Abstract

The aim of the article. The purpose of research was to develop a method of evolutional correctness estimation of innovation object choice on basis of exploration results of the influencing factors. The results of the analysis. Increase of efficiency of innovative alternatives selection at the early stages of their development is possible in case of their verification by criterion of evolutional correctness, assessed by direction and size of change of the evolutional state and potential of development of each of the innovative system constituents (object of innovation, market and innovator) as a result of project realization. The evolutional correctness estimation of project is carried out in a certain sequence and acquires at some stages «gate» character, in particular, at the first stage – stage of estimation of innovation object choice correctness. Existing methods are based only on certain factors of choice correctness – evolutional state of the innovation object, character of related to its problems, etc. It is necessary to develop a method of system estimation of innovation object choice correctness taking into account all factors of correctness as well as their mutual impact. The analysis of reasons and manifestations of flawed choice of the innovation object proved evolutional correctness of the choice to be dependent on several factors. They are: the kind of innovation object impact on the development including its system or supersystem, on evolutional state of the innovation object in comparison with evolutional states of other constituents of the innovative system, on cost-value ratio of the innovation object and on state of resources of its further development. As a result, an indicator of evolutional correctness of innovation object choice appears to be an integral indicator, value of which is determined by values of several partial indicators reflecting each of these factors. It is proved that while the innovation object itself and the system keep a potential for development, the innovation object choice will be correct under any of below mentioned terms: the innovation object restraints the development of the system which it enters as a subsystem; the innovation object is a carrier of a the key system development contradiction; the evolutional state of innovation object is beyond the range necessary for maintaining the state of stable equilibrium of the business system, to which the innovation object belongs, or demonstrates a stable tendency to leave this range; the cost of the innovation object significantly exceeds its functional value. So far at least four partial indicators of the innovation object choice correctness reflect these terms: the indicator of limiting influence on system development; the indicator of the kind of related contradiction; the indicator of improper evolutional state ratio and the indicator of unreasonable cost-value ratio. Conclusions and directions of further researches. Assuming the content of partial indicators and their cross effect formulas for the calculation of each partial indicator as well as sets of legitimate values were proposed. The integral indicator of innovation object choice correctness is supposed to be calculated by multiplying the indicator of innovation object life cycle stage indicator by a maximal value of all other partial indicators, taking on a value from -1 to 1. If the calculated value is positive the choice correctness is considered to be acceptable and the integral indicator value is to be taken into account while estimation of evolutional risk premium in the discount rate of a project; otherwise the innovation object choice is considered to be false and related to the object project is judged as inexpedient. In general the proposed method of estimation of evolutional correctness of innovation object choice on basis of the set of indicators reflecting the corresponding factors of potential incorrectness of the choice makes it possible to find out reasonable objects for innovation and to eliminate from further development or examination innovative projects related to incorrectly chosen objects.  

Keywords: evolutional correctness, innovative project, indicator, object of innovation

JEL Classification: M20, M30, C00.

Cite as: Hlinenko, L. (2013). Indicative assessment of evolutional correctness of innovation object selection. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 4, 23-31. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2013.4-02

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Hlinenko, L.K. (2009). Metodolohichni zasady indykatyvnoi otsinki evoliutsiinoi dotsilnosti innovatsii [Methodological foundations of indicative appraisal of innovation expediency]. Mechanism Reguliuvannia Ekonomiky – Mechanism of Economics Regulation, 3 (2), 191-198 [in Ukrainian].
2. Caetano, M., & Amaral, D.C. (2013). Strategic Innovation Planning and Partnerships: Aligning Market, Products/Services, Processes and Technologies. Technology and Investment, 4 (1), 18-25 [in English].
3. Pricop, O.C. (2012). Critical aspects in the strategic management theory. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 98-107 [in English].
4. Mann, D., & Dewulf, S. (2002). Evolutionary-Potential™ in Technical and Business Systems. Journal of TRIZ, 6. Retrieved from http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2002/06/f/index.htm [in English].
5. Mann, D. L. (2004). Hands-On Systematic Innovation for Business and Management. Clevedon, UK: IFR Press [in English].
6. Mann, D.L. (2008). Systematic Software Innovation. Clevedon, UK: IFR Press [in English].
7. Zlotin, B., & Zusman, A., & Hallfell, F. (2011). TRIZ to Invent Your Future Utilizing Directed Evolution Methodology. Procedia Engineering, 9, 126-134 [in English].
8. Petrov, V. (2006). Laws of Development of needs. Journal of TRIZ, 3. Retrieved from http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2006/03/02.pdf [in English].
9. Sawaguchi, M. (2011). Innovation Activities Based on S-curve Analysis and Patterns of Technical Evolution. Procedia Engineering, 9, 596-610 [in English].
10. Shneider A., & Katsman, Ya., &  Topchishvilli, H. (2002). Nauka pobezhdat v investitsiiakh, menedzhmente i marketinhe [Science of winning in investments, management and marketing]. Moscow: OOO «Izdatelstvo AST» [in Russian].
11. Herasimov, O.M., & Petii, I.I. (2008). Tekhnolohia vypolnienia innovatsionnykh proektov po metodike G3-ID [Technology for innovation project development by methodic G3-ID, 2008]. Retrieved from http://www.gen3.ru/3605/3974/ [in Russian].
12. Cascini, G., Rotini, F., & Russo, D. (2011). Networks of Trends: Systematic Definition of Evolutionary Scenarios. Procedia Engineering, 9, 355-367 [in English].
13. Schulz, A., Clausing, D., Negele, H., & Fricke, E. (2000). Development and Integration of Winning Technologies as Key to Competitive Advantage. Systems Engineering, 3, 180211 [in English].
14. Kleiner, G.B. (Eds). (1998). Stratiehii bisnesa [Strategies of business]. Moscow: KONSEKO [in Russian].
15. Innovatsionnaia deiatelnoct malykh predpriiatii [Innovative activity of small enterprises]. Retrieved from www.dist-cons.ru/modules/innova/index.html [in Russian].
16. Illiashenko, S.M. (Eds.). (2004). Menedzhment ta marketynh innovatsii [Management and marketing of innovations].  Sumy: VTD «Universytetska knyha» [in Ukrainian].