umjУниверситетское управление: практика и анализUniversity Management: Practice and Analysis1999-66401999-6659Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education «Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N.Yeltsin»; Non-Commercial Partnership “University Management: Practice and10.15826/umpa.2025.03.0019umj-2118Research ArticleСТРАТЕГИЧЕСКОЕ УПРАВЛЕНИЕ УНИВЕРСИТЕТАМИSTRATEGIC UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENTИнновационная активность вузов: анализ практик взаимодействия с бизнесом и государствомInnovation Activity of Universities: Analysis of Practices of Cooperation with Business and GovernmentШелепаеваА. Х.ShelepaevaA. Kh.

Шелепаева Альбина Хатмулловна – кандидат педагогических наук, доцент кафедры бизнес-информатики

125167, Москва, Ленинградский пр-т, д.49/2

Albina Kh. Shelepaeva – PhD (Pedagogy), Associate Professor of the Department of Business Informatics

49/2 Leningradsky ave., Moscow, 125167

akshelepaeva@fa.ruФинансовый университет при Правительстве РФРоссияFinancial University under the Government of the Russian FederationRussian Federation2025141220252933649Copyright © Шелепаева А.Х., 20252025Шелепаева А.Х.Shelepaeva A.K.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.umj.ru/jour/article/view/2118

Настоящее исследование сфокусировано на анализе форм кооперации университетов и бизнес-структур в сфере организации инновационной деятельности. Актуальность работы обусловлена необходимостью поиска эффективных конфигураций взаимодействия, адаптированных к современным экономическим реалиям. Целью статьи является выявление и систематизация эффективных моделей университетско-предпринимательского партнерства на основе компаративного анализа сложившихся практик в российской высшей школе. Методологический аппарат исследования включает качественный, количественный и каузальный анализ. Эмпирическую базу составили данные официальной государственной статистики и специализированных аналитико-статистических сборников за период с 2019 по 2024 год. В результате проведенного исследования была разработана типология инновационного университета, ключевым критерием которой выступил уровень интеграции с бизнес-средой и государственными институтами. В зависимости от уровня зрелости университетско-предпринимательского партнерства выделены три основные модели: предпринимательская, кластерная и экосистемная. Разработана матрица критериев оценивания этапов жизненного цикла в процессе развития стратегического партнерства. В ходе анализа идентифицированы ключевые барьеры, препятствующие эффективному взаимодействию: недостаточная вовлеченность бизнес-сообщества, дефицит экспертизы в области коммерциализации технологий и отсутствие адаптивных механизмов институциональной и финансовой поддержки. Результаты подчеркивают необходимость использования дифференцированного подхода к формированию партнерств с учетом отраслевых, экономических и институциональных контекстов. На основе эмпирических данных и кейс-анализа сформулированы практические рекомендации для оптимизации систем управления инновациями в российских университетах. Выводы исследования представляют ценность для руководителей высших учебных заведений, органов управления образованием и наукой, а также для исследователей, занимающихся проблемами инновационного развития и трансфера технологий.

This study focuses on analyzing the forms of cooperation between universities and business structures i n organizing innovation activities. The relevance of the work is determined by the need to identify effective configurations of interaction adapted to contemporary economic realities. The purpose of the article is to identify and systematize effective models of university–business partnership based on a comparative analysis of existing practices in Russian higher education. The methodological framework of the research combines qualitative, quantitative, and causal analysis. The empirical basis includes data from official state statistics and specialized analytical and statistical collections covering the period from 2019 to 2024. As a result of the study, a typology of the innovative university was developed, with the level of integration with the business environment and government institutions serving as the key criterion. Depending on the maturity of university–business partnerships, three main models were identified: entrepreneurial, cluster, and ecosystemic. A matrix of criteria was designed to assess the stages of the life cycle in the development of strategic partnerships. The analysis identified key barriers to effective cooperation, including insufficient engagement of the business community, lack of expertise in technology commercialization, and the absence of adaptive institutional and financial support mechanisms. The findings emphasize the necessity of adopting a differentiated approach to forming partnerships, taking into account sectoral, economic, and institutional contexts. Based on empirical data and case analysis, the study formulates practical recommendations for optimizing innovation management systems in Russian universities. The conclusions are valuable for university administrators, education and science policymakers, as well as researchers studying innovation development and technology transfer.

