Достижение технологического суверенитета через несвязанную диверсификацию государственных корпораций: опыт ГК «Росатом»

Эволюционируя, компании сталкиваются с необходимостью искать новые ресурсы для инноваций — основы долговременной конкурентоспособности. Потенциальные возможности, как правило, лежат в зонах с высоким уровнем неоднозначности и рисков. Навигация по ним требует прохождения сложного когнитивного квеста — налаживания организационной амбидекстрии, означающей сочетание двух трудно сочетаемых стратегических действий. Наряду с обеспечением устойчивой эффективности текущих производственных процессов, необходимо вести постоянную разведку ценных активов в незнакомых измерениях. Это становится особенно актуальным в меняющемся геополитическом контексте, в котором страны сталкиваются с закрытием или трансформацией сложившихся ресурсных пространств. Технологическая самодостаточность приобретает статус ключевого приоритета в национальных стратегиях. Исследуется тема наращивания внутристранового технологического потенциала для достижения самодостаточности, раскрывается картина возникающих кооперационных конфигураций. Анализируется сущность наиболее подходящей для этих целей бизнес-модели — несвязанной диверсификации и ее ключевого инструмента — организационной амбидекстрии. Приводится обзор инициатив разных стран и компаний, использующих эти механизмы в стремлении достичь технологического лидерства в новых условиях. Особое внимание уделено анализу достижений российской госкорпорации «Росатом» в реализации модели несвязанной диверсификации с точки зрения вклада в повышение технологического суверенитета страны.

1. Файков Д. Ю., Байдаров Д. Ю. (2020). Оценка возможностей и перспектив диверсификации деятельности государственных корпораций в рамках современных организационно-технологических тенденций (на примере атомной отрасли) // МИР (Модернизация. Инновации. Развитие). Т. 11, № 2. С. 179—195. https://doi.org/10.18184/2079-4665.2020.11.2.179-195

2. Andreasson M., Karabag S. F., Simonsson J., Agarwal G. (2024). Dynamics of related and unrelated digital diversification in established firms: Strategies, programs, process, and outcomes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 202, article 123300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123300

3. Andriopoulos C., Lewis M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 696—717. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406

4. Arthur W. B. (2007). The structure of invention. Research Policy, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 274—287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.11.005

5. Bianconi G., Richard K., Darst R. K., Iacovacci J., Fortunato S. (2014). Triadic closure as a basic generating mechanism of communities in complex networks. Physical Review, Vol. 90, No. 4, article 042806. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.90.042806

6. Binz C., Anadon L. D. (2018). Unrelated diversification in latecomer contexts: Emergence of the Chinese solar photovoltaics industry. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Vol. 28, pp. 14—34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.03.005

7. Boschma R., Minondo A., Navarro M. (2013). The emergence of new industries at the regional level in Spain: A proximity approach based on product relatedness. Economic Geography, Vol. 89, No. 1, pp. 77—96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2012.01170.x

8. Caliari T., Ribeiro L.C., Pietrobelli C., Vezzani A. (2023). Global value chains and sectoral innovation systems: An analysis of the aerospace industry. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Vol. 65, pp. 36—48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2023.02.004

9. Ceipek R., Hautz J., De Massis A., Matzler K., Ardito L. (2021). Digital transformation through exploratory and exploitative internet of things innovations: The impact of family management and technological diversification. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 142—165. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12551

10. Chen Y. (2017). Dynamic ambidexterity: How innovators manage exploration and exploitation. Business Horizons, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 385—394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.01.001

11. Christensen C. M., Alton R., Rising C., Waldeck A. (2011). The new M&A playbook. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 89, No. 3, pp. 48—57.

12. Crespi F., Caravella S., Menghini M., Salvatori C. (2021). European technological sovereignty: An emerging framework for policy strategy. Intereconomics, Vol. 56, No. 6, pp. 348—354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-021-1013-6

13. De Lucio J., Díaz-Mora C., Mínguez R., Minondo A., Requena F. (2023). Do firms react to supply chain disruptions? Economic Analysis and Policy, Vol. 79, pp. 902—916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2023.07.004

14. Doz Y. (2011). Qualitative research for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp. 582—590. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2011.18

15. Eisenhardt K. M., Martin J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 10—11, pp. 1105—1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11%3C1105::AID-SMJ133%3E3.0.CO;2-E

16. Draghi M. (2024). The future of European competitiveness. Brussels: European Commission.

17. Fischer B., Meissner D., Boschma R., Vonortas N. (2024). Global value chains and regional systems of innovation: Towards a critical juncture? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 201, article 123245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123245

18. Frenken K., Van Oort F., Verburg T. (2007). Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional Studies, Vol. 41, pp. 685—697. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400601120296

19. Fritsch S. (2011). Technology and global affairs. International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 27—45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2010.00417.x

20. Fuest C., Gros D., Mengel P. L., Presidente G., Tirole J. (2024). EU innovation policy: How to escape the middle technology trap. EconPol Policy Report, April.

