Let's consider the methods for assessing competitiveness used for construction companies.

Methods for assessing the competitiveness of construction enterprises are divided into two groups: analytical and graphical.

The classification of methods is presented in Fig. 1.

Let's look at each of these methods.

Rosenberg model: the essence of the model is that the investor evaluates how much a particular residential building satisfies his needs. This model is based on the assumption that every characteristic is important and that the higher the score, the better.

Integral indicator of product competitiveness: the closer the value of the integral indicator is to one, the more closely this house corresponds to the model.

Competitiveness assessment based on sales level: the level of competitiveness is assessed as the probability that in a given market an arbitrary consumer, making a purchase, will prefer a given house to a specified competing house.

Assessing the competitiveness of a product based on price and quality: the main indicator that determines the competitiveness of a product is the price-quality ratio. The most competitive product will be the one with this ratio optimal.

Model with ideal point : this method consists in introducing an additional component into it - the ideal value of the product characteristic.

Rating score. The rating assessment is used for targeted comparison of enterprises in an industry and/or region. According to Sheremet A.D. and Nenasheva E.V., the competitiveness of an enterprise is characterized by its financial condition, therefore the formation of an assessment methodology financial condition is the most important task. Despite the fact that the authors propose to use the rating methodology for industrial enterprises, it can also be used in the construction industry. This became possible thanks to the introduction unified system financial statements.

Valuation method based on bidding results. In the scientific works of H.M. Gumba proposes a methodology for assessing the competitiveness of an enterprise based on the results of tenders. He believes that the Russian construction industry already has the necessary prerequisites for the development and implementation of competitive relations.

Contract bidding, which demonopolizes the construction services market, is the most effective mechanism for creating a competitive environment.

Competitiveness assessment based on the theory of effective competition. In accordance with this theory, the level of organization of work of all departments and services of an enterprise directly affects its competitiveness. The efficiency of departments is determined by the level of use of various enterprise resources.

Rice. 1. Classification of methods for assessing the competitiveness of goods and enterprises

Assessment of competitiveness based on consumer cost norms. The essence of this method is to evaluate the totality of marketing, management and organizational decisions ( economic technology companies).

Boston Consulting Group Matrix. The methodology is based on competitiveness analysis, taking into account the product life cycle. In order to assess competitiveness, it is necessary to analyze a matrix constructed according to the following principle: horizontally – growth/decrease rates of sales on a linear scale; vertically – the relative share of the totality of goods on the market.

Model “Market attractiveness – competitive advantages”. This model develops the matrix described above. The main characteristics of the model are market attractiveness and competitive advantages. The attractiveness of a market is determined by its properties: quality, supply base, etc. Advantages in competition are described by the following indicators: relative position in the market, product potential, research potential and qualifications of managers and employees.

Porter matrix. The basis for constructing the matrix is ​​the concept competitive strategy, which implies that the enterprise must focus not only on meeting the needs of customers, but also on competing market forces.

Competitiveness polygon. The essence of this method is to compare your own enterprise with competitors by graphically constructing a competitiveness polygon. It displays the position of the enterprise and competitors in the most important areas of activity, which are presented in the form of axis vectors (Fig. 2).

Rice. 2. Polygon of competitiveness of two enterprises

It should be noted that the analyzed methods cover not only various indicators that influence the assessment of competitiveness, but also different approaches to assessing the competitiveness of the enterprise as a whole. Despite this, the listed methods have a number of disadvantages:

The main disadvantage of all the considered methods is their limitations: either the emphasis is on one group of factors that determines the competitiveness of the enterprise and, based on the results of the analysis, a conclusion is given about the level of competitiveness of the entire enterprise, or the method is too complex and time-consuming to use in practice.

All considered methods for assessing competitiveness are stationary in time; they evaluate an enterprise at a certain point in time, based on previously obtained data.

As mentioned earlier, the specificity of construction products is their fixation, immobility, capital intensity, material intensity, duration of construction, operation, etc. These features characterize the relationship between participants in the investment process. The customer chooses a construction company based on the ability to satisfy his specific needs. Superiority over competitors in meeting the specific needs of the customer is expressed by a combination of not only the quality and cost characteristics of construction products, but also the level of organization of production. In addition, the limitations noted included the limitations of the methods used. It lies in the fact that, as a rule, Special attention is paid to economic, managerial and consumer (price and quality) indicators of the enterprise’s competitiveness. Organizational and technical indicators are not considered as analyzed, or a small part of them is indicated. Although they largely predetermine and justify all other indicators. This means a close relationship between economic, managerial and consumer with organizational and technical indicators of the competitiveness of construction enterprises. And this, in turn, predetermines the acceptance management decisions aimed at achieving the set goals in deadlines With minimal costs all types of resources.

Analysis of the competitiveness of Construction Technologies LLC

To assess the competitiveness of Construction Technologies LLC, it is first necessary to analyze its condition. The quality of the analysis will be high if it is carried out from the perspective systematic approach. Its peculiarity is the establishment of strategic and tactical factors for increasing the competitiveness of the services provided, the efficiency and sustainability of the company’s functioning in the market.

Let's consider the main indicators for assessing the competitiveness of Construction Technologies LLC, Table 6 Appendix A.

The competitiveness indicators listed in Table 6 are the maximum possible for Construction Technologies LLC. As you know, the competitiveness of a product or service is a relative concept, that is, it can only be discussed when compared with another object. As for the competitiveness of the company Construction Technologies LLC, the considered indicators are the same result that can be analyzed. Indeed, if sales volume is positive, then in most cases economic parameters indicate a good situation for the company. Let's evaluate the competitiveness of Construction Technologies LLC using differential and complex assessment methods, which we discussed in the theoretical part of the thesis. The comprehensive method for assessing the competitiveness of Construction Technologies LLC allows one to conduct a study of competitiveness in the entire market for these services at once, that is, to compare the competitiveness of services with the products of all competing companies represented on this market, and not relative to one competitor, as is proposed to be done in most methods; easy to use; is based on open data, therefore less expensive than other methods used today; takes into account consumer opinion.

Comprehensive includes:

1) determining the criteria (requirements) of consumers for the product;

2) assessment of the expected competitiveness of the product based on consumer criteria;

3) assessment of competitiveness marketing activities firms relative to competing firms;

4) conclusions about the real competitiveness of the product and identification of points of application of forces to increase it.

The following sources of primary information were used: a questionnaire survey, our own practical observations and calculations, official statistical data relating to the market of repair and construction services in Yekaterinburg. Before moving on to the methodology for assessing the competitiveness of Construction Technologies LLC, it is necessary to determine what type of goods the products being studied belong to. We propose to use a typology of goods based on A. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Repair and construction services, according to the presented typology of goods, are considered as industrial goods that satisfy the needs for safety, ease of existence and movement.

We will determine the criteria (requirements) in order of their importance by surveying consumers who use the services of Construction Technologies LLC. For this purpose, in May - June 2012, a sociological study of the preferences of 100 consumers who contacted Construction Technologies LLC was conducted. The survey results are shown in (Table 7).

Table 7 - Priority of consumer criteria when evaluating services

The assessment of the importance of each criterion is calculated as the arithmetic mean for the collected number of questionnaires. Analysis of data obtained as a result of a survey of 100 clients of Construction Technologies LLC indicates that consumer demand for pricing policy, chosen by the company. 60% of respondents answered that the price component is very important, 12% - important, 28% put the quality of services first. When answering the question about the frequency of using repair and construction services, 30% noted that they use them once a quarter, 25% - once every six months, while the majority (40%) - quite rarely. The main companies providing repair and construction services were:

LLC "Construction Technologies" (85% of respondents), IC "Mig" (40%), LLC "Spetsstroyservice" (25%) (several answer options were allowed). The vast majority of respondents (90%) noted that foreign materials are more reliable. A positive point is that 80% of respondents are satisfied with the quality of the service provided by Construction Technologies LLC. The convenience of the company’s location was noted by 60% of clients. The main clients of Construction Technologies LLC are men with higher and secondary technical education aged 30 to 40 years. A study of consumer opinions revealed that exactly price factor is the most important and has the highest significance coefficient.

