Rating assessment of the competitiveness of the enterprise. Analytical methods for assessing the competitiveness of an enterprise. Building requirements profile

A.G. Burda - Doctor of Economics Sci., professor

V. V. Kochetov - applicant

Kuban State Agrarian University

Methodological developments for a comprehensive comparative assessment of confectionery enterprises are proposed in order to increase their competitiveness and a more objective assessment of the rating of participants in the confectionery market, conclusions are drawn about the advisability of forming a holding of confectionery manufacturers based on the rating assessment of competitiveness according to the proposed method.

Competition is a fundamental principle and the main regulating force of market commodity production. Competition can be viewed as the main form of economic struggle for the maximum realization of the interests of sellers and buyers in the market. Market competitiveness is inextricably linked to concepts such as the competitiveness of an enterprise and the competitiveness of products and goods. The competitiveness of an enterprise largely determines the competitiveness of the products it produces. Competitive can be considered a product, the combination of consumer properties and cost characteristics of which determines its success in the market, that is, ensures its ability to be exchanged for money in the context of a wide offer for the exchange of competing goods with similar properties and characteristics.

The competitiveness of an enterprise or a firm is characterized by the presence of competitive advantages, that is, qualities that are absent or less pronounced in competitors. The emergence of competitive advantages can be facilitated by the use of a wide variety of more profitable production resources, new technologies, better staff and their higher qualifications, more reliable financial support, richer experience and skills in organizing production and sales activities, more active sales promotion, skillful use of marketing and commercial cooperation.

The competitiveness of an enterprise reflects the aggregate results of the work of all its divisions, the state of their material base, the reliability of personnel and financial support, the level of management and the ability of the enterprise to respond to changes in external factors of influence, the ability to adequately and promptly respond to changes in the behavior of customers, their tastes and preferences.

Strengthening competition in the product market is possible only if there are competitive and financially stable enterprises on it. The competitiveness of producers in the food market can be analyzed for various groups of competitiveness factors: liquidity and market stability, product quality, intensity of production and turnover of funds, the level of use of production and economic potential, management efficiency, price and sales policy, product promotion on the market, profitability, business activity, size of the enterprise and production, the level of its concentration, market share, provision of own funds.

Competitiveness, in our opinion, can be viewed not only as a qualitative characteristic of the market position, but also as a quantitatively measured parameter. A scientifically based methodology for assessing competitiveness can be built using various methods using various criteria. Assessment of the competitiveness of enterprises should be based on a certain set of indicators, the rationale for the composition of which is based on the objectives of the assessment and the needs of management entities. Since it is difficult to give priority to any single criterion, it seems appropriate to conduct a comprehensive assessment of competitiveness.

At the same time, it is possible to use methods that do not provide for the calculation of a single integral indicator, and that provide for the formation and quantitative assessment of a single integral criterion. These methods are discussed in the specialized literature on measurement theory and decision-making problems in economic systems.

In practice, in particular, can be applied:

The method of sums, when, for example, the growth rates of the selected indicators are summed up;

Weighted arithmetic mean, when the growth topics are summed up taking into account the weight of each indicator according to some principle;

A ranking method or sum of places, when the places achieved by enterprises according to selected indicators are summed up: the smallest sum of places means the first place;

The method of scoring, when each indicator has its own weight point, and the increments of indicators are estimated in points on a certain scale;

The assessment of competitiveness can be carried out on the basis of developing a rating of enterprises, taking into account the cumulative influence of the terms of competitiveness on the basis of the cumulative influence of competitiveness factors. An important requirement for such an assessment is based on data from official reporting.

Studies show that at present, many methods of rating assessment of enterprises have been proposed, each of which differs in the goals of the assessment, a set of initial parameters and indicators, the degree of application of automated databases, algorithms for obtaining standardized indicators, a convolution of criteria and calculation of a rating, the possibility of using in dynamics ...

In our opinion, for the rating assessment of the competitiveness of the leading enterprises of the confectionery industry of the Krasnodar Territory, it is possible to propose a method of comparative rating assessment of competitiveness, which includes the following stages:

1. Justification of the system of parameters and indicators of the competitiveness of enterprises, collection of information and calculation of values \u200b\u200bof indicators.

2. Development of a matrix of standardized (normalized) indicators (coefficients).

4. Ranking of enterprises according to the values \u200b\u200bof the integral rating assessment, analysis of "bottlenecks" and identification of reserves for increasing competitiveness.

Let's take a look at each of these steps.

Comparative assessment should take into account all important parameters of competitiveness and be based not on an arbitrary set of indicators, but on the characteristics of those aspects of the enterprise's activities that are essential for competitiveness. These characteristics usually include indicators for assessing the profitability and efficiency of economic activity, indicators for assessing management efficiency, indicators for assessing business activity, indicators for assessing liquidity and market stability, and solvency indicators.

However, it seems appropriate to measure the competitiveness of the confectionery industry to use not only the relative indicators of profitability, management efficiency, business activity, liquidity and market stability, but to supplement these four groups of indicators with the parameter of the size of production.

The size of production is one of the components of competitiveness, since large-scale production theoretically has undeniable competitive advantages. Therefore, to assess competitiveness, it is necessary to take into account such a parameter as the size of production, which can be expressed using various indicators: balance sheet currency, the cost of fixed and working capital, the volume of production and sales of products in physical terms and value, the number of employees, the value of net assets.

In assessing the competitiveness, the possible insolvency (bankruptcy) of the organization should also be taken into account. There have been changes in the Russian bankruptcy legislation related to the establishment of the insolvency criterion. If from 1992 to 1998 such a criterion was non-payment, determined by the ratio of the value of property and the amount of debt (based on an assessment of liquidity), then according to the Law "On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)" in the 1998 and 2002 editions "... a legal entity is considered incapable of satisfying creditors' claims for monetary obligations and (or) fulfilling the obligation to pay mandatory payments, if the corresponding obligations and (or) obligations are not fulfilled by him within three months from the date when they should be performed ", and the criterion of insolvency is solvency. Accordingly, in the methodological regulations for assessing the financial condition of enterprises approved by the executive bodies, the emphasis has shifted from assessing liquidity to calculating solvency based on comparing liabilities and average monthly revenue. Therefore, in a comprehensive assessment of the competitiveness of enterprises, we include solvency in the analyzed parameters.

