How does Russia Innovation Collaborative define its role in the emerging Russian innovative system? What is this role?
Synthia: All partners in Russia Innovation Collaborative used to work in different areas before creating a company together. Our practical experience of working at U.S. innovation centers demonstrates that not all cities and regions can become the second Cambridge or Silicon Valley. At some point we realized that we had learnt the lessons that we could share, i.e. lessons on how to do things right. Realizing that there were significant challenges to innovations in Russia, we understood that our experience gained in the USA and Europe would be most useful here. Now we see that Russia is open to joint effort aimed at finding right solutions, and we are glad.
Daniel: Having found out about changes in Russia, we started cooperating with the Russian regions and sharing experience of innovative ecosystem construction. Then we started developing specific tasks for projects that we could implement. We do not attempt to impose our model or demand that it be accepted. We use different methods working with each region, in order to develop joint solutions to the existing problems. As a group, we unite several directions. I have worked for over 20 years in startups in Russia. Chris has been one of the founders of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce. Synthia possesses diverse and profound experience in business, having worked within companies to arrange their relations with UK. The major advantage of our startup is our ability to pursue practical tasks.
Chris: I met Daniel in 1999, when I lived in Moscow. We always discussed the fact that experience gained in Russia was unique. Living in Moscow and Saint-Petersburg, I maintained contacts with directors of many Western companies. We decided that we both had these unique relations and we could unite our experience and share it.
What knowledge, necessary to implement projects in Russia, do you lack?
Daniel: No foreigner will ever comprehend all complexities of Russia, but if we establish right partnership relations with our local colleagues, then it would be a fair exchange of knowledge.
Synthia: The only thing that I can add is that major work in the course of transition towards innovative ecosystem consists in creating entrepreneurial culture.
The knowledge about innovative economy is not formed at once; this is a long process of model creation and finding tags for what is going on. Usually this can be done if you are educated, if you form part of the scientific school and use a certain scientific approach. Where do you plan to get this knowledge? Whose text do you plan to rely upon? Or is it unimportant?
Daniel: We pay sufficient attention to models, we understand them. Many people say that innovations are at the interface of things. That is why we, using models, find ourselves at the interface between academicians and practitioners.
Synthia: Working with Michael Porter, I realized that a model must be used, because what lies on the shelf is not working.
Does participation in decision-making at the regional level guarantee that your work will not be put on the shelf?
Daniel: We work with decision-makers, thus following the top-down path. If there are institutions that resort to the bottom-up approach and can evaluate our work, then yes, there may be another way. However, small groups cannot function in a different manner. We have three spheres of work. The first deals with consultations to governmental structures. The second concerns assistance to universities in developing innovative programs. The third is market advice for private companies. These three spheres enable us to diversify our business.
Comments