The Concept And Analysis Of Innovation And R&D

Absolute indicators of innovation over a period of time in physical terms:

5.1.1. The total number of cases of the implementation of innovative projects in a certain period of time (Т) – QIP. Theoretically, a larger number of ongoing innovative projects indicate a high activity of the organization in this direction. However, it should be noted that far from all innovative projects launched in the time period T will be brought to their logical conclusion. This leads to the need to refine the overall indicator using private indicators.

It is obvious that the duration of the time interval T, for which the level of innovative activity of the organization is estimated, should be quite long. It is proposed to use a period of 1 calendar year. This is explained not only by the length of the period sufficient to achieve a certain level of completeness (for example, traditionally for R&D, scientific and technical reports are generated exactly for a year), but also because factors that are most accurately determined for exactly 1 will participate in the calculation of relative indicators fiscal year, including revenue, financial result (profit).

A sufficient length of the period is necessary to minimize the risk of random factors in assessing the results of the implementation of innovative projects.

For example, if on a time interval of 1 (one) month (30 days) with the total number of implemented innovative projects QIP = 10 cases, the start of the work on the next project (study) occurs on the first day of the next period (although in fact the events of the past period obviously led to it: negotiations, approvals, accumulated work experience). So we can say that the level of distortion of the indicator for the total number of innovative projects carried out during the period of innovation projects (its understatement) is 10 %. If a similar situation occurs during the study of the 1 year interval, then the level of indicator distortion is 0.83 % with QIP = 120 cases.

5.1.2. The total number of cases of successfully completed implementation of innovative projects over a period of time T – Q success IP. Obviously, the level of Q success IP. should converge to the level of QIP, so the situation can be characterized positively if Q success IP ≈ QIP.

The greatest difficulties will arise with the classification of innovative projects into successful and unsuccessful. It is important that for all periods for which the analysis is carried out, the approach to determining success is the same.

5.1.3. The total number of unrealized (rejected) innovative projects in the time period T – Q rejected IP. It is obvious that this indicator in any case should tend to 0. Obviously, the sum of implemented and rejected innovative projects makes up their total number:

QIP = Q success IP+ Q rejected IP(1)

5.1.4 . The total number of cases of innovative projects that have passed from earlier periods to a period of time is Т’ – Q’IP. If the value of this indicator is different from 0, this probably indicates a not good situation in the field of work and the delay in the timing of their implementation (especially when a long time interval is selected for analysis). Naturally, it is necessary to take into account the industry specifics. Moreover, it should be ascertained how long a period of time an innovation project is being implemented. After all, if it was started in January of the previous year, but not completed, then this may indicate a delay in the implementation of the project. If the project started in December, then there is nothing suspicious that the project was not brought to its logical conclusion.

5.1.5. The total number of cases of completion of innovative projects that have passed from earlier periods Т’, through work in a period of time Т – Q’ success IP. Obviously, we can conclude that in order to ensure a normal level of efficiency in the implementation of innovative projects, it is necessary to fulfill the conditions Q’IP ≈ Q’ success IP.

5.1.6. Q’failure IP is the total number of cases of innovative projects that were at the beginning of the time interval t0 and at the end of this interval t1 inside the time period T. This is an indicator characterizing the most critical situation in the effectiveness of the implementation of innovative projects. In most cases, this will mean that the work was not carried out during the time interval T, or its effectiveness was minor.

Thus, the balance of the number of innovative projects can be represented in this way:

QIP + Q’IP = Q success IP+ Q’ success IP + Qfailure IP + Q’failure IP (2)

Absolute indicators of innovation over a period of time in value terms:

5.2.1. The costs of implementing innovative projects in the time period T is ZIP. This indicator characterizes the cost component of the ongoing work. At the same time, it is advisable to single out at least the following particular indicators from the total cost of innovation activity:

5.2.1.1. The costs of innovative projects that led to a positive result over a period of time T is Z success IP;

5.2.1.2. The costs of innovative projects that did not lead to a positive result over a period of time T is Zfailure IP. Naturally, the size of such costs should be minimized by the organization because it is unproductive costs. However, not all costs of innovative projects will bring benefits in the form of a positive effect;

