American Journal of Applied Science and Technology
55
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajast
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue 04 2025
PAGE NO.
55-60
10.37547/ajast/Volume05Issue04-14
Problems of Formation and Evolution of The
Terminological Base of Innovation Activity
Khamdamova Gavhar Absamatovna
Doctor of Economics, Professor, Tashkent State University of Economics, Uzbekistan
Received:
26 February 2025;
Accepted:
22 March 2025;
Published:
25 April 2025
Abstract:
The article examines the essence of the concept of “innovation” and highlights the methodological
aspects of innovation process management. In the near future, the competitiveness of any country's economy will
be determined by the degree of participation of both the public and private sectors in the formation and
development of the national innovation system. The key factor will be the selection of priority industries capable
of ensuring sustainable growth of the global economy and acting as an engine for increasing productivity in various
fields of activity. At the same time, it is important that government policy takes into account the interests of all
sectors of the economy. Unilateral focus on the areas included in the structure of the sixth technological order will
not lead to the desired results without the parallel spread of innovative approaches to other spheres of society.
Keywords:
Innovation, innovative development, innovative sustainability, the evolutionary aspect of innovation
theory.
Introduction:
At the current stage of the national economy’s
development, the key condition for the successful
implementation of large-scale reforms is the transition
from a commodity-export-oriented model to an
innovative, knowledge-based one [1,3]. In this context,
the analysis and generalization of international practice
in the field of clarifying and developing the conceptual
framework related to innovation can significantly
enrich both the scientific and applied level of
integration development in this area. The task of
systematizing and comprehending the already
accumulated knowledge is of particular importance,
since it allows for more efficient use of existing
resources, the potential of which can be disclosed only
within the framework of an integrated approach and a
clearly structured algorithm of actions. An important
place in this process is occupied by the analysis and
elimination of obstacles hindering innovative
development in order to minimize their negative
impact [4]. To date, the conditions for creating
universal and flexible models of best practices based on
cluster methodology have not yet been fully formed,
although this area has high potential and arouses
considerable scientific interest. It is the desire to
explore this aspect that has become decisive in
choosing the goals and objectives of this study.
METHODOLOGY
The research work was based on scientific publications
by foreign authors related to innovation management,
as well as legislative and other regulatory documents.
The data of scientific and practical events organized on
this topic also played an important role in the
formation of the methodological base. A systematic
approach and methods of logical, comparative and
statistical analysis were used to analyze and solve
research problems.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Serious
difficulties
in
the
organization
and
methodological support of innovation management at
all levels of the economy are largely due to the lack of
a generally accepted approach to defining concepts
such as “innovation”, “innovation”, “innovation” and
“innovation”. The variety of interpretations
of these
terms makes it necessary to clarify and systematize
them. In addition, there are still open questions
regarding the development of a system for assessing
and measuring the state, level and real effect of the
implemented innovative changes [5]. Nevertheless, the
American Journal of Applied Science and Technology
56
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajast
American Journal of Applied Science and Technology (ISSN: 2771-2745)
term “innovation” has long occupied a stable place in
scientific discourse and is widely used in practice.
Initially, the word “innovation” appeared in the cultural
sphere and denoted the process of transferring cultural
elements from one environment to another. It was
used to describe new phenomena in a language or a
situation where a certain phenomenon characteristic
of one cultural area penetrated into another and was
perceived as something new in relation to already
established traditions. In the modern understanding,
innovations are interpreted as changes made to human
activity in order to increase its effectiveness [1], or as
the introduction of new or significantly improved
products, processes, marketing approaches or business
organization methods [6].
A study of the literature on innovation issues suggests
that the word “innovation” is borrowed from the
English innovation, which translates as “innovation”,
“innovation” or “innovation” [2]. In turn, the roots of
this term go back to the Latin word innovatio, meaning
“renewal” or “change”. That is why three concepts are
often used in the scientific community at once
–
“innovation”, “innovation” and “innovation”, each of
which is interpreted in different ways. In the
framework of this study, it is important to consider the
different scientific views on the relationship of these
terms. In practice, they are often used synonymously,
however, as some authors emphasize, there are
fundamental differences between them.