21. Garg S., Sushil S. (2022). Impact of de-globalization on development: Comparative analysis of an emerging market (India) and a developed country (USA). Journal of Policy Modeling, Vol. 44, No. 6, pp. 1179—1197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2022.10.004

22. Gershman M., Bredikhin S., Vishnevskiy K. (2016). The role of corporate foresight and technology roadmapping in companies’ innovation development: The case of Russian state-owned enterprises. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 110, pp. 187—195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.018

23. Gopinath G., Gourinchas P. O., Presbitero A., Topalova P. B. (2024). Changing global linkages: A new cold war? IMF Working Paper, No. 2024/076. https://doi.org/10.5089/9798400272745.001

24. Hausmann R., Hidalgo C. A. (2011). The network structure of economic output. Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 16, pp. 309—342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-011-9071-4

25. He Z. L., Wong P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 481—494. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078

26. Irwin K., Gilstrap C., Drnevich P., Sunny M. (2022). The acquisition of capabilities: How firms use dynamic and ordinary capabilities to manage uncertainty. Journal of Management & Organization, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 564—586. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2022.23

27. Kim J., Lee C. Y., Cho Y. (2016). Technological diversification, core-technology competence, and firm growth. Research Policy, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 113—124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.07.005

28. Lambert L. A., Tayah J., Lee-Schmid C., Abdalla M., Abdallah I., Ali A. H., Ahmed W. (2022). The EU’s natural gas Cold War and diversification challenges. Energy Strategy Reviews, Vol. 43, article 100934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2022.100934

29. Lavie D., Stettner U., Tushman M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 109—155. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416521003691287

30. Lee K., Qu D., Mao Z. (2021). Global value chains, industrial policy, and industrial upgrading: Automotive sectors in Malaysia, Thailand, and China in comparison with Korea. European Journal of Development Research, Vol. 33, pp. 275—303. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-020-00354-0

31. Lin H. E., Hsu I. C., Hsu A. W., Chung H. M. (2020a). Creating competitive advantages: Interactions between ambidextrous diversification strategy and contextual factors from a dynamic capability perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 154, article 119952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119952

32. Lin K. J., Lu X., Zhang J., Zheng Y. (2020b). State-owned enterprises in China: A review of 40 years of research and practice. China Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 31—55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjar.2019.12.001

33. Ljubownikow G., Ang S.H. (2020). Competition, diversification and performance. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 112, pp. 81—94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.002

34. March C., Schieferdecker I. (2023). Technological sovereignty as ability, not autarky. International Studies Review, Vol. 25, No. 2, article viad012. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad012

35. March J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 71—87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71

36. Meyer C. B. (2001). A case in case study methodology. Field Methods, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 329—352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X0101300402

37. Morris T., Wood S. (1991). Testing the survey method: Continuity and change in British industrial relations. Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 259—282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017091005002007

38. O’Reilly C. A., Tushman M. L. (2011). Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit. California Management Review, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp. 5—22. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.53.4.5

39. Park S. A. (2023). Shifted paradigm in technonationalism in the 21st century: The influence of global value chain (GVC) and US—China competition on international politics and global commerce — A case study of Japan’s semiconductor industry. Asia and the Global Economy, Vol. 3, No. 2, article 100063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aglobe.2023.100063

40. Pidun U., Reeves M., Schüssler M. (2020). Why do most business ecosystems fail? Boston, MA: Boston Consulting Group. Piekkari R., Plakoyiannaki E., Welch C. (2010). “Good” case research in industrial marketing: Insights from research practice. Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 109—117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.04.017

41. Pinheiro F.L., Hartmann D., Boschma R., Hidalgo C.A. (2022). The time and frequency of unrelated diversification. Research Policy, Vol. 51, No. 8, article 104323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104323

42. Pohle J. (2020). Digital sovereignty. A new key concept of digital policy in Germany and Europe. Berlin: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.

43. Rahman M. F. B. A. (2020). The intersection of emergent technologies and geopolitics. RSIS Working Paper, No. 327-20. Singapore: Nanyang Technological University.

44. Rosing K., Frese M., Bausch A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership— innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 956—974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014

45. Saviotti P. P., Frenken K. (2008). Export variety and the economic performance of countries. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 18, pp. 201—218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-007-0081-5

46. Sharma A., Adhikary A., Borah S. B. (2020). Covid-19’s impact on supply chain decisions: Strategic insights from NASDAQ 100 firms using Twitter data. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 117, pp. 443—449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.035

47. Teece D. J., Pisano G., Shuen A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 7, pp. 509—533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:73.0.CO;2-Z