The article identifies the main groups of innovation factors in accordance with the results of the analysis of innovative development programs from oil and gas industry that ranked in the top ten by the Ministry of Economic Development, based on the results of an independent assessment of the quality of their actualization. By their generalization and juxtaposition with the main concepts of modern strategic analysis, the innovation development navigator has been developed that allows to identify the key factors of innovative development, showing the main interdependencies between them and the connection with the achievement of the financial result of the company. It is shown, that the application of the approach that explains the high profits of oil and gas companies by natural resource rent protected with the subsoil use rights does not provide a systematic understanding of the real factors of efficiency and effectiveness under innovative development. Compiled on the basis of a resource-oriented approach to strategic analysis, the navigator allows, along with key resources, to take into account such important factors of innovative development as production technologies, individual competencies and innovations which implement the new methods of organization and management. Special attention is paid to the consideration of dynamic capabilities and absorption capacity, which are widely represented in the programs of innovative development of this group of companies. In the light of the findings, the problem of protecting the results of innovation on the corporate level is wider than the rights to use natural resources and intellectual property, is discussed. Protection of competitive advantages stemming out of the development of key innovative factors depends both on legal mechanisms and the presence of economic and technological barriers that protect the effect of companies investing in innovative development.
References
1. URL: https://www2.usgs.gov/newsroom/article_pf.asp?ID=1911.
2. Shiffrin R.M, Nosofsky R.M., Seven plus or minus two: a commentary on capacity limitations, Psychological Review, 1994, no. 2, pp. 357–361.
3. URL: http://open.gov.ru/upload/iblock/7fd/7fd031324fb3f4d471b9e8241c7ee08a.pdf.
4. Rogova E., Dupont analysis of the efficiency and investment appeal of Russian oil-extracting companies, Proceedings of 8th International Scientific Conference Business and Management, Vilnius, 2014, pp. 165–171.
5. Henderson J., Grushevenko E., Russian oil production outlook to 2020, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, 2017, Oxford: University of Oxford, URL: https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Russian-Oil-Production-Outlook-to-2020... (data obrashcheniya 05.09.2017).
6. Tis D.Dzh., Pizano G., Shuen E., Dynamic capabilities and strategic management (In Russ.), Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Seriya 8. Menedzhment, 2003, V. 4, pp. 133–185.
7. Cohen W, Levintal D., Absorptive capacity – a new perspective on learning and innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990, V. 35, no. 1, pp. 128–152.
8. Karlik A.E., Platonov V.V., Cross-industry spatially localized innovation networks (In Russ.), Ekonomika regiona = Economy of Region, 2016, no. 4, pp. 1218–1232.
9. Zahra S., George G., Absorptive capacity: A Review, reconceptualization, and extension, Academy of Management Review, 2002, V. 27, no. 2, pp. 185–203.
10. Rumelt, Richard P., Towards a strategic theory of the firm: edited by Lamb R., Competitive Strategic Management, 1984, pp. 556–570.
11. Bergman J.-P., Knutas A., Jantunen A., Tarkiainen A., Luukka P. Karlik A., Platonov V., Strategic interpretation on sustainability issues: Eliciting cognitive maps of boards of directors, Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 2016, no. 1, V. 16, pp. 162–186.
