| Abstract: | Turbūt kiekvienas iš mūsų įsivaizduodami pasaulį po dešimties ar dvidešimties metų, regime keliones po kitas planetas, skraidančias mašinas, žmones aptarnaujančius robotus, bei įvairiausias išmaniąsias technologijas. Tačiau, viso to gali ir nebūti, jeigu mes nustosime skatinti inovacijų plėtrą. Inovacijų plėtra pasaulyje, tiesiogiai susijusi su šių aukštųjų technologijų gamyba. Taigi, šiame darbe pasirinkau nagrinėti inovacijų sritį, suprasdamas, jog kartu su tobulėjančiomis technologijomis tobulėja ir žmonija, todėl svarbu prisidėti prie geresnės ateities kūrimo, skatinant inovacijų plėtrą.
Lietuva 2008-2015 m. laikotarpiu, buvo viena sparčiausiai pagal inovatyvumą augančių šalių Europos Sąjungoje, tačiau pastarųjų metų tendencijos, pagal kurias Lietuvos inovatyvumas vis mažėja, verčia abejoti šalies vykdomos inovacijų plėtros ir skatinimo veiksmingumu. Todėl, mano darbe yra siekiama nustatyti ar Lietuvoje esantis teisinis reguliavimas inovacijų srityje yra veiksmingas ir sudaro palankias sąlygas inovacijų skatinimui.
Šiame Magistro darbe yra nagrinėjama: (1) bendra inovacijos samprata, bei kaip ji sukuriama, skaidant į MTEP TPL; (2) kodėl inovacijų plėtros strateginio valdymo sistema, nėra efektyvi, bei tik didina atskirtį tarp mokslo ir verslo bendruomenių; (3) kodėl mokslo ir studijų institucijų vaidmuo nepakankamas vykdant inovacijų plėtrą šalyje; (4) kodėl nėra efektyviai išnaudojama Lietuvoje sukurta inovacijų infrastruktūra; (5) kodėl valstybės parama inovacinei veiklai Lietuvoje nepritraukia įmonių ja pasinaudoti; (6) dėl kokių priežasčių naujojo tipo ikiprekybiniai pirkimai Lietuvoje nėra naudojami;
Sistemiškai išanalizavus Lietuvos Respublikos ir Europos Sąjungos teisės aktus, inovacijų plėtros skatinimo politikas, bei stebėsenos ir audito rezultatus, buvo prieita prie išvados jog, Lietuvoje esantis teisinis reguliavimas, tik iš dalies sudaro palankias sąlygas skatinti inovacijas šalyje.
Probably each of us dreams about future and imagine that in ten or twenty years, humans will be capable of traveling to other planets, drive flying cars, communicate which intelligent robots or anything else. However, this may not be available if we stop to encourage innovation in the development. The development of innovation in the world is directly related to the production of these high-techs. So, I chose this theme to examine the scope for innovation, because of the fact that technology is evolving along with the human race, therefore, it is important to contribute to a better future development, promoting the innovation of development.
The primary topic that I chose was pre-commercial procurement which was recently established in Lithuania. Pre-commercial procurement covers the entire process of innovation, and are directed to the adaptation of the innovation in the public sector. However, detailed analysis of the legal regulation of Lithuania in the field of innovation showed that innovation field is regulated by uncertainty and fragmentation, and because of dynamism in the field of innovation, where is no relevant scientific literature. For that matter, I decided that at the moment Lithuania needs the innovation policy review and it would be more appropriate to carry out a systematic analysis of the legal regulatory of innovation.
Lithuania in the period of 2008-2015, was one of the fastest growing countries in the European Union in accordance with the innovation, but the trend in recent years, according to that the Lithuanian innovation is declining, forcing the country to doubt the ongoing development and promotion of innovation. Therefore, my work seeks to determine whether the legal regulation in the field of innovation in Lithuania is effective and facilitates the promotion of innovation.
In the first chapter, I examined the general concept of innovation, and how it is created, in accordance with the R & D division of the TPL.
In the second chapter, I examined the development of a strategic innovation management system and why it is not effective and how the system is responsible for increasing the divide between the scientific and business communities.
At the moment, in Lithuania, there are vague R & D management model: the prevailing Division of MTEPI performance management between the Ministry of Education and Science and the Ministry of Economy. Both Ministries reaching for the different objectives, and that’s why there is no coherent innovation strategy developed in the State. Ministry of Education and Science is seeking to obtain more favorable conditions for innovation activities in research institutions. While the Ministry of economy is seeking to obtain more favorable conditions for enterprises, therefore, the exclusion of scientific and business has only increased.
There is also a lot of institutions which are coordinated or managed by the both of ministries. Basically, these institutions duplicate the other’s activities or functions, so the R & D activities are an unnecessary administration burden on the operators and because of the different interests of the ministries, the cooperation of science and business is limited.
In the third chapter, I examined the role of science and study institutions in Lithuanian innovation development with the purpose to answer why do the science and study have insufficient results.
Universities create and implement 97 % of new technology. However, because of the lack of knowledge of the market needs and the lack of communication with companies of interests, only half of created prototypes were commercialized. Furthermore, for the creation and commercialization of the products, universities are more likely to rely on EU funds.
Science and study institutes carry out innovation activities of low added value, i.e. not concentrated in the priority areas of the market.
In the fourth chapter, I examined why is innovation infrastructure developed in Lithuania used inefficiently. It was concluded that: Valley monitoring system is inefficient, the lack of collected and evaluated results prevents the effective exploitation on the valleys. Law regulations disturb research implementations in open access centers and research parks. According to the ministry of economy, at least 80% of the Research Park area should be rented to businesses engaged in innovation activities. However, under the existing legal framework, there is no possibility to determine whether the companies are implementing innovation activities.
In the fifth chapter, I examined why is the state aid for the R & D activities are not popular among companies: The currently proposed tax reliefs are orientated to substantially profitable operating businesses, as well as the creation of infrastructure and technical renewal. Also, the administration of these tax is too formalized, which creates additional problems for companies. That’s why companies deliberately choose not to use them. Financial support measures are also orientated to creation of infrastructure (ministry of science and education), or prototyping (ministry of economy), rather than added value-building innovation i.e. R & D commercialism.
In the last chapter, I examined the reasons why the pre-commercial procurement in Lithuania is not used more often. I have concluded that main reason for the lack of pre-commercial procurement popularity is an unsuitable Lithuania’s legislator's choice of the regulation.
After analyzing the Republic of Lithuania and European Union legislation, the promotion of innovation in the development of policies and the monitoring and audit results, it was concluded that the legal regulation in Lithuania, only partly made up of conditions favorable to the promotion of innovation in the country. |
