Do I need to create a Russian Huawei?
The Russian state is actively engaged in the development of the IT industry. Working development institutions have been established - Skolkovo, RVK, IIDF, numerous venture funds. On the whole, I have a positive attitude towards these initiatives; my company has used the state’s assistance in one form or another several times.
However, it should be understood that the assistance of these development institutions can only not very significantly (maximum - twice) speed up the development of a particular IT company. Figuratively speaking, a person cannot go to space with their help. But, as I understand it, the state now wants from the industry a fast technological breakthrough in order to import IT solutions in those industries that are critical to national security.
Why do I think that a breakthrough cannot be achieved with modern development institutions? Because all of them, to one degree or another, are trying to create a western venture capital infrastructure on Russian soil. And it is very good for investors who are not well versed in what and who exactly should be given money, and therefore put at the center only objective market indicators of projects. Therefore, to attract money in the venture infrastructure can only be established companies, and only on market conditions. To create a major project from scratch with the help of modern development institutions is unrealistic. It is clear why such principles are applied — in this way the state is protected from corruption risks and perpetual motion projects, i.e. from meaningless pulling away budget money. Therefore, if the government is set up for a slow, but systematic and progressive development of the IT industry, then the current approach to creating development institutions should be recognized as correct.
')
However, if the government still needs a breakthrough in specific IT sectors, compensating for the lag behind the West, then, I think, it needs to act a little differently. We can recall the experience of innovations in military times, when, in 3 months, military aircraft traveled from a sketch drawing to the first flight. How did you manage to do this? The goal was clear - to make a plane with such characteristics and reliability indicators, and it was clear exactly what people in our country could create it. The same way, but for the creation of telecommunications equipment, not so long ago, they passed in China - the state created Huawei, which was tasked with making a company that would produce products similar to Cisco, and, according to rumors, people were involved in solving this problem previously engaged in the development of Cisco products. The task was successfully solved, and now Huawei is the world's largest company with an income of $ 40 billion, which is only a quarter less than its prototype.
Therefore, for a breakthrough in some areas, the state needs to clearly define a goal that should be achieved (for example, the creation of a competitive manufacturer of telecommunications equipment and software with a global market share of at least 5% in a 5-year perspective). Under this task, you need to attract a team with the necessary experience and give it money on non-market conditions, but at the same time tightly control the process of achieving the goal. Part of the money the company can spend on domestic development, part on the purchase of Russian companies in its industry, part - on marketing and sales worldwide. After the goal is achieved, it will be necessary to transfer the management of the company back to the traditional standards of corporate governance in order for the company to work under completely market conditions - they are better suited for the life of a company that will seek new goals for its development.
If you choose this way to support innovation, it is important to understand that there should not be many (no more than 3-5) projects funded in this way, otherwise the risks of misuse of funds will be high. Such projects, by the way, will make the existing development institutions more efficient - Skolkovo, RVK, IIDF, etc. Venture investors say that the main problem for them is a few exits. Outside the Internet industry (where Yandex and Mail.RU exist), there are no large high-tech companies, so Russian start-ups created for venture money cannot be bought. Therefore, the creation of several large IT companies with development centers in Russia will complete the construction of a “food chain” for the Russian venture capital market.
However, it should be understood that the assistance of these development institutions can only not very significantly (maximum - twice) speed up the development of a particular IT company. Figuratively speaking, a person cannot go to space with their help. But, as I understand it, the state now wants from the industry a fast technological breakthrough in order to import IT solutions in those industries that are critical to national security.
Why do I think that a breakthrough cannot be achieved with modern development institutions? Because all of them, to one degree or another, are trying to create a western venture capital infrastructure on Russian soil. And it is very good for investors who are not well versed in what and who exactly should be given money, and therefore put at the center only objective market indicators of projects. Therefore, to attract money in the venture infrastructure can only be established companies, and only on market conditions. To create a major project from scratch with the help of modern development institutions is unrealistic. It is clear why such principles are applied — in this way the state is protected from corruption risks and perpetual motion projects, i.e. from meaningless pulling away budget money. Therefore, if the government is set up for a slow, but systematic and progressive development of the IT industry, then the current approach to creating development institutions should be recognized as correct.
')
However, if the government still needs a breakthrough in specific IT sectors, compensating for the lag behind the West, then, I think, it needs to act a little differently. We can recall the experience of innovations in military times, when, in 3 months, military aircraft traveled from a sketch drawing to the first flight. How did you manage to do this? The goal was clear - to make a plane with such characteristics and reliability indicators, and it was clear exactly what people in our country could create it. The same way, but for the creation of telecommunications equipment, not so long ago, they passed in China - the state created Huawei, which was tasked with making a company that would produce products similar to Cisco, and, according to rumors, people were involved in solving this problem previously engaged in the development of Cisco products. The task was successfully solved, and now Huawei is the world's largest company with an income of $ 40 billion, which is only a quarter less than its prototype.
Therefore, for a breakthrough in some areas, the state needs to clearly define a goal that should be achieved (for example, the creation of a competitive manufacturer of telecommunications equipment and software with a global market share of at least 5% in a 5-year perspective). Under this task, you need to attract a team with the necessary experience and give it money on non-market conditions, but at the same time tightly control the process of achieving the goal. Part of the money the company can spend on domestic development, part on the purchase of Russian companies in its industry, part - on marketing and sales worldwide. After the goal is achieved, it will be necessary to transfer the management of the company back to the traditional standards of corporate governance in order for the company to work under completely market conditions - they are better suited for the life of a company that will seek new goals for its development.
If you choose this way to support innovation, it is important to understand that there should not be many (no more than 3-5) projects funded in this way, otherwise the risks of misuse of funds will be high. Such projects, by the way, will make the existing development institutions more efficient - Skolkovo, RVK, IIDF, etc. Venture investors say that the main problem for them is a few exits. Outside the Internet industry (where Yandex and Mail.RU exist), there are no large high-tech companies, so Russian start-ups created for venture money cannot be bought. Therefore, the creation of several large IT companies with development centers in Russia will complete the construction of a “food chain” for the Russian venture capital market.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/225805/
All Articles