Assessment of the expected competitiveness of the services of Construction Technologies LLC based on consumer criteria. The characteristics of the service taken into account by the consumer are identified, and the proximity of the value of the actual characteristics of the service to the value desired by the consumer is determined. The structure of the characteristics is shown in (Table 8). An asterisk indicates characteristics taken into account by the buyer of services.

Among the factors influencing the decision to contact a certain repair and construction company, respondents in almost 100% of cases named the quality of services and materials used, in second place was price, but its importance was disputed by half of the respondents - cost is important, but if the differences are insignificant and If the price corresponds to income, then the cost will not be the first thing people pay attention to.

When deciding to use the services of Construction Technologies LLC, respondents first of all turn to specialists or friends for advice, then look for information through Internet resources and databases. Little trust in advertising and personal experience. From this we can conclude that the main emphasis when promoting services should be placed not on advertising in the classical sense of the word, but on gaining the trust of specialists and working with them - concluding contracts to advertise the company’s name, for example, at various construction forums and seminars. Assessing the competitiveness of a company's marketing activities relative to competing companies. Competing firms are an important object of study.

Table 8 - Structure of service characteristics

Assessing the competitiveness of a company's marketing activities relative to competing companies. Competing firms are an important object of study. If studying a consumer helps a company win new customers, then studying a competitor gives an idea of ​​its position in the market; knowing the strengths and weaknesses of competitors, one can assess their potential and goals, present and future strategies. This will allow the company to strategically focus its attention on the area where the competitor is weaker. In this way, you can expand your own competitive advantages. SK Mig and Spetsstroyservis LLC were identified as the main competitors of the company under study, Construction Technologies LLC (Table 9).

Table 9 - a brief description of competing enterprises of Construction Technologies LLC

The reason for choosing these companies is that they:

1) are located in the territorial proximity of the company under study;

2) provide consumers with a comparable range of services;

3) adhere to comparable pricing policies.

Expert assessments for each competing company are presented in (Table 10).

When considering competing firms and determining the expert assessment, experts were guided by the following arguments. Prices for services in most areas from Construction Technologies LLC and Mig Insurance Company are almost identical. Spetsstroyservice LLC prices are higher on average by 5%, which is quite noticeable for the repair and construction services market.

Table 10 - Assessment of the competitiveness of companies providing repair and construction services

When assessing the breadth of service offerings, both the range of offers in individual areas of activity and the range of offers within each area were taken into account. Discounts are provided by SK Mig and Spetsstroyservice LLC. This applies to regular customers with whom service contracts have been concluded, the discount is expressed in 3-5% of the cost of the service; Construction Technologies LLC does not provide discounts. At the same time, it should be noted that Construction Technologies LLC also has regular customers (with a frequency of visiting once a quarter), although they are to a small extent focused on receiving discounts. From the point of view of the advertising component, the most competitive are IC Mig and, especially, Spetsstroyservice LLC. The main tools of their advertising work are newspaper advertising.

In terms of office location, Construction Technologies LLC is the most competitive. The reason for this is the proximity of industrial enterprises (mainly private firms), ease of parking Vehicle, the presence of a separate entrance. IC "Mig" is located at the end of the city, which is inconvenient for clients. Spetsstroyservis LLC is located in a suburban area, which is also not very convenient for consumers of the service.

Conclusions about the real competitiveness of the company and identification of points of application of forces to improve it. The complex indicator of the companies under study is:

1) Construction Technologies LLC - 4.40 points;

2) SC "Mig" - 4.55 points;

3) Spetsstroyservis LLC - 3.85 points.

Figure 5 - Comprehensive indicator of the companies under study

The study revealed the presence of competitors to Construction Technologies LLC. Based on the construction of a table of competitiveness of companies, it was determined that the company

Construction Technologies LLC ranks second after SK Mig, inferior in two main positions: providing discounts and advertising activities. Analysis of the situation in the consumer market indicates the need to make changes in the behavior of commercial firms. This primarily applies to companies providing repair and construction services.

The study allowed the management of Construction Technologies LLC to identify the main directions for improving its activities. First of all, this relates to improving sales promotion (providing discounts to regular customers) and intensifying the communication policy. The need to create a comprehensive methodology for assessing the competitiveness of products was dictated by the need to improve marketing policy Construction Technologies LLC. The competitive situation in the market for repair and construction services is complex. Experts note that today there are already symptoms of “overstocking” of the market for repair and construction services. The enterprises are equally focused on a wide range of repair and construction services and on various volumes of work. According to corporate customers, the vast majority of them are only “partially satisfied” with the quality of work performed, timing and cost. An assessment of the competitiveness of Construction Technologies LLC using complex method allows us to draw the following conclusions:

1) the main competitors of Construction Technologies LLC are SK Mig and Spetsstroyservice LLC.

2) the company under study, Construction Technologies LLC, ranks second after SK Mig, inferior in two main positions: providing discounts and advertising activities.

3) the study allowed the management of Construction Technologies LLC to identify the main directions for improving its activities. First of all, this relates to improving sales promotion (providing discounts to regular customers) and intensifying the communication policy.

4) a sales promotion system can be useful both for attracting consumer firms by providing discounts for the volume of purchases, and for attracting private clients. They are offered a discount for paying for the service in cash.

5) with a high degree of probability we can say that the real competitiveness of the company Construction Technologies LLC is higher than that of the SK Mig company. In order for the real competitiveness of Construction Technologies LLC to be higher than that of SK Mig, it is necessary to increase the efficiency of sales management to the level of this company.

Now let’s evaluate the competitiveness of Construction Technologies LLC using the differential method. The initial data is presented in (Table 11).

Table 11 - Initial data for assessing the competitiveness of Construction Technologies LLC using the differential method

Service quality scores ranging from 1 to 5 were established by experts based on the technical parameters of the product. The service provided by Construction Technologies LLC was taken as a sample - laying marble tiles on an area of ​​250 square meters. m. The expert commission of the enterprise also established the priority of technical parameters and established the corresponding weight coefficients for them, presented in (Table 11).

The group of parameters used in the table characterizes the performance of the main functions of the service and some of its specifications. To distribute those given in (Table 11). services for laying marble tiles according to the level of competitiveness using the differential method, you need to complete the following points:

2) draw conclusions about the level of competitiveness of the service for laying marble tiles of Construction Technologies LLC.

The calculation of a single competitiveness indicator is made using the formula:

Therefore, the calculation of a single indicator for IC "Mig":

According to economic parameters:

calculation of a single indicator for IC "Mig":

calculation of a single indicator for Spetsstroyservice LLC:

To distribute the competing firms listed in (Table 11) by level of competitiveness, you need to complete the following points:

4) draw appropriate conclusions about the competitiveness of the analyzed models in relation to the sample.

Calculation of group indicators based on technical parameters. The group indicator is calculated using (formula 13).

for specific model:

I tp = q 1 a 1 + q 2 a 2 + q 3 a 3

Hence, the indicator for technical parameters for the Mig insurance company:

I tp = 1·30% + 1.67·50% + 0.9·20% = 1·0.3 + 1.67·0.5 + 0.9·0.2 = 1.315

for Spetsstroyservice LLC:

I tp = 1·30% + 4.2·50% + 0.76·20% = 1·0.3 + 4.2·0.5 + 0.76·0.2 = 2.552

Calculation of group indicators based on economic parameters. The group indicator for economic parameters is calculated using (formula 14).

