voprstatВопросы статистикиVoprosy Statistiki2313-63832658-5499The Federal State Budgetary Institution "Scientific Research Institute for Socio-Economic Statistics of the Federal State Statistics Service" (Statistics Research Institute of Rosstat)10.34023/2313-6383-2021-28-6-43-58voprstat-1365Research ArticleСТАТИСТИЧЕСКИЕ МЕТОДЫ В ИССЛЕДОВАНИИ СОЦИАЛЬНО-ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКИХ ПРОЦЕССОВSTATISTICAL METHODS IN SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDIESОсобенности формирования технологических ожиданий в России: анализ результатов конъюнктурных обследований цифровой трансформации предприятий обрабатывающей промышленностиFeatures of the Formation of Technological Expectations in Russia: Analysis of the Results of Business Tendency Surveys of Digital Transformation of Manufacturing Enterpriseshttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0974-8723ЛолаИ. С.LolaI. S.

Лола Инна Сергеевна – канд. экон. наук, заместитель директора Центра конъюнктурных исследований Института статистических исследований и экономики знаний

109074, г. Москва, Славянская пл., д. 4, стр. 2

Inna S. Lola – Cand. Sci. (Econ.), Deputy Director, Centre for Business Tendency Studies, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge

4, Slavyanskaya Sq., Bldg. 2, Moscow, 109074

ilola@hse.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5899-8024МануковА. Б.ManukovA. B.

Мануков Антон Борисович – ведущий аналитик Центра конъюнктурных исследований Института статистических исследований и экономики знаний

109074, г. Москва, Славянская пл., д. 4, стр. 2

Anton B. Manukov – Leading Analyst, Centre for Business Tendency Studies, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge

4, Slavyanskaya Sq., Bldg. 2, Moscow, 109074

amanukov@hse.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-3144-2544БакеевМ. Б.BakeevM. B.

Бакеев Мурат Булатович – аналитик Центра конъюнктурных исследований Института статистических исследований и экономики знаний

109074, г. Москва, Славянская пл., д. 4, стр. 2

Murat B. Bakeev – Analyst, Centre for Business Tendency Studies, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge

4, Slavyanskaya Sq., Bldg. 2, Moscow, 109074

mbakeev@hse.ruНациональный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»РоссияNational Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University)Russian Federation2021101220212864358Copyright © Лола И.С., Мануков А.Б., Бакеев М.Б., 20212021Лола И.С., Мануков А.Б., Бакеев М.Б.Lola I.S., Manukov A.B., Bakeev M.B.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://voprstat.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/1365

Основная задача исследования – анализ формирования технологических ожиданий менеджеров российских предприятий обрабатывающей промышленности в зависимости от изменений внешней экономической конъюнктуры. Для ее решения, во-первых, авторами были рассчитаны специально разработанные «индексы реализуемости» технологических ожиданий, отражающие соотношение между сформированными в предыдущем периоде ожиданиями внедрения цифровых технологий и их реальным приростом. Во-вторых, с помощью регрессионного анализа были исследованы механизмы формирования технологических ожиданий менеджеров в различных условиях: в отсутствие кризиса (2018 г.), накануне кризиса (2019 г.) и во время кризиса (2020 г.). Проверялось влияние трех механизмов во временном контексте: «инерционного», предполагающего сохранение сформированных в прошлом ожиданий в текущем периоде; «адаптационного», характеризующего подстройку ожиданий к текущей динамике внедрения технологий; «предиктивного», отражающего связь ожиданий с будущим уровнем освоения технологий.В качестве основы для эмпирических расчетов были использованы данные годовых конъюнктурных обследований цифровой активности российских предприятий обрабатывающей промышленности за 2018–2020 гг. Совокупная выборка обследованных за три года организаций включала более 3000 предприятий, представляющих 23 отрасли обрабатывающей промышленности. В работе изучались паттерны внедрения 19 цифровых технологий, большая часть из которых относится специалистами к Индустрии 4.0.Полученные результаты эмпирического анализа свидетельствуют о том, что в различных внешних условиях принципы формирования ожиданий российских менеджеров качественно различаются. Так, регрессионный анализ показал, что все три обозначенных механизма могут быть задействованы, однако их влияние проявляется в разной степени. В частности, при наступлении кризиса ключевую роль играет адаптационный механизм, а инерционный перестает быть значимым.По мнению авторов, результаты проведенного исследования свидетельствуют о том, что цифровая трансформация российских предприятий обрабатывающей промышленности находится на начальной или переходной стадиях, осуществляется через «рывки», а не представляет собой устойчивый процесс модернизации. Главный вывод работы состоит в том, что внешняя неопределенность в большой мере влияет на эволюцию технологических ожиданий, разрушая их преемственность с предыдущими планами и негативно сказываясь на прогностических возможностях.

The purpose of the article is to analyze the technological expectations of managers of Russian enterprises from the manufacturing industry in the face of changes in the external economic environment. Firstly, the authors have calculated a specially developed «index of fulfillment» of technological expectations, reflecting the ratio of the expectations of the introduction of digital technologies formed in the previous period and an increase in the real level of implementation. Secondly, using regression analysis, the authors investigated the mechanisms of the formation of technological expectations of managers in various conditions: non-crisis 2018, pre-crisis 2019, and crisis 2020. The influence of the three mechanisms was tested in intertemporal context: the «inertial» one, which presupposes the preservation of the expectations formed in the past in the current period; «adaptive» which involves adjusting expectations in accordance with the current dynamics of technology implementation; «predictive» which implies the connection of expectations with the future level of implementation.The basis for empirical calculations was the data of annual business tendency surveys of digital activity of Russian manufacturing enterprises for 2018–2020. The aggregate sample of surveyed enterprises for three years included more than 3000 enterprises from 23 manufacturing industries. The paper studied patterns of implementation of 19 digital technologies, most of which, according to specialists, belong to Industry 4.0.The results obtained indicate that technological expectations are characterized by great heterogeneity in terms of feasibility. Regression analysis showed that all three identified mechanisms can play a role, but their influence varies. In particular, when a crisis occurs, the adaptive mechanism plays a key role, and the inertial mechanism becomes irrelevant.The results of this study indicate that Russia is characterized by the initial and transitional nature of digital transformation in the manufacturing industry, with technological development achieved through «breakthroughs» rather than a steady process of modernization. The main conclusion of the work is that external uncertainty greatly affects the evolution of technological expectations, destroying their continuity from previous plans and negatively affecting the predictive capabilities.

