1

Enhancing Enterprise Competitiveness:

Self Assessment Approach

SA Khader, CMC

SAK Consultants & Associates, New Delhi

sakhader@airtelmail.in

ABSTRACT

In the market economy, characterized by free flow of goods & services, the firm level

Competitiveness determines the success as well survival of the enterprise. Enterprise

Managements are seized with the issue of maintaining and further improving upon their

competitive positions and are looking for models and tools that aid them in this process,

particularly due to complexities in managing business to provide balanced considerations to

triple-bottom-line features of Profit-Environment–Society. It is here the relevance of an

enterprise model integrating all these facets comes up as an aid, to enable continuous focus on the

competitiveness factors and its management & monitoring through the evaluation of strategic

interventions on a periodic basis. The basis of the model is “Competitive Assets when synergized

by Competitive Processes give Competitive Results”.

This paper tries to present such an Integrated Competitiveness Model, with an appropriate

quantification mechanism that is amenable to self-assessment and introspection of the related

strategies by the management. The application of such a model and its methodology results in

evolving strategic road-maps towards enhancing its competitive strength. Further, the efficacy of

this model is illustrated though an application case of an energy service providing company in

India, establishing the usefulness of the model for the contemporary enterprise and institutional

managements

Key Words: Competitive Assets, Competitive Processes, Competitive Results, Tool-Kit,

Competitiveness Index

2

Enterprise in the Information Age

A new paradigm of business operations has come up during this decade, primarily characterised

by increased competition compared to the hitherto prevalent protected markets. Competition is

the name of the hottest economic game these days. Donald M. Kendall, Former Chairman &

CEO of Pepsico says: ‘Hard-nosed Competition is the best assurance of healthy business.

Constructive competition between rival suppliers is central to a perfect market economy, where

all factors of the economy behave on commonly shared and agreed business practices and ethics.’

The last decades of the last century, typically known as the ‘on-set of the information age’,

characterised by new paradigms of global socio-political and socio-economic realities, ushered in

a new set of capabilities needed for competitive success. These are:

1. Ability to exploit Invisible assets (Human Capital)

2. Customer relationships (Develop Loyalties)

3. Innovative Product/Service Production (Targeted Customers & Branding)

4. Customised High Quality Products/Services (Low Cost & Shorter Lead Times)

5. Continuous Improvement of Process Capability (Quality, Response Time, Employee

Skills & Motivation and Knowledge Generation)

6. Use of IT, Databases & Systems (Speed & Knowledge)

Such capabilities can possibly be developed by tapping the innate abilities of human resources

primarily and managing them as sources of innovations for higher productivity & quality.

P & Q and Competitiveness

In the seminal book on ‘Competitive Advantage of Nations’, Michael Porter has clearly brought

out that only meaningful concept of competitiveness is Productivity. For many, productivity is a

synonym for competitiveness and firmly believe that higher the productivity of the industry or

enterprise, higher its competitive advantage. Improving productivity and performance through

technology up-gradations alone and top down management model adopted by the Western World

proved inadequate as against the models of paying attention to customer requirements that

enabled the Japanese to capture the world markets. At the same time, Japanese organisations

developed what can be called as ‘Management by Humane-Approach’, emphasising the need to

develop and realise the human potential and integrated man-machine management that resulted in

higher association & sense of belonging and creativity & innovation from the employees.

Entrepreneurs and managers do need to introspect themselves in the light of these global

imperatives of enhancing competitiveness.

Internalizing Environmental & Societal Concerns

Companies with good environmental record and performance are more likely to take advantage of

the public image of ‘management with humane and societal concern’ and also ultimately result in

better brand image and brand equity from the angle of the customer, rather than having mere

environment friendly products and cleaner technologies. Multi-pronged approaches are prevalent

for companies to focus on environmental and societal needs of the enterprise; including adhering

to ISO standards (14000, 18000 & 26000) and UN’s Global Compact & AA1000. These are

Business Ethics, Development & Use of safe and Cleaner Technologies, Consumer & Investor

protection, IPR, Pollution, Resource Conservation, Labour Laws & Child Labour and

