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

Burda A. G. - Ph.D. n., professor

Kochetov V. V. - competitor

Kuban State Agrarian University

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

Competition is a fundamental principle and the main regulating force of market commodity production. Competition can be considered as the main form of economic struggle for the maximum realization of the interests of sellers and buyers in the market. Such concepts as the competitiveness of an enterprise and the competitiveness of products and goods are inextricably linked with market competitiveness. The competitiveness of enterprises largely determines the competitiveness of the products it produces. Competitive can be considered that 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 conditions of a wide offer for the exchange of competing goods with similar properties and characteristics.

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

The competitiveness of an enterprise reflects the cumulative 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 commodity 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 by 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, pricing and marketing policy, promotion of goods on the market, profitability, business activity, the size of the enterprise and production, the level of its concentration, market share, self-sufficiency.

Competitiveness, in our opinion, can be considered not only as a qualitative characteristic of the market position, but also as a quantitatively measured parameter. A scientifically based method for assessing competitiveness can be built using various methods using various criteria. The 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 provide for the formation and quantitative assessment of a single integral criterion. These methods are considered in the special literature on measurement theory and decision-making problems in economic systems.

In practice, in particular, the following can be applied:

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

Arithmetic weighted average, when the topics of growth are summed up taking into account the weight of each indicator according to some principle;

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 score, and the increments of indicators are evaluated in points on a certain scale;

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

Studies show that at present, many methods for rating assessment of enterprises have been proposed, each of which differs in the objectives of the assessment, a set of initial parameters and indicators, the degree of use of automated databases, algorithms for obtaining standardized indicators, convolution of criteria and calculating the rating score, the possibility of using it 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 for comparative rating assessment of competitiveness, which includes the following steps:

1. Substantiation of the system of parameters and indicators of competitiveness of enterprises, collection of information and calculation of indicator values.

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

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

Let's consider each of these stages.

A comparative assessment should take into account all the 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 profitability and efficiency. economic activity, management performance assessment indicators, assessment indicators business activity, indicators for assessing liquidity and market stability, indicators of solvency.

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

The size of production is one of the components of competitiveness, since large-scale production theoretically has undeniable competitive advantages. Therefore, in order 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, cost of fixed and working capital, the volume of production and sales of products in physical and value terms, the number of employees, the value of net assets.

When assessing 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 a liquidity assessment), then according to the law "On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)" in the version of 1998 and 2002 "... a legal entity is considered unable to satisfy the claims of creditors for monetary obligations and (or) fulfill the obligation to make mandatory payments, if the relevant obligations and (or) obligation are not fulfilled by him within three months from the date when they must be fulfilled", and the criterion of insolvency is solvency. Accordingly, in the methodological provisions for assessing financial condition enterprises approved by the executive bodies, the focus has shifted from assessing liquidity to calculating solvency based on a comparison of liabilities and average monthly revenue. Therefore, in a comprehensive assessment of the competitiveness of enterprises, we included solvency in the composition of the analyzed parameters.

Thus, to assess the competitiveness of the confectionery industry, we have proposed and justified 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 the indicators are written along the sides, and the enterprises are written along the columns.

At the second stage, the calculated values of 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 standard of comparison is the most successful competitor who has achieved the best results in this aspect of activity in the process of real market competition; this corresponds to 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 of various characteristics in such cases, a metric scale of ratios is used. For each indicator of positive orientation in the matrix, the maximum value is found and is taken as a reference. Baselines are standardized by dividing by the reference value.

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

m- number of indicators

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

n- the number of enterprises

- meaning i-that indicator j- that enterprise

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

Thus, the indicators of profitability, management efficiency, business activity, liquidity, market stability, size and concentration, which have a positive direction, are standardized by us, 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 according to the FSFR methodology it is expressed in months required to cover current obligations with average monthly revenue), we proposed and standardized the solvency indicators according to their reverse values.

At the same time, the reciprocal values of 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, seem to us at least controversial, since the standardized coefficients can take values > 1. Further operation with them to obtain a rating number may give distorted results.

Rationing according to the scheme

leads to the fact that the 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 activity, allow us to apply various methods folding criteria into a single functional, converting a group of local criteria (indicators and parameters) into an integral criterion, reducing a multi-criteria task 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:

The method of highlighting the main criterion;

Multiplicative method of criteria convolution;

Additive Criteria Convolution Method;

Method for calculating distances.

