms of purchasing
power parity) according to the rating “Global innovation index 2018”
Name of the
country
The number of transactions for
venture capital investment accounted
for $ 1 billion. GDP
Rating by indicator
"The number of transactions for
venture capital investments per 1
trillion rubles. GDP»
Canada 0.5 1
USA 0.4 1
Finland 0.3 1
Israel 0.3 1
France 0.3 1
Britain 0.2 5
Sweden 0.2 8
Netherlands 0.1 10
Switzerland 0.1 13
Singapore 0.1 14
Germany 0.1 19
China 0.1 22
Russia 0.01 71
Taking into account the study, we identify the problem areas of commercialization of RID
universities of the Russian Federation and its neutralizing factors. The problem areas of

development and implementation of innovative potential of universities are caused by the
following reasons:
• the predominance of government measures to stimulate research activities, rather than
innovation and investment;
• lack of entrepreneurial initiatives motivation in commercialization of innovative
developments of universities;
• low participation of industrial enterprises in technological innovation and
commercialization of RIA;
• lack of a stable framework environment that provides space and incentives for the
development of innovative high-tech entrepreneurship to facilitate the bilateral
exchange of knowledge between the research and practical solutions sector
(manufacturing sector);
• the focus of the patent and legal system of the Russian Federation only on accounting
and registration of IPO;
• at the stage of filling the application for the IPO registration there is no assessment of
its commercial potential;
• barriers to entry into international markets due to lack of financial resources;
• low competitiveness of the received innovative developments in terms of
substantiation of commercial application of the future technology due to the lack of
business administration of the innovation profile of RIA;
• lack of interest in practice-oriented inventive activity on the part of researchers.
5. CONCLUSION
The basis of economic relations, which determines their character, is constituted by property
relations, which are social relations concerning the appropriation and use of economic goods. The
economic content of the institution of property is revealed through subject-subject relations about
the appropriation-alienation of resources.
Such assignment-alienation occurs in the process of their production, distribution
(redistribution), exchange and consumption not only by the subjects of the right of ownership
(legal entities and individuals). We are talking about all the subjects of social relations (economic,
legal, political, social and others).
This is due to the fact that a prerequisite for economic activity is the consolidation of the
factors of production and the products of labor for a certain, separate economic entity. Therefore,
as an object of economic relations, the RIA must first of all be the object of property relations.
Traditionally, property relations are usually distributed only to objects of the material world.
From a practical point of view, this is explained by the natural, historically established
understanding that connects the concept of ownership with a thing, and a material thing.
However, as the above analysis of the RIA shows, acting both as a factor of production and
as a commodity, intangible goods are also objects of economic relations, and they perform the
same functions as material goods in production and exchange.
In this regard, it should be noted that, as for the material, for non-material benefits, there must
objectively be economic relations, the essence and content of which are very similar to the
relations of ownership of tangible objects. However, the intangible nature of the RIA has some
influence on the nature of these relations, affecting both their content and, accordingly, the form.
In the practical activities of universities this theoretical conclusion has gained a particular
importance relatively recently, with the entry into force in 2009 of Federal Law No 217. This law

is often, but not quite correctly, called an analogue of the American law of Bay-Dole. Federal
Law No 217 does not oblige, but only gives higher education institutions of the Russian
Federation the opportunity to use the results of RIA by contributing to the authorized capital of a
commercial organization (economic company), the purpose of which is the practical application
(introduction) of these RIAs.
• limiting the size of the share (and, accordingly, the contribution) of the university in
the authorized capital (more than 25% for a joint stock company and more than 1/3
for a limited liability company);
• the ability to transfer a limited set of rights to the RID to the created society: only the
right to use is transferred;
• conclusion of a sublicensing agreement is impossible;
• the exclusive right to the RID remains for the university-founder.
FUNDING STATEMENT
Applied research described in this paper is carried out with financial support of the state
represented by the Russian Federation Ministry for Education and Science under the Agreement
#14.576.21.0100 of 26 September 2017 (unique identifier of applied research -
RFMEFI57617X0100).
REFERENCES
[1] Khorin, A. N., Potanina, Y. M., Brovkin, A. V. Sector non-profit organizations in the
management of socio-economic systems. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues,
20(Special issue 1), 2017.
[2] Khorin A. N., Potanina Y. M., Brovkin A. V. Management Economic Environment of Non-
profit Organizations. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 9(2(32)), 2018.
[3] Bresinsky, M. and von Reusner, F. GLOBE — Learn and Innovate Digitization by a Virtual
Collaboration Exercise and Living Lab. In: A. L. Brooks, E. Brooks, & N. Vidakis, Eds.,
Interactivity, Game Creation, Design, Learning, and Innovation Cham: Springer International
Publishing, 2018, pp. 273–281.
[4] Dahlborg, C., Lewensohn, D., Danell, R. and Sundberg, C. J. To invent and let others
innovate: a framework of academic patent transfer modes. The Journal of Technology
Transfer, 42(3), 2017, pp. 538–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9490-7
[5] Zagel, C., Grimm, L. and Luo, X. Method Cards -- A New Concept for Teaching in Academia
and to Innovate in SMEs. In: T. Z. Ahram, Ed., Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Software
and Systems Engineering. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 230–241.
[6] Lind, M. and Barner, K. Allow the Whole Supply Chain to Innovate. In Finance Unleashed:
Leveraging the CFO for Innovation Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 17–
21. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66370-8_4
[7] Francesconi, A. and Dossena, C. Intersecting Technical Knowledge, Marketing Experience
and Customer Activities to Innovate. In: M. Snene, Ed., Exploring Services Science Berlin.
Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 350–360.
[8] Gonchar, K. and Kuznetsov, B. How import integration changes firms’ decisions to innovate.
The Annals of Regional Science, 60(3), 2018, pp. 501–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-
015-0697-6
[9] Moloney, R. and Xu, H. L. Taking the Initiative to Innovate: Pedagogies for Chinese as a
Foreign Language. In: R. Moloney & H. L. Xu, Eds., Exploring Innovative Pedagogy in the
Teaching and Learning of Chinese as a Foreign Language Singapore: Springer Singapore,
2016, pp. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-772-7_1
[10] Abramov, R., Sokolov, M., Surilov, M. and Morozov, I. The simulation of the development
of innovation systems in the countries-participants of the union state. International Journal
of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 9(7), 2018, pp. 1112-1119.

