Summary Chernysh (Институционализация государственной поддержки инноваций в России 2000-х годов кейс бизнес-инкубаторов), страница 5

Key features of the institutionalization processAt early stages, federal state support for innovation was formed on a regulatorybasis. It covered the creation of formal rules and financing of areas related to innovation.A vaguely defined term "innovation" was introduced as a core term of a new agenda. Thisintroduction, on the one hand, was a deliberate or an undeliberate political act thatfacilitated integration of various social groups. On the other hand, it hampered theunderstanding and realization of new ideas in real life. In this regard, sociopoliticallegitimacy has outpaced cognitive legitimacy, and this has created opportunities forinstitutional entrepreneurship. Institutional entrepreneurship was aimed at creatingspecific practices for technological businesses and their support, e.g.

business incubationguidelines and principles.The process of institutionalization at the regional level depends on the actions ofthe institutional entrepreneur, however they are largely predetermined by the localconditions and environment for creating a new organization, and the development pathset earlier by the regional or city community.In the generalized form, the scenario of institutionalization of state support forinnovations for our two cases can be described as follows:19Table 1The generalized scenario of institutionalization of state support forinnovations for two casesStage ofinstitutionalizationAppearance of anopportunitytoorganize the supportWhat is happening at thestageThe role of aninstitutionalentrepreneur (with thefocus on creating abusiness incubator)Which level of theinstitute itcontributes toThe political agenda related tothedevelopmentofinnovations and increase oftechnological companies at thefederal level arises.Describing the existingrequest for the support oftechnological businessesand spreading informationabout this request.NormativeFinancing for the innovationdevelopment is allocated.Conveying the idea that thedevelopment of technologyparks, business incubatorsis one of the possible waysto support the innovations.There is an interest indeveloping this area (from theprofessional community orregional authorities) at theregional level.Cultivation of theidea of innovationand technologicalcompanies’ supportThe federal agenda, localneeds and the idea oftechnologicalbusiness/innovation support combineinto a common meaning.It is substantiated, whysupporting innovations can beinterestingtoregionalofficials.Organizationalforms(technopark,businessincubator)andmethods(incubation,mentoring,sharing equipment), throughwhich innovations can besupported, are named.Creating a value-basedjustificationfortheinnovation support.Conveying the idea that thedevelopment of technologyparks, business incubatorsis one of the possible waysto support the innovations.Normative20Table 1 (cont'd)Stage ofinstitutionalizationFormation of theconcept of supportWhat is happening at thestageTheroleofaninstitutionalentrepreneur (with thefocus on creating abusiness incubator)Lobbying emergence of stateprograms that support specificorganizationalforms(technology park).Preparation of applicationsand justification for theemergenceofstateprograms.The goals of the regionalsupport for innovation (for theregion and the professionalcommunity) are formulated.Identification of additionalcommunityneeds,formation of their moredetailed description.The needs of the regionalcommunity are formulated, aswell as the specific remedies tosatisfy them.Descriptionofthenecessaryinfrastructureand rules of its operation.Under the pressure of the statesupport programs, umbrellaorganizational forms arechosen (technopark).

Theumbrella organizational formsaggregatethesupportremediesandadditionalorganizational forms withinthem (business incubator,prototyping center) that canhelp to achieve the goals bymeeting the existing needs.Specification of the functionalcontent for the selectedorganizationalformsisdescribed.Formulation of the rules ofincubation, the selection ofprojects for the incubator.Criticism and correction ofthe concepts created byofficials.Which level of theinstitute itcontributes toNormative,Cognitive21Table 1 (cont'd)Stageof What is happening at the The role of an institutionalinstitutionalizationstageentrepreneur (with thefocus on creating abusiness incubator)Which level ofthe institute itcontributes toCementingtheconcept in the rules ofa formal organizationand its unitsRegulatory(can go in parallelwith the previousstage)The created concepts acquire adocumented form consistingof the development strategies,constituent documents, andprovisions relating to theinternalworkoftheorganization.If necessary, new legal entitiesare created.Theinstitutionalentrepreneurarenotinvolved in the directbureaucratic work.Involvement of managerswho are able to structurethe work of the incubatorformally.Criticism and correction ofthe documented concepts.Launching the workof organizationsOrganizationaldecisionsregarding the construction offacilities, the launch of theinfrastructureofvariousdivisions, the recruitment ofemployees and residents areaccepted and implemented.Co-financing or searchingforopportunitiesforgovernment subsidies.Theengagementofemployees, mentors, andresidents of the incubatorthrough entrepreneurs' ownnetworks.