5.2.1.3. The costs of innovative projects that led to the completion of work on similar projects of previous periods is Z’ success IP;

5.2.1.4. The costs of innovative projects that did not lead to the completion of work on projects launched in past periods Т’ is Z’failure IP. Naturally, the amount of such costs should also be minimized by the organization, because these are unproductive expenses, and they relate to events actualized in past periods. At the same time, a certain amount of these costs must be implemented in order to complete the innovation project. They cannot materialize into a positive outcome on their own.

It is also obvious that the balance of costs for the implementation of innovative projects will look in value terms this way:

Z_IP + Z’_IP = Z success _IP + Z’ success _IP + Z_{failure IP}+ Z’_{failure IP}(3)

Thus, the system of absolute indicators includes both indicators in physical terms and in value terms. This provides a decrease in information entropy. Using indicators from only one group does not reduce uncertainty. For example, in large corporations the number of implementation of innovative projects can amount to tens or even hundreds of cases per year. However, the costs of implementing innovative projects may be negligible, as well as work. The opposite situation is also possible, when the number of implemented innovative projects during the year is small, but their results and consequences in cost terms are very significant.

5.3. Relative indicators characterizing the implementation of innovative projects over a period of time:

In the first group of indicators it is advisable to include the coefficients, which are calculated by the ratio of various indicators characterizing innovative activity in kind and in value terms.

5.3.1. The success coefficient of innovative projects for the period calculated by the ratio of the total number of successfully implemented projects in the time period T to the total number of ongoing projects in the same time period T:

${К}_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}\text{.}}=\frac{Q_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{s}\text{IP}}}{Q_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}}$ (4)

An additional indicator to this coefficient will be the coefficient of unsuccessful innovative projects for the period:

${К}_{\text{failure}}=\frac{Q_{\text{failure IP}}}{Q_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}}$ (5)

The total value of these two coefficients is 1.

5.3.2. Integral success/failure coefficients of innovative projects, which are calculated not only taking into account their number in the time period T, but also taking into account those innovative projects whose implementation began in earlier periods T’:

${К}_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}\text{IP integ.}}=\frac{Q_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}\text{IP}}+\text{Q}{\text{'}}_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}\text{IP}}}{Q_{\text{IP}}+\text{Q}{\text{'}}_{\text{IP}}}$ (6)

${К}_{\text{failure IP integ.}}=\frac{Q_{\text{failure IP}}+\text{Q}{\text{'}}_{\text{failure IP}}}{Q_{\text{IP}}+\text{Q}{\text{'}}_{\text{IP}}}$ (7)

The total value of these two coefficients is 1 too.

The second group uses relative indicators characterizing not only innovative projects, but also the activities of the organization as a whole.

5.3.3. The average number of innovative projects per employee (including for 1 employee involved in the implementation of innovative projects) ( N _p ) during the period:

$\overline{Q_{\text{IP for 1 employee}}}=\frac{Q_{\text{IP}}}{N_p}$ (8)

The higher the value of this indicator, the more intensively employees are engaged in innovative projects.

The calculation procedure for this indicator can be improved using not the total number of employees, but only those who implement innovative projects:

$\overline{Q_{\text{IP for 1 innov. employee}}}=\frac{Q_{\text{IP}}}{N_{\text{IP.}}}$ (9)

The higher its level, the higher the personnel involved in innovative projects.

The two indicated indicators are interconnected with each other through the share of employees (D) involved in innovation in the total number of personnel during the reporting period T – D(innov. employee)

$\overline{Q_{\text{IP for 1 employee}}}=\overline{Q_{\text{IP for 1 innov. employee}}}*\mathrm{D}(\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{v}.\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e})\mathrm{}$ (10)

At the same time, D(innov. employee) calculated by the following formula:

$\mathrm{D}(\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{v}.\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e})\mathrm{}=\frac{N_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{v}.\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}\text{.}}}{N_{\text{p.}}}$ (11)

Using standard methods of factor analysis, it is possible to calculate the influence of factors on the average number of innovative projects per employee of the organization.