The disadvantage of the main criterion selection method is that the comparison is carried out only according to one criterion, and the values of 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 or weighted product of local criteria if they satisfy certain conditions of multiplicativity. To disadvantages this method include the existence of ambiguous compensations for the values of 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 weight coefficient of the importance of the criterion, determined by an expert,

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

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

– standardized i-th indicator j th enterprise.

Since the value of each indicator for a 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 conditional one in a multidimensional space.

At the fourth stage, based on the calculated values of the rating assessment, the enterprises are ranked according to the level of competitiveness. Depending on the chosen method of calculating the rating score, enterprises are sorted either in descending order of the indicator or in ascending order. If it is assumed that the order of enterprises from having highest rating to the one with the lowest rating (an enterprise with a higher rating number is considered a more successful competitor), then the enterprises are ranked in descending order of the integral criterion, for example, with additive convolution of criteria and the method of determining distances from the origin. In the opposite case, if, according to the meaning of the calculation of the rating number, the enterprise with a lower rating number 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. Such a proposed approach of rating assessment in all respects will make it possible to identify reserves for increasing competitiveness and to aim management decisions at improving the parameters in 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" South Star "(Station Dinskaya), OJSC "Confectionery Factory" (city Armavir), holding Kuban Confectionery Plant (Timashevsk), which includes JSC Kuban Confectionery Plant (Timashevsk), LLC Kuban Confectionery Factory (Timashevsk), LLC Tekhnologiya "(Timashevsk), PE Kuzhelev (Timashevsk). The assessment of competitiveness was carried out for various aggregates: enterprises - participants of the holding; holding and its main competitors; holding and its competitive environment; Kuban Confectionery and its main competitors. In this case, additive convolution of criteria and the method of distances from the reference enterprise were used, that is, the ratings were built according to two methods (options).

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

Significant assistance in computing procedures can be provided by personal computers and special software. Our calculations were carried out in MS EXCEL spreadsheets.

Table 1 - The values of the integral indicator of the competitiveness of the enterprises of the confectionery industry in the Krasnodar Territory when calculated using the additive convolution method, 2004

When using the method of additive convolution of criteria, the highest rating has an enterprise with the highest value of the integral criterion, that is, enterprises are ranked by place in ascending order of the rating score.

Quantitative assessment of profitability, efficiency of business activity management, liquidity and market stability, size and concentration of production, solvency as components of competitiveness make it possible to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each enterprise in the competitive struggle.

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

The cumulative assessment of management effectiveness, carried out in terms of net and gross profit, profit from sales and profit before tax, calculated on 1 rub. volume of sales, shows that CJSC "Yuzhnaya Zvezda" and in this parameter occupies a leading position among competitors. Closed joint-stock company"The first confectionery plant" Anit "(Krasnodar) closes the rating in terms of management efficiency, since in 2004 it suffered losses from sales in the amount of 3459 thousand rubles, the loss before tax amounted to 284 thousand rubles, which affected the values of indicators management efficiency, standardized coefficients and rating number for this competitiveness parameter.

However, Anit is the leader in terms of business activity indicators, has the best indicators of return on all assets, return on fixed assets, return on equity, turnover of working capital and turnover of the most liquid assets, and in terms of inventory turnover and receivables, although they lag behind competitors, but slightly.

JSC "Confectionery Factory" (Armavir), despite losses, occupies a leading position in terms of liquidity and market stability, as well as in terms of such competitiveness parameters as solvency, size and concentration of production. Calculations show that Kuban Confectionery (Timashevsk) should pay attention to increasing liquidity and market stability, the 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 considered parameters and makes it possible to draw a comprehensive conclusion about the competitiveness of enterprises as a whole. The most successful in the competition is ZAO Yuzhnaya Zvezda (Dinskaya station), ahead of OAO Confectionery Factory (Armavir) and OAO Kuban Confectionery Plant (Timashevsk), which is somewhat inferior to ZAO Anit ( Krasnodar city).

For clarity, we will rank the 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).