инновации в образованииинновациибизнес-партнерыинновационная активность университетовкоммерциализация исследованийпоказатели инновационной активностиReferencesEtzkowitz H. Leydesdorff L. The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 2000, vol. 29, nr 2, pp. 109–123. (In Eng.).Etzkowitz H. Leydesdorff L. The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 2000, vol. 29, nr 2, pp. 109–123. (In Eng.).Гохберг Л. М., Дитковский К. А., Коцемир М. Н. и др. Наука. Технологии. Инновации: 2022: краткий статистический сборник. М.: НИУ ВШЭ, 2022. 98 с.Gokhberg L. M., Ditkovskii K. A., Kotsemir M. N. i dr. Nauka. Tekhnologii. Innovatsii: 2022: kratkii statisticheskii sbornik [Science. Technology. Innovations: 2022, a statistical compilation]. Moscow, NIU VShE, 2022, 98 p. (In Russ.).Baldwin C. Y., Clark K. B. Architectural Innovation and Dynamic Competition: The Smaller “Footprint” Strategy, Harvard Business School Working Paper, 2006, 54 p. (In Eng.).Baldwin C. Y., Clark K. B. Architectural Innovation and Dynamic Competition: The Smaller “Footprint” Strategy, Harvard Business School Working Paper, 2006, 54 p. (In Eng.).Tidd J., Bessant J. Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change, Wiley, 2018, 557 p. (In Eng.).Tidd J., Bessant J. Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change, Wiley, 2018, 557 p. (In Eng.).Tidd J., Bessant J. Managing Innovation Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change, Wiley, 2024, 668 p. (In Eng.).Tidd J., Bessant J. Managing Innovation Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change, Wiley, 2024, 668 p. (In Eng.).Rothwell R. Towards the Fifth-Generation Innovation Process. International Marketing Review, 1994, vol. 11, nr 1, pp. 7–31. (In Eng.).Rothwell R. Towards the Fifth-Generation Innovation Process. International Marketing Review, 1994, vol. 11, nr 1, pp. 7–31. (In Eng.).Dodgson, M., Gann, D. M., Phillips, N. The Oxford handbook of innovation management, OUP Oxford, 2014, 700 p. (In Eng.).Dodgson, M., Gann, D. M., Phillips, N. The Oxford handbook of innovation management, OUP Oxford, 2014, 700 p. (In Eng.).Gokhberg L., Fursov K., Roud V. Technology measurement in statistics and beyond: reviving technological innovation concept. In: Handbook of Innovation Indicators and Measurement, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023, pp. 240–258. (In Eng.).Gokhberg L., Fursov K., Roud V. Technology measurement in statistics and beyond: reviving technological innovation concept. In: Handbook of Innovation Indicators and Measurement, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023, pp. 240–258. (In Eng.).Ольховая Т. А., Докашенко Л. В. Поиск оптимальных моделей взаимодействия университетов и работодателей: анализ результатов международного исследовательского проекта «UNILAB – от университета к рынку труда XXI века» // Современные проблемы науки и образования. 2024. № 6. С. 69. DOI: 10.17513/spno.33800.Ol’khovaya T. A., Dokashenko L. V. Poisk optimal’nykh modelei vzaimodeistviya universitetov i rabotodatelei: analiz rezul’tatov mezhdunarodnogo issledovatel’skogo proekta «UNILAB – ot universiteta k rynku truda XXI veka» [Search for the optimal models of interaction between universities and employers: analysis of the results of the international research project “UNILAB – from university to labor market of the 21st century”]. Sovremennye problemy nauki i obrazovaniya, 2024, vol. 6, pp. 69–72. (In Russ.).Смирнова С. Б., Шабанов Д. М. О трендах управленческой модели современного университета // Научный результат. Технологии бизнеса и сервиса. 2024. Т. 10, № 2. С. 115–122. DOI: 10.18413/2408-9346-2024-10-2-0-9.Smirnova S. B., Shabanov D. M. O trendakh upravlencheskoi modeli sovremennogo universiteta [On the trends in the management model of a modern university]. Nauchnyi rezul’tat. Tekhnologii biznesa i servisa, 2024, vol. 10, nr 2, pp. 115–122. doi 10.18413/2408-9346-2024-10-2-0-9. (In Russ.).Амбарова П. А., Зборовский Г. Е. Университетское управление в зеркале западной социологии высшего образования // Образование и наука. 2020. Т. 22, № 5. С. 37-66. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2020-5-37-66.Ambarova P. A., Zborovskii G. E. Universitetskoe upravlenie v zerkale zapadnoi sotsiologii vysshego obrazovaniya [University management in the mirror of Western sociology of higher education]. Obrazovanie i nauka, 2020, vol. 22, nr 5, pp. 37–66. doi 10.17853/1994-5639-2020-5-37-66. (In Russ.).Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. The Triple Helix—University-Industry-Government relations: A laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Review, 1995, vol. 14, nr 1, pp. 14–19. (In Eng.).Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. The Triple Helix—University-Industry-Government relations: A laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Review, 1995, vol. 14, nr 1, pp. 14–19. (In Eng.).Carayannis E. G., Campbell D. F. J. “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, Strategic university management-institutes in the Chinese ICT sector. Scientometrics, 2014, vol. 2009, vol. 46, nr 3/4, pp. 201–234. (In Eng.).Carayannis E. G., Campbell D. F. J. “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, Strategic university management-institutes in the Chinese ICT sector. Scientometrics, 2014, vol. 2009, vol. 46, nr 3/4, pp. 201–234. (In Eng.).Виссема Й. Г. Университет третьего поколения: Управление университетом в переходный период. М.: Издательство «Олимп-Бизнес», 2016. 432 с.Vissema I. G. Universitet tret’ego pokoleniya: Upravlenie universitetom v perekhodnyi period [Third Generation University: University Management in Transition]. Moscow, Izdatel’stvo «Olimp-Biznes», 2016, 432 p. (In Russ.).Bradley S. R., Hayter C. S., Link A. N. Models and methods of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2013, vol. 9 (6), pp. 571–650. doi 10.1561/0300000048 (In Eng.).Bradley S. R., Hayter C. S., Link A. N. Models and methods of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2013, vol. 9 (6), pp. 571–650. doi 10.1561/0300000048 (In Eng.).Kerr C. The Uses of the University. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2001, 288 p. (In Eng.).Kerr C. The Uses of the University. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2001, 288 p. (In Eng.).Chesbrough H. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2003, 227 p. (In Eng.).Chesbrough H. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2003, 227 p. (In Eng.).Martin-Rubio I., Andina-Díaz E. University knowledge-transfer offices and social responsibility. European Journal of Education, 2016, vol. 51 (1), pp. 67–78. doi 10.1111/ejed.12162. (In Eng.).Martin-Rubio I., Andina-Díaz E. University knowledge-transfer offices and social responsibility. European Journal of Education, 2016, vol. 51 (1), pp. 67–78. doi 10.1111/ejed.12162. (In Eng.).Rybnicek R., Königsgruber R. What makes industry-university collaboration succeeds? A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Business Economics, 2019, vol. 89 (2), pp. 221–250. doi 10.1007/s11573-018-0916-6. (In Eng.).Rybnicek R., Königsgruber R. What makes industry-university collaboration succeeds? A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Business Economics, 2019, vol. 89 (2), pp. 221–250. doi 10.1007/s11573-018-0916-6. (In Eng.).Ćudić B., Alešnik P., Hazemali D. Factors impacting university–industry collaboration in European countries. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 2022, vol. 11. doi 10.1186/s13731-022-00226-3. (In Eng.).Ćudić B., Alešnik P., Hazemali D. Factors impacting university–industry collaboration in European countries. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 2022, vol. 11. doi 10.1186/s13731-022-00226-3. (In Eng.).Aiello F., Cardamone P., Pupo V. New evidence on the firm–university linkages in Europe. The role of meritocratic management practices. International Review of Applied Economics, 2019, vol. 33 (5), pp. 1–16. doi 10.1080/02692171.2019.1608917 (In Eng.).Aiello F., Cardamone P., Pupo V. New evidence on the firm–university linkages in Europe. The role of meritocratic management practices. International Review of Applied Economics, 2019, vol. 33 (5), pp. 1–16. doi 10.1080/02692171.2019.1608917 (In Eng.).Salimi N., Rezaei J. Measuring efficiency of university–industry PhD projects using best worst method. Scientometrics, 2016, vol. 109 (3), pp. 1911–1938. (In Eng.).Salimi N., Rezaei J. Measuring efficiency of university–industry