[11] Abramov, R. A. and Sokolov, M. S. Current challenges and competitive advantages of
national innovation systems (NIS) of the countries-participants of the union state up to 2030.
Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 8(4), 2017, pp. 1031-1039.
doi:10.14505/jarle.v8.4(26).01
[12] Abramov R. A. Regional economic policy based on industrial sector clustering in the context
of sustainable development. Research Journal of Pharmaceutical, Biological and Chemical
Sciences, 2, 2016; pp. 2100-2106.
[13] Khorin A. N., Potanina Y. M., Brovkin A. V. Legal Regulation of Socially-Oriented Legal
Technique. Utopía y praxis latinoamericana, 23(82), 2018, pp. 423–431.
[14] Cui, L. Research on Cultivating Innovate Thinking of Environment Art Students. In: C. Liu,
J. Chang and A. Yang, Eds., Information Computing and Applications Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 332–337.
[15] Kroeber, A. China’s Push to Innovate in Information Technology. In: L. Jakobson Ed.,
Innovation with Chinese Characteristics: High-Tech Research in China London: Palgrave
Macmillan UK, 2007, pp. 37–70. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230591929_2
[16] den Bergh, J., Thijs, S. and Viaene, S. Using New Digital Technologies to Innovate Business
Processes and Create Customer Value: An Interview with Prof. Stijn Viaene. In:
Transforming Through Processes: Leading Voices on BPM, People and Technology Cham:
Springer International Publishing, 2014, pp. 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03937-
4_1
[17] Innes, J. Why Enterprises Can’t Innovate: Helping Companies Learn Design Thinking. In: A.
Marcus, Ed., Design, User Experience, and Usability. Theory, Methods, Tools and Practice
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 442–448.
[18] McCuddy, M. K. and Pirie, W. L. Willingness to innovate. In: M. K. McCuddy, H. van den
Bosch, W. B. Martz, A. V Matveev and K. O. Morse, Eds., The Challenges of Educating
People to Lead in a Challenging World Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2007, pp. 149–168.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5612-3_8
[19] Eckartz, S., van den Broek, T. and Ooms, M. Open Data Innovation Capabilities: Towards a
Framework of How to Innovate with Open Data. In: H. J. Scholl, O. Glassey, M. Janssen, B.
Klievink, I. Lindgren, P. Parycek, … D. Sá Soares, Eds., Electronic Government Cham:
Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 47–60.
[20] García-Fontes, W. Incentives to innovate: A survey. In: Incentives for Research,
Development, and Innovation in Pharmaceuticals Madrid: Springer Healthcare Iberica, 2011,
pp. 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-84-938062-7-9_2
[21] Hirosue, S., Kera, D. and Huang, H. Promises and Perils of Open Source Technologies for
Development: Can the ``Subaltern’’ Research and Innovate? In: S. Hostettler, E. Hazboun
and J.-C. Bolay, Eds., Technologies for Development Cham: Springer International
Publishing, 2015, pp. 73–80.
[22] Klein, A. S. and Chapekar, M. S. Innovate America: The Technology Innovation Program at
NIST. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 15(4), 2009, pp. 293–300.
https://doi.org/10.1057/jcb.2009.11
[23] Lenger, A. and Taymaz, E. To innovate or to transfer? In U. Cantner & F. Malerba, Eds.,
Innovation, Industrial Dynamics and Structural Transformation: Schumpeterian Legacies
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, pp. 303–319.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-49465-2_16
[24] Plantes, M. K. To Stop Sales from Selling on Price, Innovate Your Business Model. In: C. L.
Campbell, Ed., Marketing in Transition: Scarcity, Globalism, & Sustainability Cham:
Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp. 38.
[25] Wambugu, F. M. Africa’s Fight for Freedom to Innovate and the Early Signs of Embracing
Biotechnology Especially Genetically Modified (GM) Foods. In: L. S. Privalle, Ed., Women
in Sustainable Agriculture and Food Biotechnology: Key Advances and Perspectives on
Emerging Topics Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 125–133.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52201-2_8

[26] Somboonsong, J. P. How to Innovate in Knowledge Management. Fudan Journal of the
Humanities and Social Sciences, 10(4), 2017, pp. 573–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-
017-0187-6

Ijmet 10 01_127

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (10)

Similar to Ijmet 10 01_127

Similar to Ijmet 10 01_127 (20)

More from IAEME Publication

More from IAEME Publication (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ijmet 10 01_127