Thus, a team of researchers edited by K. V. Baldin
defines “innovation” as a new phenomenon, invention,
or mode of action. “Innovation” is interpreted as the
process of introducing innovations into practical
activities. As soon as an innovation begins to spread
and be used, it acquires a new quality and turns into an
innovation, that is, into an innovation [3].
Similar difficulties are observed in the foreign scientific
literature. For example, D. West and M. Bodgers point
out that the use of th
e term “innovation” in the context
of open innovation causes certain contradictions with
the already established definitions adopted in the field
of innovation management [7]. Scientists themselves
interpret in different ways what exactly should be
include
d in the concept of “innovation” [8]. In modern
research on innovation management, attention can be
focused on various aspects, from prerequisites [9] and
processes [10] to final results [11]. In a number of
works, the emphasis is not so much on the category of
“innovation” itself, as on its connection with ideas [12],
emerging problems [13] or knowledge [14].
In many scientific publications, innovation is equated
with a technological achievement or technical
invention. In this context, it is interpreted as the
development of an idea undergoing the stages of
commercialization, dissemination and implementation
[15]. However, this approach creates the illusion that
innovation can be measured solely by the number of
patents. In practice, enterprises often use not only
patented inventions as innovations, but also ideas,
technologies, or even hidden forms of novelty [8].
One of the typical examples of confusion is the
identification of knowledge with innovation, whereas
in fact knowledge is the resources used in the
development of innovations [16]. Knowledge itself is
not an innovation, since successful commercial
innovations are usually formed by creatively combining
existing knowledge [17].
There are differences between the concepts of
“innovation”,
“innovation”,
“innovation”
and
“innovation”. Innovation refers to such forms as
discovery, invention, patent or know-how. A key stage
in the development of an innovation is its commercial
use. In other words, the introduction of an innovation
means its transformation into an innovation, which
implies the completion of the innovation process with
the achievement of a positive result [4]. Thus,
innovation can be considered as a potential innovation.
However, without widespread market adoption and
proven effectiveness, it cannot be considered an
innovation. The insufficient degree of dissemination
and lack of effectiveness make it possible to draw a
clear distinction between the concepts of “innovation”
and “innovation”.
After the differences in terms have been clarified, the
next stage of the study is the analysis of existing
definitions of the concept of “innovation” in the
domestic and foreign scientific literature. It is necessary
to identify common features and differences between
the approaches of different scientific schools. A
detailed list of all definitions of the term “innovation”
can overload the text, as there are many
interpretations and classifications. The main schools
that have become the most widespread are shown in
the figure below.
American Journal of Applied Science and Technology
57
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajast
American Journal of Applied Science and Technology (ISSN: 2771-2745)
Variants of interpretation of the concept of “innovation”
After analyzing various interpretations, researcher E.V.
Erokhina identified two main approaches to
understanding innovation: as a process and as a result
[5].
I.N. Polushkina and I.Y. Malyavina emphasize that two
main concepts of understanding innovation are most
widespread in the scientific community. The first
interprets it as a continuous process of introducing new
products, methods, ideas, and principles to replace
outdated ones. This point of view is shared by such
researchers as B. Santo, B. Twiss, F. Nixon and K.G.
Galstyan. The second interpretation considers
innovation as the end result of creative work,
expressed in the form of a new product, technology,
method, or technical solution. Among the supporters of
this approach are A.E. Yakovlev, R.A. Fatkhutdinov,
A.M. Medinsky and A.V. Plekhanov [6].
Depending on the subject and purpose of the research,
innovations can be viewed from different perspectives
- as a result, as a change, or as a process.
According to the opinion of the team of authors edited
by A.I. Afonichkin, two leading approaches can also be
identified in interpreting the key provisions of the
theory of innovation. The first approach focuses on
new factors, the second on new technologies or
products [7]. The second approach is based on the
scientific and technical paradigm, in which innovation
is considered both as a process and as its outcome,
which plays a significant role in the development of
society.
Foreign researchers most often classify the concept of
“innovation” in four main areas: as any change, as a
result, as a process, or as a tool for achieving goals. In
addition, E.V. Sibirskaya, O.A. Stroeva, and S.N. Martov
identify six scientific schools in their research that
interpret innovation as follows: as changes; as a result
of scientific activity; as a process of generation,
implementation and application of ideas; as a
continuous activity, including the stages of creation,
dissemination and practical application of innovations;
as a movement from simple to more complex, that is,
progress; as well as a set of these elements - change,
result, process, activity and progress [18].
The authors note that sticking exclusively to one
concept means ignoring the weighty advantages of
other scientific approaches. It is impossible to establish
the priority of one of the schools, since the scientific
discussion on this issue remains open, and each of the
points of view has the right to exist. In this regard, the
most reasonable way to comprehensively analyze the
category of “innovation” is to combine different views
and approaches. To this end, it is advisable to identify
the key contradictions between scientific schools, as
well as to consider the strengths and weaknesses of
their interpretations of the concept of “innovation”.
One common approach is to understand innovation as
a process. Most definitions boil down to the fact that
innovation is a set of technical, industrial and
commercial actions aimed at the practical application
of ideas and inventions, as a result of which new or
significantly
improved
products,
technologies,
production processes and equipment appear on the
market, contributing to cost reduction or creating
conditions for their optimization. From this combined
interpretation, it can be concluded that innovation
goes through certain stages of its development, which
make up the so-called innovation process: from the
origin of an idea to its implementation, dissemination
and
subsequent
application.
However,
this
presentation does not cover the causes of innovation,
does
not
reveal
the
consequences
of
its
implementation, and also does not sufficiently explain
such important stages as diffusion and routine.
Diffusion is understood as the spread of innovation and
its multiple reproduction in various conditions, and
routine is the integration of innovations into
sustainably functioning elements of existing systems.
It should be emphasized that the innovation process
differs from natural processes in its artificial nature - it
is initiated and controlled, which makes it manageable.
However, despite this, accurate prediction of its final
results is often difficult due to the high degree of
uncertainty and incompleteness of the initial data.
- Innovation as a result. Within the framework of this
approach, innovation is interpreted as the final product
of innovation, the purpose of which is to transform the
American Journal of Applied Science and Technology
58
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajast
American Journal of Applied Science and Technology (ISSN: 2771-2745)
control object and achieve the desired effect in a
specific field of application. This understanding allows
us to classify innovations by type of innovation: they
include logistical (product and technological), process,
marketing, social, economic, organizational and
managerial, and other types. However, the results-
based approach has certain limitations. It does not
cover the entire life cycle of innovation, as the process
approach does, and does not take into account the
possible risks that arise during the implementation
phase. This can lead to an unsuccessful commercial
launch and a rollback of the innovation to the
innovation stage.
- Innovation as a process and result. In a number of
scientific disciplines, including chemistry and physics,
the opinion has been established that a result is
impossible without the process that precedes it.
Therefore,
innovation
can
simultaneously
be
considered both as a path of transformation and as
their outcome.
- Innovation as a change. In this view, innovation is
understood as a conscious intervention aimed at
transforming the environment in which innovation is
introduced. Such an intervention ensures the transition
of the system from one state to another, affecting its
structure and functional elements. These changes, as a
rule, contribute to achieving positive results and
improving the functioning of the system as a whole.
At this stage of the study, it can be concluded that the
earlier definitions of the term “innovation” only
partially reflect its essential characteristics. At the same
time, each of them has both advantages and certain
limitations and contradictions. Nevertheless, it is
possible to identify a number of features that are
recognized by most representatives of various scientific
schools. The first of these is traditionally considered to
be novelty, the second is the presence of a positive
effect, and the third is practical feasibility, that is, the
possibility of introducing innovations into specific
processes or fields of activity.
For a deep understanding of the importance and role
of innovation in the modern economy, it is important
to consider the evolution of approaches to this topic in
the works of renowned economists. Of particular
interest is the analysis of the classifications and
typologies of innovations proposed by them.
An important contribution to the development of the
economic theory of innovation was made by the
Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter, who outlined
his ideas in his work “Theory of Economic
Development”. He proposed one of the first
comprehensive definitions of innovation in economics.
Schumpeter noted that production activity is reduced
to combining existing resources and forces, and
creating something new means forming other
combinations
of
these
elements.
By
“new
combinations” he meant the following categories:
release of a previously unknown product or
improvement of its qualities; the introduction of a new
method of production or commercial use; entry into a
new market; the development of new sources of raw
materials or semi-finished products; as well as
organizational changes aimed at gaining a monopoly
position or undermining it from competitors [8].
In the 1920s, the economist N.D. Kondratiev
introduced the theory of long economic cycles. In his
work “Large Business Cycles and the theory of
Foresight,
“he
demonstrated
that
industrial
development is subject to a regular change of phases,
thereby substantiating the idea of the existence of
cycles of varying duration. Kondratiev identified three
types: short-term (lasting about 3-3.5 years), medium-
term commercial and industrial (from 7 to 11 years)
and long-term, so-
called “big” cycles lasting from 48 to
55
years.
He
identified
empirical
patterns
accompanying protracted fluctuations in economic
activity, and also established a link between the phases
of boom and bust in large cycles and waves of technical
discoveries and their implementation. According to his
observations, before the start of the growth phase, and
sometimes at its very beginning, there are serious shifts
in key economic conditions.: production technologies,
output volumes, money circulation are changing, and
the influence of new states on the global economy is
increasing [9]. In fact, we are talking about waves of
technological and economic innovation.
According to Yu.V. Yakovets, the main provisions of J.
Schumpeter’s
innovation theory include the following
ideas: innovation activity is considered as a central
function of entrepreneurship; a distinction is made
between innovation in the form of a product and a
process, as well as between radical and improved,
technological and economic forms of innovation; the
role of innovation in the cyclical development of the
economy and the need to overcome the resistance of
the environment, arising from the inertia of existing
systems [10].
G. Pisano believes that the main reason for the
insufficient level of innovation in companies is the lack
of a clearly formulated strategy in the field of
innovation. He emphasizes that a strategy is not just a
set of sequential and interrelated steps aimed at
achieving a specific result. First of all, the strategy
should serve as a unifying element for the team,
determine priorities and guide the development of the
enterprise. According to Pisano, most modern
companies lack an integrated approach that combines
innovation and business strategies. Without a clear
innovation policy, organizations tend to only repeat the
successful practices of others: create autonomous
American Journal of Applied Science and Technology
59
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajast
American Journal of Applied Science and Technology (ISSN: 2771-2745)
NIOKR teams, stimulate initiative, enter into
partnerships, introduce elements of open innovation,
use crowdsourcing, etc. However, simply copying other
people's models rarely gives the desired effect, since
there are no universal solutions for all companies.
Borrowing experience is useful, but relying solely on
other people's mechanisms is a strategic mistake.
Therefore,
in
order
to
ensure
sustainable
competitiveness, organizations need not to adapt
other people's solutions, but to develop their own
innovative strategies that meet their unique conditions
and development goals [19].
At the level of the economy as a whole, the
competitiveness of the state in the near future will
depend on the active participation of both the private
and public sectors in the creation and development of
national innovation infrastructure. An important factor
will be the competent selection of priority industries
that can act as drivers of global economic growth and
contribute to increased productivity in all areas of
activity. However, at the same time, government policy
should take into account the needs of all industries, and
not just focus on the key areas of the sixth
technological
order.
Without
widespread
dissemination of innovative ideas in various spheres of
society, it will not be possible to achieve sustainable
development and a large-scale effect.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above, the key advantages of the
proposed methodological approach to innovative
development can be identified. They are as follows:
- When developing strategies for regional innovative
development, priority should be given to spatial and
temporal aspects;
- When evaluating the effectiveness of implemented
innovations, special emphasis should be placed on their
qualitative characteristics, and not only on quantitative
indicators.;
- The formation of an algorithm for the
commercialization of the knowledge economy is
possible only on the basis of a dual NIOKR model, in
which the processes of creation, reproduction and
consumption of an innovative product are clearly
separated.;
A deep modernization of the system of program-
oriented support of innovation activities in the country
is required to ensure its compliance with international
scientific and practical standards. This includes:
- combining process and performance indicators within
a single system for comprehensive multifactorial
analysis;
- promotion of marketing innovations as a priority over
technological and organizational solutions.
Thus, only compliance with these principles and the
active implementation of international experience in
the innovation field will allow us to achieve tangible
results in the development of the domestic economy.
REFERENCES
Королева Л.П., Ермошина Т.В. Инновационная
инфраструктура: состав и место в инновационной
системе экономики // Инновации. –
2014.
–
№ 12. –
С. 59
-61.
Ермакова Ж.А., Белоцерковская Н.В., Иванченко
О.П.
Содержание
и
соотношение
понятий:
маркетинг
инноваций,
инновационный
менеджмент,
маркетинговые
инновации
//
Инновации. –
2014.
–
№ 6. –
С. 4
9-54.
Долинская Ю.В., Князюк Н.Ф. Методологические
основы и роль менеджмента инноваций в
деятельности
современной
организации
//
Инновации. –
2015.
–
№ 4. –
С. 86
-93.
Пауков С.А. Барьеры на пути инновационного
развития России // Проблемы современной
экономики: материалы IV Междунар. науч. конф. (г.
Челябинск, февраль 2015 г.). –
Челябинск: Два
комсомольца. –
2015.
–
С. 19
-22.
Фролов А.В. NBIC
-
технологии и направления их
реализации в США // Инновации. –
2013.
–
№ 7. –
С.
63-73.
Тюрина В.Ю., Ипполитова А.А. Наука, инновация,
интеллектуальная собственность –
основа перехода
к инновационной экономике // Инновации. –
2013.
–
№ 9. –
С. 66
-70.
West J., Bogers M. Leveraging External Sources of
Innovation: A Review of Research on Open Innovation
// Journal of Product Innovation Management.
–
2014.
–
Vol. 31 (4).
–
PP. 814-831.
Bogers M., West J. Managing distributed innovation:
Strategic utilization of open and user innovation //
Creativity and Innovation Management.
–
2012.
–
Vol.
21 (1).
–
PP. 61-75.
Van de Vrande V., de Jong J.P.J., Vanhaverbeke W. de
Rochemont M. Open innovation in SMEs: Trends,
motives and management challenges // Technovation.
–
2009.
–
Vol. 29 (6-7).
–
PP. 423-437.
Chiaroni D., Chiesa V., Frattini F. Unravelling the
process from Closed to Open Innovation: evidence
from mature, asset-intensive industries // R&D
Management.
–
2010.
–
Vol. 40 (3).
–
PP. 222-245.
Almirall E., Casadessus-Masanell R. Open versus closed
innovation: A model of discovery and divergence //
Academy of Management Review.
–
2010.
–
Vol. 35 (1).
–
PP. 27-47.
Piller F.T., Walcher D. Toolkits for idea competitions: A
novel method to integrate users in new product
development // R&D Management.
–
2006.
–
Vol. 36
(3).
–
PP. 307-318.
Terwiesch C., Xu Y. Innovation contests, open
innovation, and multiagent problem solving //
Management Science.
–
2008.
–
Vol. 54 (9).
–
PP. 1529-
American Journal of Applied Science and Technology
60
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajast
American Journal of Applied Science and Technology (ISSN: 2771-2745)
1543.
Laursen K., Salter A. Open for innovation: The role of
openness in explaining innovation performance among
U.K. manufacturing firms // Strategic Management
Journal.
–
2006.
–
Vol. 27 (2).
–
PP. 131-150.
Garcia R., Calantone R. A critical look at technological
innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A
literature review // Journal of Product Innovation
Management.
–
2002.
–
Vol. 19 (2).
–
PP. 110-132.
Thornhill S. Knowledge, innovation and firm
performance in high- and low-technology regimes //
Journal of Business Venturing.
–
2006.
–
Vol. 21 (5).
–
P.
687-703.
Khilji S.E., Mroczkowski T., Bernstein B. From invention
to innovation: Toward developing an integrated
innovation model for biotech firms // Journal of
Product Innovation Management.
–
2006.
–
Vol. 23 (6).
–
PP. 528-540.
Е.В. Сибирская, О.А. Строева, С.Н. Мартов
Инновационная деятельность в национальной
экономике: содержание и структура // Инновации.
–
2014. № 5. С. 30
-33.
Pisano G.P. You need an Innovation Strategy // Harvard
Business Review.
–
June 2015.
–
PP. 44-54.
