Óêðà¿íñüêà   Ðóññêèé
DonNTU   Masters' portal

Abstract

Contents

Introduction

The unstable situation and the rapidly changing external environment today affects the development of entrepreneurial activity. To improve the socio–economic development of enterprises, it is necessary first to identify problems and diagnostics (analysis). Basically, the main problems in the enterprise include: low quality of products and services, misallocation of resources, dissatisfaction needs of the employees.

The relevance of the topic

The Urgency of developing this type of system is that at the moment, there is no system, using which you can evaluate the current status of the enterprise, to identify the main problems (if any) and their solutions, and to receive proposals for its further development.

Given the above, the development of such algorithm will be very effective solution for future users of the system.

Purpose and objectives of the study, expected outcomes

For a more precise evaluation of the level of socio–economic development of the enterprise it is necessary to analyze its activities (to classify it on a number of grounds). This analysis affects the selection of relevant groups of indicators for this enterprise.

Enterprises differ in a large number of signs. Most important is the branch symptom [2]. By industry enterprises are divided into:

industrial companies involved in the extraction and processing of minerals and production of goods. Industry can be divided into two broad industry groups: mining and processing industry. In turn, the processing industry is divided into light industry, food, heavy industry, etc.;

– agricultural enterprises producing crop, livestock, etc.;

– commercial enterprise that does not produce goods, but they perform a distribution function;

– construction company;

– banks that collect funds and provide loans;

– transport enterprises which are engaged in transportations with the use of different vehicles;

– insurance companies that engage in insurance against various types of risks;

– enterprises in the service sector (such as hotels, consulting firms, and others).

According to the forms of ownership are:

– state;

– collective;

– mixed.

– private.

Field of activity there are such enterprises:

– material production (mainly industrial and agricultural, construction companies, etc.);

– is immaterial production that provide services - from home appliances to health services, education, culture;

On the structure of production of the enterprises are divided into:

– highly specialized (release a limited range of products is massive or large-scale production, for example, steel);

– multi (produce a wide range of products or for different purposes);

– combined (produced in which one type of product or raw material is transformed into another kind. For example, raw – yarn – fabric).

According to the power production capacity of enterprises are divided into three groups: small, medium, large. The classification has the following characteristics: the number of employees, value of output, cost of means of production. To group companies use different power standards. For example, the isolated small enterprises in industry of up to 100 people in agriculture to 60 people in retail up to 30 people, in other enterprises up to 50 people [3].

In the analysis of the enterprise, its classification on the above signs plays an important role, as each of these characteristics influences the choice of indicators and, consequently, the formation of the assessment of the level of development of the enterprise. If be classified according to certain parameters (e.g., industry), then it will affect the formation of conclusions: the enterprise will be considered only on one side, and in this case, the output will contain a detailed assessment of the development of the company based on its industry sector. This assessment is important if you want to conduct some analysis of the enterprise, i.e. to consider it without taking into account of some features.

Alleged scientific novelty

after Examining the proposed scheme of analysis and assessment of the level of socio–economic development of enterprises in the work [1], we can conclude that it does not include important stage classification of the enterprise, which influences the choice of indicators and consequently, the formation of conclusions. In this regard, the scheme was modified and is shown in Fig. 2.:

a Modified scheme of analysis and assessment of the level of socio–economic development of enterprises

Figure 1 – A modified scheme of analysis and assessment of the level of socio–economic development of enterprises

(animation: the number of frames – 4 pieces, the delay is 1000 MS, size – 46 KB)

Planned practical results

The Planned practical results will be the creation of the system, which can be used to objectively assess the current state of the enterprise depending on the scope of activities and to solicit suggestions for its optimization.

An Overview of research and development by subject

In Donetsk national technical University the evaluation of the development level of enterprises engaged in following the master:

Saigin T. B., Smirnov Yu. a. worked to develop a comprehensive methodology for assessing the financial sustainability of the enterprise [5].

Sosnova O. A. engaged in the development of computer systems for decision support in the tasks of strategic management [6].

In Ukraine, the topic dealt with the following researchers:

Verbitskaya T. V. engaged in the construction of a comprehensive system of indicators based on the assessment of the impact of socio–economic factors of development of the enterprise [7].

Calinescu T. V. was engaged in the analysis and evaluation of the level of socio–economic development of the enterprise. [1]

In Russia, this topic was considered by researchers such as:

Chernyshev I. A. studied the characteristics of application systems for a comprehensive evaluation of the enterprise. [8]

A. Krotkov M. describe the basic evaluation methods and approaches to ensure the competitiveness of the enterprise. [9].

Analysis of similar systems

The balanced scorecard (BSC) of Norton and Kaplan

The BSC is a system of indicators that measures that are not accounting measures. In the system of BSC financial and non–financial indicators are integrated taking into account causal relationships between result indicators and key factors by which they are formed. The BSC system is designed to provide answers to four important questions:

  1. how the firm is appreciated by the clients? (aspect of the client);
  2. what processes can provide the firm an exceptional competitive advantage? (internal aspect);
  3. how to achieve further improvement of the company? (the aspect of innovation and learning);
  4. how do you evaluate the company shareholders? (the financial aspect).

In a balanced system should distinguish between indicators that measure the results achieved, and indicators showing the processes that achieve these results. Both categories of indicators should be linked, so as to obtain the first (for example, a certain level of performance) must implement the latter (for example, to achieve the required capacity). The socalled "balance" in the concept of BSC is diverse, covering the links between monetary and non–monetary indicators, strategic and operational levels of management, past and future results, as well as between internal and external aspects of the enterprise. In the process of applying the BSC has evolved into a broad management system. The traditional structure of the BSC can be quite easily modified, can be supplemented by other aspects (perspectives), although a significant advantage of the BSC is its concentration and the quality of reporting. By the drawbacks of BSC is no ultimate reference point, i.e. the benchmark, which is measured by the success of strategy implementation and operating effectiveness of the firm [10].

The balanced scorecard David Parmenter

Based on the classic BSC, Etc The parmenter offers to complement its two perspectives: "employee satisfaction and environment/community. The model author believes that "the existence of a separate component dedicated to employee satisfaction, allows us to focus on the importance of assessment of such key motivating factors as the frequency and regularity of recognition of staff (for example, how many times employees were honored this week during the two previous weeks, this month). This component supports the need to conduct surveys on the topic of employee satisfaction on the basis of a moving sample. Component "environment/community" will help the human resources Department in the creation of an asset of paramount importance — the image of an attractive employer. Furthermore, it is extremely highly valued sustainable long–term relationships with the community, both regionally and at the state level. Initiatives in this area also have a positive impact on positive attitude of the consumer to the enterprise" [11]. Features MOP of Parmenter are: the focus on key performance indicators; a clear division of performance indicators, production indicators. The disadvantage of this model is a very large number of indicators of each type.

These systems are similar in their functional capabilities – assessment of the level of the enterprise. But the above systems have a major drawback – the presence of a large number of indicators, which slows and complicates the process of assessing the company.

The Future system will allow to solve this problem, through the analysis of existing indicators, and selection of the most important for the assessment of the company.

The process of defining the indicator system and assessment of the level of enterprise development

The scorecard can be divided into two main sections: economic and social. In each section it is necessary to conduct the grouping (clustering), unifying performance [4]. For example, in the group of "Protection of labour" are indicators of expenditure on health, the level of occupational diseases, etc. Each group has a weight (importance) and the grading policy. After filling in all of the group formed with a total value (score) for this group, which in the future will be normalized to produce the overall output. For example, when assessing indicators of safety, depending on the obtained results, it is possible to determine whether the company is at the appropriate level, conditions of work and life of the workforce. At this stage, the following main groups of indicators are presented in table 1.

Table 1 – Main groups of indicators

Economic indicators Social indicators
Group performance indicators of the enterprise Group of indicators of labour protection
Group of indicators of innovative activity Group indicators labour organization
Group indicators of current assets Group indicators of education
Group profitability Group environmental indicators

Conclusions

This system plays an important role for entrepreneurs who want to get as comprehensive assessment of its business and evaluating, depending on certain factors (areas of work), to identify the problems and get suggestions for their solution and further development of the enterprise.

Note

At the time of writing this abstract master's work is not yet complete. Anticipated completion date: December 2015 The full text of work and materials on the topic can be obtained from the author or his supervisor after that date.

Bibliography

  1. Calinescu T. V., Neomega E. A. Analysis and assessment of the level of socio–economic development of the enterprise.
  2. Classification of enterprises/ [Electronic resource]. – Mode of access: http://edu.dvgups.ru/METDOC/ITS/EKON_S/EKON_PREDPR/UMK_DO/FRAME/2_5.htm
  3. Gorfinkel V. J. business Economics / B. I. Gorfinkel, V. A. Swander – M.:"HSE", 2007. – 670 p.
  4. Kotov A., Krasilnikov N. Clustering of the data.
  5. Saigin T. B., Smirnov Yu. a. Development of a comprehensive methodology for assessing the financial sustainability of the enterprise.
  6. Sosnova O. A. Development of computer systems for decision support in strategic management / [Electronic resource]. – Mode of access: http://masters.donntu.ru/2006/kita/sosnova/diss/index.htm
  7. Verbitskaya T. V. building an integrated system of indicators based on the assessment of the influence of socio–economic factors in the development of the company.
  8. Chernyshev I. A. Features of application systems for a comprehensive evaluation of the company.
  9. Krotkov, A. M., Basic evaluation methods and approaches to ensure konkurentnosposobnosti company.
  10. Radchenko K. I. Evolution of the balanced scorecard [Electronic resource]. – Mode of access: http://www.cfin.EN/management/controlling/evalution.shtml
  11. David Parmenter Key performance indicators. Development, implementation and application of critical indicators / TRANS. angl. A. Platonov. M.: ZAO " Olimp–business", 2008.