Expectations & Responsibilities of a Corporate Citizen and related Societal Concerns. In other

words, higher competitiveness means enhanced Social-Productivity. These are catching the

attention of large enterprises and the SMEs too are trying to follow suit, rather slowly. According

to Michael Porter, the impact of focusing on environment is not only benign and may have

significant positive effects on competitiveness by promoting efficient use of inputs, total quality

3

management and technological innovation – the same basic approach as for enhancement of

productivity

Knowledge Management

Conventionally Knowledge is equated with technology and one tends to view it as being vested in

the management of the firm. This view, however, is clearly becoming obsolete. It is now more

appropriate to look at ‘Knowledge’ with in the firm as a complex combination of technology,

information, experience, training and very importantly, as a result of effective processes inside

and outside of the firm to exchange all these aspects. More the knowledge in a firm, and more

easily it flows between people of the firm, the more efficient the firm is likely to be. A 21st

century organization has to focus on continuous development and refinement of its knowledge

resource through effective knowledge management processes, to retain its competitive advantage

over others. The enterprises in general should live up its tradition of Indian Sages who

demonstrated “Knowledge gets multiplied and better harnessed by sharing & rather than purely

from the angle of trading it as Power”

Enterprise Competitiveness Factors & a Model

The World Competitiveness Report defines Competitiveness as the “ability to increase the market

share, profit and growth in value added and to stay competitive for a long duration”. It is depicted

in a formula as indicated below:

Competitive Assets X Competitive Process = World competitiveness

* Infrastructure * Quality * Market Share

* Finance * Speed * Profit

* Technology * Customization * Growth

* People * Service * Time to Response

Companies being the prime vehicles for improved competitiveness at all levels, attempts are

made to help companies on evaluating their competitiveness. The enterprise-level

Competitiveness means that the enterprise should be able to achieve the following:

• Ability to retain the customer base as well add on to it through its continuous

development and supply of acceptable and competitive Products/Services that means it

must be able to enhance its market share

• Demonstration of growth by acknowledged enhancement of shareholder value or

attractive returns to partners and enhanced societal satisfaction and become a brand

• Adequate focus on internal human asset development for leveraging and harnessing the

competitive assets

Eminent Management Guru, Peter Ducker says that it is the enterprise that is going to compete

with its counterparts in the global arena, but not the country as a whole. The enterprise

Productivity & Quality (P&Q) level has a singular and profound influence on the features and

expectations from the customer’s point of view. This is basic to enhance the competitiveness of

the enterprise. Hence it is essential to study the integrated facets of improving P&Q on a

continuing basis mainly to understand the competitive strength of the enterprise as well as its

strategic repositioning to the fast changing requirements of competition in the global market.

4

This kind of Competitive Performance comes from the Competitive Assets, when they are

managed or harnessed by deploying effective and Competitive Processes. Any model for

Evaluation of Enterprise level Competitiveness has to include these elements. Now, let us look at

a model (See figure) given at next page. An enterprise comes into operation in an economy or a

society that has all its unique socio-cultural and socio-economic characteristics and laws of the

land. The market environment consists of the domestic and external customers, and the

vendors/service providers. The enterprise is required to survive in the environment created by

these institutions, external to it and also shapes the external environment with its contribution in

terms of its values and ethics, practices and influence. The competitive assets include: i.) the

Human-ware (consisting of the senior management leadership and operating & servicing

Personnel), who in turn evolve strategies, plans & programs to run the business, ii.)

Technology, the accumulated knowledge-ware (with the people and also within the enterprise)

and iii.) In-house ability to utilize and exploit the external environment such as the

infrastructure, legal & administrative facilitation, market forces, socio-cultural factors etc, so as to

effectively serve the customers. Assets could be tangible and/or intangible; that facilitates the

enterprise, serve its stakeholders through its products, services and relationships.

As is commonly known, it is the customer focused and employee driven processes that provide

the ultimate service to the customer. The processes are the vital links in the supply chain between

the customer and the competitive resources ultimately result in the required customer satisfaction

& delight and convert into customer loyalty. More efficient and customer focused the processes

are; greater is the possibility of customer satisfaction. It is the effective synergy between the

competitive assets and the competitive processes (commonly known as process management) that

results in higher competitive performance, as relevant to differing stakeholder requirements. The

process architecture in an enterprise includes i). Strategic Management, ii.) Customer concern

Management, iii). Operating Management, iv). Technology Management v). Human

Resource Management and vi). Society Centered Processes.

While the assets & processes and productivity & quality built in the products/services, are

internal to the enterprise, ultimately the market performance of the entire organization, is a true

measure of competitiveness of the enterprise. The market push and pull forces get, influenced by

productivity/prices, quality performance & customer service and also the image and branding of

the enterprise as a socially relevant and responsible institution. But the patronage & support of

share holders, the institutions and government representing the economic environment is

also necessary along with the employee involvement that comes about from their

satisfaction. To continue to do business in the society, it is essential for the enterprise to

evolve itself as a responsive corporate citizen in maintaining environment & safety, good

employment practices, resource conservation, imbibing the social concerns of the society

and develop a brand by itself. Thus, the performance components are; i.) Economic

productivity, ii) quality & customer satisfaction, iii) social productivity and iv) resultant

competitive market and financial performance. The competitive edge at a finer stage has a

number of non-price related factors, which are linked with the ethical and responsible behavior of

the enterprise. Any mechanism for assessment & improvement of competitiveness needs to

consider these interlinked facets of performance along with keeping the’ assets and processes

tuned & sharpened to the fast changing needs of time. The following figure No. 1 depicts the

interlinking between different factors in an integrated model for Enterprises level

Competitiveness.

5

Amenability for Self Assessment & Improvement

This model has structural similarities with the famous MBNQA model of assessing organizational

Excellence in Quality & Customer focus. Like, MBNQA and EFQM models, this model could

also be used for self-assessment by the management for gauging their competitive performance

and plan & implement programs for further enhancing their competitiveness. The system of

assessment includes giving weights to factors and sub-factors, which are further sub-divided into

five degrees depending on the seriousness and professionalism in realizing the best in that facet of

enhancing the competitive strength of the enterprise (on the lines of CMM Maturity Model). In

the present competitive business environment, an evaluation of enterprise competitiveness purely

based on performance without considering the Enablers would be incomplete. At the same time

too much concentration on enablers (Assets & Processes) and neglecting Results (Performance)

can be suicidal to the enterprise and there has to be a balanced approach to give equal weights of

50:50 to both. There is a break-up in the sub-factors as defined in the subsequent pages.

6

Finally, the evaluation by the company executives or external assessors is undertaken at the sub-

factor level. This is done by comparing the current situation in the enterprise against a five-

degree scoring scale (each degree having an equal weight – points, all adding up to the total value

of points for that sub-factor) specially developed for this sub-factor. For instance, the sub-factor

on ‘Leadership-Vision’ has a total of 10 points, which is further divided into a scoring scale of 5

degrees/levels of leadership-vision. On this scale the first degrees has 2 points, while the 5th

degree is awarded 10 points and all other degrees, lie across the scale with 4, 6 and 8 points

respectively. By adding the scores of different factors and sub-factors for an enabler like Assets,

the aggregate score for the competitiveness of the enabler can be estimated. As a starting point,

it is preferable that the enterprise’s competitive position is evaluated and compared separately for

Assets, Processes and Results. However, the total score for the competitiveness is arrived at

adding the aggregates of competitive assets, processes and results. In this system, it is possible to

compare the scores of an enterprise with its competitors as well as with any general enterprise for

its competitiveness performance and benchmarking. Further, it is also possible to undertake inter

temporal measurements of competitiveness for the same enterprise to assess the impact of

policy/strategy and programs in improving its performance. The case of an Energy Services

Company illustrated in subsequent sections would establish the efficacy of this model and the

self-assessment approach to enhancing Competitiveness.

7

Generic Model

A. COMPETITIVE ASSETS

1. Leadership

1.1 Vision 10

1.2 Values 10

1.3 Ethics 10

1.4 Internal Perception 10

1.5 External Perception 5

1.6 Special Focus 5

2. Strategy

2.1 Cost Optimization

a. Employee Cost 5

b. Material & Finance 5

c. Energy/Spl. Input 5

d. Strategic Pricing 5

2.2 Marketing Strategy

2.3 External Resources (Assets)

a. Infrastructure, etc. 5

b. Society (Socio-Cultural Aspects) 5

3 People (Human Resource)

3.1 Manpower Strength 15

3.2 Manpower Quality 5

3.3 Education 5

3.4 Skills 5

3,5 Attitudes 10

3.6 Teamwork/Synergy 5

3.7 Unionization 5

3.8 Employee Involvement 5

3.9 Others (Traditions/Culture) 5

4 Technology & Knowledge

4.1 Physical Assets & Facilities 15

4.2 Information Technology 10

4.3 Patented Products/Processes 5

4.4 R&D Investment 5

4.5 Core-Competence 10

4.6 Brands 5

4.7 Collaborations/Networking 5

4.8 Technology Tenor 5

5 External Environment

5.1 Govt. Policy Support 5

5.2 Fiscal Incentives 5

5.3 Infrastructure 15

5.4 Competition 5

B. COMPETITIVE PROCESSES

6 Strategic Management

6.1 Strategy Formulation & Review 20

6.2 Implementation Strategy 20

6.3 Capital Asset Management 10

7 Marketing Management

7.1 Customer Concern Process 30

7.2 Image Building Process 5

8 Operations (Quality) Management

8.1 Operations/Mfg. Process 30

8.2 Supply-Chain Management 10

8.3 Partnership/outsourcing Process 10

9 Technology Management

9.1 Asset Mgmt. & Tech. Up-gradation5

9.2 Product/Process Development 20

9.3 R&D Process 15

FSES Model (A Case)

A. COMPETITIVE ASSETS

1. Leadership

1.1 Vision 30

1.2 Values & Ethics 20

1.3 Commitment 20

1.7 Internal Perception 10

1.8 External Perception 20

1.9 --

2. Strategy

2.1 Cost Reduction 30

a. --

b. --

c. --

d. --

2.2 Customer Focus 30

2.3 External Resources (Assets) 10

a. --

b. --

3 People (Human Resource)

3.1 Manpower Strength 10

3.2 Manpower Quality 30

3.3 --

3.4 --

3,5 Attitudes & Teamwork 20

3.6 --

3.7 --

3.8 Employee Vigor 10

3.9 --

4 Technology & Knowledge

4.1 Physical & IT Assets 30

4.2 --

4.3 Patented Products/Processes 10

4.4 R&D Investment 10

4.5 Core-Competence 20

4.6 --

4.7 Collaborations/Networking 20

4.8 --

5 External Environment

5.1 --

5.2 --

5.3 Infrastructure 10

5.4 Competition 10

B. COMPETITIVE PROCESSES

6 Strategic Management

6.1 Strategy Formulation & Review 20

6.2 Implementation Strategy 10

6.3 Capital Asset Management 10

7 Marketing Management

7.1 Customer Concern Process 20

7.2 Image Building Process 10

8 Operations (Quality) Management

8.1 Operations /Process Mgmt. 20

8.2 Supply-Chain Management 10

8.3 Outsourcing Process 10

9 Technology Management

9.1 Asset & Tech. Up-gradation 30

9.2 Product/Process Development 30

9.3 R&D Process 20

8

Fig. No. 2 Enterprise-level Competitiveness Self-Assessment Criteria

A Comprehensive Overview of Factors & relative weights

10 Human Resource Management

10.1 HRM Process (Motivation etc.) 30

10.2 Knowledge management etc. 10

11 Society-Centered Processes

11.1 Environment Focus Process 15

11.2 Social-Concern Process 20

C. COMPETITIVE RESULTS

12 Economic Productivity

12.1 EVA Productivity 10

12.2 Value Added Productivity 30

12.3 HR. Productivity 10

12.4 Energy /Spl. Input Productivity 10

12.5 Operational Cost Reduction 10

12.6 Conservation/Pollution Reduction 10

12.7 Employee Satisfaction 20

13 Quality & Customer Satisfaction

13.1 Cost of Quality 30

13.2 Customer Satisfaction

a. Education 10

b. Focus & After-Sale Service 15

c. Retention & Loyalty 15

d. Complaint Reddresal 15

e. Feed Back Improvements 15

f. Satisfaction Index 20

13.3 Response Time Reduction 15

13.4 Product Innovations 15

14 Social Productivity

14.1 Resource & Waste Control 5

14.2 Reduction in Emissions/Pollution 5

14.3 Community Development/Welfare 10

14.4 Technology Development 5

14.5 Labor/Employment Practice 5

14.6 Compliance to Rules/Regulations 5

14.7 Social Pricing/Service Orientation 5

14.8 Financial Behavior/Transparency 5

14.9 Trade Practice & Others 5

15 Competitive Performance Indicators

15.1 Market Share 50

15.2 Growth in Sale 10

15.3 Growth in Exports 15

15.4 ROI 10

15.5 ROCE 30

15.6 Net Worth 10

15.7 Acquisitions/Mergers etc. 10

15.8 new Product Introductions 10

15.9 Technologies/Patents Registered 10

15.10 Employee Satisfaction & Pride 10

15.11 Image (Brand Equity)

a. Product/Service 5

b. Customer/Vendor 5

c. Employee 5

d. Society 5

e. As an Economic Entity 5

10 Human Resource Management

10.1 HRM Process (Motivation etc.) 30

10.2 Knowledge management etc. 20

11 Society-Centered Processes

11.1 Environment & Social Concern 10

11.2 --

C. COMPETITIVE RESULTS

12 Economic Productivity

12.1 --

12.2 Value Added Productivity 20

12.3 HR. Productivity 20

12.4 --

12.5 Operational Cost Reduction 20

12.6 --

12.7 Employee Satisfaction 20

13 Quality & Customer Satisfaction

13.1 Cost of Quality 20

13.2 Customer Satisfaction

a. --

b. --

c. --

d. --

e. --

f. Satisfaction Index 50

13.3 Response Time Reduction 20

13.4 Product Innovations 30

14 Social Productivity

14.1 --

14.2 --

14.3 --

14.4 --

14.5 Employment Practice 10

14.6 Compliance to Rules/Regulations 10

14.7 --

4.8 --

14.9 --

15 Competitive Performance Indicators

15.1 Growth & Market Share 100

15.2 ---

15.3 Growth in Exports 20

15.4 ROI/Net-worth 40

15.5 --

15.6 --

15.7 --

15.8 --

15.9 --

15.10 Employee Satisfaction & Pride 10

15.11 Image (Brand Equity) 10

9

A case of an ESCO (Energy Service Company)

Five Star Energy Services Co. (FSES) is one of the popular service providers in the power sector

in India and mainly engaged in Operation & Maintenance of state owned power plants, in

addition to providing project management services in new power plant construction, Renovation

& Modernization as well as Performance Optimization. The main area of operations is in the

thermal and gas based power plants. They have formidable competition from more renowned

companies like, NTPC, BHEL, PFC, IPPs & independent Power Procurers and well-known

global names in power sector consultancy.

FSES is developed in India by a renowned ESCO from Europe having global operations in this

field, and is about seven years old. It maintains a reasonably good brand image, particularly due

to its European linkage. Over these years it had been able to grow from 60 million rupees to 210

million rupees of turnover in terms of professional service charges alone, had been rather erratic,

not a steady growth. However, the CEO of the company who is a technocrat has a great vision of

making this as one of the top three ESCOs in India. It is felt that there is an opportunity to

multiply its turnover considering the perspectives of the government of India in the expansion of

power sector in India. The company would like to have multifold growth ranging from 10 to 35

times in their lines of business, particularly in the engineering & technology services as well as

optimization of power plant operations.

The services of FSES are predominantly knowledge based, has high degree of employee-costs

forming about 35%, while the admin and general costs form about 55% mainly due to the royalty

and other costs involved in the technology transfer and IPR related aspects of service-support

from its foreign collaborators. The competition in the lines of business is quite severe and

competitors are formidable public sector giants including China Power and also international

ESCOs with deep pockets & access to latest technologies and know-how such as Yogakawa,

ABB, Honeywell, Emerson, ENERGO etc.

Towards drawing up a strategic road-map for FSES, to enable itself to steer through the fierce

competition and reposition itself to its vision oriented goals and targets through self-assessment

approaches, using the above illustrated competitiveness model, the CEO constituted a team of

senior managers cutting across the functions like marketing/business development, operations,

technology & engineering, finance, human resources and the general manager. This team under

the guidance of a moderator has adapted the generic model to the specific conditions and factors

influencing the company’s performance and evolved the factors and sub-factors with their relative

weightings. FSES competitiveness model has only about 48 sub-factors in total as against the

total of 94 in the generic model. The same is compared and presented at Fig.No.2.

Subsequently, the team went on to delineate the detailed tool kit for these 48 factors, signifying

the states in which these factors could lie at a point of time depending on the management

policies, strategies and the level of vigor in their implementation. This again is adapted from the

standard tool kit meant for the 94 sub-factors, generally following five degree CMM Level

delineation. The following three sample formats of the tool-kit providing the

guideposts/benchmarks for Vision under assets-set, Strategy Formulation and Review under the

process-set and the value-added productivity under the results-set, clearly depict the five states in

which FSES could be depending upon the efforts of the management. For instance, in case FSES,

hopes to reach the fifth degree of vision i.e. a Shared Vision for it to be developed involving all

its stakeholders providing a balanced considerations to triple bottom line issues of the company,

one could imagine the kind of strategic interventions needed to be implemented by the

10

management. Only, when such efforts are put in and the shared vision is made known to all, the

management qualifies for the 10 points that add up to the competitiveness index of FSES.

Vision

V IV III II I

10 8 6 4 2

STATEMENT

DEVELOPED WITH ALL

STAKE-HOLDERS AND

COMMUNICATED TO

ALL

---------------------------

COMPREHENSIVE IN

ITS FORMULATION

AND BALANCED

FOCUS ON TRIPPLE

BOTTOM LINE

STATEMENT A MODEL

BY ITSELF

SUCH VISION

STATEMENT IS

COMMUNICATED

TO EMPLOYEES

AND ALL

STAKEHOLDERS

---------------------------

VISION

CONSIDERED TO

EMBRACE

SOCIETY &

NATION BUILDING

A STATEMENT

DEVELOPED

ALONG WITH

EMPLOYEES &

COMMUNICATED

TO EMPLOYEES

---------------------------

FOCUSSES ON

INTERNAL

CUSTOMERS &

EXTERNAL

CUSTOMERS

STATEMENT KNOWN

TO THE TOP

MANAGEMT, BUT

NOT

COMMUNICATED

WITH IN

----------------------------

VISION STATEMENT

FOCUSSING ON

CUSTOMER NEEDS

TOP DRIVEN,

RATHER

PARTICIPATIVE, BUT

COMMUNICATED

NO VISION

STATEMENT

DEVELOPED &

COMMUNICATED

--------------------------

PERCIEVED AS A

COMMERCIAL

UNIT OF

PROMOTERS

Accordingly, for FSES to qualify for the fifth degree of strategic management process, it has to

evolve a strategy that is data driven, integrating the inputs & perspectives of all its stakeholders

including closer interface and participation of concerned in its periodic review, following a top-

down & bottom-up approach in this process, as described in the tool kit below:

Strategy Management & Review Process

I II III IV V

2 4 6 8 10

NO WRITTEN

STRATEGY

MOSTLY

OPPORTUNITY

DRIVEN

LOOK FOR WIND-

FALLS

PURLY PROFIT

ORIENTED

STRATEGY

SOME

CONSULTATION

EXISTS

(BUT, LIMITED

INFORMATION

SHARING)

CONSIDERABLE

FOCUS ON MARKET &

CUSTOMER

COMPETITION

CENTERED

FULLY TOPMANAGE-

MENT DIRECTED

CONSULTATION IS

PRESENT

CONCERN FOR

EMPLOYEES &

TECHNOLOGY

EXISTS

REVIEW WITH TOP

& MIDDLE LEVEL

EXISTS

FULLY INTEGRATED

STRATEGY & DATA

DRIVEN

EQUITABLY

FOCUSSED ON ALL

STAKEHOLDERS

PERIODIC REVIEW

TOP DRIVEN &

BOTTOM

PARTICIPATED

Similarly, the results/performance of FSES need be measured and benchmarked either with the

best in class or the average unit in the sector for its competitive positioning. The tool-kit for the

related sub-factors do need to have quantitative factors/measures as illustrated below and there is

a need to have an appropriate measurement system in vogue for assessing its comparative

performance and further evaluation and improvement actions

11

Value Added Productivity

V IV III II I

10 8 6 4 2

25 – 50% OVER

INDUSTRY AVERAGE

IMPROVEMENT OVER

25% FROM LAST

YEAR

OVER 50% INCREASE

IN GVA

RESTRUCTURED TO

REDUCE OVER 10%

MANPOWER

STRENGTH

PDY OVER 10 – 25%

OF INDUSTRY

AVERAGE

15 – 25%

IMPROVEMENT

OVER LAST YEAR

20 - 50% INCREASE

IN GVA

5 – 10%

REDUCTION IN

STRENGTH

0 – 10% OVER

INDUSTRY AVERAGE

5 – 15%

IMPROVEMENT OVER

PREVIOUS YEAR

GVA : 10 – 20% OVER

LAST YEAR

0 – 5% Reduction in

Manpower over Last year

PDY. AROUND

INDUSTRY

AVERAGE

0 – 5 % Improvement

over last year

GVA increase OF

10% OVER LAST

YEAR

GROWTH IN

OUTPUT BUT

MANPOWER

REMAINS THE

SAME

PRODUCTIVITY

AROUND 10%

BELOW INDUSTRY

AVERAGE

NO IMPROVEMENT

OVER THE PAST

GROSS VA IS MORE

OR LESS THE SAME

AS LAST YEAR

EMPROYEES NO.

SAME OR

INCREASED

MARGINALLY

After finalizing the tool kit as per the adapted model, the team goes on to evaluate its current

position and assess the current level of competitive vigor at FSES to be around 229 out of 500

maximum points and find that there is ample scope for the management to initiate strategic

actions to move towards the top targeted performance of the company in a three year span with

the following definitive performance features.

Revenue Generation: Growth rate of 25 to 100% will be realized

Knowledge Addition: New Product Additions to lead to business growth

Export Orientation: 25% of Total Business from Exported Services

CSI Performance: 10% Ahead of Local Competitors

When such results are achieved, the competitiveness Index would be 349 out of 500, measured on

the same line explained earlier. The relative inter-temporal factor performance profiles leading

the measures of Competitiveness indices are indicated in the following Fig. No.3.

Four Pronged Strategies:

• Top Priority to be given to establish Vision-Mission-Objectives & Values and Development of

Commensurate Strategies

– Focus on Leveraging Core Competencies (in India & from Germany as a Strategy)

• Strengthen Marketing & Customer-Concern Processes

• Invest in Technology for Product/Process Developments

• Focus on tapping the Employee Creativity & Learning is the last but vital Strategy, calling for

Seriously pursue implementing rational HR Policies & Practices

12

Fig. No.3: Inter-temporal Positioning of FSES in Competitiveness Factors

Factor/Sub-Factor\Degrees I II III IV V

Leadership -Vision:

* #

-Values & Ethos:

* #

-Internal Perception

* #

- External Perception

*

#

- Commitment

* #

Strategy – Cost Reduction

*

#

- Market/Customer

* #

External Relationships

* #

People - Strength

* #

- Quality (Education/Skill)

* #

- Attitude & Teamwork

* #

- Personal Vigor

* #

Technology - Physical & IT

* #

- R&D Investment

* #

- Core Competence

* #

Technology - Patents

* #

- Networking & JVs

* #

Externals: - Infrastructure

* #

- Competition

* #

Processes

Strategy formulation

* #

Implementation

* #

Capital Asset Management

* #

Customer Concern Process

* #

Image Building *

#

13

Factor/Sub-Factor\Degrees I II III IV V

Operating Process

* #

Supply – Chain Management * #

Outsourcing

* #

Technology Up-gradation

* #

Product & Process Development

* #

R&D Process

* #

HRM Process

* #

KM Process * #

Environment/Social Concerns

*

#

Results - Value Added (VAP)

* #

- Employee satisfaction (ES)

* #

- HR Productivity (HP)

* #

- Operational Cost Reduction

* #

- Cost of Quality (COQ)

* #

- CSI

* #

- Response Time (RT)

* #

- Product Innovations(PI)

* #

- Compliance to Rules (CR)

* #

- Employment Practice (EP)

* #

- Market Share (MS)

* #

- Export Growth (EG) * #

- Employee satisfaction (ES2)

* #

- Public Image (PI) * #

- ROI *

#

Current Competitiveness Index (Over 100 to 500 scale)

229/500

349/500

14

The above bulleted chart indicates the detailed positioning the component strategic interventions

that would result in such a progress in the competitiveness of the company. The details of

strategic pursuits of FSES in respect of the four pronged strategies are outlined in the Annexure.

A review after an year showed that the company has been able to move to 288 from the earlier

position of 239, nearly moving towards reasonable enhancement of its competitiveness coupled in

enhanced turnover and profitability and other performance parameters such as turnover, market

share and employee satisfaction.

Conclusion

Enterprise Managements are seized with the issue of maintaining and further improving upon

their competitive positions in this hyper competitive domestic & global markets. Further the

performance optimization has become relatively more complex due to the need to provide

balanced considerations to triple-bottom-line features of Profit-Environment–society. It is here

the relevance of an enterprise model to integrate all these facets comes up as an aid, to enable

continuous focus on the competitive factors and also monitoring of competitiveness through

evaluation of management efforts on a regular basis.

This paper tries to develop such an integrated model, with an appropriate quantification

mechanism that is amenable to self-assessment and introspection by the management. The

application of such a model and its methodology results in evolving strategic rod-maps towards

enhancing its competitive strength. Further, the efficacy of this model is illustrated though an

application case of an energy service providing company in India, establishing the usefulness of

the model for the contemporary enterprise and institutional managements

15

Annexure

Strategy I:

Bring in Strategic Thinking & Strategic Planning

Development of Vision-Mission-Objectives & Values and Strategies

Vision statement to be made public to all stakeholders-Employees and

discus how to achieve this Policy on Business Values/ Professional Ethics (periodically

communicated and monitored) – Focusing on the Customers and their Requirements

Focus on Leveraging Core Competence of Foreign Principals & others;

Emphasis on Export of Services and Consulting in India may be Beneficial

Strategy II:

Strengthen Marketing & Customer Concern Processes

Develop a Culture to assess/measure Customer Satisfaction Index and integrate the feedback

Continuous Focus on Capturing Customer Requirements and on Cost Reduction, Quality

Improvement and Timely Delivery (Benchmark with national/international best)

Leveraging USPs of JV partners, install systems to effectively build a Corporate Image/Branding

in India & Abroad (including Professional Networking for Business Promotion)

Build/Strengthen Networking & Partnerships to Develop and New Customers & Services

Strategy III:

Strengthen Technological & Operational Processes

Reposition the Physical and Technological Infrastructure (HW & SW) to the State-of-the Art

(suitable to Technical Consulting sector & Benchmarking with Competitors) and continuous up-

gradation

Pursue Seeking and Maintaining ISO-9000 Certification and other professional internationally

recognized accreditations relevant to the fields of operation.

Focus on New Product/New Process Development through leveraging Knowledge Management

and Specialist Creativity

Develop a fully Professional Culture of Servicing the Customer in line with the changing norms

and standards of the power sector/consulting industry

Strategy IV: Focusing on Tapping Employee Creativity

Bring Clarity in HR Policies & Evolve and circulate an HR Manual

Improve Internal Communication (on vision and mission, strategies/services)

Develop Participative Work Culture fostering continuous improvement and resulting in a

Challenging & Learning Work Environment Have a continuous watch on the executive/consultant Compensation System and benchmark with

comparable units in the industry/sector and maintain Professionalism and Transparency