This presentation of information makes it possible to judge not only the general level of competitiveness of enterprises and their closest rivals in terms of their place in the ranking, built on an 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 according to the additive method, 2004

Calculations show that for CJSC "Anit" the directions for increasing competitiveness can be, first of all, increasing the efficiency of management, the level of concentration and the size of production, for OJSC "Confectionery Plant "Kuban" - increasing the level of business activity, liquidity and solvency; for OJSC "Confectionery Factory" (Armavir) - improving the profitability of economic activity; CJSC "Southern Star" in almost all groups of indicators occupies a leading position and only in terms of 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 allows not only to build ratings, but also to identify potential points of growth, both for outsiders and for competitive leaders. Naturally, the considered methods do not deny other ways to identify reserves for increasing competitiveness, which may also be in those aspects of activity in which the company is already leading, 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 enterprises with the best results have certain advantages in the competition.

The proposed methodology can be used to study other aspects of increasing the competitiveness of confectionery producers in a 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 constituent enterprises.

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

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

Table 3 - The influence of the merger into the holding of the enterprises of the confectionery industry of the Timashevsk region on the values of the integral indicator of competitiveness when calculated using the additive convolution method, 2004

When calculating complex indicators, there may be doubts whether such an assessment is too conditional, how the choice of the method of convolution of criteria 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 complex economic characteristics determining the firm's position in the market. It expresses differences in the level of development this enterprise from competing in terms of consumer satisfaction and in terms of the efficiency of production activities.

The process of analyzing the competitiveness of an enterprise begins with the identification of factors that affect the attitude of consumers towards the company and its products. These include:

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

survey;
analysis of economic competitiveness;
method scoring;
a method for constructing a requirements profile;
method of scoring, taking into account the coefficients of weight factors;
competitiveness calculation method marketing activities enterprises.

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

Basis for economic competitiveness analysis are indicators calculated as the ratio of production costs to profit (K1), distribution costs to profit (K2) and marketing costs to profit (KZ). Approximate standards of indicators: K1 = 1.1; K2 = 0.7; KZ = 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

Scoring of factors of enterprise competitiveness

competitors

Product quality

Brand image

Package

Life time

Uniqueness

Guarantee period

Having a patent

Sum of points

list price

Credit terms

Sum of points

Sales channels

Sales forms

Inventory control

Transport system

Sum of points

Promotion

Personal Selling

Stimulation

Sum of points

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

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

Table 9.23

Building a requirements profile

Scoring method with regard to weighting factors presented in table. 9.24.

Table 9.24

Scoring taking into account the weighting factor

Indicator	weightiness	Competitors



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

Weight coefficients add up to 1 or 100

Note. Score 0 - expert assessment. Point! - evaluation of experts taking into account the weighting factor.

Relative indicator of enterprise competitiveness(KS 0TN) is calculated by the formula

where Bf - scoring of the analyzed enterprise; B c - score of a competitor.

KS 0TN
KS 0ТН = 1, then it is on the same level with a competing enterprise;
KS 0TN > 1, then it outperforms its competitor.

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

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

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

Coefficient pre-sales preparation (X pp) 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 the costs of production (acquisition of a product) and organization of sales.

If the product does not require pre-sale preparation, then it is accepted ^lp = 1-

Sales volume change ratio (K AP q) shows the change in competitiveness due to changes in sales:

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 price level coefficient(Du C), which shows the dependence of the level of competitiveness on changes in the price of the product:

where C shah - the maximum price of goods on the market; Cw1p - the minimum price of goods on the market; C UP - the price of the goods established by the enterprise.

3. Determine the competitiveness of marketing by bringing the product to consumers allows the coefficient of bringing the product to consumers (К сС)), which shows the dependence of the level of competitiveness of the company on the cost of marketing activities.

where HZSB K; EZSB, - the amount of costs for marketing activities, respectively, at the end and beginning of the reporting period.

4. Enterprise competitiveness for product promotion determined using the following indicators.

Personal Selling Utilization Rate(K ISH) indicates an increase in competitiveness through the use of personal selling with the participation of sales agents:

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

Public Relations Utilization Ratio (KPR) indicates a change in the level of competitiveness of the company, depending on the improvements in activities in the field of public relations (PR):

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

where P- the total number of indicators.

Also, to calculate the competitiveness of the company's marketing activities, 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 competitiveness of the company, financial indicators are taken into account:

current ratio (K TL, standard 1.5-2):

where A t - current assets (working capital); About t - current liabilities;

equity ratio (K oss):

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

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

CHALLENGERS

OCCURRED MARKET NICHE	FOLLOWERS

BANKRUTS		OCCURRED MARKET NICHE

Rice. 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 estimated 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 estimated coefficient of competitiveness of which lies in the range of 1 -3. This group has a policy of following the industry leader.