Thus, to assess the competitiveness of enterprises in the confectionery industry, we proposed and substantiated a system of six parameters, the quantitative measurement of which is carried out using 31 indicators. For convenience, the initial data is presented in the form of a matrix, in which indicators are written on the sides, and enterprises are written in columns.

At the second stage, the calculated values \u200b\u200bof indicators that have different dimensions and units of measurement must be brought into a comparable form. To do this, for each indicator, a comparison is made with a conditional reference enterprise that has the best results for this indicator. The benchmark for comparison is the most successful competitor who has achieved the best results in this aspect of activity in the process of really existing market competition; this is in line with the practice of market competition, where enterprises strive to look better than their competitors in all respects.

In this case, we are dealing with certain observable properties of the studied and measured objects. To establish objective comparable numerical values \u200b\u200bof various characteristics in such cases, a metric scale of ratios is used. For each indicator of positive directivity, the maximum value is found in the matrix and is taken as a reference. The baseline values \u200b\u200bare standardized by dividing by the reference value.

where i - indicator numbers ( i = 1, 2, 3, …, m),

m -number of indicators,

j -company numbers ( i= 1, 2, 3, …, n),

n -number of enterprises,

- value i-th indicator j-th enterprise,

- standardized i-th indicator (coefficient) of competitiveness.

Thus, the selected indicators of profitability, management efficiency, business activity, liquidity, market stability, size and concentration, which have a positive orientation, are standardized, that is, the higher the value of the indicator, the better the corresponding parameter is estimated.

To standardize the solvency indicators that have a negative direction (that is, the higher the value of the indicator, the lower the solvency, since it is expressed in the months required to cover current liabilities by average monthly earnings according to the FSFR methodology), we have proposed and carried out the standardization of the solvency indicators by their reverse values.

At the same time, the inverse values \u200b\u200bof the solvency indicators were calculated, and their standardization was carried out according to the above scheme, that is

The statements made by some authors about the possibility of normalizing the matrix by dividing each indicator by the best value, which can be both maximum and minimum depending on the content of the indicator, seems to us at least controversial, since the standardized coefficients can take values\u003e 1. Further manipulation with them to obtain a rating number may give distorted results.

Standardization according to the scheme

leads to the fact that comparison is made not with the achievements of competitors, but with the outsiders of the competitive struggle.

When using the method proposed by us in the matrix of standardized indicators, all coefficients reflect the level of the corresponding enterprise in comparison with the most successful competitor in this aspect of the activity, they allow using various methods of folding criteria into a single functional, transforming a group of local criteria (indicators and parameters) into an integral criterion, reduce a multi-criteria problem to a single-criteria one.

At the third stage, the following special methods are usually used to obtain the integral criterion and calculate the rating number:

Method of highlighting the main criterion;

Multiplicative method of criteria convolution;

Additive method of criteria convolution;

Distance calculation method.

The disadvantage of the method of isolating the main criterion is that the comparison is carried out only by one criterion, and the values \u200b\u200bof others are not taken into account.

The multiplicative method of criteria convolution involves the construction of an integral criterion in the form of a simple product or weighted by importance of the product of local criteria, if they satisfy some conditions of multiplicativity. The disadvantages of this method include the existence of ambiguous compensation for the values \u200b\u200bof the criteria.

The additive method of criteria convolution involves the construction of an integral criterion in the form of a simple or weighted sum of local criteria:

where is the weighting coefficient of the criterion importance, determined by expert method,

The method for calculating distances is based on vector-matrix algebra, and a special kind of metric is introduced that characterizes the distance between the analyzed objects. This metric is used as a generalized criterion, as it describes the generalized distance between the current object and the object with which the comparison is made. Usually the distance between some actual object and its ideal representation is considered.

If we take the value of the most successful competitor actually achieved in the competitive struggle as ideal, then the value of the integral criterion can be calculated by the formula:

- standardized i-th indicator jth enterprise.

Since the value of each indicator for the conditional reference enterprise is taken as 1, then all its coordinates are equal to 1, and it characterizes the distance (distance) of the analyzed enterprise from the conventional one in multidimensional space.

At the fourth stage, based on the calculated values \u200b\u200bof the rating score, the companies are ranked according to the level of competitiveness. Depending on the chosen method of calculating the rating, the enterprises are ordered either in descending order of the indicator or in its increasing. If it is assumed the order of the enterprises with the highest rating to the lowest rating (the more successful competitor is the enterprise with the higher rating number), then the enterprises are ranked in descending order of the integral criterion, for example, with an additive convolution of criteria and the method of determining the distances from the origin. In the opposite case, if, according to the meaning of calculating the rating number, an enterprise with a lower rating value is more competitive, the ranking is carried out in ascending order of the rating number, that is, the most competitive is the enterprise with the lowest rating number.

We believe that the calculation of rating numbers and ranking of enterprises should be carried out not only for the entire set of parameters and indicators, but also for each group of indicators of a particular parameter: in terms of profitability, management efficiency, business activity, liquidity and market stability, size and concentration , solvency. This proposed approach of rating assessment in all parameters will allow identifying reserves for increasing competitiveness and focusing management decisions on improving parameters for which competitors have advantages.

We have calculated the integral indicators of competitiveness based on the materials of eight formations of the confectionery industry of the Krasnodar Territory of various organizational forms: CJSC "First Confectionery Plant" Anit "(Krasnodar), CJSC" Yuzhnaya Zvezda "(station Dinskaya), OJSC" Confectionery factory "( Armavir), holding "Confectionery plant" Kuban "(Timashevsk), which includes OJSC" Confectionery plant "Kuban" (city of Timashevsk), LLC "Confectionery plant" Kuban "(Timashevsk), LLC" Technology "(Timashevsk), private enterprise Kuzhelev (Timashevsk). Assessment of competitiveness was carried out for various groups: enterprises - members of the holding; the holding and its main competitors; holding and its competitive environment; OJSC "Kuban Confectionery Plant" and its main competitors. In this case, the additive convolution of criteria and the method of distances from the reference enterprise were used, that is, the ratings were built in two ways (options).