Participation inthe selection of employeesMonitoringimplementationproject.Routineactivitiesaimed at the supportThe program for supportingtechnology companies andprojects described in theconcept is launched.ofthetheMentoring and other workrelated to incubation ofresidents.Community development.Specific actions in theframework of the previouslydescribed support methods areinvented on the ground, in thecourse of communication withresidents, accumulation ofexperience.Normative,Cultural-cognitiveTheengagementofemployees, mentors, andresidents of the incubatorthrough entrepreneurs' ownnetworks. Participation inthe selection of employees.Cultural-cognitive222. The place of an institutional entrepreneur in the institutionalizationprocessThe role of the institutional entrepreneur could be represented both by thecollective actors (business associations) and by the individual experts.

However therepresentatives of the professional community were always involved in theinstitutionalization process.Compliance with the status expectations of incumbents associated with theconfirmation of the expert title allowed institutional entrepreneurs to take this rolelegitimately.The title of an expert was confirmed by: the specialized education, experience inrunning a technological business and/or special programs and initiatives to support it.

Theevaluation was based on the economic results of their professional activity: whether therewas a technology business, how successful it was, what contribution it made to theeconomy of the region; whether there were clear and meaningful results of theinfrastructure projects.Institutional entrepreneurs formed the normative, cognitive or cultural-cognitivelevel of the institution by their work. Institutional entrepreneurs took the least part increating a regulatory framework for the work of the new organization through fixing thecreated rules in a formalized form.The work on the regulatory framework was more typical for a collectiveinstitutional entrepreneur (two business associations in the Novosibirsk region) than forthe individual experts united in one team (St. Petersburg).

The latter became institutionalentrepreneurs accidentally rather than purposefully and did not fully realize their potentialin this role. For them, the institutionalization of rules has become a side effect oforganizing the work of the organization most efficiently.The ability of institutional entrepreneurs to form a new institution relied on thesocial skills. These were the skills to find interests and benefits for all participants in thecreation of a new organization in such a way that these interests and benefits did not runcounter to the profile activities of the technopark or business incubator.23Depending on whether the actors were independent or accountable to the federalauthorities, these motivations could be reduced to the possibility of gaining professionaladvancement, an increase in strategic vision, material resources or practical skills inmanaging of technological business in Russia.The institutional entrepreneurs' ability to invest the financial resources in theproject was not a decisive argument in the negotiation process.

This confirms that the useof social skills in the Russian case played a greater role than resources or power.The implementation of social skills was carried out through working withmeanings. It consisted of three components:1) Conveying the idea or indication that the creation of the technopark and/orincubator is one of the possible ways to support the innovation. This allowedinstitutional entrepreneurs to help the incumbents understand the new political andeconomic processes and connect the ideas of the technopark and the business incubatorwith the existing federal agenda.This has become a profitable strategy due to the existence of sociopoliticallegitimacy that endorsed the support of innovations and the development of specialorganizations associated with it.2) Specification the of idea and essence of new organizations.

Institutionalentrepreneurs turned abstract ideas about supporting innovation and the work of abusiness incubator into specific concepts of a new organization, which were laterformalized by the officials. Through this process, institutional entrepreneursformulated and highlighted certain needs and aspects of life of local technologicalentrepreneurs.3) Participation in the practical implementation of the project.

It was aninnovative decision in the process of sensemaking. This involvement allowed toexercise "author supervision" and to implement the inventions in the correct form.Leaving the project at the stage of concept formation did not allow institutionalentrepreneurs to achieve the desired result because of the specifics of the organizationscreated: reliance on the informal, loose coupling of the formal organization structureand the methods of companies’ incubation.24Trust of the potential users and experts in the business incubator work was formedthrough assessment of the degree of institutional entrepreneurs' embeddedness in theprofessional networks. The most important component of the incubator's work is the levelof expertise.