PhD projects using best worst method. Scientometrics, 2016, vol. 109 (3), pp. 1911–1938. (In Eng.).Xia G., Xi G., Jiancheng G. An analysis of the patenting activities and collaboration among industry–university-research Информация об авторе / Information about the author: 98(1), pp. 247–263. doi 10.1007/s11192-013-1048-y. (In Eng.).Xia G., Xi G., Jiancheng G. An analysis of the patenting activities and collaboration among industry–university-research Информация об авторе / Information about the author: 98(1), pp. 247–263. doi 10.1007/s11192-013-1048-y. (In Eng.).D’Costa A. P. Exports, university–industry linkages, and innovation challenges in Bangalore, India, available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/185661468258311681 (accessed 07.04.2025). (In Eng.).D’Costa A. P. Exports, university–industry linkages, and innovation challenges in Bangalore, India, available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/185661468258311681 (accessed 07.04.2025). (In Eng.).Hwang I. The effect of collaborative innovation on ICT-based technological convergence: A patent-based analysis. PLoS ONE, 2020, vol. 15 (2), pp. 1–20. doi 10.1371/journal.pone.0228616. (In Eng.).Hwang I. The effect of collaborative innovation on ICT-based technological convergence: A patent-based analysis. PLoS ONE, 2020, vol. 15 (2), pp. 1–20. doi 10.1371/journal.pone.0228616. (In Eng.).Valentin F., Jensen R. Effects on academia–industry collaboration of extending university property rights. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2007, vol. 32 (3), pp. 251–276. (In Eng.).Valentin F., Jensen R. Effects on academia–industry collaboration of extending university property rights. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2007, vol. 32 (3), pp. 251–276. (In Eng.).Kobicheva A. The Structures Interaction Model Of Universities And Business. In: Professional Сulture of the Specialist of the Future, vol 51, European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2018, pp. 407–415. doi 10.15405/epsbs.2018.12.02.44. (In Eng.).Kobicheva A. The Structures Interaction Model Of Universities And Business. In: Professional Сulture of the Specialist of the Future, vol 51, European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2018, pp. 407–415. doi 10.15405/epsbs.2018.12.02.44. (In Eng.).Kobicheva A., Baranova T., Tokareva E. The development of an interaction mechanism between universities and other innovation system actors: Its influence on university innovation activity effectiveness. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 2020, vol. 6, nr 4, pp. 1–20. doi 10.3390/joitmc6040109. (In Eng.).Kobicheva A., Baranova T., Tokareva E. The development of an interaction mechanism between universities and other innovation system actors: Its influence on university innovation activity effectiveness. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 2020, vol. 6, nr 4, pp. 1–20. doi 10.3390/joitmc6040109. (In Eng.).Kline S. J., Rosenberg N. An overview of innovation. In: The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth, Washington, National Academy Press, 1986, pp. 275-305. (In Eng.).Kline S. J., Rosenberg N. An overview of innovation. In: The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth, Washington, National Academy Press, 1986, pp. 275-305. (In Eng.).Chesbrough H. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press, 2003, 245 p. (In Eng.).Chesbrough H. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press, 2003, 245 p. (In Eng.).Rothwell R. Towards the fifth-generation innovation process. International Marketing Review, 1994, vol. 11, nr 1, pp. 7–31. (In Eng.).Rothwell R. Towards the fifth-generation innovation process. International Marketing Review, 1994, vol. 11, nr 1, pp. 7–31. (In Eng.).Ежегодный мониторинг деятельности организаций высшего образования [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://monitoring.miccedu.ru/?m=vpo (дата обращения: 27.06.2025).Ezhegodnyi monitoring deyatel’nosti organizatsii vysshego obrazovaniya [Annual monitoring of the activities of higher education organizations], available at: https://monitoring.miccedu.ru/?m=vpo (accessed 27.06.2025). (In Russ.).

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.