Since during T = 4 years, E = 14%, C 0, C 1 were always constant and equal to C 0 = 1.38, and C 1 = 0.81, respectively, then C 0 and C 1 can be taken out as sign amounts and then the group indicator for economic parameters will be calculated according to (formula 15).

Therefore, the group indicator for economic parameters for IC Mig is equal to:

Spetsstroyservis LLC:

Table 12 - Coefficients for reducing operating costs to the estimated year

Calculation of the integral indicator of competitiveness. The integral indicator is calculated using (formula 16),

but since the group indicator for standard parameters is not specified, it will not be taken into account in the calculation of the integral indicator and the formula will take the form:

Then for IC "Mig":

Spetsstroyservis LLC:

As a result of the obtained group indicators, IC Mig is the most competitive in terms of technical parameters, that is, in general, its service for laying marble slabs satisfies consumer needs more fully than all other companies. From the calculations obtained for economic parameters, it is clear that IC Mig is more competitive in economic parameters from all other competing companies, since it has the smallest group indicator - 0.629. This means that the buyer will be more active in ordering a service from this company than everyone else. However, as the study showed, it is more profitable to order a service from Spetsstroyservice LLC. Although it is more expensive there, in terms of technical parameters it is quite competitive. From the calculations of the integral indicator of competitiveness, it is clear that IC Mig and LLC Spetsstroyservis are inferior to LLC Construction Technologies in terms of competitiveness as a whole, since their integral indicator is less than one.

One of the most effective methods for assessing the competitiveness of Construction Technologies LLC is SWOT analysis, or a matrix of opportunities and threats of the external environment, strengths and weaknesses of the enterprise. The essence of the method is to compare data on the external and internal environment of Construction Technologies LLC (elements of the external environment - opportunities and threats; elements of the internal environment: strengths and weaknesses).

The swot analysis carried out shows the possibility of the company moving towards clients, towards manufacturers, the possibility of integration and diversification. Construction Technologies LLC can carry out a smooth upward movement in standard housing and create new trade marks for different segments. For Construction Technologies LLC, the most significant and likely opportunities were to improve service and reduce maintenance time, as well as create a new business for leasing warehouse space.

Table 13 - SWOT analysis of Construction Technologies LLC

1. Opportunities
Improving service and reducing maintenance time Possibility of narrow specialization Development of corporate clients Tight integration with factories and receiving big discounts Creating a new business for renting warehouse space End-use market development Expansion of commercial real estate construction Entering the adjacent market of low-rise construction (cottage construction). Increased status in the Yekaterinburg administration and committees making decisions on land allocation Partnership with a bank or financial institution for the implementation of construction and financial projects Advancement into the region	Tax system Equipment wear and tear Increased competition Economic instability Changing supplier policies A sharp rise in the euro exchange rate could lead to higher prices for building materials and reduce demand Increased pressure from building materials manufacturers
3. Strengths	4. Weaknesses
Price policy breadth of service offering Quality of services High quality product high growth rates of sales income Monopoly position in the market for a number of products in the range Successful credit history and stable financial performance 14 years on the market - high degree of compliance with contractual obligations, both in relation to subcontractors and in relation to end consumers Positive image of the company in public life (participation in exhibitions, competitions, charitable activities) The company has a certain political resource and connections in the city administration	Depreciation of fixed assets Lack of flexibility in organizational structure Unstable financial situation High dependence on clients Poor working conditions Low salary

After positioning the threats, it was revealed that:

1) increased competition and changes in supplier policies can lead to the critical state of Construction Technologies LLC;

2) economic instability and a sharp rise in the euro exchange rate can lead to the destruction of the company or its exit from the industry.

Thus, having considered the capabilities of Construction Technologies LLC, its strengths and weaknesses, and having analyzed the threats emanating from the external environment, it is possible to determine the company’s competitiveness strategy. Since Construction Technologies LLC operates in a developing market with strong competition, a combined strategy aimed at solving its problems would be best for it. competitive advantages and providing for deeper market penetration and geographic development. The strategy being developed should be aimed at maximizing the use of the opportunities provided and the maximum possible protection against threats.

During the assessment of competitiveness, calculations were made of the competitiveness of Construction Technologies LLC, and conclusions were drawn on the competitiveness and quality of the organization in question. Calculations were made based on technical and economic parameters. At this point in time, Construction Technologies LLC has achieved the desired ratio of quality and price - with high quality and an affordable price. In general, the level of competitiveness of Construction Technologies LLC has not been achieved. In terms of technical parameters, the service for laying marble tiles of Construction Technologies LLC is quite competitive. But the price differs from one of the competing companies. In terms of economic parameters, the service is quite competitive. After receiving the results, measures are developed to increase the company's competitiveness.

4.1. Justification for choosing objects for assessing and analyzing the competitiveness of an enterprise

Let's assume that we are given the task of assessing and analyzing the competitiveness of LLC " Construction Materials" (hereinafter also referred to as the Research Enterprise).

Brief description of the enterprise under study

Construction Materials LLC is registered and operates exclusively in the city of N. The main activity is the production and sale of construction materials. Average headcount– 175 people. The enterprise includes three structural divisions producing bricks, dry building mixtures and hardware, respectively. Production units are located in the vicinity of the city N. Finished products is delivered to the central warehouse of the enterprise, located in the city of N. The sale of these products is carried out by the unified sales department of Construction Materials LLC. The enterprise also has a single current account, accounting department and other central management bodies.

As noted in the previous sections, competitiveness is not an immanent, objectively inherent property of an object, but finds its expression only in conditions of competition (in comparison with competitors). Consequently, the value of an enterprise’s competitiveness indicator calculated in relation to some competitors may differ significantly from the value of the same indicator calculated in comparison with other competitors. Thus, the assessment of the competitiveness of an economic entity must be preceded by an analysis of the competitive situation in the market, justifying an adequate choice of objects of comparison (competitor enterprises).

The essence of this choice comes down to taking as objects of comparison those enterprises that compete to the greatest extent with the business entity under study. Here, the obvious options for choosing comparison objects are the following.

Market segmentation

The point in this case is that competing enterprises must operate in the same market and compete with each other. Otherwise, the comparison loses all economic (and mathematical) meaning. In particular, it makes no sense to compare competitors that are located at a considerable distance from each other and (or) sell products to different customers.

Product range

Enterprises producing and (or) selling competing goods (works, services) are subject to comparison. We deliberately do not use the term “similar” (“similar”) products. In some cases, the main ones are competitors who offer interchangeable rather than similar products. Comparison with these may be of particular significance.

Scale of competitors

It is inappropriate to compare enterprises whose sales volumes differ by orders of magnitude. Compare individual entrepreneur, which provides shoe repair and sewing services, with a shoe factory - it makes no sense. Note, however, that the meaning will appear when comparing shoe factory with aggregated indicators of hundreds of entrepreneurs.

We emphasize that the listed parameters for choosing competing enterprises are not dogmatic. Depending on the purposes of assessing and analyzing the competitiveness of an enterprise, the formation of any composition of competitors is allowed. The main thing is that this choice is conscious and justified.

So, let's return to Construction Materials LLC.

The first limitation on the selection of objects for comparison is the implementation of activities in the building materials market of the city N. Next, it is necessary to select competitors in accordance with the requirements for comparability of range and scale.

The table provides data on enterprises operating in the construction materials market of the city of N (based on data for the last reporting year).

The calculation results show that the low level of competitiveness of the enterprise under study, which developed in 2009, is defined as low efficiency production process, and unsatisfactory market positioning: both coefficients characterizing the influence of sources of competitiveness on the formation of the overall level of competitiveness are below one. Thus, the value of the operating efficiency coefficient in 2009 was 0.894; strategic positioning – 0.905.

Analysis of the dynamics of operational efficiency ratios and strategic positioning allows us to state that in the period from 2006 to 2009. the operational efficiency coefficient decreased from 1.083 to 0.894 (by 17.5%), the strategic positioning coefficient decreased from 1.032 to 0.905 (by 12.3%). Thus, the negative dynamics of the level of competitiveness of Construction Materials LLC, observed since 2007, is due to a decrease in indicators for both sources of competitiveness.

Let us move on to the analysis of the competitiveness of the enterprise under study in terms of objects of comparison (indicators K o– efficiency factor economic activity of the enterprise under study and K s– coefficient of efficiency of economic activity for the Sample according to data), which will allow localizing the factors of the dynamics of the competitiveness of an enterprise in terms of the place of their origin: the analyzed business entity or competitors.

An assessment of the current values ​​of business efficiency coefficients allows us to conclude that the low level of competitiveness of Construction Materials LLC in 2009 is due to the very low efficiency of its business activities. Thus, the value of this indicator in 2009 only slightly exceeds one and amounts to 1.020. Regarding the sample of competitors, we note that the corresponding aggregate indicator is at a high level and amounts to 1.261.

Analysis of the dynamics of the coefficients under consideration shows that the decrease in the competitiveness of the enterprise under study in 2007-2009. caused by a significant decrease in the efficiency of its economic activities (by 16.0% compared to the level of 2006) with the growing efficiency of the economic activities of competitors (over the specified period there was a significant increase of 16.1%). We note that we did not identify any increase in the efficiency of competitors’ business activities.

At the next stage, we will conduct a factor analysis of the dynamics of the competitiveness of the enterprise under study in the context of economic activity indicators. As a mathematical model of factor analysis, we take expression (3.2.13).

The maximum value of the level of competitiveness of Construction Materials LLC was observed in 2006. We take the specified year as a comparison base and compare current indicators of economic activity ( r And I) with the basic ones (the indicators themselves were already calculated earlier, during). For Competitor's indicators ( R And I s), “reverse” growth rates are determined, i.e., the values ​​of 2006 refer to the current values. The calculation results are presented below.

The results of factor analysis allow us to state that the decrease in the level of competitiveness of the enterprise under study (by 27.7%) is caused by a decline in its operational efficiency (by 8.0%), negative dynamics of its sales volumes (by 8.7%), and also (at the greatest degree!) by an increase in the operating efficiency of competitors (by 10.3%). The increase in sales volumes of competitors had a slight negative impact on the decrease in the level of competitiveness of the analyzed business entity (4.0%).

Let us again draw attention to the fact that, according to the results of factor analysis, in contrast to , the decline in the level of competitiveness of Construction Materials LLC is due not only to a decrease in the indicators of the enterprise under study, but also to a large extent to an improvement in the indicators of competitors (in particular, operational efficiency in the sample ).

Thus, the assessment and analysis of competitiveness in comparison with industry indicators allows us to confirm unfavorable conclusions about the low level of competitiveness of the analyzed business entity.

Moreover, if earlier we came to the conclusion that the decrease in the level of competitiveness of Construction Materials LLC was primarily due to the deteriorating results of the enterprise under study, now we are forced to state that this is happening against the backdrop of improving performance indicators of competitors. So, if the enterprise under study has been “trampling around” in terms of revenue volumes since 2006, around 250 thousand rubles. per year, having increased this figure by only 5% over four years (from 243,951 to 254,982 thousand rubles), then the group of main industry competitors increased revenue volumes by 60% over the specified period (from 602,358 to 961,993 thousand . rub.). At the same time, the profitability of production (operational efficiency) of Construction Materials LLC decreased to 4.2% by 2009, while the same indicator for the sample increased to 16.6% by 2009.

The above significantly aggravates the negative assessment of the negative dynamics of the level of competitiveness of the enterprise under study and once again emphasizes the urgent need to develop and implement measures to increase its competitiveness.

Among the directions for further analysis of the competitiveness indicators of the enterprise under study, it should be noted the analytical decomposition of the competitiveness coefficient in the context of separate centers of activity, as well as the operational efficiency coefficient in the context of cost components.

4.4. Analysis of enterprise competitiveness

In order to in-depth analyze the competitiveness of Construction Materials LLC and identify reserves for its improvement, it is further proposed to carry out an analytical decomposition of the competitiveness coefficient of the enterprise under study (in comparison with industry indicators) in accordance with the previously proposed algorithms.

First of all, it is necessary to determine the directions and sequence of the analytical decomposition being carried out. To this end, that more than 60% of the revenue of the enterprise under study for the last reporting year was provided through the production and sale of bricks; about 25% - hardware; 15% – dry construction mixtures. It is proposed to accept these types of production as “activity centers”, in the context of which an analytical decomposition will be carried out. Based on this, it is logical to identify CJSC "Brick Plant" (in comparison with the production of bricks), CJSC "Hardware" (in comparison with the production of hardware) and LLC "Building Mixes" (in comparison with the production of building mixtures) as the corresponding centers of activity. ).

Thus, it is proposed to analyze the level of competitiveness of Construction Materials LLC for 2009 first in the context of separate centers of activity ( structural divisions by type of product), and then carry out an analytical decomposition of the operating efficiency coefficient in relation to the “problem” divisions. To analyze the competitiveness coefficient in the context of separate centers of activity, we will need the following initial data.

For the Enterprise under Study:

(thousand roubles.)

The unprofitability of the brick production division is immediately apparent. It would seem: here, even without any analysis, it is clear which divisions reduce the competitiveness of the enterprise. However, as we noted earlier, the management of Construction Materials LLC is convinced that losses and a decrease in sales volumes are temporary, a consequence of the global economic crisis and are observed among all brick manufacturers. Well, let's see how the competitors are doing.

(thousand roubles.)

Please note that the total share of the revenue of these competitors for 2009 does not exceed 20% of the revenue in the sample. How correct is such a choice? In our case, the validity of the comparison, in addition to the similarity of the assortment, is ensured by the fact that the main technical and economic indicators (profitability and dynamics of sales volumes) of the competitors selected for comparison are slightly higher than the average for the sample.

Based on the initial data, we calculate competitiveness indicators in the context of separate centers of activity. The calculation of the competitiveness of each separate center of activity in comparison with the corresponding competitor from the sample is carried out in the same way as it was done. The calculation results are summarized in the table below.

For clarity, the calculation results are presented in the form of a diagram.

Here is a table of weighting coefficients Y l And A l(according to expressions (3.3.12) and (3.3.16) respectively). For those who find the above-mentioned formulas complex and the corresponding calculations time-consuming, we hasten to reassure that it is not at all necessary to carry them out. These calculations have no informational value from the point of view of analyzing the competitiveness of an enterprise. The specified weighting coefficients are provided solely for reference purposes as mathematical confirmation of the correctness of the decomposition of the initial indicator of the enterprise's competitiveness.

Analyzing the results obtained, we can conclude that the competitiveness of divisions for the production of hardware and building mixtures is at an average level (slightly more than one). As for the production of bricks, the competitiveness coefficient of this division is only 0.703, which indicates its very low competitiveness. It can be argued that the low level of competitiveness of Construction Materials LLC, identified, is due to the extremely weak performance of the brick production division.

Note that the values ​​of both the operational efficiency coefficient (0.831) and the strategic positioning coefficient (0.846) are unsatisfactory. The low values ​​of these coefficients indicate a fundamental lag behind competitors in both sources of competitiveness: the brick production division suffered a loss in 2009 and showed a decrease in production volumes. At the same time, an analysis of the competitiveness of the separate center of activity under consideration in the context of comparison objects shows that the low coefficient of economic activity of the brick production division (0.892) occurs against the background of a relatively high coefficient of economic activity of CJSC "Brick Plant" (1.270), which once again emphasizes the severity of the current situations.

Obviously, the version of the management of the enterprise under study mentioned above that the crisis affected all brick manufacturers is not confirmed. It is now obvious that the crisis primarily affected the performance of uncompetitive enterprises. This, unfortunately, turned out to be our enterprise.

