The Model of Forming Competitive Strategy of an Enterprise Under the Conditions of Oligopolic Market

Ginevičius, Romualdas; Krivka, Algirdas; Šimkūnaitė, Jolita

doi:10.3846/jbem.2010.18

Cited by 37 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, forecasting of their effect must ensure the use of available opportunities and reduction of potential threats to a company. In other words, account must be taken of macro factor favourability and, on this basis, compatibility of strategic marketing decisions with their (macro factor) changes (Ginevicius et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative Evaluation Technique of Sme’s Competitive Advantage on the Basis of Saw Method

Jokšienė¹,

Žvirblis²

2016

9th International Scientific Conference “Business and Management 2016”

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The paper deals with a complex quantitative evaluation of SMEs' competitive advantage on the basis of a multiple criteria evaluation technique. Creation of a system of primary evaluation criteria having different significance is emphasized; the proposed set of criteria encompasses the financial indices of performance effectiveness as well as the composite indicators of efficiency of human and material resource management. The general index reflecting the relative competitive advantage of SME must be determined when applying presented evaluation models on the basis of the SAW method. The suggested technique has been applied to a Lithuanian logistics enterprise. The offered system can be used in developing a complex model for the evaluation of the financial status of small enterprises.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative Evaluation Technique of Sme’s Competitive Advantage on the Basis of Saw Method

Jokšienė¹,

Žvirblis²

2016

9th International Scientific Conference “Business and Management 2016”

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Not detailing the identification procedure of methods used, we can only point out that this is an important step in evaluation. The outcome of procedure is the formation of complex of most important criteria grounding evaluation procedures in further (Ginevičius et al, 2010).…”

Section: Multicriteria Assessment Principles and Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ginevičius et al (2010) offer the company's integrated competitive strategy development principles for an oligopolistic market situation. Their essence -reasoning of partial competitive strategies that have significant influence over the company's strategic development and performance efficiency by focusing on the internal capabilities and allowing the external environmental factors.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated multicriteria assessment of the company’s finance management

Žvirblis¹,

Buračas²

2013

AESR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…From many, following are emphasized here: Aghajani et al. (2012), Zolfani et al (2012), Antucheviciene et al (2011), Savitha and Chandrasekar (2011), Podvezko (2011, Ginevicius et al (2010bGinevicius et al ( , 2008, Ginevicius and Podvezko (2009), Caterino et al (2009), Opricovic and Tzeng (2004.In this paper, one case study of ranking Serbian banks was considered, using some of the most prominent MCDM methods. This paper examines comparison of results that were achieved using these methods.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of some prominent MCDM methods: A case of ranking Serbian banks

Stanujkić¹,

Djordjevic²,

Djordjevic³

2013

Serb J Management

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the literature, many multiple criteria decision making methods have been proposed. There are also a number of papers, which are devoted to comparison of their characteristics and performances. However, a definitive answer to questions: which method is most suitable and which method is most effective is still actual. Therefore, in this paper, the use of some prominent multiple criteria decision making methods is considered on the example of ranking Serbian banks. The objective of this paper is not to determine which method is most appropriate for ranking banks. The objective of this paper is to emphasize that the use of various multiple criteria decision making methods sometimes can produce different ranking orders of alternatives, highlighted some reasons which lead to different results, and indicate that different results obtained by different MCDM methods are not just a random event, but rather reality.Keywords: MCDM, SAW, MOORA, GRA, CP, VIKOR, TOPSIS * Corresponding author: dragisa.stanujkic@fmz.edu.rs S e r b i a n J o u r n a l o f M a n a g e m e n t Serbian Journal of Management 8 (2) (2013) 213 -241www.sjm06.com DOI:10.5937/sjm8-3774 1968), Compromise programming (Zeleny, 1973;Yu, 1973), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method (Saaty, 1980), Technique for Ordering Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method (Hwang & Yoon, 1981), Preference Ranking Organisation Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE) method (Brans & Vincke, 1985), Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) proposed by Deng (1989) as part of Grey system theory, ELimination and Choice Expressing REality (ELECTRE) method (Roy, 1991), COmplex PRoportional ASsessment (COPRAS) method (Zavadskas et al., 1994) (Brauers & Zavadskas, 2010a).In the past, these methods have been used to solve many problems, which are documented in many professional and scientific journals. Numerous prominent papers presented research in MCDM, which is why we omit the reference to them in this paper.The above-mentioned MCDM methods transform multiple criteria decision-making process, i.e., Multiple Criteria optimization, in a single criterion decision-making optimization, which is much easier to solve. A number of authors have been identifying different phases (stages) in MCDM process, from which, in order to more clearly point out the objectives of this study, the following phases are emphasized:-criteria weights determination, -normalization, -aggregation, and -selection. A typical MCDM problem can be precisely presented in the following form:( 1) where D is decision matrix, x ij is performance of i-th alternative with respect to j-th criterion, W is weight vector, w j is weight of j-th criterion, i = 1,2, … m; m is the number of compared alternatives, j = 1,2, ..., n; n is the number of the criteria.Information stored in a decision matrix is usually incommensurable, i.e. performance ratings in relation to different criteria are usually expressed using different units of measure. Therefore, data should be transformed into comparable values, usi...

show abstract

The Model of Forming Competitive Strategy of an Enterprise Under the Conditions of Oligopolic Market

Cited by 37 publications

References 35 publications

Quantitative Evaluation Technique of Sme’s Competitive Advantage on the Basis of Saw Method

Quantitative Evaluation Technique of Sme’s Competitive Advantage on the Basis of Saw Method

Integrated multicriteria assessment of the company’s finance management

Comparative analysis of some prominent MCDM methods: A case of ranking Serbian banks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About