The article explores typical approaches employed by Russian innovation-active companies to organize cooperation with universities in the fi eld of research and development (R&D), as well as the specifi c features of applying relevant state support measures. The empirical basis of the study consists of a survey of enterprises and a series of expert interviews conducted in 2024–2025. The fi ndings indicate that companies predominantly rely on a project-based format of collaboration, selecting partners for specifi c projects. Strategic partnerships covering a broader range of topics with several universities are less common, while institutional forms of cooperation—such as the establishment of joint thematic research centers—remain rare and are primarily characteristic of large enterprises. The study confi rms a growing trend among companies to abandon direct state support instruments (such as subsidies or grants from development institutions), including targeted measures for research and production cooperation, in favor of tools with minimal administrative costs. The analysis reveals diff erences in approaches to university collaboration and the use of support mechanisms among companies of various sizes. When selecting partner universities, enterprises tend to prefer those actively engaged in state programs and initiatives. According to business representatives, such universities possess world-class research competencies and infrastructure, which help reduce project risks and compensate for the company’s limited internal resources. This, in turn, strengthens corporate confi dence in addressing applied scientifi c problems and stimulates growth in R&D expenditures.

This research article aims to identify key factors influencing the effectiveness of university-industry research partnerships, drawing on the practices of the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology (Skoltech). Its relevance stems from the critical need to develop new instruments for leading Russian universities to achieve technological sovereignty and leadership. Methodologically, the study systematizes the macro-level context of scientific and industrial cooperation in Russia, highlighting distinctive features of Skoltech as an institution of a new type. This analysis is illustrated by two case studies of university-industry collaborations in the IT and oil and gas technology sectors. The findings indicate that Skoltech model, based on its Centers for Research, Education, and Innovation rather than traditional departments, coupled with flexible allocation of budget funds for problem-oriented research, has proven effective. It allows the university to propose commercially relevant research, moving beyond merely fulfilling existing corporate contracts. Targeted government programs and measures also provided for Skoltech crucial supplementary support for product commercialization. The novelty of the study lies in presenting Russia’s original experience with a university primarily focused on industrial research, and in detailing the mechanisms that enabled Skoltech to achieve high technology readiness levels. This article will be useful for science policy analysts, policymakers in science and technology, and leaders of universities and companies aiming to forge sustainable scientific and technological partnerships.

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.

The purpose of this study is to explore opportunities for improving the quality of the inventive process in Russian universities. The relevance of the research stems from the need to create advanced technologies based on inventive activity. The results were obtained through the analysis of data from Rospatent, academic publications, and a survey of experienced university inventors. The analysis and interpretation were carried out using literature review, expert evaluations, content analysis, and systems analysis. The study of indicators of inventive activity efficiency substantiates the necessity of supplementing them with a quality indicator. The influence of inventions of varying quality levels on industrial development was analyzed. The study identified specific features of university inventors’ activities and examined the complexity of the problems they address. It was found that most inventors focus on solving low- to medium-level problems. A comparison of methods used by university inventors with those of the Algorithm for Inventive Problem Solving (ARIZ) revealed methodological resources for improving the quality of university inventions. The paper presents a model for organizing university inventive activity aimed at enhancing invention quality. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the justification of an additional criterion for assessing the effectiveness of inventive activity and in the proposed model of university invention management, which can increase universities’ contribution to technological leadership.

The article addresses the issue of the growing patenting activity in Russia, identified as one of the key indicators in the Concept for Technological Development of the Russian Federation until 2030. The problem under discussion arises from the fact that, despite more than 30 years of the patent system’s existence, a noticeable licensing market in Russia has not yet developed. Consequently, some universities consider the formation of patent portfolios unjustified in the absence of actual licensees. According to statistics, only about 3 % of patents obtained by universities reach the market, while the contribution of universities to Russia’s overall patent activity has been increasing in recent years. This situation contradicts the target indicator of the Concept for Technological Development of the Russian Federation, which calls for a multiple increase in patent activity. To address this issue, the authors propose an approach to the formation and evaluation of university patent portfolios based on  a comprehensive consideration of explicit and implicit factors that determine the feasibility of developing inventive and patenting activities within universities. The paper presents statistics on the patent activity of leading Russian universities, a brief review of publications devoted to the development of university patenting practices, and data illustrating state policy in this fi eld. The experience of Ural Federal University (UrFU) in organizing inventive and patenting activities is analyzed in detail.

It is shown that many universities, including UrFU, when building their patent portfolios, take into account not only the potential direct commercial benefits from managing intellectual property rights, but also other factors—such as the formation of assets based on research results to ensure legal use and minimize practical risks, support for technological entrepreneurship within the university, and the promotion of engineering education. The authors suggest that these factors exert an implicit influence on commonly accepted performance indicators of universities and that their importance for institutional competitiveness will grow under the implementation of Russia’s technological development strategy.

The article examines the development of technology transfer centers (TTCs) established at Russian universities within the framework of the Priority 2030 program. The purpose of the study is to analyze the organizational structures of TTCs, their role in the commercialization of scientific research, and their interactions with university departments and external partners. The methodological basis of the study is qualitative analysis with elements of a case study, including interviews with TTC directors and an examination of regulatory documents. The paper discusses the practices of Novosibirsk State University, the National Research University Higher School of Economics, and Innopolis University. The key results include a comparative analysis of TTCs, identification of factors contributing to their effectiveness, and barriers limiting their development. The novelty of the study lies in its comprehensive approach to analyzing domestic technology transfer practices. The originality of the work stems from its emphasis on the Russian context. The findings will be useful for university administrators, policymakers in the fi eld of science and education, and researchers involved in knowledge commercialization and innovation development.

The article presents a case study of the Novosibirsk State University of Economics and Management (NSUEM) that describes the experience of designing a specialized project activity platform supporting the implementation of projects for external clients. The study includes an analysis and classification of university platforms, revealing the dichotomous nature of their purposes. Modeling the ecosystem of project activity participants at NSUEM and their interaction processes demonstrated that the foundation of a university platform should be based on the exchange of values among all ecosystem participants. The article also provides a description of the initial results from the pilot operation of NSUEM’s specialized project activity platform. This university case can serve as a useful reference for higher education institutions seeking to align their project activities with the implementation of external client projects.

The article examines the role of universities in the technological modernization of the country. Such modernization requires not only strong education and science, but also high-quality partnerships between universities and the industrial sector. The aim of the study is to analyze key indicators of university–industry cooperation in the context of Russia’s technological modernization based on the assessment of statistical data, including the volume of R&D, revenues from intellectual property, licensing agreements, the number of participants in continuing professional education programs, enterprises with contracts for training specialists, and companies serving as internship bases. Based on these indicators, a series of university clusters were identified. The research was conducted using the case of one of the leading regions of scientific and technological development in the Russian Federation – the Republic of Tatarstan. The analysis allowed the 44 universities of the region to be grouped into several clusters: leaders of technological modernization, particularly strong in R&D and showing high performance across all parameters; practice-oriented universities with strong engagement with industrial partners; research centers, leaders in intellectual activity and R&D but lagging in educational cooperation; outsiders, underperforming across all dimensions; and niche specialists, showing leading performance in one or two indicators. For each cluster, recommendations were developed to support managerial decision-making aimed at enhancing cooperation with the industrial sector. The statistical base of the study consisted of data from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation. The research methodology included comparative analysis (university benchmarking), structural and dynamic analysis (evaluation by various indicators), and cluster analysis (grouping of universities). The findings may be useful for regional authorities, universities, and enterprises in making strategic decisions.

The article analyzes the state and development of entrepreneurial education in Russian agrarian universities based on empirical data obtained through manual content analysis of the top ten agrarian universities in the country. The study focuses on entrepreneurship education programs and courses, extracurricular entrepreneurship training, and the infrastructure supporting entrepreneurial education in agrarian universities. The main results include a quantitative characterization of entrepreneurship programs and courses implemented in agrarian universities, followed by the identification of their sectoral components; an analysis of the distribution of entrepreneurship programs by fi eld; an assessment of the extent to which the courses within these programs truly develop entrepreneurial competencies, including those aligned with agribusiness requirements; an examination of the features and content of extracurricular entrepreneurship training; and an overview of the experience of building entrepreneurship education support infrastructure in agrarian universities. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the assessment of the current state of entrepreneurial education in the nation’s agrarian universities and the identification of barriers hindering its development. The article is intended for university administrators and unit heads responsible for institutional innovation, program developers, as well as researchers, educators, and experts in the fi eld of entrepreneurship development.

The purpose of this study is to defi ne the legal status of the Chief Designer and their role within the university management system. For the first time, the paper presents a review of regulatory legal acts that directly or indirectly outline individual elements of the Chief Designer’s legal status. It analyzes existing and proposed practices for introducing this position in Russian universities and formulates approaches to defining and formalizing the Chief Designer’s duties, place within the management structure, and overall functional responsibilities. The authors propose a typology of models describing the functional and role-based status of Chief Designers. It is noted that, in Russian practice, Chief Designers effectively perform the role of key researchers (Principal Investigators), which is characteristic of international research systems. The research results, presented as a “catalog” of organizational and managerial solutions, can be used by university leadership, as well as human resources and legal departments. In particular, university administrators may apply one of the authors’ proposed methods for implementing the Chief Designer (Principal Investigator) functional model in practice.