Northwestern Management Institute, RANEPA, St. Petersburg, Russia

I. B. Sergeev, Professor, Сhair for Management, Doctor of Economics, e-mail: sergeev-ib@ranepa.ru

The article considers the current problem of improving the management efficiency of enterprises and organizations engaged in research and development in the context of achieving technological sovereignty. The following research methods were used: intellectual capital theory, cost-benefit analysis, and management analysis. It is shown that the state’s efforts to achieve technological sovereignty through financing research and development will not yield the desired result if enterprises do not move to a qualitatively new level of managing their assets, primarily intellectual capital. It is assumed that the state will limit itself to partial financing of technological development, and businesses will need to find the remaining resources, including knowledge and competencies, on their own. The thesis is substantiated that increasing the innovative activity of enterprises, which involves increasing their own costs for research and development (R & D), is associated with solving the problem of transforming the created intangible assets into financial ones. A classification of the results of labor of employees of an industrial enterprise is proposed, dividing them into material, intellectual basic and intellectual advanced. It is shown that the standard methodology for assessing research and innovation projects, based mainly on monetary indicators, and therefore the efficiency of enterprise management, does not reflect indirect, non-monetizable results and effects, which include a significant part of the results of intellectual activity. When assessing these projects, it is proposed to take into account the impact of their implementation on the intellectual capital of the enterprise. At the first stage, it is advisable to partially use the methodology developed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) for calculating the global innovation index (GII), which is based on the balance model and includes the minimum required indicators of costs and output. At the second stage, it is necessary to move on to the full use of the Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) method, which allows operating with both monetary and non-monetary indicators.

1. Order of the Government of the Russian Federation of May 20, 2023. No. 1315-r. Available at: https://rospatent.gov.ru/content/uploadfiles/technological-2023.pdf (accessed: 03.02.2025).
2. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 15, 2023 No. 603. Available at: http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001202304170025?ysclid=m8n6bcarlf761055498 (accessed: 03.02.2025).
3. North K., Kumta G. Knowledge management. Value creation through organizational learning. 2^nd edition. Springer, 2018. 364 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-59978-6
4. The Russian Economy in the context of new challenges: from adaptation to development: report. Edited by M. Yu. Golovnin, E. B. Lenchuk. Moscow : Institute of Economics of the RAS, 2023. 132 p.
5. Gokhberg L. M., Ditkovsky K. A., Kotsemir M. N., Kuznetsova I. A. et. al. Science. Technologies. Innovation: 2025: a brief statistical collection. Moscow : Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, Higher School of Economics, 2025. 104 p. DOI: 10.17323/978-5-7598-3026-9
6. On the long-term scientific and technological development of Russia: monograph. Edited by D. R. Belousov and I. E. Frolov. Moscow : Dinamik print, 2022. 168 p. DOI: 10.47711/sr3-2022
7. Edler J., Blind K., Frietsch R., Kimpeler S. et al. Technology sovereignty: from demand to concept. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI). Karlsruhe, Germany, July 2020. DOI: 10.24406/publica-fhg-300409
8. Edler J., Blind K., Kroll H., Schubert T. Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy. Defining rationales, ends and means. Research Policy. 2023. Vol. 52, Iss. 6. 104765. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2023.104765
9. Dinu E. Exploring the effect of intellectual capital management on innovativeness in a R&D Institute. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy. 2022. Vol. 10, Iss. 3. pp. 225–238. DOI: 10.2478/mdke-2022-0015
10. Mukaro C. T., Deka A., Rukani S. The influence of intellectual capital on organizational performance. Future Business Journal. 2023. Vol. 9. 31. DOI: 10.1186/s43093-023-00208-1
11. Akmalia A., Muharam H. Intellectual capital and companies’ sustainable growth: evidence from Indonesia. E3S Web of Conferences. 2024. Vol. 571. 03007. DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/202457103007
12. Komnenic B., Njegic J. Measurement of intellectual capital: theoretical and empirical framework. School of Business. 2019. Vol. 2. pp. 130–159. DOI: 10.5937/skolbiz2-25185
13. Ratapol Wudhikarn. The hybrid intellectual capital valuation method. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja. 2021. Vol. 34, Iss. 1. pp. 2115–2134. DOI: 10.1080/1331677X.2020.1860798
13. Florio M., Forte S., Pancotti C., Sirtori E., Vignetti S. Exploring costbenefit analysis of research, development and innovation infrastructures: an evaluation framework. Preprint European Investment Bank Institute. February
2016. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327396058_EXPLORING_COST-BENEFIT_ANALYSIS_OF_RESEARCH_DEVELOPMENT_AND_INNOVATION_INFRASTRUCTURES_AN_EVALUATION_
FRAMEWORK (accessed: 12.02.2025).
15. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Global innovation index 2024: unlocking the promise of social entrepreneurship. Geneva : WIPO, 2024. 326 p. DOI: 10.34667/tind.50062
16. Jardon C. M., Martinez Cobas X. Emerging economies and investment in intellectual capital in crisis time: The case of Russia. Russian Journal of Economics. 2023. No. 9(1). pp. 57–70. DOI: 10.32609/j.ruje.9.81283
17. Sergeev I. B. Economic assessment of the technological effect in the implementation of research and innovation projects. Ekonomicheskoe vozrozhdenie Rossii. 2024. No. 3 (81). pp. 105–117.