Carrying out calculations using the proposed method is quite laborious, especially for large sizes of the studied populations.

Personal computers and special software can provide essential assistance in computing procedures. We carried out calculations in MS EXCEL spreadsheets.

Table 1 - Values \u200b\u200bof the integral indicator of the competitiveness of the enterprises of the confectionery industry of the Krasnodar Territory calculated using the method of additive convolution, 2004

When using the method of additive convolution of criteria, the highest rating is given to the enterprise with the highest value of the integral criterion, that is, enterprises are ranked by places in ascending order of the rating indicator.

A quantitative assessment of profitability, efficiency of business management, liquidity and market stability, size and concentration of production, solvency as components of competitiveness allow us to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each enterprise in the competition.

According to the profitability of economic activity, ZAO Yuzhnaya Zvezda stands out, which in 2004 received 6907 thousand rubles. before tax, 5212 thousand rubles net profit and having the highest values \u200b\u200bof indicators of total profitability, net profitability, return on equity and total profitability of production assets. The opposite situation is with the OJSC "Confectionery Factory" (Armavir), which in 2004 was unprofitable.

Aggregate assessment of management efficiency based on the indicators of net and gross profit, profit from sales and profit before tax, calculated for 1 RUB. sales volume, testifies that JSC "Yuzhnaya Zvezda" and by this parameter occupies a leading position among competitors. The closed joint-stock company "First Confectionery Plant" Anit "(Krasnodar) closes the rating in terms of management efficiency, since in 2004 it incurred sales losses in the amount of 3459 thousand rubles, the loss before tax amounted to 284 thousand rubles, which affected on the values \u200b\u200bof management efficiency indicators, standardized coefficients and rating number for this parameter of competitiveness.

However, Anit is the leader in terms of business activity, has the best return on all assets, return on fixed assets, return on equity, turnover of working capital and turnover of the most liquid assets, and although it lags behind its competitors in terms of inventory turnover and accounts receivable, but insignificantly.

OJSC "Confectionery Factory" (Armavir), despite losses, occupies a leading position in terms of liquidity and market stability, as well as in terms of such parameters of competitiveness as solvency, size and concentration of production. Calculations show that Kuban Confectionery Plant OJSC (Timashevsk) should pay attention to the increase in liquidity and market stability, solvency of the enterprise. The Anit Plant is significantly inferior to its competitors in terms of size and concentration of production.

The integral indicator of competitiveness reflects all the parameters considered and allows a comprehensive conclusion about the competitiveness of enterprises as a whole. The most successful in the competition is ZAO Yuzhnaya Zvezda (station Dinskaya), which is ahead of OAO Confectionery Factory (Armavir) and OAO Confectionery Plant Kuban (Timashevsk), which is somewhat inferior to ZAO Anit ( Krasnodar city).

For clarity, we will rank enterprises, that is, we will distribute them in places depending on the value of the integral indicator of competitiveness, determined using the additive method (Table 2).

Such presentation of information allows us to judge not only the general level of competitiveness of enterprises and their closest rivals according to their place in the rating based on the integral indicator, but also to identify bottlenecks, reserves for increasing competitiveness based on the analysis of ratings built for each parameter of competitiveness.

Table 2 - Rating of the competitiveness of the enterprises of the confectionery industry of the Krasnodar Territory by the additive method, 2004

Calculations show that for CJSC Anit, the directions of increasing competitiveness can be, first of all, increasing the efficiency of management, the level of concentration and size of production, for OJSC Confectionery Plant Kuban - an increase in the level of business activity, liquidity and solvency; for OJSC factory "(Armavir) - improvement of the profitability of economic activity; CJSC" South Star "occupies a leading position in almost all groups of indicators and only in terms of the size and concentration of production has the third position in the rating.

Thus, the proposed methodology for a comprehensive assessment of the level of competitiveness makes it possible not only to build ratings, but also to identify potential growth points, both for outsiders and for leaders of the competitive struggle. Naturally, the considered methods do not deny other ways of identifying reserves for increasing competitiveness, which can also be found in those aspects of activities in which the company is already in the lead, and an increase in the corresponding gap will only strengthen competitive positions and advantages.

It should be noted that the results achieved, on the one hand, reflect the actual level of development of each parameter, and, on the other hand, reflect the prospects for competitiveness, since in the competitive struggle, enterprises with the best results have certain advantages.

The proposed technique can be used for research and other aspects of increasing the competitiveness of producers of confectionery products in the rural area. In particular, it is reasonable to ask the question: "How do integration processes affect the change in the level of competitiveness?" Let us consider how participation in a holding affects the competitiveness of its member enterprises.

To do this, we will carry out similar calculations for the same main competitors, but in comparison not with OJSC "Kuban Confectionery Plant" (Timashevsk), but the entire holding "Kuban Confectionery Plant", in which OJSC is the parent company and the holder of major shares in ownership: LLC "Confectionery factory" Kuban "(Timashevsk), LLC" Technology "(Timashevsk) and private enterprise Kuzhelev (Timashevsk) (Table 3).

As you can see, the level of competitiveness of the holding is generally higher than that of its parent enterprise, the Kuban plant, judging by the integral indicator. Moreover, positions are noticeably strengthening in almost every parameter. The holding occupies a leading position in terms of size and concentration of production, outperforms CJSC "Anit" in terms of profitability, practically keeps pace with the Armavir confectionery factory in terms of business activity, the holding's solvency is higher than that of the first confectionery plant "Anit".

Table 3 - Influence of the consolidation of the confectionery industry enterprises of the Timashevsky region into a holding on the values \u200b\u200bof the integral indicator of competitiveness when calculated using the additive convolution method, 2004

When calculating complex indicators, doubts may arise whether such an assessment is too arbitrary, how the choice of the criteria convolution method affects the results, whether the assessment is objective. Therefore, it is advisable to carry out calculations using various methods.