For businesses operating in a market niche, the estimated competitiveness ratio lies in the range from -0.99 to -6.9. They have a high level of specialization.

Bankrupt - 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.

The competitive position of an enterprise also depends on the support received from government agencies.

Questions for reflection

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

It is set out in methodological recommendations on the application of scoring in relation to competitive bids and the qualification 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 Russian Federation dated June 2, 2000 No. AC-751 / 4-605 (hereinafter Method 2, section 2). In addition, the scoring method is widely represented in the scientific literature.

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

The scoring method is currently quite often used in the domestic procurement practice of state and corporate structures. This is due to the simplicity of its calculations and visibility. The initial moment of using this method is the formulation by the competition commission of the composition of the most important indicators evaluation of bids.

professional knowledge and qualifications of the supplier;
supplier experience;
reputation (image) of the supplier;
supplier reliability;
availability of financial resources, equipment and other material possibilities for the performance of the contract;
bank guarantees, guarantees;
necessary labor resources to fulfill a government contract.

As criteria (indicators) for evaluating proposals coming from alternative suppliers, the following are recommended:

bid (contract) price;
the timing of payments, distributed over time;
the period of validity of the price declared for the tender;
price adjustment conditions;
operating costs, Maintenance and repairs related to purchased goods;
terms (periods) of delivery of goods, completion of works (rendering of services);
functional or qualitative characteristics of the goods (quality of work, services);
forms of payments;
payment procedure;
conditions for granting guarantees for a product (work, service);
term for providing guarantees of the quality of goods (works, services);
the volume of 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 selecting the winner, must be reflected in the bidding documentation.

The criteria provided for in the tender documentation should be as objective and amenable to quantification. 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 that are mandatory for the implementation of expert methods (the formation of an expert commission, the procedure for interviewing experts, processing information from experts, building the resulting assessment).

The essence of the scoring method set out in Method 2 is as follows. Each criterion contained in the competitive bid, which characterizes the qualifications of the supplier, receives an assessment in points on a ten-point scale. For this purpose, the values of the analyzed criterion in physical units are ranked for all suppliers. The worst value of the criterion is assigned one point, the best - 10 points. The use of the interpolation method in the range of 1-10 points allows you to determine the score value of the criterion for each alternative supplier.

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

where B y - scoring of the analyzed y "-th criterion (indicator) for the /-th supplier;

Ny- the value of the analyzed y "-th criterion (indicator) for the /-th supplier, in natural units of measurement;

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

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

Bshah - maximum score (equal to 10);

Emin - minimum score (equal to 1).

Introduction to the formula (9.8) for each y "-th criterion of the /-th resource provider 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 formula under consideration.

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

^beam y - -^hud y

is a well-known method for normalizing various criteria, i.e. bringing them to dimensionless values. Thanks to its isolated use, it becomes possible to scientific basis rank the criteria, set their respective intermediate scores, and subsequently determine the winner of the competition (i.e. the resource provider). It also raises doubts about the expediency of assigning a unit to the worst value of the criterion among the suppliers participating in the competition. The worst numerical score of a particular criterion should be assigned zero, but not one, by means of which the value of the corresponding criterion is artificially inflated. Meanwhile, this problem is automatically solved in the case of a separate use of the above formula, with the help of which the criteria normalization procedure is performed. In addition, the same formula automatically solves the complex problem of obtaining numerical estimates for criteria that occupy an intermediate position between the worst and best values.

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

If among the indicators characterizing the competitive bid and (or) the qualifications of the supplier, there are criteria that cannot be quantified, then an expert scoring of such indicators is applied. For example, if the degree of compliance of the criterion with the requirements of the tender documentation is assessed by an expert 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.

It seems to us that the families of scoring recommended above are set subjectively, by evenly distributing scores among 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 Methodology 2. Meanwhile, members of the same competition commission and experts can interpret these concepts differently, which makes it difficult to obtain objective scores for the relevant criteria.

If obtaining reliable scores for 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 agreement of opinions of experts. With a very significant spread of opinions regarding the scores given at the previous stage, they can be refined at a subsequent stage.

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

The most commonly used types of scales

Table 9.3

The best assessment of specialists and the most widely used was the scoring scale proposed by T. Saaty. Given this circumstance, it is advisable to use this scale when solving problems in the system of competitive bidding.

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

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

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

K - the number of days of payment delay.

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).

