ISSN 0798 1015
ISSN 0798 1015
Vol. 38 (Nº 49) Year 2017. Page 7
Elena Viktorovna NAZMUTDINOVA 1; Lyudmila Alekseevna GOLOVNINA 2; Anna Valeryevna BYSTRITSKAYA 3; Anna Vladimirovna PESTOVA 4
Received: 12/06/2017 • Approved: 30/06/2017
ABSTRACT: The article considers organizational and methodic aspects of strategic planning of the regional production enterprise development. In particular, it studies and systemizes main approaches to interpreting the notion “strategy” on the corporate level of management. It clarifies methodic tools of defining the typology of strategic conduct of industrial enterprises by the level of their competitiveness in terms of the market power as compared to competitors (positional competitiveness) and innovation sensibility (dynamic competitiveness). The offered matrix is based on integral indicators of positional and dynamic competitiveness obtained by calculating with the aid of the additive model. It allows defining areas for the further development and adequate actions of an industrial enterprise, revealing prerequisites for the business success, and choosing the efficient strategy of the company development that complies with a certain type of strategic competitive conduct. Key words: strategic planning, enterprise development strategy, organizational and methodic tools, typology of enterprise’s strategic conduct. |
RESUMEN: El artículo considera aspectos organizacionales y metódicas de la planificación estratégica del desarrollo de la empresa regional de producción. En particular, estudia y sistema los enfoques principales para interpretar la noción de "estrategia" en el nivel corporativo de gestión. Clarifica las herramientas metódicas de definición de la tipología de la conducta estratégica de las empresas industriales por el nivel de su competitividad en términos del poder de mercado en comparación con los competidores (competitividad posicional) y la sensibilidad de la innovación (dinámica competitividad). La matriz ofrecida se basa en indicadores integrales de competitividad posicional y dinámica obtenida mediante el cálculo con la ayuda del modelo aditivo. Permite definir áreas para el desarrollo y acciones adecuadas de una empresa industrial, revelando prerrequisitos para el éxito empresarial, y escogiendo la estrategia eficiente del desarrollo de la empresa que cumple con un determinado tipo de conducta competitiva. |
Overcoming the spontaneous nature of structural changes in the economy of territorial and economic systems and forming the rational structure of production area of the region require considerable financial, material and technical, and human resources. At the same time, on the one hand, the strategy of developing a certain sector of production area of the region is limited by the indicators of strategies to develop a relevant territorial formation and the country, as a whole, and, on the other hand, it is substantiated by the efficiency of strategies to develop sectoral enterprises.
The primary task of ensuring sustainable strategic development of a production sector of mesoeconomy is to solve a key problem of competitiveness: to increase the number and improve the stability of competitive advantages of leaders, as well as to decrease the share of uncompetitive enterprises. To a great degree, success of solving the set task is substantiated by the efficiency of the system of strategic planning of industrial business structures whose majority can successfully function only subject to correctly selected vector of strategic development (Nazmutdinova, E.V. 2013).
Due to the complexity of the tasks being solved, a great role is given to organizational and methodic tools of strategic planning both on the micro- and mesolevels.
Defining the type of strategic conduct (strategic position) of an enterprise allows revealing the required prerequisites for business success and defining areas for further development and adequate ways of the company activity. However, the lack of sectoral directionality in the existing organizational and methodic tools of strategic positioning, difficulty in defining key factors that substantiate typology of strategic conduct of enterprises, as well as complexity of obtaining results and a high level of their indefiniteness stipulate the need in further theoretical substantiation and practical solving of the problem related to ensuring efficiency of strategic decisions in managing the development of enterprises functioning in certain sectors of economy. To the authors’ mind, it is reasonable to carry out strategic positioning of production enterprises based on the level of their competitiveness in terms of the “market power” of the enterprise as compared to competitors (positional competitiveness) and its innovation sensibility (dynamic competitiveness) (Fig. 1).
Figure 1
System of Criteria to Estimate Level of Dynamic and Positional Competitiveness of Enterprise
-----
Figure 2
Matrix of Defining Type of Strategic Conduct of Industrial Enterprises
The possibility of free defining of the type of strategic conduct of companies depending on the location on the matrix allows developing recommendations to take decisions in the area of further development of enterprises functioning in a certain sector of industry (Table 1).
Table 1
Typology of Strategic Conduct of Production Enterprises (Anshin, and
Dagaev 2003; Kleyner 2008; Tonysheva and Nazmutdinova 2010)
Type of strategic conduct |
Characteristics of the strategic conduct type
|
Recommended strategy |
Strategy characteristics |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
“Absolute leaders” |
Leaders in price policy, optimization of expenses, etc. They perform high innovation activity. |
Strategy of leadership at the expense of advanced research intensity |
Occupying long-term leading positions of the enterprise due to providing research intensity of products that is higher than the average sector level. |
“Candidates for leadership” |
They have a medium level of positioning competitiveness but they display a very high innovation activity at the expense of constant generation and acquisition of innovations. |
Extreme advancing strategy |
It expresses actions of the enterprise and its aspiration to be the first to enter the market with an essentially new product or a new method of its production. |
“Leader’s followers” |
They copy the leader’s activity, but they act more prudently and count on fewer resources. |
Wait-it-out strategy |
It is chosen by large enterprises when they enter the market of new products whose demand has not yet been defined. In case the pioneer company is a success, the initiative is followed. |
“Adapted” enterprises |
They are characterized either by a high level of positional competitiveness or lack of innovation activity (type 1), or by continuous update of the products portfolio subject to the lack of reliable channels of allocation, large expenses and level of commercial risk (type 2). |
Strategy of product and process imitation |
The enterprise borrows innovations from outside, and borrowing is related both to products and production processes. The strategy is efficient when the enterprise considerably lags behind from competitors by its potential or enters a new area of business. |
“Surviving” enterprises |
Level of innovation perceptibility does not allow them to provide competitive advantages, including by their “classical” parameters. Their activity is characterized by instability. |
Strategy of supporting a product line |
The enterprise strives to improve consumer characteristics of traditional products that are not subject to strong moral ageing. |
“Outsiders” |
They are referred to the category of “unprofitable”. They do not perform innovation activity. It is necessary to solve the issue on the reasonability of the further operation of the enterprise. |
Strategy of following the market |
It is focused on issuing the most profitable products, and the earned money is spent for improving the level of innovation activity. |
The above methodic tools allow defining basic factors used when substantiating movers of the development of business structures, and making an accurate succession of transformations focused on forming the efficient corporate strategy.
During the conducted research, the following results were obtained.
Strategic conduct of sectoral enterprises is stipulated by an aggregate of certain conditions and factors.
The notion “strategy” and its interpretation within the corporate level evolved along with complicating conditions of running business. Thus, management theorists and experts considered strategy of corporate level as
1) Method of establishing long-term goals of the organization, program of its activities and top priority areas for allocating resources (A. Chandler, 1998),
2) Method of defining goals for corporate, business and functional levels (I. Ansoff, D. Steiner, P. Lorange),
3) Reaction on external opportunities and threats, internal strong and weak sides, whose main task is to achieve long-term competitive advantages over competitors in every business area (M. Porter, 2006),
4) Consequent, agreed and integrated structure of management decisions (G. Minzberg, 2000);
5) Way of developing key competitive advantages – special abilities of a company and internal resources (G. Hamel, 2002), and
6) A set of simultaneously proactive and reactive actions and approaches on achieving the set indicators of activity (A. Thompson, 1998).
To the authors’ mind, under the modern conditions of running an industrial business it is reasonable to consider the strategy of developing an industrial enterprise as a generalized model of actions on all levels of management that takes into account the reasonability of target benchmarks of development, results of strategic positioning and need to efficiently allocate resources.
According to the opinion of representatives of strategic positioning school, it is possible to classify enterprises conduct into types by one or several criteria (parameters). Positioning by one criterion is the most preferable variant in terms of the information veracity and neutralizing risk of mistake when defining a type of strategic conduct. If it goes about defining the vector of strategic development (i.e. strategic planning), here it is necessary to reveal key factors, whose aggregate is an integral characteristic, for example, such as competitiveness (M. Tracey, 1997; M. Porter, 2006; G. Traut, 2002).
A number of researchers offer to use parameters of estimating the enterprise’s competitiveness as key factors that define the strategic position of the enterprise (I. Gurkov, E. Avramova, V. Tubalov, 2005).
It is true that key factors of success stipulate the availability of advantages over competitors (price, products quality, level of expenses, etc.), and consequently, competitiveness – in the widest meaning – the aggregate of the subject (object) that provides the prevalence over analogous subjects (objects) (Azoev, 1996; Gogoleva, 2003)
In particular I. Gurkov offers to define the strategic position of an enterprise on the basis of expert estimation of three initial parameters of competitiveness: levels of specific expenses, prices, and quality. Thereby the best correlation “expenses – price - quality” (“classical” parameters of competitiveness) is based on a higher intensity of innovation activity of enterprise (Gurkov, 2004)
At the modern stage of the economy development it is reasonable to consider the enterprise competitiveness as a synthesis of its positional competitiveness that is defined by the “market power” of the company as compared to competitors, and dynamic competitiveness defined by a set meta-skills that show the company’s potential in integrating, creating and re-configuration of internal and external competences to comply with the rapidly changing environment (N. Atkina, V. Khanzhina, E. Popov, 2003)
Thus, in addition to “classical” parameters – production, selling, marketing, professional, organizational and management, financial and economic, it is necessary to define the level of innovation activity of business structures as a key factor of sectoral enterprises competitiveness. This is a feature of the company that is expressed in its ability to reveal innovations in various areas, determine and identify their certain features, single out the informative content in them that complies with the goal of the action, formed image of the company development, and accept innovation for using. At the same time special attention is paid to the innovation perceptivity of personnel. This is not only the company employees’ readiness for perceiving and diffusion of the innovation, but also readiness to initiate it (Astapov, 2006, Vasilieva, 2006; Maslennikova, 2006).
Within the strategic achievement of the research goals, the authors have made a number of interrelated conclusions:
Anshin, V.Sh. and Dagaev L.G. (2003). Innovatsionnyi menedzhment [Innovation Management]: Manual. Moscow: Delo, pp. 528
Ansoff, I. (1989). Strategicheskoe upravlenie [Strategic Management]. Moscow: Economy
Astapov K. Innovatsii promyshlennyh predpriyatiy i ekonomicheskiy rost [Innovations of Industrial Enterprises and Economic Growth]. Economist, 6, 44-51.
Atkina, N.A. (2003). Strategicheskoe planirovanie ispolzovaniya rynochnogo potentsiala predpriyatiya [Strategic Planning of Using Market Potential of the Enterprise. Management in Russia and Abroad, 2, 20-26.
Azoev, G. L. (1996). Konkurentsiya: analiz, strategiya i praktika [Competition: Analysis, Strategy and Practice]. Moscow: Center of Economics and Marketing.
Chandler, A. D. (1962/1998). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gogoleva, T. N. (2004). Konkurentsiya: suschnost, zakonomernost, regulirovanie [Comeptition: Essence, Regularities and Regulation. Voronezh: Publishing House of the Voronezh State Universtiy.
Gurkov, I. B. (2004). Strategicheskiy menedzhment organizatsii [Strategic Management of Organization]: manual. Moscow: TEIS
Gurkov, I. B. (2005). Konkurentosposobnost i innovatsionnost rossiyskih promyshlennyh predpriyatiy [Competitiveness and Innovation of Russian Industrial Enterprises]. Issues of Economy, 2, 21
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, K. (2002). Konkuriruya za buduschee. Sozdanie rynkov zavtrashnego dnya [Competing for the Future. Creating Markets of Tomorrow]. Moscow: CJSC “Olim – Business”.
Kleyner, G.B. (2008). Strategiya predpriyatiya [Enterprise Strategy]. Moscow: Delo AIH, pp. 568
Maslennikova, N.P. (2006). Kontseptsiya razvitiya innovatsionnoy vospriimchivosti organizatsiy v innovatsionnoy sfere [Concept of Developing Innovation Sensibility of Organizations in the Innovational Area]. Management Today, 1, 2-11.
Mintsberg, G. (2000). Shkoly strategiy [Schools of Srategies]. Saint-Petersburg: Peter
Nazmutdinova, E.V. (2013). Metodicheskiy instrumentariy opredeleniya tipologii strategicheskogo povedeniya proizvodstvennogo predpriyatiya [Methodic Tools of Defining Typology of Strategic Conduct of Production Enterprise]. International Journal of Applied and Fundamental Researche, 1, 76-79.
Porter, M. (2006). Konkurentnaya strategiya: Metodika analiza otrasley i konkurentov. [Competitive Strategy: Methodic of Analyzing Areas and Competitors]. Moscow: Alpina Business Books
Tompson, A. A. (1998). Strategicheskiy menedzhment. Iskusstvo razrabotki i realizatsii strategii: uchebnik [Strategic Management. Art of Developing and Implementing Strategy: Manual]. (L. G. Zaytsev, M. I. Sokolova, Trans.). Moscow: Banks and Stock Exchanges, YuNITI, pp. 576.
Tonysheva, L. L. and Nazmutdinova, E.V. (2010). Formirovanie strategii razvitiya otrasli: teoreticheskiy i realizatsionnyiy aspekty [Forming Strategy of the Sector Development: Theoretical and Implementation Aspects]. Tyumen: TyumGNGU, pp. 144.
Traut, J. (2002). Novoe pozitsionirovanie [New Positioning]. Saint-Petersburg: Peter, pp. 348.
Treacy M. and Wiersema F. (1997). The Discipline of Market Leaders: Choose Your Customers, Narow Your Focus, Dominate Your Market. Perseus Book.
Vasileva, Z.A. (2006). Ierarhiya ponyatiy konkurentosposobnosti subjektov rynka [Hierarchy of Notions of Market Subjects’ Competitiveness ]. Marketing in Russia and Abroad, 2, 16-20.
1. Industrial University of Tyumen, 38, Volodarskiy Str., Tyumen, 625000, Russian Federation. E-mail: nazmelena@gmail.com
2. Industrial University of Tyumen, 38, Volodarskiy Str., Tyumen, 625000, Russian Federation E-mail: golovninala@tyuiu.ru
3. Industrial University of Tyumen, 38, Volodarskiy Str., Tyumen, 625000, Russian Federation E-mail: bystritskayaav@tyuiu.ru
4. Industrial University of Tyumen, 38, Volodarskiy Str., Tyumen, 625000, Russian Federation E-mail: pestovaav@tyuiu.ru