Economics and management of enterprises

Problems and prospects in diagnosing of industrial organisation socio-economic potential development

Economic Annals-XXI

Economic Annals-ХХI: Volume 141, Issue 5-6, Pages: 85-89

Citation information:
Doronina, M., Bilokonenko, H. (2014). Problems and prospects in diagnosing of industrial organisation socio-economic potential development. Economic Annals-XXI, 5-6, 85-89. https://ea21journal.world/index.php/ea-v141-21/

View Full TextDownload PDF

Maya Doronina
D.Sc. (in Economics),
Professor,
Head of Department,
Simon Kuznets Kharkiv National University of Economics
9 Lenin Ave, Kharkiv, 61166, Ukraine
doroninams@mail.ru

Hanna Bilokonenko
Lecturer,
Simon Kuznets Kharkiv National University of Economics
9 Lenin Ave, Kharkiv, 61166, Ukraine
anna.belokonenko@gmail.com

Problems and prospects in diagnosing of industrial organisation’s socio-economic potential development

Abstract. Introduction. System-specific dynamics of external and internal environment of industrial organization requires updating of ontological and epistemological basics of its development research. Considering insufficient research of contemporary problems in socio-economic potential (SEP) of industrial organization diagnosing, scientific-methodical support of their solving should be not addition to existing paradigm or its new version creation, but ideas for its further development.

Purpose of the paper is analysis and rationale of prerequisites for creating holistic paradigm of SEP.

Results. This paper develops elements of future research methodology. The main idea of paradigm is an organic compound of economic and social components occurring in SEP in which new nature occurs requiring creation of paradigmatic basis. Our preliminary results in research rationale prerequisites of future paradigm of SEP, performed in the following sequence: (1) Formulating of the basic idea of paradigm proposed by the authors through contradictions and hypotheses concretization. (2) Refinement of a form for the results combining of various scientific disciplines, which is necessary due to complex and hierarchic nature of SEP. (3) Reasoning for technology of qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Because of impossibility of using traditional tools, usage of new instruments for this task was ground, such as VRIO-analysis. (4) Findings of research of SEP have shown that all of structural elements are at different stages of the lifecycle of their own («basic elements», «points of development», «points of destruction») which can create problems of their coordination. System-synergetic approach and evolutionary-synergetic approach complemented by the co-evolutionary paradigm are primary methodological basis for identification opportunities of individual components of SEP compatibility ensuring with proper consideration of their life cycles; for management the structural elements of SEP, located at different stages of their life cycle development, and providing for each of them unique way of management response. Regardless of level of SEP functional complexity, its power and maturity, the main source for providing life-sustaining activity of SEP is to create and support spiral «capitalization of sociality– socialization of capital». (5) Terminological system represented in article is one of the most important components of future paradigm.

Conclusions. Science-based scheme of SEP diagnostics offered by the authors is open for now. Future research should focus on disclosing the essence of the concepts included in proposed terminological system, on creating particular technologies for SEP development diagnostics.

Keywords: Socio-Economic Potential Development; Paradigm; Hypothesis; Interdisciplinary; Terminology System

JEL Classification: L20; O10; B41

References

  1. Doronina, M. (2013). Ontognosiological backgrounds for studying enterprise socio-economic potential. The Advanced Science Journal, 12, 26-31.
  2. Saltan, M. (2011). Development of socio-economic potential of the region in transition economy (PhD Thesis, Vinnytsia National Agrarian University). Vinnytsia, Ukraine (in Ukr.).
  3. Kozyryeva, O. (2004). Social and economic trend of the innovative development of an enterprise (PhD Thesis, Kharkiv National Economic University). Kharkiv, Ukraine (in Ukr.).
  4. Chebanova, O. (2011). The development of socio-economic potential of railway complex (PhD Thesis, Ukrainian State Academy of Railway Transport). Kharkiv, Ukraine (in Ukr.).
  5. Chernikova, I. (2007). Post-nonclassical science and process philosophy. Tomsk: ITL (in Russ.).
  6. Bilokonenko, G. (2013). Transdisciplinary approach for research of co-evolutionary socio-economic potential of industrial organization. Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho universytetu, Seriya Ekonomika (Scientific Bulletin of Uzhhorod National University. Economics Series), 1(38), 47-50 (in Ukr.).
  7. Knyazeva, E. (2011). Transdisciplinary research strategies. Vestnik TSPU (Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin), 10, 193-201 (in Russ.).
  8. Ardashkin, I. (2007). Transdisciplinarity as a factor in modern cognition process. Vestnik TSU (Tomsk State University Journal), 302, 36-41 (in Russ.).
  9. Chaika, Y. (2011). Transdystsyplinarity as a condition for solving complex problems (philosophical and methodological aspect) (PhD Thesis, Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University). Kyiv, Ukraine (in Ukr.).
  10. Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27, 643-650.
  11. Wade, M., & Hulland, J. (2004). The Resource-Based View and Information Systems Research: Review, Extension, and Suggestions for Future Research. MIS Quarterly, 28, 107-142.
  12. Gottschalk, P. (2007). Business Dynamics in Information Technology. London, Melbourne: Idea Group Publishing.
  13. Nuismer, S., Gomulkiewicz, R. & Morgan, M. T. (2003). Co-evolution in Temporally Variable Environments. The American Naturalist, 2(162), 195-204.
  14. Takhtayan, A. (2001). Principia Tectologica. Principles of organization and transformation of complex systems: an evolutionary approach. St. Petersburg: SPCPA Press (in Russ.).
  15. Manakov, L., & Bocharnikova, O. (2003). Modern organization theory. Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering Publishing House (in Russ.).
  16. Shirokova, G., Merkuryeva, I., & Serova, O. (2006). Specifics of Life Cycle Formation in the Russian Companies (The Results of Empirical Analysis). Rossiyskiy zhurnal menedzhmenta (Russian Management Journal), 4(3), 3-29 (in Russ.).
  17. Popov, E., & Khmelkova, N. (2004). Organizational routines of enterprise. Problemy teorii i praktiki upravleniya (Problems in Theory and Practice of Management), 6, 55-62 (in Russ.).
  18. Rant, M. (2006). Dynamic organizational fit and process of co-evolution.
    Retrieved from http://www.docin.com/p-396960649.html
  19. Sudomyr, S. (2013). Competitive socio-economic systems development. Economic Annals-XXI, 9-10(1), 57-60.
    Retrieved from https://ea21journal.world/index.php/ea-v133-15/ (in Ukr.)

Received 20.04.2014

View Full TextDownload PDF
In, , , , ,

More Papers