Justification of supplier selection according to the scoring method

Table 9.5

Criterion	Criteria weighting factor	Unit measured	Criteria values for different providers
			Vendor number

The price of the subject of the competition
Possibilities to increase 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 when Q = 40%
Number of points
Weighted scores
2. Proposals to accelerate the implementation of the contract
Reduced delivery time
Number of points
Weighted scores
3. Experience in similar contracts
Number of completed contracts		Contract
Number of points
Weighted scores
4. Availability of mobilization capacities
The share of mobilization capacities in the total production capacity (the capacities of all suppliers are assumed to be the same)
Number of points
Weighted scores
5. Overall evaluation 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 he has the highest total weighted score.

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

It is advisable to use the scoring method of evaluation when it is not possible to have deterministic, or interval, numerical estimates of the criteria under study. In the example discussed above, the experts had such numerical estimates. Therefore, translating them into scores seems redundant. This complicated the calculations and increased their complexity. To work with numerical estimates, it was necessary to use a normalization procedure for criteria, which allows you to bring criteria with different units of measurement to dimensionless values. With such values, it is possible to perform various mathematical operations, almost completely eliminating the elements of subjectivity in the calculations.

The scope of the scoring method extends to situations where, according to the criteria under study, it is impossible to obtain numerical deterministic estimates in the units that are characteristic of this criterion (for example, rubles, days, percentages, etc.). It can be used when, according to all evaluation criteria, there are only verbal (verbal) characteristics. However, the solution of the problem associated with the choice of 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 first places (we will discuss them below), should be used to solve problems when all the criteria appearing in the calculations are characterized by a unidirectional influence on the desired result (for example, a change in the volume of profit desired for a business is usually directed to direction of increase, and costs or costs - in the direction of decrease). The problem associated with the need for simultaneous consideration in the problem of criteria that change in the directions of maximization and minimization can be easily solved using the natural procedure for their normalization (reduction to dimensionless quantities).

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

Thus, the significant shortcomings of the scoring method set out in Method 2 are as follows.

1. The expediency of applying the method applies mainly to simple, standard products, the main properties of which are quantitative certainty (by number, size, mass), simplicity and qualitative uniformity, divisibility and substitutability by any other product from the same batch.
2. Subjectivism in assigning the number of points that occupy an intermediate value between the maximum and minimum numerical criteria assessments.
3. The appearance 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 scoring.
5. The possibility of choosing as a supplier-winner that has sufficiently high values (in points) of partial criteria (ie, less significant compared to the others) and, at the same time, low values of weight coefficients is not excluded. Such a solution cannot be considered the best.
6. Creation expert advice to establish scores for various criteria is a rather lengthy and expensive process.

It should be noted that at present there are no sufficiently rigorous methods for selecting experts that ensure unconditional success in conducting an examination. Modern mathematical methods establishing expert estimates are mainly methods of statistics of non-numerical objects.

To make reasonable management decisions when conducting competitive bidding, one should always rely on practical experience, scientific knowledge and intuition of specialists acting as experts. At the same time, methods of expert assessments are methods for organizing work with specialist 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, they create at the facility working group. Her responsibility is to organize, 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 treated 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 reject irrational proposals. In some cases, the number of experts is fixed and such that statistical methods for checking the consistency of opinions and then averaging them allow making informed decisions. In other cases, the number of experts grows during the course of the examination, for example, when using the "snowball" method.

Currently, 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 Analyzing Expert Evaluations".

As noted above, to take into account the different economic significance for a particular object (enterprise, organization) of the criteria used in the calculations, importance coefficients are used. Their establishment is a 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 competitive bidding by establishing well-defined weighting factors according to the criteria under consideration is not excluded. The consequence of changing the coefficients of importance according to the criteria will be the change of the winner (ie the supplier with the greatest potential). Given this circumstance, it is essential to know modern methods establishing reasonable weighting factors. Let us classify 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 of the indicators are entered in rows (i = 1, 2...., n), and the compared enterprises are entered in columns (j = 1, 2...., m);

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

where x ij - relative indicators of 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. Competing enterprises are ranked in descending order of rating. Highest Rating has an enterprise with the maximum value of the comparative assessment calculated according to the formula above.