5.3.4. The average cost of innovation projects per 1 innovation project / successful innovation project / unsuccessful innovation project:

$\overline{Z_{\text{1 IP}}}=\frac{Z_{\text{IP}}}{Q_{\text{IP}}}$(12)

$\overline{Z_{\text{1 success IP}}}=\frac{Z_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}\text{IP}}}{Q_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}\text{IP}}}$ (13)

$\overline{\text{Z}{\text{'}}_{\text{1 success IP}}}=\frac{Z_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}\text{ИП}}+\text{Z}{\text{'}}_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}\text{IP}}}{Q_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}\text{ИП}}+\text{Q}{\text{'}}_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}\text{IP}}}$ (14)

$\overline{Z_{\text{1 failure IP}}}=\frac{Z_{\text{failure IP}}}{Q_{\text{failure IP}}}$ (15)

$\overline{\text{Z}{\text{'}}_{\text{1 failure IP}}}=\frac{Z_{\text{failure IP}}+\text{Z}{\text{'}}_{\text{failure IP}}}{Q_{\text{failure IP}}+\text{Q}{\text{'}}_{\text{failure IP}}}$ (16)

It is also advisable to conditionally divide these indicators into two groups:

- indicators calculated according to data on innovative projects for the reporting period of time T;

- indicators, the calculation of which takes innovative projects that started in earlier periods T ’, but not completed until period T.

A feature of the indicators of this group is that they are represented by standard deterministic models, which makes it possible to conduct a factor analysis of the dynamics of the relevant indicators. For example, using the method of absolute differences, we illustrate the procedure for determining the influence of 2 factors on the level of costs for the implementation of innovative projects:

$\Delta Z_{\Delta Q_{\text{IP}}}=\Delta Q_{\text{IP}}*\overline{Z_{\text{1 IP 0}}}$ (17)

$\Delta Z_{\Delta \overline{Z_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}}}=\Delta \overline{Z_{\text{IP}}}*Q_{\text{IP 1}}$ (18)

In a similar order, the influence of factors on the resulting indicator is analyzed in the framework of other models described above.

An appropriate set of absolute and relative indicators helps to find out the quantity and quality of innovative projects during the period, what were its changes.

3.5. The share of costs for innovative projects (including for each type of cost: for successful innovative projects / unsuccessful innovative projects) in the total cost of manufacturing products, performing work and providing services, for example:

$\text{Share}{\text{Z}}_{\text{success IP}}\text{в}{\text{Z}}_{\text{manufacturing}}=\frac{Z_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}\text{IP}}}{Z_{\text{manufacturing}}}$ (19)

Obviously, in most cases this indicator will be different from 0 (if the organization implements innovative projects). The question is what should be its optimal level. In our opinion, there is no single recommended level. The sets of ongoing innovative projects in specific organizations are different. However, it is obvious that the organization needs a situation where there is a fairly high level of correlation between the amount of work and the cost of implementing innovative projects on the one hand, and the level of cost of production on the other hand. In our opinion, a high correlation between these indicators may indicate the stable work of the organization in implementing innovative activities. It helps to more accurately calculate the budget for relevant events.

On the contrary, a low correlation indicates the lack of systematicity in the management of innovation and the randomness of events. This can have negative consequences for the organization. Thus, the primary task of the organization is to achieve a stable level of the considered ratios and to ensure a reduction in the level of costs in other economic indicators of the organization.

Naturally, the corresponding indicators can be calculated not only by indicators of the costs of production, services, work, but also by the revenue of the organization (V) or the financial result of its activities (P):

$\text{Share}{\text{Z}}_{\text{success IP}}\text{в V}=\frac{Z_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}\text{IP}}}{V}$ (20)

$\text{Share}{\text{Z}}_{\text{success IP}}\text{в Р}=\frac{Z_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}\text{IP}}}{Р}$ (21)