So, the low competitiveness of Construction Materials LLC is a consequence of losses and a decrease in sales volumes of the brick production division. Consequently, increasing the competitiveness of the enterprise under study is possible by carrying out anti-crisis measures in relation to the specified division.

In order to identify the reasons for low production profitability, it is necessary to analyze the operating efficiency ratio of the “problem” division in terms of cost components. Let us explain that any classification of costs can be used as cost components: by cost elements, by costing cost items; or, depending on the purposes of the analysis, a different grouping of costs.

In our case, the basis for the classification of costs is the economic elements of costs (the source of initial data is Form No. 5 “Appendix to the Balance Sheet”). In addition, two additional components have been introduced: “Non-operating and other expenses”, including costs not related to the cost of production and sales of products (interest payable, other expenses, etc.), as well as “Tax obligations”. The source of initial data on the amounts of costs for additional components is Form No. 2 “Profit and Loss Statement”.

So, the costs of the brick production division and its corresponding JSC “Brick Plant” can be presented as a combination of the following components:

(thousand roubles.)

Next, in accordance with expressions (3.3.24) and (3.3.25), we determine the operational efficiency indicators for each of the cost components ( r i And R i). The ratio of the calculated values ​​(expression (3.3.32)) allows us to determine the relative effectiveness of each cost component ( k i). The operational efficiency coefficient for a separate center of activity is “formed” from private performance indicators. Consequently, we will be able to identify the reasons for low operational efficiency in the division as a whole by assessing specific indicators of relative efficiency. Criteria for assessing partial values ​​of relative efficiency ( k i) are similar to assessing the operational efficiency of the enterprise as a whole: the target function is maximum. Moreover, if the calculated value is higher than one, the relative efficiency of the cost component is higher than that of the competitor. The opposite is also true.

For clarity, the calculation results are presented in the form of a diagram.

We also provide the values ​​of the weighting coefficients γ i(according to expression (3.3.33)). Let us again draw attention to the fact that the specified weighting coefficients are provided solely for reference purposes (as a mathematical confirmation of the correctness of the algebraic decomposition of the initial indicator of operational efficiency) and it is not necessary to fulfill them.

An assessment of the relative efficiency indicators of cost components allows us to conclude that the low level of operating efficiency of the brick production unit is due to the low efficiency of labor costs, as well as other expenses. In other words, the level of costs for these components in the division under consideration is higher than that of competitors. Depreciation charges show high relative efficiency. The remaining cost components have average relative efficiency (their values ​​do not differ significantly from unity). Thus, the main reserve for increasing the operational efficiency of brick production is the optimization of labor costs, as well as other expenses.

So, let's summarize. An in-depth analysis of the competitiveness of Construction Materials LLC showed that the low competitiveness of the enterprise under study was caused by a decrease in sales and negative economic efficiency brick production divisions. The unsatisfactory operational efficiency of this division, in turn, is a consequence of the high level of costs for the elements: “Labor expenses” and “Other expenses”.

Thus, in the course of our research, we were able to localize the reasons for the low competitiveness of Construction Materials LLC. Eliminating the identified causes is a way to increase the competitiveness of the enterprise under study. In this context, it is of fundamental importance to answer the question about the reasons for the identified negative results of economic activity of the brick production unit, about what is the root cause of what is happening: the low level of organization and production technology, which results in high costs, high selling prices and low sales volumes; or vice versa, low sales cause low occupancy rates production capacity, high unit costs and negative financial results. Depending on the answer to the question about the root causes, appropriate anti-crisis measures should be developed.

In order to answer the question posed, let us pay attention to the fact that insurance premiums in extra-budgetary funds accrued to the payroll fund are included in the element “Other expenses”. Therefore, it can be assumed that the low relative efficiency (high level) of other expenses is a consequence of high labor costs. In addition, we note that the level of depreciation charges is low, as evidenced by the high relative efficiency of the corresponding cost element. This may occur due to the fact that the value of fixed assets ( technological equipment) brick manufacturing division is smaller than its corresponding competitor. All of the above suggests that the identified imbalances in the cost structure and the low operational efficiency of the analyzed division are the result of a low level of production automation and a high share of manual labor in the production process.

Further specification of the identified areas for increasing the competitiveness of the enterprise under study goes beyond the scope of our research and comes down to a feasibility study of organizational and technical measures aimed at improving the technology and organization of the production process.

At this point, the assessment, analysis and identification of ways to increase the competitiveness of Construction Materials LLC can be considered complete. This could be the end of our study of the economic category “enterprise competitiveness.” Indeed, we have come a long way from theoretical foundations market competition To practical methods assessment and analysis of the competitiveness of business entities. However...

However, having learned to assess the level of competitiveness of an enterprise, we were still unable to answer the question of how this level is formed, how competitiveness is achieved. Yes, we have defined , but these sets are more likely to be in the nature of conditions that create the prerequisites for achieving high competitiveness. But, even having the same prerequisites, some enterprises achieve success, while others fail.

The true reasons for achieving high competitiveness remain unclear. The more we learn about competitiveness, the more we realize that we know nothing about competitiveness. Consequently, stating that the phenomenon of forming high competitiveness of an enterprise has remained undiscovered, and the secret of achieving success remains unsolved, we put in our research not a dot, but an ellipsis...

And in order to begin (more precisely, to continue) to understand the true essence of the competitiveness of an enterprise, we propose to summarize the interim results of the work done and formulate the main directions for further theoretical research.

4.5. Cross-assessment of the competitiveness of many enterprises

In the event that we need to assess the competitiveness of, in addition to Construction Materials LLC, also each company included in the structure, we can use the method of cross-assessment of the competitiveness of enterprises, which allows us to assess the competitive status of several companies at once within the framework of one study. This may be necessary if it is difficult to single out one “researched” enterprise among many enterprises (due to the fact that all economic entities interest us equally), as well as in a number of other cases.

The cross-validation technique can significantly reduce the labor intensity of the study. In this case, however, in contrast to the basic calculation scheme, the possibilities for further analytical processing of the results obtained are significantly reduced. Thus, it is recommended to assess competitiveness using the cross-assessment method if it is necessary to assess the competitiveness of many enterprises and does not require a special depth of analysis.

So, we are faced with the task of assessing the competitiveness of Construction Materials LLC, as well as all enterprises included in the structure. For this, from reports on financial results We obtain information about the revenue and costs of each enterprise.

Main indicators of financial and economic activities of Construction Materials LLC.

(thousand roubles.)

The goal is to determine the competitiveness of the enterprise.

The task is to assess the relative competitive position of the enterprise.

The enterprise and its competitors are assessed and conclusions are drawn on this basis. To study competitiveness, the main tool in the work of an enterprise is needed - management.

The Stroyinvest group of companies is one of the most advanced construction companies in the construction market of the Perm region and is a member of the Association of Builders of Russia. The company has implemented many of the largest projects in Perm. Also in cooperation with foreign investors, a high degree of customer satisfaction, vast experience in the implementation of large, technically complex projects, the presence of our own material and information base. The company has one of the highest levels of IT technology development in the city - the production base, offices and facilities under construction are combined into local network information exchange occurs instantly using modern software, coordination of design and management decisions is accelerated significantly. The quality of manufacturing metal structures is the highest in the Perm region, this conclusion was made when searching for partners to carry out a large order; today in the Perm region there is no plant capable of competing with the Stroyinvest plant. Developed design departments are another significant advantage of Stroyinvest LLC.

Characteristics of the industry.

The goal is to assess the operating conditions of the enterprise, determine the nature and strength of competitors and draw conclusions.

The competitive advantages of the industry are in many ways similar to the competitive advantages of enterprises included in this industry. In each region, enterprises advertise their competitive advantages in media mass media Internet spaces participate in exhibitions and tenders to attract investment in the region’s industries.

• 1. Market size. Own market share is one of the most important factors. Stroyinvest has a significant market share and many regular customers who give preference to Stroyinvest when holding tenders. The company is constantly increasing its market share: negotiations are underway with potential new customers, participation in tenders, and cooperation with competing partners.
• 2. Degree of competition. GC Stroyinvest competes with enterprises in Perm, the Perm region and companies from other regions.

Market growth rates and life cycle phases.

GC "Stroyinvest" is in the stage of "maturity". The enterprise is sufficiently developed for the Perm market. The company is developing dynamically in Perm, but since 2010, orders have begun to arrive from other regions of the country for design work and metal structures manufacturing services, which opens up new markets for the company and allows the company to grow further.

• 4. Number of competitors and their relative size. The company has a small number of large competitors (Rekon, Trest No. 7, Promtekh), the number of small ones is much larger (various small construction companies).
• 5. Barriers to entry into the market. There are barriers to entry into the market, but the company offers a full range of services from design to commissioning, which saves the customer from unnecessary functions and unexpected costs when implementing the project. There are three main competitors on the market that are capable of performing a full range of services independently: Rekon, Trest No. 7, Stroyinvest. Access to the market for new enterprises is difficult.
• 6. Degree of diversification. The company designs and manufactures building structures in a factory using modern equipment with machine-building precision, which ensures high construction speed and the highest quality of metal structures in the Perm region. The company offers different construction methods, taking into account the wishes of the customer and technical features building.

A study of the industry and its economic characteristics showed that the Stroyinvest group of companies has a significant market share and successfully competes with enterprises in Perm and the Perm region. The stability, efficiency and competitiveness of the enterprise depend on the functioning of individual sectors of the region's infrastructure.

Analysis of the magnitude of competitive forces (Porter's five forces model).

Five forces determine profitability because they affect prices, costs, and investment.

Competition among existing enterprises.

Is the most powerful force. The company has both large Recon, Trust No. 7, and small competitors (various small construction companies). The company's main competitors are intra-industry competitors performing similar work, both on their own and as general contractors. To increase competitiveness, the company chooses an offensive strategy.

The goal is to gain and maintain competitive advantages.

The company is pursuing an offensive strategy in two directions:

1. Attacking the strengths of competitors.

The goal is the ability to gain market share by superiority over the strengths of weaker competitors or by negating the competitive advantages of one or more competitors, namely the promotion of design services using metal frames.

2. Attacking the weaknesses of competitors.

The goal is to increase the speed of construction; metal frame construction has great potential for the development of this area.

There is a fierce struggle between the main competitors: Rekon, Trest No. 7, Stroyinvest. They conduct various marketing research, participate in construction exhibitions and tenders. The Stroyinvest group of companies defeats weak competitors (various small construction companies) due to its superiority ( high speed construction, high quality designs, a wide range of services, a proven brand, the ability to start performing work without advances, using your own resources).

The strength of competition among potential newcomers.

If the enterprise is small, then it is difficult for it to enter the market, since there are barriers to entry into the market. The following barriers to entry into the market exist:

• · economies of scale (the company increases the market share necessary to achieve competitiveness);
• · warnings from the customer that a new company will not be able to complete the work efficiently and on time;
• · capital needs, since the organization of the construction process and the maintenance of the organization itself requires significant capital, and customers in 40% of cases prefer to work without advances;
• administrative resource large companies There is a powerful administrative resource, using which it becomes almost impossible for new companies to enter.

The threat of new competitors reduces overall profitability potential as they seek market share. Despite the barriers, large enterprises can enter the market and compete already existing companies. The company studies the barriers that may stop or prevent a potential newcomer from entering the market, and erects precisely these barriers.

The strength of competition for substitute goods (construction technologies).

The availability of substitute products limits the price a business can charge, otherwise high prices will induce the buyer to turn to a substitute. There are companies on the market that offer construction using their own technologies, for example, Recon specializes in the construction of monolithic reinforced concrete frames, and the Trest 7 company specializes in precast reinforced concrete. Therefore, the company should try to create all the conditions so that consumers prefer technology using a metal frame, emphasizing that all structures are manufactured in a factory, and not on a construction site, as is the case with monolithic construction. This improves quality, increases the speed of construction, buildings have less weight, which provides savings on foundations, while constantly increasing the speed of frame production due to modernization of the production process.

Supplier competition.

There is now a large selection of suppliers on the market. Therefore, the company carefully selects suppliers. The stability and profitability of the enterprise depends on the correct choice of supplier. The price of supply of materials, their quality, form of payment, and guarantee of completeness depend on the suppliers. Due to the large volumes of goods purchased by the enterprise, suppliers, competing with each other, reduce prices, but the quality of materials remains the same. The purchasing service is a separate division of the company, which deals with working with suppliers and carefully selecting them. Tenders are held between them, which makes it possible to purchase materials and structures on the most favorable terms. Regular suppliers, confident in financial situation enterprises supply goods without advance payment with deferred payments so that there is no cash gap. Tenders are also held between organizations to carry out narrow-profile work (installation of utility networks, landscaping, etc.), which helps save money during project implementation and monitor prices on the market for these services provided. The service also maintains a list of unscrupulous contractors who violate the terms and agreements when providing services and goods. The procurement service actively cooperates with the companies Metalinvest, RukkiRus structural plant, Stroypanelkomplekt, ZhBK-1, Ural Steel Industry Company, etc.

The power of buyers.

The company understands that the main buyers are developing enterprises that count on the speedy return of invested funds in the form of profits from constructed facilities, and often (if construction is carried out at existing production facilities) without stopping their activities. Therefore, the company makes construction speed a priority and fully tries to adjust its work to the client’s operating mode, in order to influence his processes as little as possible. Great attention is paid to the company’s image when implementing projects, in particular: production culture, the degree to which the company’s employees are equipped with tools and equipment, appearance workers and engineering workers. Each facility has a mobile headquarters equipped with modern office equipment for holding meetings, both with customers and for conducting internal operations; cameras are also installed at the facilities and, through a local network, both the customer and management can see the progress of work in real time. As a result of such persistent and thorough work on its image, Stroyinvest enjoys reputation and preference among most customers.

Another significant criterion for clients is the absence of unforeseen costs during construction (additional work), since large enterprises approve budgets long before the start of construction, Stroyinvest strives to ensure that the preliminary cost of the project is final.

By analyzing the forces of competition, you can determine the key success factors that have a direct impact on the profitability of the company. The next stage of analyzing a company when formulating a strategy to increase competition will be to identify strengths and weaknesses, which will be discussed in the next section.

SWOT analysis of Stroyinvest LLC.

During development strategic plans enterprises apply SWOT analysis.

The purpose and objectives of SWOT analysis.

The starting point for a detailed analysis is SWOT analysis, one of the most common types of analysis in strategic management. SWOT analysis allows you to identify and structure strengths and weaknesses, as well as potential opportunities and threats. This is achieved by comparing the internal strengths and weaknesses of their enterprise with the opportunities that the market gives them. Based on the data obtained, a conclusion is drawn about the direction in which the enterprise should develop its business.

The purpose of SWOT analysis is to formulate the main directions of development of an enterprise through systematization of available information about the strengths and weaknesses of the enterprise, as well as potential opportunities and threats.

Objectives of SWOT analysis:

• · identify strengths and weaknesses compared to competitors;
• · identify opportunities and threats of the external environment;
• · relate strengths and weaknesses to opportunities and threats;
• · formulate the main directions of enterprise development.

To conduct a SWOT analysis, first collect necessary information from all available sources: internal information, market review, competitor advertising, magazine articles, Internet. The result of collecting information gives a clear picture of the opportunities and threats, strengths and weaknesses of the enterprise.

Elements of the internal environment: strengths and weaknesses. Strengths and weaknesses can hide a wide variety of aspects of an enterprise's activities.

The first step of SWOT analysis is assessment own strength. The first stage will allow you to determine what the strengths and weaknesses of the enterprise are.

Strengths of the company:

• 1. High technical level of the enterprise:
  • a) high-tech production (plasma installations, anti-corrosion treatment area);
  • b) high quality of work performed;
  • c) qualified workers;
  • d) a highly developed design direction (two design departments) allows the design of several objects to be carried out simultaneously, and design is the first stage of construction; usually a design contract is followed by a construction contract, as this reduces the burden on the customer in coordinating actions and increases the level of responsibility of the contractor.
• 2. Stable financial position. The Stroyinvest group of companies has a stable financial position:
  • a) The company has regular customers in the form of large enterprises, and the company also constantly receives new orders. At the same time, construction of several large and many small projects is underway in Perm and the Perm region;
  • b) timely payment of taxes, paid on time wage employees of the enterprise and other payments;
  • c) The established BDR reporting system notifies managers about the performance and financial position of their departments.
• 3. The well-known name “Stroyinvest”.

The company has successfully implemented many technically complex, large-scale projects in Perm and has a serious reputation among regional and foreign investors.

The marketing service collects and processes the information necessary to obtain new orders and attract potential clients, maintains relationships with regular customers, promotes the Stroyinvest brand through the media, the Internet, exhibitions, and participation in tenders.

• 4. Tall professional level employees. The company has many employees who have many years of experience in the construction industry and highly qualified, the share of young energetic specialists and managers in the company is also increasing. Everyone who joins the company receives a stable salary and the opportunity to move up the career ladder. Conducted for employees training sessions to improve professional skills. Also, every six months they conduct certification (testing the knowledge of employees). On this enterprise There is paid vacation and sick leave. For successful work enterprises use incentive and labor motivation systems. The salary level in the company is above average among construction companies in the Perm region.
• 5. The organization of management reporting allows you to overcome crisis situations and increase the pace after they are completed.

Weaknesses of the enterprise.

• 1. “Turnover” of personnel. Personnel turnover exists at any construction enterprise. To improve the efficiency of an enterprise, it is necessary to reduce staff turnover. “Turnover” of personnel in the management team leads to constant changes in the work of the enterprise. This does not always have a beneficial effect on the development of the company. “Turnover” of personnel also occurs among low-level managers, and because of this, the efficiency of the enterprise is reduced. The cause of staff turnover may also be complex schedule work.
• 2. There is no PTO department that connects the design department with designers, as a result of which, common mistakes designers lead to additional costs during construction and spoil the company’s reputation.
• 3. The high cost of manufactured structures due to production costs, which can be avoided, and high management costs, which can be reduced by increasing the volume of work.
• 4. Blurred lines of responsibility between departments.

The second step of SWOT analysis is a kind of “terrain reconnaissance” and market assessment. This stage gives an assessment of the situation outside the enterprise and understands what opportunities exist, as well as what threats should be feared (and, accordingly, prepare for them in advance).

Elements of the external environment: opportunities and threats. Opportunities and threats are outside the organization's control.

Enterprise capabilities:

• 1. Possibility of access to new markets or segments (see Table 2.2.). The company has the opportunity to receive orders for the design and manufacture of metal structures from other regions.
• 2. Emergence of new market segments (see Table 2.3.). The company does not stand still, but is constantly in search of new market segments and provides new ways to make a profit by providing new services; the technology of frameless construction of hangars, which are in increasing demand, has been mastered; a UMM section has been created that provides equipment and mechanisms and equipment for rent to third parties. Management plans to develop the housing construction segment.
• 3. Increase in demand (see Table 2.4.). As a result of increased investment in the development of many enterprises in the Perm region in which the enterprise has already proven itself: Novomet-Perm, Henkel-Pemos, Sirial-Partners, Turbogaz, Perm Fair, Perm Meat Processing Plant, construction of the Oris plant and others, the number and volume of orders from the company is increasing, since Stroyinvest is their main contractor and has a good reputation at most of them, and a positive reputation at other enterprises is the second criterion (after cost) by which an investor chooses a company to implement its development plans.
• 4. Leaving the market or weakening the position of competitors on it (see Table 2.5.). The company will be able to take advantage of this opportunity if the positions of only small competitors are weakened. The company is unable to change the positions of its main competitors.
• 5. Increasing the general scientific and technical level of development of the industry in which the enterprise operates (see Table 2.6.) and the huge potential of construction using metal structures which is still gaining momentum, the use of metal frame construction in residential construction.
• 6. Receipt of orders from other regions (see Table 2.7.).

Opportunity Matrix

For successful analysis of the enterprise environment SWOT method- analysis not only reveals the threats and opportunities of the enterprise, but evaluates their impact on the enterprise strategy.

Table 2.2. Opportunity to access new markets or segments

Field CC - the opportunity is of great importance for the enterprise, and it must be used. Opening to present your products in other regions through suppliers (feedback), top management connections, tracking news in the construction industries of more interesting regions, exhibitions, etc.

Table 2.3. Emergence of new market segments

Field BC - the opportunity is of great importance, and it must be used. In addition to the main activity of construction of buildings and structures, the company carries out orders for specialized services and it is necessary to develop this area by developing projects for more effective use available resources of the company, this attracts additional orders to the company and makes the company more financially stable, since it provides for the availability of multiple sources of financing.

Table 2.4. Increased demand for products

Field BC - the opportunity is of great importance for the enterprise, and it must be used. An enterprise, having received large orders, will be able to simultaneously carry out a number of internal investment projects which will increase its competitiveness: reorganization of the design company, modernization production base(production automation) which will increase productivity and reduce production costs, improving the construction process, using new technologies in construction management will strengthen the position of Stroyinvest in these enterprises.

Table 2.5. Exit from the market or weakening of competitors’ positions in it

NS field - the opportunity can be used if the enterprise has enough resources. Enterprises will be able to take advantage of this opportunity when the positions of only small competitors are weakened. The company is unable to change the positions of its main competitors.

Table 2.6. Increasing the overall scientific and technical level of industry development

Field CC - the opportunity can be used if the enterprise has enough resources. Having a powerful design direction, the company can develop and provide to the market prefabricated high-rise buildings for residential and commercial use using ready-made modular structures, which will increase the speed of construction, and therefore significantly reduce the cost per square meter - which will be a sharp leap forward from competitors, since there will be two main advantages of Stroyinvest - speed of construction (return on investment) and price.

Table 2.7. Receipt of orders from other regions

Field CC - the opportunity can be used if the enterprise has enough resources. Considering that orders from other regions are already arriving and the high degree of customer satisfaction implies further cooperation and recommendations for other potential clients, new profitable contracts are possible. Heads of departments that have the opportunity to perform these services - these are design departments and a metal structure manufacturing plant - need to work on loading and developing their departments.

Enterprise threats:

• 1. The emergence of competitors on the market (see Table 2.9.). In Perm and Perm region a large number of construction enterprises that are engaged in the same activities as the Stroyinvest group of companies. There are many small enterprises on the market and they do not pose a big threat; the company has a small number of large competitors. If the quality of the company's products is worse than others, then the company may lose consumers. Competition is one of the main problems, and even more so for such a large enterprise as the Stroyinvest group of companies. The company needs to maintain its image through advertising activities, actively cooperate with suppliers, promote the brand, improve the quality and speed of services provided, immediately respond to customer comments, and improve technical equipment. Of course, the company does a lot to maintain its reputation, but it is necessary to develop new ways to develop the company. If the image of an enterprise improves, it will be able to attract new customers, qualified workers, as well as stop the “turnover” of personnel (good personnel can go to competitors) and improve the work of competing enterprises. There is also a great threat of the emergence of new large competitors from other regions. Therefore, the enterprise needs to control this threat.
• 2. Changes in legislation and regulations in construction (see Table 2.10).
• 3. Loss in tenders due to price reductions by competitors (see Table 2.11).
• 4. Failure to meet deadlines and poorly performed work by subcontractors (see Table 2.12).
• 5. Additional requirements for the quality characteristics of products (see Table 2.13). Any consumer is concerned about the problem of product quality. Therefore, the company should especially monitor the quality of the services provided and the products manufactured.

Threat matrix.

A matrix is ​​compiled to assess threats (Table 2.8.).

Table 2.8. Threat Matrix

Threats that fall into the fields:

• 1. VR, VK and SR - pose a very great danger to the enterprise and require immediate and mandatory elimination.
• 2. VT, SC and HP - must be in the field of view of senior management and be eliminated as a matter of priority.
• 3. NK, ST and VL - require a careful and responsible approach to eliminate them.
• 4. NT, SL and NL - you should also monitor them and carefully monitor their development.

Table 2.9. Appearance of competitors on the market

This threat can lead to two results. Field ST - a threat requires a careful and responsible approach to eliminate them. A strong competitor may appear on the market and compete with the company. ST field - you should also monitor the threat and carefully monitor its development.

Table 2.10. Changes in legislation

Field CT - the threat must be in the field of view of senior management and must be eliminated as a matter of priority. Changes in regulations can cause serious problems if they are not taken into account in a timely manner during the design and lead to litigation, costs and damage to the company's image. Building code requirements are constantly changing and require careful study.

Table 2.11. Losses in tenders

Field NT - the threat must be in the field of view of senior management and must be eliminated immediately. Some construction enterprises that are underutilized set dumping prices for the construction of facilities that do not provide for profit, and sometimes work at a loss in order to keep the enterprise afloat or by underestimating the real cost of the project. In case of loss, a company partnership is offered to the winner.

Table 2.12. Failure to meet deadlines and poor-quality work performed by specialized organizations

VL field - this threat can damage the company's image. Poorly performed work ends in litigation or additional costs. It is necessary to identify a group of the most conscientious contractors who already have a positive reputation with Stroyinvest and a number of jointly implemented projects who are interested in further cooperation. Conduct closed tenders between these main players. New members are invited only after a thorough examination of the main assets and work experience.

Table 2.13. Requirements for quality characteristics of products

NT field - you should also monitor the threat and carefully monitor its development. Any consumer is concerned about the problem of product quality. In order to prevent threats, the company should especially monitor the quality of services and products. The company must pay special attention to quality control design work, and work performed directly on site.

Based on the results, the main stages of development are determined. The criteria are the following:

• · the significance of this strength and weakness for the enterprise;
• · the significance of this opportunity and threat for the enterprise.

In general, the enterprise is operating successfully. It has strengths that allow the company to operate effectively. For example, a high technical level means modern equipment, own production, information support and qualified personnel. Another strong point is the Stroyinvest brand; the company has a serious reputation and extensive experience. A significant advantage over small competitors is financial stability enterprises, a company conducting the construction of several large projects can temporarily finance the construction of one project at the expense of proceeds from another. This makes it possible not to stop the construction process if the investor encounters formal financial difficulties, which turns into a serious problem for small competitors and their customers. With the help of these strengths, the enterprise has the opportunity to weaken the position of smaller enterprises - competitors and strengthen its position (expansion in its market and entry into a new market).

Like any enterprise, the Stroyinvest company has weaknesses. For example, this is staff turnover. This problem makes the strong position of the enterprise weak. Nice shots may go to competitors. And this is no longer the case weak side for the enterprise, but a threat. Also, as a result of the fact that the enterprise experiences “turnover” of personnel, the enterprise loses qualified personnel. The presence of qualified personnel is the strength of the enterprise. As a result of staff turnover, an enterprise loses a strong side and gains a weak one.

The enterprise has the opportunity to form new business units focused on development and implementation modern technologies in construction and specialized areas in its main activities. In addition to the main activity of capital construction, the technology of constructing frameless hangar-type structures has been mastered and is steadily receiving orders throughout the Perm region, since this area is highly profitable and has a significant advantage over analogue technology.

But the company may lose this opportunity, since the enterprise has a threat - this is competition. Competitors may occupy vacant niches, and the company may lose the opportunity to expand its market share. Therefore, special attention must be paid to quality.

Competition is a very big threat to an enterprise. Having examined and analyzed the external environment and internal environment of the enterprise, it is necessary to draw the main conclusions on this topic.

The internal environment of the enterprise requires the attention of management. The internal and external environments are interconnected and interact with each other. A change in one of them affects the other to a certain extent. Positive indicators of the internal environment cannot necessarily lead to the efficiency of the enterprise if there are negative indicators in the external environment, and vice versa. The internal well-being of the enterprise depends on the external environment, and their interaction contributes to the achievement of the overall goals of the organization. The success of an enterprise depends on the external environment of the organization, without which the life cycle of any enterprise is not possible. The leader must take into account the external environment. Factors that have an immediate impact on the enterprise belong to the environment of direct influence, other factors - to the environment of indirect influence. External environment has properties of complexity and uncertainty.

Assessing relative competitive position.

The strategic group consists of competing enterprises: OJSC Trest No. 7 and LLC Stroyinvest. These two enterprises are characterized by similar approaches to competition and occupy approximately equal positions in this market.

Competing enterprises: Stroyinvest LLC, Rekon LLC, Trest No. 7 OJSC and Promtekh LLC (see Table 2.14).

Criteria: price, quality, speed of construction, service. This method of assessing competitiveness used five criteria.

Table 2.14. Assessing relative competitive position

Principles: 5 points.

2 - much better than ours;

1 - better;

• 0 - also;
• -1 - worse;
• -2 - much worse.

An assessment of the relative competitive position of the enterprise showed that Stroyinvest LLC and Trest No. 7 OJSC are in equal positions, Rekon LLC and Promtekh LLC are inferior according to some criteria.

The above analysis made it possible to identify general directions of development in the construction market of the Perm region, and the SWOT analysis outlined possible prospects for the company’s development.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Similar documents

Motion analysis and technical condition fixed assets and intangible assets of Far Eastern LLC trading house", assessment of the efficiency of their use and impact on sales revenue. Ways to increase the level of use of the enterprise's fixed assets.

course work, added 02/20/2011


Economic essence, composition and structure of the enterprise's fixed assets, their assessment, indicators of use and efficiency. Analysis of the efficiency of using the main production assets of RUE "Mogilevoblgaz", development of measures to improve it.

course work, added 03/14/2015


Analysis of non-current assets: efficiency of use of intangible assets, efficiency of use of fixed assets, structure and dynamics of fixed assets, capital productivity of fixed assets. Analysis of current assets: turnover.

course work, added 01/13/2003


Concept and composition revolving funds. Indicators of the efficiency of using working capital, their standardization. Analysis of the composition and structure of working capital of Del Pasto LLC. Ways to improve and improve the use of working capital of an enterprise.

course work, added 06/05/2012


Analysis of the effectiveness of the use of basic production assets. Analysis of the use of technological equipment. Reserves for increasing production output, capital productivity and capital profitability. Analysis of the efficiency of using intangible assets.

course work, added 01/13/2003


Concept and types working capital. Organizational and economic characteristics of the enterprise. Dynamics and structure of current assets, assessment and ways to improve the efficiency of their use. Analysis of accounts receivable and cash flow.

course work, added 04/28/2014


Fundamentals of efficient use of working capital. Features of the turnover of current assets in the forest industry and factors of the efficiency of their use. Directions for increasing the efficiency of using working capital. Dynamics of working capital.

course work, added 09/30/2008


Economic content of fixed assets, their classification. Meaning and Information Support analysis of fixed assets. Assessment of the efficiency of use of fixed assets at OJSC "Gomeldrev" DOK and ways to improve the efficiency of their use.

thesis, added 10/24/2010