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

Methodology for assessing the competitiveness of an enterprise based on a comprehensive study internal environment enterprises, involves two directions:

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

The first direction of the study - 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 an examination of the financial condition of the company. This analysis is aimed at finding out how the future development of the company is consistent with the availability of sufficient financial resources and the solvency of the company. 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 profit to assets).
Net profitability of the enterprise (net profit to assets).
Return on equity (net profit to equity).
The overall profitability of production assets (total profit to the average value of fixed production assets and working capital).

Second group- these are indicators of management effectiveness assessment:

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

The third group - These are indicators of business activity assessment:

Return on assets (revenue from sales of products to assets).
The return of fixed assets (revenue from the sale of products to fixed assets).
Turnover of working capital (revenue from the sale of products to working capital).
The turnover of receivables (revenue from the sale of products to receivables).
Turnover of bank assets (revenue from the sale of products to bank assets).
The return on equity (revenue from the sale of products to equity capital).

The fourth group - These are liquidity assessment indicators:

Current liquidity ratio (working capital to term liabilities).
Other assets to term liabilities.
Permanent asset index (fixed assets and other non-current assets to own funds).
Autonomy coefficient ( own funds to the balance sheet).
Provision of stocks with own working capital (own working capital to stocks).

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

Characteristics that indicate a decrease in financial performance:

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

The second line of research - identifying 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 of the company's future strategy and create sustainable competitive advantages. This analysis can be carried out in a section.

Bolodurina V.A.

Student, Khabarovsk Academy of Economics and Law

METHODS FOR ASSESSING THE COMPETITIVENESS OF AN ENTERPRISE

annotation

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

Keywords: competitiveness, methods for assessing competitiveness

Bolodurina V.A.

Student, Khabarovsk Academy of Economics and Law

METHODS OF ASSESSING THE COMPETITIVENESS OF ENTERPRISES

Abstract

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

In activity modern enterprises far from the last role began to play the concept of competitiveness.

Under the competitiveness of an enterprise, it is customary to understand its ability to be in demand and successful in the market, compete with competing firms and receive more economic benefits compared to companies supplying 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 that companies need to carry out is often based on intuitive sensations, however, it can be formalized by describing a range of indicators that allow the assessment itself to be carried out and allow identifying areas for increasing competitiveness through identifying 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.

V modern science There are six main approaches to the definition of competitiveness.

In accordance with the first approach, competitiveness is considered in terms of advantages over competitors.

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

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

The fourth approach is a matrix methodology for assessing competitiveness, which is implemented by compiling matrices and pre-choosing a strategy.

The fifth approach is structural, according to which the position of the enterprise can be assessed through such indicators as: the level of monopolization of the industry, the presence of barriers to new enterprises entering the market.

The sixth approach is functional, its representatives determine the ratio between costs and price, the volume of production capacity utilization, the quantity of output and other indicators. In accordance with this approach, companies are considered competitive if production and further sale of goods are better established, management is more effectively set. financial resources. For example, Dun & Bradstreet, a well-known American consulting firm, takes this approach.

The first group is the indicators that characterize the efficiency of the production and trading activities of the enterprise. Among them are: the ratio of net profit to the 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 is 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 financial performance indicators. These are characteristics such 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.

It seems to us that the last 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 quite simple and provide visual information. Moreover, they are based on consideration of the process of competition in development and, in the presence of truthful information, make it possible to carry out a sufficiently high-quality analysis of competitive positions.

Methods that 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: the simplicity and clarity of the assessment. But at the same time, they do not give a complete picture of the strengths and weaknesses in the work of the enterprise.

Consider the methods that are based on the theory of effective competition. In accordance with it, the most competitive are firms in which the work of all departments and services is best established. Evaluating the performance of any such structure involves assessing the effectiveness of its use of resources. This method of evaluation is used most of all in the evaluation 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 complex methods for assessing the competitiveness of an enterprise is carried out using the integral assessment method. This method includes two components: firstly, a criterion that characterizes 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 and the ability to unambiguously interpret the results. However, an important drawback is the incomplete characterization of the enterprise.

4. Choosing the best assessment methodology

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

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

Literature

Gryaznova A.G., Yudanov A.Yu. Microeconomics. Practical Approach. – M.: KnoRus., 2011.
Ilyicheva I.V. Marketing: teaching aid / Ulyanovsk: UlGTU, 2010. - 229 p.
Lazarenko A. A. Methods for assessing competitiveness [Text] / A. A. Lazarenko // Young scientist. - 2014. - No. 1. - S. 374-377.
Microeconomics. Textbook / ed. G.A. Motherland, 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 useful to read: