Strategic management of industrial corporations in the context of achieving technological sovereignty Russian Federation

S. B. Zainullin, E. V. Nezhnikova, 
M. L. Ivleva 
Strategic Management 
of Industrial Corporations 
in the Context of Achieving 
Technological Sovereignty 
of the Russian Federation  
Monograph 
Moscow 
2026 

UDC 338.24:332.012.324 
LBC 65.292.34-21 
З-17 
Reviewers: 
Tatiana Petrovna Malevich, PhD in Economics, Head of the Department of 
Business Process Management RANHiGS Federal State Budgetary Educational 
Institution under the President of the Russian Federation;  
Arkady Nikolaevich Larionov, Doctor of Economics, Professor, Honored Worker 
of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation, Head of the Department 
of Economics and Management in Construction MGSU Federal State Budgetary 
Educational Institution OF Higher Education 
Zainullin, S. B. 
З-17 
Strategic management of industrial corporations in the context of 
achieving technological sovereignty Russian Federation : monograph /
S. B. Zainullin, E. V. Nezhnikova, M. L. Ivleva. — Moscow : Direct-Media,
2026. — 216 р. 
ISBN 978-5-4499-5174-8 
The current development model and strategic objectives facing the Russian 
economy are based on strong and long-term growth., increasing the sustainability 
of economic development by achieving technological sovereignty. In his message in 
February 2024, the President of the Russian Federation announced the launch of 
measures aimed at achieving technological sovereignty, which would require the 
launch of major technological projects. In this regard, there is an increasing need 
for updating and detailed elaboration from a methodological and methodological 
point of view of approaches and stages of management of industrial corporations, 
as well as tools for strategic analysis. The monograph examines methodological 
and methodological approaches to the strategic management of industrial corporations. Strategic management is considered at the macro level — the level of the 
Russian Federation as a whole, as well as at the micro level — the level of individual corporations. New relevant strategies are considered: both growth strategies 
and protection strategies within the framework of economic and corporate security. In addition, strategies related to the most relevant modern trends in achieving 
sovereignty, including Russia’s technological sovereignty, are analyzed. The monograph will be useful for master’s degree students studying economics and specialties in the system of postgraduate and additional professional education in 
economics and management, graduate students and university professors, managers, members of the Board of Directors, shareholders of corporations, including 
technology companies. 
UDC 338.24:332.012.324 
LBC 65.292.34-21  
ISBN 978-5-4499-5174-8 
© Zainullin S. B., Nezhnikova E. V., Ivleva M. L., text, 2026 
© Direct-Media Publishing House, design, 2026 

Introduction 
The modern economy is in the phase of transition to a new 
reality. The world order that emerged after 1945 after the formation of the main international institutions — the UN, WTO and 
other institutions — has been collapsing in recent years, and 
since 2014 the process of collapse has become rapid and 
the world has already entered a state of permanent economic 
crises and geopolitical turbulence. In these conditions, which are 
burdened by sanctions pressure and geopolitical confrontation, 
the previous business models are becoming ineffective, and the 
strategies of both the state and individual companies need to be 
radically revised. One of the key areas of development of the 
Russian Federation is the achievement of technological sovereignty, namely: support for domestic technologies, ensuring selfsufficiency in terms of logistics and independence from foreign 
supplies. Previously, at the state level, first of all, goals were set 
for export growth, in particular, non-primary non-energy, but 
now the goal is to reduce the share of imports to 17 % of GDP by 
2030. The main principle on which the economic program is 
based is only fundamental long-term solutions, the absence of 
short-term measures, which requires a qualitative study of the 
available methodological and methodological apparatus for 
effective strategic planning, analysis and management. At the 
same time, the innovative activity of business in Russia significantly lags behind many economically developed countries, 
which is why, in the context of Russia’s confrontation with 
the countries of the collective West, ensuring technological 
security becomes a vital condition for the security of the country 
as a whole. This is not a fundamentally new goal, but its scope is 
changing.  
Targeted measures to achieve technological sovereignty 
have been implemented in Russia since 2014, and the first strategic industry plans within its framework appeared in 2015. The 
intensification of the confrontation with the West since 2022, 
the escalation of geopolitical tensions, which resulted in the 
conduct of a Special military operation, has made ensuring 
Russia’s sovereignty very important, and technological sovereignty 
critically important, since the Russian manufacturing, agriculture, 

IT sector and other sectors of the economy are developing extremely unevenly, Russia may be a global leader in some sectors 
and have critical dependence in related sectors.  
Economics should contribute to the timely provision of the 
necessary tools for the implementation of a new plan for the new 
Russia, the transformation of the economy along key tracks, and 
the solution of strategic tasks that are fundamental for confident, 
long-term development of the country. In this regard, the issues 
on strategies outlined in the monograph economic security at 
global levels of governance, sanctions as an urgent factor of 
strategic planning in modern Russia, information strategy in the 
context of global change and strategies of technological sovereignty are becoming particularly relevant. 

The Evolution of Ideas  
about Strategic Management 
The term “strategy”, first taken from the military concept, 
was called "planning" in ancient times, which originally meant 
planning military operations in a war.1 
For the first time, the word “strategy” in the business aspect was used in the 1930s in the arguments of the American 
economist Chester Barnard about the entrepreneurial activity of 
enterprises, which marked the official application of strategic 
ideas in the field of corporate governance.2 
Strategic research of enterprises began in the late 1930s 
and the second half of the 1950s, when scientists had already 
developed the concept of strategic factors from various factors 
related to the purpose of the enterprise. 
In 1962, American Professor A. D. Chandler defined a business strategy for the first time in the book “Strategy and Structure", which opened the way to the study of strategic enterprise 
management.3 
Since then, the development of research in the field of 
business strategy can be divided into three stages:  
At the first stage, which lasted from the early 60s to the 
early 70s, the main focus of strategic research was on theoretical 
issues, with a particular focus on strategic concepts and building 
blocks.  
The birth and development of the early theory of strategic 
management was marked by the publication in 1962 of the 
famous American management specialist Chandler “Strategy and 
Structure: a Study in the History of Industrial enterprises.” The 
monograph examines three levels of organizational structure, 
strategy, and business environment. Although this book does not 
contain a complete and systematic description of the system of 
strategic theories, it serves as a guide for subsequent research 
                                                                        
1 The Great Soviet Encyclopedia. M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1969–1978. 
2 Chester I. Barnard. The functions of the supervisor. Harvard University 
City Press, 1954. 
3 Alfred D. Chandler, Jr. Strategy and structure: chapters in the history of 
the industrial enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1962. 

conducted by other experts and scientists. Later, researchers 
such as Henri Fayol, Chester Barnard, and Kenneth R. Andrews 
expanded and enriched the content of the strategy with various 
studies. 
In 1965, in the book “Corporate Strategy” by the American 
scientist Igor Ansoff, a model of corporate strategic management 
was systematized. The theoretical and practical basis of strategic 
management of a modern enterprise has been laid, and the first 
place in the study of the theory of strategic management of 
a modern enterprise has been created.4 
Subsequently, as the research of scientists deepened further, various factions emerged from the traditional strategic 
theory, such as the structural school, the school of the environment, the school of culture, the school of power, the school of 
creativity, the school of planning, the school of design, etc. 
According to the classification of G. Mintsberg, schools of 
strategic management can be conditionally grouped into two 
groups: prescriptive, descriptive.5 
The main tasks of prescriptive schools are to substantiate 
the methods of strategy development that ensure an increase in 
the competitive status of the organization. Within the framework 
of these schools, strategies act as something logically explicable, 
depending on the will of the leader and, if applied correctly, 
unambiguously guaranteeing the success of the organization. 
Describing schools, their main task is to provide the most reliable description of the strategy development and implementation 
process as it is. Any recommendatory conclusions can be drawn 
only on the basis of an analysis of the actual models. 
The main features of each of the schools. 
Prescriptive:  
1. The School of Design (K. Andrews, A. Chandler).  
In general terms, the design school offers a strategybuilding model as an attempt to achieve a coincidence or correspondence between internal and external capabilities, i. e., according to this school, an economic strategy should be understood as 
a correspondence between the characteristics of a firm and those 
                                                                        
4 Ansoff I. Corporate strategy. St. Petersburg, 1999. 
5 Mintsberg G., Quinn J. B., Goshan S. Strategic process. Concepts, problems, solutions. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001. 

capabilities that determine its position in the external environment. A typical example of a tool used within a design school is 
“SWOT analysis”.  
2. The School of Planning (I. Ansoff, P. Lorange). This 
school considers strategy as a conscious planning process, formally reflected in appropriate diagrams, tables and supported by 
appropriate methods, which are developed by specially trained 
people. The school’s approach is based on the methodology of 
using the “balanced scorecard” (BSC).  
3. School of positioning (M. Porter). The basic position of 
this school is that strategies are specifically general, marketbased positions that are both economical and competitive. The 
main task of management is to correctly position the position of 
a company or business, which automatically leads to the emergence of a “ready-to-use strategy”. One of the main models of this 
school is the M. Porter model of competition, a typical tool is the 
BCG matrix (the Boston Advisory Group).  
Descriptive:  
1. The School of Entrepreneurship (J. Schumpeter) — 
considers the process of strategy development and implementation as vision or vision that looks forward (future); backward 
(past); into the internal environment of the organization; into the 
external environment, etc. Moreover, this vision is based on 
intuition, entrepreneurial wit and finds expression in intuitive 
leadership goals. 
2. The cognitive school (G. Simon) considers the process 
of strategy development and implementation as a thinking process that takes place in the strategist’s mind, which means that 
strategies arise as perspectives and are based on information 
that is appropriately encoded and circulates between the members of the collection according to certain laws. 
3. The school of learning (C. Lindblom) considers the 
strategic process as an adaptation to predictably changing environmental conditions. Ideas that contribute to this can arise from 
any individual, regardless of his place in the organizational hierarchy. Therefore, the task of the head is to create an organizational culture that promotes the selection and promotion of ideas 
that contribute to the adaptation of the organization. 
4. The school of power (R. Kayert, J. March) — strategy is 
considered as the result of the interaction of people pursuing 

their own purely selfish interests. To this end, formal and nonformal alliances are created, groups seeking to gain control over 
as many resources as possible. The strategy in this case is the 
resultant between the interests and actions of various groups. 
5. The School of the External environment (M. Mescon) 
brings the ideas of the school of positioning to a logical absurdity, 
considering strategy as a resultant effect on the organization of 
external forces. According to this theory, organizations exist in 
certain limited, relatively stable conditions — economic niches. 
When a niche ceases to exist, organizations die or transform into 
unrecognizability. 
6. The School of Configuration (D. Miller) — generalizes 
to a significant extent the achievements of previous schools and 
considers organizations as objects in whose existence periods 
of stability are replaced by periods of major changes. This approach means that research focuses on certain periods in the 
history of organizations (growth, change, stability), life cycle 
stages (growth, maturity, decline), as well as the type and form of 
the organization in order to understand if there is a visible logic 
or system. 
The modern significance of these schools varies. Some of 
them have proven themselves well and hold reliable positions for 
analyzing the activities of companies belonging to “traditional” 
industries, others demonstrate the effectiveness of their methodology in newly developing, innovative business sectors, while 
others are more suitable for designing strategic changes in non—
profit organizations or municipal government organizations, etc. 
Therefore, it would hardly be productive to try to rank schools 
and areas of strategic management according to their importance or effectiveness in isolation from the actual context of 
the organizational problems in which they arose and which 
affects their development. It is more important to learn how to 
apply the necessary and effective methods from the entire arsenal of methods provided by schools to solve strategic management problems that arise in specific organizations and at a 
certain time. The research center for the theory of competition 
strategy has shifted from intra-company strategy to competition 
of the main elements of the enterprise.  
In particular, after the 80s of the last century, the theory 
of enterprise competition strategy gradually became the main 

academic theory, in which the three important schools of competition strategy theory were the school of strategic resources, 
the school of core competencies, and the school of industry structure. 
The second stage lasted from the early 70s to the early 80s, 
it was the heyday and development of strategic research at the 
enterprise. At this stage of the research, the main focus was on 
strategic management and the application of theoretical research 
in practice gradually began. 
The third stage, which began in the 80s and has continued 
to the present, is a period of reflection and development of corporate strategic research. Compared to the theory of the 70s, at 
this stage more attention is paid to human and cultural factors in 
the enterprise, the emphasis in research methods is on focus and 
efficiency, an irrational element is introduced into the way of 
thinking, which makes management flexible and increases the 
ability of the enterprise to adapt. 
The basic theory of competitiveness 
In the 1990s, American scientists Gary Hamel and Prahalad 
proposed the concept of the main competitiveness of an enterprise, according to which, regardless of the industry or enterprise, productivity and product quality are important factors that 
allow an enterprise to gain recognition from customers and 
the market in a short period of time.6 
As for the long-term development of the enterprise, it is 
the basic competitiveness of products that ultimately affects the 
development of the enterprise. Key competitiveness means that 
an enterprise has unique market advantages in a particular 
industry or area where its products, technology, and services 
have significant advantages and technical barriers that cannot be 
overcome by other enterprises. 
The following four characteristics are usually considered:  
1) value, allows the company to increase the quality of products, reduce the cost of production, extend the service life of products, improve the experience of interaction with the consumer; 
                                                                        
6 Hamel G. and Prahalad C. K. Competing for the Future. Paperback. Harvard business school press, 1996. 

2) uniqueness if only a small number of enterprises or enterprises in a given industry own the technology; 
3) irreplaceability, cannot be obtained by similar enterprises in the industry, and cannot be replaced in the process of 
interaction of products, equipment and consumer services; 
4) the enterprise hardly imitates other enterprises. From the 
very beginning of its existence, an enterprise has its advantages 
and peculiarities in culture, management methods, and technical 
means of the enterprise, and cannot imitate other enterprises. 
The business models of most enterprises providing R&D 
services in the field of software are classified as operations with 
intellectual assets. The main competitive ability of the enterprise 
consists mainly in the use of advanced information technologies 
and advanced R&D specialists. The success or failure of an enterprise in the software R&D market is often determined by the 
quality of technology and qualified personnel. Thus, the 
strengthening of technological research, Research and innovation, and the involvement of advanced specialists have become an 
important means for enterprises engaged in software research 
and development to gain their core competitiveness. 
The IT industry, in comparison with the usual traditional 
industries, is sensitive to the main competitive advantages in the 
field of technology, specialists, etc., especially in today’s era of the 
endless proliferation of new technologies. If software development companies do not have key competitiveness in the industries and areas in which they are located, they very easily fall into 
the price whirlpool of the homogenization of the product market, 
which seriously limits their long-term development. 
Thus, in the process of developing a development strategy 
for a software development company, the main importance is 
how the company maintains its core competitiveness in its industry and field. 
Diversification strategy 
A diversification strategy, also known as a development diversification strategy, is a strategy in which an enterprise is selected for a new market in order to avoid risks associated with 
individual products, operations and markets, in accordance with 
the stage and characteristics of the enterprise’s own development.