The competitiveness of an enterprise includes a set of economic characteristics that determine the position of a firm in the market. It expresses the differences in the level of development of a given enterprise from a competing one in terms of the degree of customer satisfaction and the efficiency of production activities.

The process of analyzing the competitiveness of an enterprise begins with identifying the factors affecting the attitude of consumers towards the firm and its products. These include:

the image of the company (perception of consumers about the reputation of the company and its products, about the brand policy of the company, etc.);
quality of goods, the level of their compliance with international standards;
R&D development, availability of advanced technologies;
commercial terms (loans, discounts);
organization of a sales network (forms of sales, distribution system);
organization of maintenance (terms of warranty repair, cost of service, etc.);
promotion of goods on the market.

After evaluating the above factors, the company compares them with similar indicators of competitors and determines the level of competitiveness in the market.

In marketing practice, various methods are used to determine the competitiveness of an enterprise, the most popular are:

interview;
analysis of economic competitiveness;
scoring method;
method of building a profile of requirements;
the method of scoring taking into account the coefficients of the weighting factors;
method of calculating the competitiveness of the marketing activity of an enterprise.

Interview begins with the development of a questionnaire and is carried out in order to identify the competitiveness of the enterprise.

The basis for analysis of economic competitiveness are indicators calculated as the ratio of production costs to profit (K1), costs of referring to profit (K2) and marketing costs to profit (KZ). Approximate standards of indicators: K1 \u003d 1.1; K2 \u003d \u003d 0.7; KZ \u003d 0.4.

These indicators are compared with similar indicators of competitors, on the basis of which a conclusion is made about the competitiveness of the enterprise.

To assess the competitiveness of an enterprise using scoring method a 5-point scale is used, with the help of which experts evaluate the above factors (0 - the weakest positions, 5 - the strongest positions) (Table 9.22).

Table 9.22

Point assessment of the factors of enterprise competitiveness

competitors

Product quality

Brand image

Packaging

Life time

Uniqueness

Guarantee period

Availability of a patent

Points total

List price

Loan conditions

Points total

Sales channels

Sales forms

Stock control

Transport system

Points total

Promotion

Personal sale

Stimulation

Points total

The company with the most points is considered the most competitive in the market.

Requirements profiling method It is also based on the expert scores (5 points - "excellent", 1 point - "very bad") (Table 9.23). In the columns, the experts put down points for each enterprise in accordance with the specified requirements, which then build graphs. The company on the right is considered the strongest competitor.

Table 9.23

Building a requirements profile

Scoring method based on weighting factors is presented in table. 9.24.

Table 9.24

Score based on the weighting factor

Index	weight	Competitors



Product quality
Market share
Enterprise image
Relative price
Conditions of payment
Delivery conditions

The weighting factors add up to 1 or 100

Note. Score 0 - expert assessment. Ball! - expert assessment taking into account the weighting coefficient.

Relative indicator of enterprise competitiveness(КС 0ТН) is calculated by the formula

where Bf is the score of the analyzed enterprise; B k - the competitor's score.

KS 0TN
КС 0ТН \u003d 1, then it is on the same level with the competing enterprise;
КС 0ТН\u003e 1, then it surpasses the competitor.

An excess of the competitiveness indicator by 30% indicates a competitive, but unstable position of the enterprise in the market, from 30 to 50% - to a fairly stable, from 50 to 70% - to successful.

Method for calculating the competitiveness of the marketing activity of an enterprise involves the grouping of competitiveness criteria by individual marketing elements (product, price, distribution, promotion).

1. To calculate the competitiveness of marketing activities by product the following indicators are used. Market share ratio (Kd p) shows the share occupied by the enterprise in the market:

Presale factor (Х пп) characterizes the efforts of the enterprise in this direction:

where? 3 PP - the amount of costs for pre-sale preparation; ? З pr + orgprod - the sum of production costs (product acquisition) and sales organization.

If the product does not require pre-sale preparation, then it is accepted ^ лп \u003d 1-

Sales change rate (K AP q) shows a change in competitiveness due to a change in sales volume:

where PQ K and PQ n - sales volume, respectively, at the end and beginning of the reporting period.

2. To calculate competitiveness by price used by price level coefficient (Du C), which shows the dependence of the level of competitiveness on changes in the price of a product:

where Ts shah is the maximum price of a product on the market; Ц ш1п - the minimum price of a product on the market; Ts up - the price of the goods set by the enterprise.

3. Determine the competitiveness of marketing by bringing the product to consumers allows coefficient of bringing the product to consumers (K cC)), which shows the dependence of the level of competitiveness of the firm on the costs of sales activities.

where HZSB K; EZSB, - the sum of the costs of sales activities, respectively, at the end and beginning of the reporting period.

4. Enterprise competitiveness on product promotiondetermined using the following indicators.

Personal sales utilization rate (К И1Ш) indicates an increase in competitiveness due to the use of personal sales with the participation of sales agents:

where 3j A and Зу А are the costs associated with personal sales of sales agents at the end and beginning of the reporting period, respectively.

Public relations utilization rate (K PR) indicates a change in the level of competitiveness of a firm depending on improvements in public relations (PR) activities:

where 3p R and 3p R are PR costs, respectively, at the end and beginning of the reporting period.

where p- total number of indicators.

Also, to calculate the competitiveness of the marketing activity of the company, it is determined the sum of the coefficients of all products (K g),

where z - the number of products of the company.

For a more complete analysis of the company's competitiveness, financial indicators are taken into account:

current liquidity ratio (TO TL , standard 1.5-2):

where And t - current assets (current assets); О т - current liabilities;

equity ratio (Kss):

where IRB], IRB 2, IRB 3 - the results of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd sections of the balance, respectively.

