The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Page 231
conversion program, which has funding of about $80 million annually,
was having difficulty attracting good proposals from within the
Minatom complex. Of special concern is the lack of attention to the
development of long-term customer bases in parallel with the
development of new or improved commercial technologies.
The overall status of the economy is obviously important in
determining the likely success of small firms. In recent months the
economic indicators for Russia show that the situation has stabilized
and is indeed improving. Clearly, increased world prices for oil have
been a major factor in this gradual turnaround. As to the future,
there is no reason to believe now that the situation will soon
deteriorate.
There was a consensus that technoparks can provide important pathways
for marketing the products of research activities. While the position
of each firm is rather unique, two general principles concerning
technoparks emerged. First, technoparks should have the capacity to
expand as new firms are born and old firms find new customers. Second,
technoparks should only accept firms that have a reasonable chance for
market success. While technoparks can provide secure space,
communications infrastructure, and sometimes advisory services, they
cannot change the basic technical capabilities and customer
orientation of a firm.
Tensions that exist within Russia concerning privatization of
technological activities that have roots in government facilities were
apparent during the discussions. Many officials and managers within
the Minatom complex seem to believe that technologies developed within
a Minatom facility should be commercialized by the facility and not
handed off to a private firm that has its own profit motivations.
Others argue that only through privatization efforts will technologies
be brought to the marketplace at an affordable cost without the
benefit of government subsidies. Two approaches were cited in
attempting to reduce this tension. In Sarov, the All-Russian
Scientific-Research Institute of Experimental Physics (VNIIEF) has
established a daughter company that serves as a holding company for
several granddaughter companies, with VNIIEF retaining from 10 to 80
percent ownership interest in the latter firms. In Obninsk, the
Institute for Physics and Power Engineering (IPPE) has spun off
technologies to private firms with negotiated agreements concerning
compensation to IPPE for its technological contributions. An
assessment of the successes of these approaches would seem
appropriate.
Another area of major concern was the almost exclusive focus of both
the Russian research institutes and the Department of Energy programs
on “technology push,” whereby technologies are developed
and then customers are sought. No examples were cited of the research
institutes responding to “market pull,” or indeed of even
consulting with potential customers prior to developing technologies
intended for the commercial marketplace. However, the three small
innovative firms the Western