цифровые технологиитехнологические ожиданияобрабатывающая промышленностьконъюнктурные обследованияИндустрия 4.0COVID-19digital technologiestechnological expectationsmanufacturing industrybusiness tendency surveysIndustry 4.0COVID-19Статья подготовлена в результате проведения исследования в рамках Программы фундаментальных исследований Национального исследовательского университета «Высшая школа экономики».The article is based on the study funded by the Basic Research Program of the National Research University Higher School of Economics.ReferencesRaj A. et al. Barriers to the Adoption of Industry 4.0 Technologies in the Manufacturing Sector: An Inter-Country Comparative Perspective // International Journal of Production Economics. 2020. Vol. 224. Article 107546. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.107546.Raj A. et al. Barriers to the Adoption of Industry 4.0 Technologies in the Manufacturing Sector: An Inter- Country Comparative Perspective. International Journal of Production Economics. 2020;224(107546). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.107546.Oztemel E., Gursev S. Literature Review of Industry 4.0 and Related Technologies // Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing. 2020. Vol. 31. Iss. 1. P. 127–182. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-018-1433-8.Oztemel E., Gursev S. Literature Review of Industry 4.0 and Related Technologies. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing. 2020;31(1):127–182. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-018-1433-8.Klingenberg C.O., Borges M.A.V., Antunes J.A.V. Industry 4.0 as a Data-Driven Paradigm: A Systematic Literature Review on Technologies // Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management. 2021. Vol. 32. Iss. 3. P. 570–592. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-09-2018-0325.Klingenberg C.O., Borges M.A.V., Antunes J.A.V. Industry 4.0 as a Data-Driven Paradigm: A Systematic Literature Review on Technologies. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management. 2021;32(3):570–592. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-09-2018-0325.Frank A.G., Dalenogare L.S., Ayala N.F. Industry 4.0 Technologies: Implementation Patterns in Manufacturing Companies // International Journal of Production Economics. 2019. Vol. 210. P. 15–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.004.Frank A.G., Dalenogare L.S., Ayala N.F. Industry 4.0 Technologies: Implementation Patterns in Manufacturing Companies. International Journal of Production Economics. 2019;210:15–26. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.004.Agostini L., Filippini R. Organizational and Managerial Challenges in the Path Toward Industry 4.0 // European Journal of Innovation Management. 2019. Vol. 22. Iss. 3. P. 406–421. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-02-2018-0030.Agostini L., Filippini R. Organizational and Managerial Challenges in the Path Toward Industry 4.0. European Journal of Innovation Management. 2019;22(3):406–421. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-02-2018-0030.Chiarello F. et al. Extracting and Mapping Industry 4.0 Technologies Using Wikipedia // Computers in Industry. 2018. Vol. 100. P. 244–257. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.04.006.Chiarello F. et al. Extracting and Mapping Industry 4.0 Technologies Using Wikipedia. Computers in Industry. 2018;100:244–257. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.04.006.OECD. OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2020. Paris: OECD Publ., 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1787/bb167041-en.OECD. OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2020. Paris: OECD Publ.; 2020. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1787/bb167041-en.European Commission. The Joint Harmonised EU Programme of Business and Consumer Surveys – User Guide. 2020. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/bcs_user_guide_2020_02_en.pdf.European Commission. The Joint Harmonised EU Programme of Business and Consumer Surveys – User Guide. 2020. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/bcs_user_guide_2020_02_en.pdf.OECD. Business Tendency Surveys: A Handbook. Paris: OECD Publ., 2003. URL: https://www.oecd.org/sdd/leading-indicators/31837055.pdf.OECD. Business Tendency Surveys: A Handbook. Paris: OECD Publ.; 2003. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/sdd/leading-indicators/31837055.pdf.European Commission. International Digital Economy and Society Index 2020 – Final Report. EU, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.2759/757411.European Commission. International Digital Economy and Society Index 2020 – Final Report. EU; 2020. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2759/757411.Pesaran M.H., Weale M.R. Survey Expectations // CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1599. 2006. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=796187.Pesaran M.H., Weale M.R. Survey Expectations. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1599. 2006. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=796187.IFC. The Impact of COVID-19 on Disruptive Technology Adoption in Emerging Markets. 2020. URL: https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/publications_ext_content/ifc_external_publication_site/publications_listing_page/disruptive-tech-adoption-covid-19.IFC. The Impact of COVID-19 on Disruptive Technology Adoption in Emerging Markets. 2020. Available from: https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/publications_ext_content/ifc_external_publication_site/publications_listing_page/disruptive-tech-adoption-covid-19.Zeng Z., Chen P.J., Lew A.A. From High-Touch to High-Tech: COVID-19 Drives Robotics Adoption // Tourism Geographies. 2020. Vol. 22. Iss. 3. P. 724–734. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1762118.Zeng Z., Chen P.J., Lew A.A. From High-Touch to High-Tech: COVID-19 Drives Robotics Adoption. Tourism Geographies. 2020;22(3):724–734. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1762118.WEF. The Global Risks Report 2021. 16th ed. World Economic Forum, 2021. URL: https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2021.WEF. The Global Risks Report 2021. 16th Ed. World Economic Forum; 2021. Available from: https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2021.Rosenberg N. On Technological Expectations // The Economic Journal. 1976. Vol. 86. Iss. 343. P. 523–535. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2230797.Rosenberg N. On Technological Expectations. The Economic Journal. 1976;86(343):523–535. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/2230797.David P.A., Olsen T.E. Anticipated Automation: A Rational Expectations Model of Technological Diffusion // CEPR Publication No. 2. Stanford, California: Stanford University, 1984. doi: https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.244424.David P.A., Olsen T.E. Anticipated Automation: A Rational Expectations Model of Technological Diffusion. CEPR Publication No. 2. Stanford, California: Stanford University; 1984. Available from: https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.244424.Ireland N., Stoneman P. Technological Diffusion, Expectations and Welfare // Oxford Economic Papers. 1986. Vol. 38. No. 2. P. 283–304. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2663146.Ireland N., Stoneman P. Technological Diffusion, Expectations and Welfare. Oxford Economic Papers. 1986;38(2):283–304. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2663146.Lehmann R., Weyh A. Forecasting Employment in Europe: Are Survey Results Helpful? // Journal of Business Cycle Research. 2016. Vol. 12. Iss. 1. P. 81–117. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41549-016-0002-5.Lehmann R., Weyh A. Forecasting Employment in Europe: Are Survey Results Helpful? Journal of Business Cycle Research. 2016;12(1):81–117. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41549-016-0002-5.Ang A., Bekaert G., Wei M. Do Macro Variables, Asset Markets, or Surveys Forecast Inflation Better? // Journal of Monetary Economics. 2007. Vol. 54. Iss. 4. P. 1163–1212. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2006.04.006.Ang A., Bekaert G., Wei M. Do Macro Variables, Asset Markets, or Surveys Forecast Inflation Better? Journal of Monetary Economics. 2007;54(4):1163–1212. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2006.04.006.Hansson J., Jansson P., Löf M. Business Survey Data: Do They Help in Forecasting GDP Growth? // International Journal of Forecasting. 2005. Vol. 21. Iss. 2. P. 377–389. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2004.11.003.Hansson J., Jansson P., Löf M. Business Survey Data: Do They Help in Forecasting GDP Growth? International Journal of Forecasting. 2005;21(2):377–389. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2004.11.003.Antonelli C. Diffusion as a Process of Creative Adoption // The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2006. Vol. 31. Iss. 2. P. 211–226. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-005-6107-y.Antonelli C. Diffusion as a Process of Creative Adoption. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2006;31(2):211–226. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-005-6107-y.Heslop L.A., McGregor E., Griffith M. Development of a Technology Readiness Assessment Measure: The Cloverleaf Model of Technology Transfer // The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2001. Vol. 26. Iss. 4. P. 369–384. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011139021356.Heslop L.A., McGregor E., Griffith M. Development of a Technology Readiness Assessment Measure: The Cloverleaf Model of Technology Transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2001;26(4):369–384. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011139021356.Lissoni F. Technological Expectations and the Diffusion of ‘Intermediate’ Technologies // Economics of Innovation and New Technology. 2000. Vol. 9. Iss. 6. P. 487–516. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590000000020.Lissoni F. Technological Expectations and the Diffusion of ‘Intermediate’ Technologies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology. 2000;9(6):487–516. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590000000020.Wang L., Jiang S., Zhang S. Mapping Technological Trajectories and Exploring Knowledge Sources: A Case Study of 3D Printing Technologies // Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2020. Vol. 161. Article 120251. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120251.Wang L., Jiang S., Zhang S. Mapping Technological Trajectories and Exploring Knowledge Sources: A Case Study of 3D Printing Technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2020;161(Article 120251). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120251.Borup M. et al. The Sociology of Expectations in Science and Technology // Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 2006. Vol. 18. Iss. 3-4. P. 285–298. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777002.Borup M. et al. The Sociology of Expectations in Science and Technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 2006;18(3-4):285–298. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777002.Kriechbaum M., Prol J.L., Posch A. Looking Back at the Future: Dynamics of Collective Expectations About Photovoltaic Technology in Germany & Spain // Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2018. Vol. 129. P. 76–87. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.003.Kriechbaum M., Prol J.L., Posch A. Looking Back at the Future: Dynamics of Collective Expectations About Photovoltaic Technology in Germany & Spain. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2018;129:76–87. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.003.Konrad K. The Social Dynamics of Expectations: The Interaction of Collective and Actor-Specific Expectations on Electronic Commerce and Interactive Television // Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 2006. Vol. 18. Iss. 3-4. P. 429–444. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777192.Konrad K. The Social Dynamics of Expectations: The Interaction of Collective and Actor-Specific Expectations on Electronic Commerce and Interactive Television. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 2006;18(3-4):429–444. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777192.Cabral B.P., Derengowski Fonseca M.G., Mota F.B. What Is the Future of Cancer Care? A Technology Foresight Assessment of Experts’ Expectations // Economics of Innovation and New Technology. 2019. Vol. 28. Iss. 6. P. 635–652. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.201.1549788.Cabral B.P., Derengowski Fonseca M.G., Mota F.B. What Is the Future of Cancer Care? A Technology Foresight Assessment of Experts’ Expectations. Economics of Innovation and New Technology. 2019;28(6):635–652. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2018.1549788.Nissilä H., Lempiälä T., Lovio R. Constructing Expectations for Solar Technology over Multiple Field-Configuring Events: A Narrative Perspective // Science & Technology Studies. 2014. Vol. 27. No. 1. P. 54–75. doi: https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.55334.Nissilä H., Lempiälä T., Lovio R. Constructing Expectations for Solar Technology over Multiple Field-Configuring Events: A Narrative Perspective. Science & Technology Studies. 2014;27(1):54–75. Available from: https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.55334.Alkemade F., Suurs R.A.A. Patterns of Expectations for Emerging Sustainable Technologies // Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2012. Vol. 79. Iss. 3. P. 448–456. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.08.014.Alkemade F., Suurs R.A.A. Patterns of Expectations for Emerging Sustainable Technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2012;79(3):448–456. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.08.014.Závadská Z., Závadský J. Quality Managers and Their Future Technological Expectations Related to Industry 4.0 // Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. 2020. Vol. 31. Iss. 7-8. P. 717–741. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1444474.Závadská Z., Závadský J. Quality Managers and Their Future Technological Expectations Related to Industry 4.0. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. 2020;31(7-8):717–741. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1444474.Seetharaman A. et al. Customer Expectation from Industrial Internet of Things (IIOT) // Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management. 2019. Vol. 30. Iss. 8. P. 1161–1178. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-08-2018-0278.Seetharaman A. et al. Customer Expectation from Industrial Internet of Things (IIOT). Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management. 2019;30(8):1161–1178. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-08-2018-0278.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.