Thus, complete enterprise competitiveness formula (KS P) will be as follows:

Applicants

IN A MARKET NICHE	FOLLOWERS

BANKRUPTS		IN A MARKET NICHE

Fig. 9.9. Group ranking matrix of competing enterprises

Market leaders - enterprises with the maximum competitiveness coefficient - from 9.1 to 10. The dominant strategy is defense.

Market Challengers - enterprises, the calculated coefficient of competitiveness of which lies in the range from 3.1 to 9. They are characterized by an attack strategy in all areas of activity.

Market followers - enterprises, the calculated coefficient of competitiveness of which lies in the range of 1-3. This group has a policy of following the industry leader.

For enterprises, operating in the market niche, the estimated competitiveness ratio ranges from -0.99 to -6.9. They are characterized by a high level of specialization.

Bankrupts - enterprises with a competitiveness coefficient from -7 to -10. These enterprises carry out measures to exit bankruptcy or settle accounts with creditors and are liquidated.

An enterprise's competitive position also depends on the support it receives from government agencies.

Questions to Think About

What measures should be taken to improve the competitiveness of products? What parameters should competitive products meet?

It is set out in the Methodological Recommendations for the Application of Scoring in Relation to Bids and Qualifications of Suppliers Participating in Tenders for Placing Orders for the Supply of Goods, Works and Services to Meet Government Needs. These recommendations are also contained in the Letter of the Ministry of Economy of the Russian Federation dated June 2, 2000 No. АС-751 / 4-605 (hereinafter Methodology 2, section 2). In addition, the scoring method is widely presented in the scientific literature.

Method 2 is intended for use by government customers - recipients of funds from the federal budget and extra-budgetary sources. It allows you to obtain an individual and integral assessment of the price and non-price criteria contained in the bids of resource suppliers, and on the basis of this, select a winner, as well as conduct a comprehensive assessment of the qualifications of suppliers and rank them according to this criterion. It can also be used by customers - recipients of funds from the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local budgets, non-budgetary sources of financing, purchasing products for state and municipal needs.

The point method is currently quite often used in the domestic procurement practice of government and corporate structures. This is due to the simplicity of its calculations and clarity. The initial moment of using this method is the formulation by the competition commission of the composition of the most important indicators for evaluating competitive applications.

professional knowledge and qualifications of the supplier;
supplier experience;
reputation (image) of the supplier;
supplier reliability;
availability of funds, equipment and other material capabilities for the execution of the contract;
bank guarantees, sureties;
availability of the necessary labor resources to fulfill the state contract.

The following are recommended as criteria (indicators) for evaluating proposals coming from alternative suppliers:

the price of the application (contract);
the timing of payments, distributed over time;
the validity period of the price declared for the competition;
conditions for price adjustment;
operating, maintenance and repair costs associated with purchased goods;
terms (periods) of delivery of goods, completion of work (provision of services);
functional or quality characteristics of the product (quality of work, services);
forms of payments;
payment procedure;
conditions for the provision of guarantees for goods (work, service);
the term for providing guarantees of the quality of goods (works, services);
the scope of providing guarantees for the quality of goods (works, services).

A specific list of criteria characterizing the qualifications of suppliers and the content of bids, as well as the relative importance of these criteria and the algorithm for choosing a winner, must be reflected in the bidding documents.

The criteria provided for in the tender documentation must be as objective and quantifiable as possible. In the case of using indicators that do not have a quantitative assessment, their expert assessment is applied in compliance with the rules and procedures mandatory for the implementation of expert methods (formation of an expert commission, a procedure for interviewing experts, processing expert information, building a resulting assessment).

The essence of the scoring method outlined in Method 2 is as follows. Each criterion contained in the competitive bid, characterizing the qualifications of the supplier, receives an assessment in points on a ten-point scale. For this purpose, the values \u200b\u200bof the analyzed criterion in natural units are ranked for all suppliers. The worst value of the criterion is assigned one point, the best - 10 points. Application of the interpolation method in the range of 1-10 points allows to determine the point value of the criterion for each alternative supplier.

The scoring of the y-th criterion for the ith supplier is recommended to be determined by the formula

where B y - the score of the analyzed criterion (indicator) for the ith supplier;

Ny - the value of the analyzed criterion (indicator) for the i-th supplier, in natural units;

N thin y - the worst value of the analyzed y criterion (indicator) among all suppliers, in natural units;

L ^ ray - the best value of the analyzed y "criterion (indicator) among all suppliers, in natural units of measurement;

Bschah - the maximum score (equal to 10);

Emin is the minimum score (equal to 1).

Introduction to formula (9.8) for each y "-th criterion of the i-th resource supplier of two constants, namely 1 and (B max - B min), only

complicates it and, accordingly, increases the complexity of calculations. It is not possible to understand the meaning of introducing these constants into the considered formula.

Expression -, J -- thin / present in formula (9.8),

^ ray y - - ^ thin y

is a well-known method for normalizing various criteria, i.e. reducing them to dimensionless values. Thanks to its separate use, it becomes possible to scientific basis rank the criteria, set the corresponding intermediate values \u200b\u200bof the scores and subsequently identify the winner of the competition (i.e. the resource provider). It also raises doubts about the appropriateness of assigning a unit to the worst criterion value among the suppliers participating in the competition. The worst numerical assessment of a criterion should be assigned zero, but not one, by means of which the value of the corresponding criterion is artificially increased. Meanwhile, this problem is automatically solved in the case of a stand-alone use of the above formula, with the help of which the procedure of criteria normalization is performed. In addition, using the same formula, the complex problem of obtaining numerical estimates according to criteria that occupies an intermediate position between the worst and the best values \u200b\u200bis automatically solved.

According to Method 2, each criterion is assigned its own coefficient of importance (weight). It is established by expert advice, taking into account the achievement of the objectives of the competition, which most fully satisfy the requirements of the customer. When establishing the weighting factors, the condition must be met, according to which the sum of the weighting factors of all criteria must be equal to one. The importance factors are used to weigh the numerical estimates for each individual criterion and then sum them up. The resource provider with the highest weighted aggregate score is considered the most economically preferred. With him, a contract is usually concluded for the supply of the necessary goods to the customer (buyer).

If among the indicators characterizing the tender application and (or) the qualifications of the supplier, there are criteria that cannot be quantified, then an expert point assessment of such indicators is applied. For example, if the degree of compliance of the criterion with the requirements of the tender documentation is expertly assessed on a ten-point scale, then the assessment according to Method 2 can be formed based on the following conditions:

1-3 points - partial compliance with the tender documentation;
4-6 points - full compliance with the requirements of the competition;
7-8 points - the criterion characterizing the supplier partially exceeds the requirements of the tender documentation;

9-10 points - the criterion characterizing the supplier significantly exceeds the requirements of the tender documentation.

The families of scores recommended above, as it seems to us, were established subjectively, by evenly distributing scores in four groups. At the same time, such concepts as “partial and significant superiority of the criterion over the requirements of the tender documentation” remained not formulated in Method 2. Meanwhile, members of the same competition commission and experts can interpret these concepts in different ways, which makes it difficult to obtain objective scores according to the relevant criteria.

If obtaining reliable scores according to various criteria is accompanied by the involvement of a significant number of experts, then in this case, to determine the degree of their validity, we recommend using concordance method, allowing to assess the level of consistency of expert opinions. If there is a very significant scatter of opinions regarding the scores given at the previous stage, they can be refined at a subsequent stage.

The use of the scoring method should provide for a preliminary determination of the working scale, on the basis of which marks will be given according to the criteria under consideration.

The most commonly used types of scales

Table 9.3

The best assessment of specialists and the most widespread use was received by the point assessment scale proposed by T. Saati. Taking this circumstance into account, it is advisable to use this scale when solving problems in the competitive bidding system.

The price adjusted for the timing of payments is calculated using the formula

where C 3 is the price set in accordance with the application;

Q - annual refinancing rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation at the time of summing up the results of the competition,%;

K - the number of days of delay in payment.

To illustrate the calculation system in accordance with the scoring method given in Method 2, we will use the example of calculations given in it (Table 9.5).

Rationale for supplier selection according to the scoring method

Table 9.5

Criterion	Criterion weighting factor	Unit measure	Criterion values \u200b\u200bfor different suppliers
			Supplier number

Price of the subject of the competition
Possibilities of increasing the payment term with the maximum payment term after the submission of payment documents
1. Total: The price of the subject of the tender, taking into account the timing of payments for Q = 40%
Number of points
Points based on weight
2. Proposals to speed up the execution of the contract
Shorter delivery times
Number of points
Points based on weight
3. Experience in performing similar contracts
Number of completed contracts		the contract
Number of points
Points based on weight
4. Availability of mobilization capacities
Share of mobilization capacities in the total production capacity (capacities of all suppliers are assumed to be the same)
Number of points
Points based on weight
5. Overall assessment of suppliers' proposals

According to the results of the calculations contained in table. 9.5, we can conclude that the supplier number four is economically preferable, since it has the highest total weighted score.

The disadvantage of the above calculation system is that it provides for an artificial transition from deterministic to point estimates. It is known that the scores mentioned above are characterized by subjectivity, which negatively affects the reliability of the calculations.

It is advisable to use the scoring method of assessment when it is not possible to have deterministic, or interval, numerical estimates of the studied criteria. In the example considered above, the experts had such numerical estimates. Therefore, translating them into points is unnecessary. This complicated the calculations and increased their complexity. To work with numerical estimates, it was necessary to use a normalization procedure in relation to the criteria, which allows the criteria with different units of measurement to be reduced to dimensionless quantities. With such values, you can perform various mathematical operations, almost completely eliminating elements of subjectivity in the calculations.

The scope of application of the scoring method extends to situations where it is impossible to obtain numerical deterministic estimates in the units that are characteristic of this criterion (for example, rubles, days, percent, etc.) according to the criteria under study. It can be used when there are only verbal (verbal) characteristics for all assessment criteria. However, solving the problem associated with choosing the most competitive supplier of resources, in this case, will require the use of special calculation methods.

The method of scoring, as well as the methods of the sum of places and the sum of the first places (we will talk about them below), it is advisable to apply to solving problems when all the criteria appearing in the calculations are characterized by a unidirectional effect on the desired result (for example, the change in the volume of profit desired for a business is usually directed to upward, and costs or expenses - downward). The problem associated with the need for simultaneous consideration in the problem of criteria changing in the directions of maximization and minimization can be easily solved if we use the natural procedure for their normalization (reduction to dimensionless values).

The advantage of the methods of scoring and the sum of places and the sum of the first places is their simplicity and relatively low labor intensity of calculations.

Thus, the significant disadvantages of the scoring method described in Method 2 are as follows.

1. The expediency of using the method extends mainly to simple, standard products, the main properties of which are quantitative certainty (in terms of number, size, weight), simplicity and qualitative uniformity, divisibility and replaceability by any other product from the same batch.
2. Subjectivity in assigning the number of points that are intermediate between the maximum and minimum numerical estimates of the criteria.
3. The emergence of additional difficulties in establishing the most appropriate scale of assessments, presented in the form of a certain acceptable range of change (for example, the delivery time of goods can be set with an accuracy of several weeks).
4. Excessive (or artificial), unjustified complexity and laboriousness of calculations associated with the transition from numerical assessments of criteria to subjective scores.
5. It is not excluded that the choice as the winning supplier is the one that has sufficiently high values \u200b\u200b(in points) of particular criteria (ie, less significant in comparison with the rest) and, at the same time, low values \u200b\u200bof the weight coefficients. This solution cannot be considered the best.
6. Creation of expert councils for establishing scores according to different criteria is a rather lengthy and expensive process.

Note that at present there are no sufficiently rigorous methods for selecting experts to ensure unconditional success in the examination. Modern mathematical methods for establishing expert assessments are mainly methods of statistics of objects of non-numerical nature.

To make informed management decisions when conducting competitive bidding, it is always necessary to rely on practical experience, scientific knowledge and intuition of specialists acting as experts. At the same time, methods of expert assessments are methods of organizing work with experts and processing their various opinions, expressed in quantitative and (or) qualitative form, in order to prepare information for decision-makers (DM).

To carry out work related to obtaining expert assessments, a working group is created at the facility. Her responsibilities include organizing, on behalf of the decision maker, the activities of experts united in an expert commission.

A sufficient number of methods for obtaining expert assessments are known from the special literature. In one situation, each expert is worked separately, he does not even know who else is an expert, and therefore expresses his opinion regardless of the authorities. In another situation, experts are brought together to prepare materials for decision makers. At the same time, experts discuss the problem with each other, learn from each other and discard irrational proposals. In some cases, the number of experts is fixed and such that statistical methods of checking the consistency of opinions and then averaging them allow to make informed decisions. In other cases, the number of experts grows during the examination process, for example, when using the “snowball” method.

At present, there is no scientifically substantiated classification of expert assessment methods, as well as unambiguous recommendations for their application. However, very useful information can be found in the book "Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Expert Assessments".

As noted above, in order to take into account the different economic significance for a specific object (enterprise, organization) of the criteria used in the calculations, importance coefficients are used. Their establishment is the defining moment in obtaining the final solution to the problem. In some cases, the possibility of manipulation by the customer with the final results of the conducted competitive bidding is not excluded by establishing well-defined weight coefficients according to the criteria under consideration. The consequence of changing the coefficients of importance according to the criteria will change the winner (i.e. the supplier with the greatest potential). Given this circumstance, it is fundamentally important to know modern methods for establishing reasonable weighting factors. Here is a classification of these methods.

1. obtaining initial information on all compared enterprises;

2. the initial information is presented in the form of a matrix in which the values \u200b\u200bof the indicators (i \u003d 1, 2 ...., n) are entered in the rows, and the compared enterprises (j \u003d 1, 2 ...., m) are entered in the columns;

3.correlate the initial indicators with the corresponding indicators of the competing enterprise (the best in the industry, the reference enterprise) according to the formula:

where x ij - relative indicators of the economic activity of the enterprise:

4. for the analyzed enterprise, the value of the rating score at the end of the time period is determined by the formula:

5. Competitive enterprises are ranked in descending order of rating. The highest rating belongs to the company with the maximum value of the comparative assessment, calculated using the formula above.

Rating methods can take into account not only tangible assets, but also intangible assets (reputation of management, organizational abilities, etc.), for example: overall quality of management, quality of products or services, financial stability, degree of social responsibility, etc.

The methodology for assessing the competitiveness of an enterprise, based on a comprehensive study of the internal environment of an enterprise, involves two areas:

determination of the list of internal factors and assessment of their influence on the efficiency and quality of the enterprise,
identification of strengths and weaknesses in each of the functional areas.

The first direction of research - identifying the composition of internal factors and assessing their impact on the efficiency and quality of the company's activities - is carried out to establish reserves for improving activities. The study is based on the use of a comprehensive analysis of production and economic activities and financial management. Therefore, as a rule, the analysis begins with a consideration of the financial condition of the company. This analysis aims to find out how the future development of the company is consistent with the availability of sufficient funds and the company's solvency. Financial indicators can be grouped into the following four groups:

The first group - these are indicators for assessing the profitability of economic activity:

The overall profitability of the enterprise (total return to assets).
The company's net profitability (net income to assets).
Return on equity (net income to equity).
The overall profitability of production assets (total profit to the average value of fixed assets and working capital).

Second group - these are indicators of management efficiency assessment:

Net profit to sales volume.
Total profit to sales volume.

The third group - these are indicators for assessing business activity:

Return on assets (proceeds from product sales to assets).
Return of fixed assets (proceeds from product sales to fixed assets).
The turnover of working capital (proceeds from product sales to working capital).
Accounts receivable turnover (proceeds from product sales to accounts receivable).
Bank assets turnover (proceeds from product sales to bank assets).
Return on equity (proceeds from sales of products to equity).

The fourth group - these are indicators for assessing liquidity:

Current liquidity ratio (current assets to term liabilities).
Other assets to term liabilities.
Permanent asset index (fixed assets and other non-current assets to equity).
Autonomy Ratio (equity to the balance sheet).
Provision of stocks with own circulating assets (own circulating assets to reserves).

The analysis of these indicators will make it possible to find out the patterns of their change, to assess the effectiveness of financial activities.

Characteristics indicative of a decline in financial performance:

persistently low values \u200b\u200bof liquidity ratios;
constant shortage of working capital:
a high level of overdue accounts payable and receivable;
a high share of borrowed funds in the total amount of sources of funds;
lack of long-term contracts;
low profitability of production;
insufficient diversification of activities;
high level of financial risk:
low level of profitability of financial investments;
decreasing production volumes and growth in production costs, etc.

The second direction of research - the identification of strengths and weaknesses in each of the functional areas - is carried out in order to identify areas of activity and resources (opportunities) that can become the basis for the company's future strategy and create sustainable competitive advantages. This analysis can be done in a section.

Bolodurina V.A.

Student, Khabarovsk Academy of Economics and Law

METHODS FOR ASSESSING THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE ENTERPRISE

annotation

The article discusses several methods for assessing the competitiveness of an enterprise, which will allow for a qualitative analysis of specific competitive positions.

Keywords: competitiveness, methods of assessing competitiveness

Bolodurina V.A.

Student, Khabarovsk Academy of Economics and Law

METHODS OF ASSESSING THE COMPETITIVENESS OF ENTERPRISES

Annotation

The article deals with several methods of valuation of competitiveness of the enterprise that will make a qualitative analysis of the specific competitive position.

Keywords: competitiveness, competitiveness evaluation methods

1.The concept of competitiveness

The concept of competitiveness has begun to play an important role in the activities of modern enterprises.

The competitiveness of an enterprise is usually understood as its ability to be in demand and successful in the market, compete with competing firms and receive more economic benefits in comparison with suppliers of similar products.

In general, competitiveness is a complex characteristic and it can be expressed through a set of indicators. To determine the position occupied by an economic entity in the domestic and foreign markets, it is necessary to assess its competitiveness.

The assessment of competitiveness, which must be carried out by companies, is often based on intuitive feelings, however, it can be formalized by describing a range of indicators that allow the assessment itself and allow to highlight the directions of increasing competitiveness through the identification of influencing factors.

The indicators that can be used in assessing the competitiveness of a company are different and their set may differ depending on the assessment methodology used.

In modern science, there are six main approaches to determining competitiveness.

According to the first approach, competitiveness is considered in terms of advantages over competitors.

The second approach is based on A. Marshall's theory of equilibrium. The manufacturer has no reason to move to another state, and he reaches the maximum profit and sales level.

The third approach is to assess the competitiveness of product quality based on the compilation of polygonal profiles for various characteristics of competence.

The fourth approach is a matrix methodology for assessing competitiveness, it is implemented through the compilation of matrices and a preliminary choice of strategy.

The fifth approach is structural, in accordance with it, the position of an enterprise can be assessed through such indicators as: the level of monopolization of the industry, the presence of barriers for new enterprises entering the market.

The sixth approach is functional, its representatives determine the ratio between costs and prices, the volumes of utilization of production capacities, the quantity of products and other indicators. In accordance with this approach, companies are considered competitive in which production and further sale of goods are better established, and financial resources management is more efficient. For example, this is the approach taken by Dun & Bradstreet, a well-known American consulting firm.

The first group - these are indicators that characterize the efficiency of production and trade activities of the enterprise. Among them are: the ratio of net profit to net value of tangible assets, the ratio of net profit to net sales, and the ratio of net profit to net working capital is also used.

The second group of indicators are indicators of the intensity of the use of fixed capital and working capital. Representatives of this group include: the ratio of net sales to net working capital, the ratio of net sales to the net value of tangible assets, the ratio of fixed capital to the value of tangible assets, the ratio of net sales to the value of inventories and the ratio of inventories to net working capital.

The final group of indicators is represented by indicators of financial performance. These are such characteristics as: the ratio of current debt to the value of tangible assets, the ratio of current debt to the value of inventories, the ratio of working capital to current debt, the ratio of long-term liabilities to net working capital.

We believe that the latter approach to determining competitiveness is the most accurate and fully reflects the market situation.

2. Methods for assessing the competitiveness of enterprises

To date, many methods have been developed for assessing the competitiveness of enterprises, they can be classified in this way (Table 1).

Table 1 - Methods for assessing the competitiveness of enterprises

3. Analysis of existing assessment methods

Matrix estimation methods are simple enough and provide descriptive information. Moreover, they are based on considering the process of competition in development and, if truthful information is available, make it possible to carry out a sufficiently high-quality analysis of competitive positions.

The methods, which are based on assessing the competitiveness of products, link the competitiveness of an enterprise and the competitiveness of a product through the concept of "efficient consumption". It is believed that competitiveness is higher the higher the quality of the product and the lower its cost. Among the positive features of these methods are: simplicity and clarity of the assessment. But at the same time, they do not give a complete picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the enterprise.

Let's consider methods based on the theory of effective competition. According to it, the most competitive firms are those in which the work of all departments and services is best established. Evaluating the performance of any such structure implies an assessment of the effectiveness of its use of resources. This assessment methodology is used most of all in the assessment of industrial enterprises and includes all the most important assessments of economic activity, excluding duplication of specific indicators, makes it possible to create an overall picture of the company's competitive position in the domestic and foreign markets quickly and accurately.

The implementation of integrated methods for assessing the competitiveness of an enterprise is carried out using the method of integral assessment. This method includes two components: firstly, the criterion characterizing the degree of satisfaction of consumer needs, and secondly, the criterion of production efficiency. A positive feature of this method is the simplicity of the calculations performed and the ability to unambiguously interpret the results. At the same time, an important disadvantage is the incomplete description of the enterprise's activities.

4. Choosing the best assessment methodology

After analyzing the methods for assessing the level of enterprise competitiveness developed to date, we came to the conclusion that there is no ideal methodology for comprehensive assessment of enterprise competitiveness from all sides. The highlighted shortcomings of the existing approaches to assessing the competitiveness of enterprises cause severely limited opportunities for practical application of most of them. For example, the reliability of the results obtained, the ease of their identification and the possibility of further application significantly depend on the method by which the competitiveness of a firm in the non-production sphere is assessed.

For a correct assessment and further enhancement of the competitiveness of an enterprise, many methods have been developed that can be applied both individually and in a complex, depending on the tasks set before the start of the assessment. The variety of methods existing today makes it possible to choose the most effective and simple assessment method for each specific enterprise.

Literature

Gryaznova A.G., Yudanov A.Yu. Microeconomics. A hands-on approach. - M .: KnoRus., 2011.
Ilyicheva I.V. Marketing: teaching aid / Ulyanovsk: UlSTU, 2010 .-- 229 p.
Lazarenko A. Methods for assessing competitiveness [Text] / A. A. Lazarenko // Young scientist. - 2014. - No. 1. - S. 374-377.
Microeconomics. Textbook / ed. G.A. Rodina, S.V. Tarasova. –M .: Yurayt, 2012.
Polyanichkin Yu. A. Methods for assessing the competitiveness of enterprises [Text] / Yu. A. Polyanichkin // Business in law. - 2012. - No. 3. - S. 191-194.

References

AG Gryaznov, Yu Yudanov Microeconomics. A practical approach. - M.: KnoRus., 2011.
Ilicheva IV Marketing: teaching aid / Ulyanovsk: Ulyanovsk State Technical University, 2010 .-- 229 p.
Lazarenko AA Methods of assessing the competitiveness / A. Lazarenko // Young scientist. - 2014. - No. 1. - S. 374-377.
Microeconomics. Textbook / Ed. GA Homeland, SV Tarasovoy. M.: Yurayt 2012.
Polyanichkin YA Methods of assessing the competitiveness of enterprises / Yu Polyanichkin // Business Law. - 2012. - No. 3. - S. 191-194.

It might be helpful to read: