Expert data processing methods
Methods of studying firms-competitors
The research of competitive firms, as a rule, is carried out either in the whole for the industry, or for certain segments of the market. The methodology for identifying current and potential competitors is usually based on one of two approaches. The first is connected with an assessment of the needs that are met in the market by the main competing firms. The second focuses on grouping competitors in accordance with the types of market strategies they apply.
The consumer demand approach aims to group competing firms according to the type of needs that their products satisfy.
In order to identify the most important competitors and their role in the sales market, the companies use the methods of associative consumer surveys, revealing with what useful qualities and conditions of consumption the buyer associates one or another product of a known competitor on the market.
The basis for identifying competitors on the basis of groupings by the type of strategy lies in their grouping in accordance with the key aspects of their orientation in value-added activities.
Such studies allow us to identify the most dangerous competitors.
In order to identify the strengths and weaknesses of competitors, you can use the technique of fixing analysis, which takes into account the idea of consumers about the products of the company and its competitors.
1. The "paired comparisons" method & quot; in the ranking of alternatives. Ranking - assigning rank, status, relevance to the resources being researched. Ranking involves the establishment of a logical or numerical pattern in the dominance (preference) of the compared objects. The methodology has many modifications.
In the paired comparison method, objects are matched in pairs by an expert (experts), and then one of them is selected. We will say that in this case the expert prefers this object, although the choice will not necessarily express his preference. In general, an expert can establish the equality of objects or fix their preferences on a certain scale.
The basic elementary act - comparing two objects A and B by one expert - can be extended to the case when several experts examine more than two objects. It is convenient to make a pair comparison not only when the number of objects is large, but also in those cases when the differences between objects are so small that direct ranking or estimation does not ensure their reasonable ordering. Thus, the paired comparison method has some advantage over other ordering methods in cases where there are many objects and/or they are difficult to distinguish. Most often when pairing two objects, they are confined to a simple statement that one of them is preferable to the other.
When ranking, the expert should arrange the objects (alternatives) in the order that seems to him the most rational, and assign to each of them the numbers of the natural row-ranks. In this case, rank 1 gets the most preferable alternative, and rank N is the least preferred one. Therefore, the ordinal scale obtained as a result of the ranking must satisfy the condition that the number of ranks N is equal to the number of objects n.
It happens that the expert is not able to specify the order for two or more objects, or he assigns the same rank to different objects, and as a result, the number of ranks N turns out to be not equal to the number of ranked objects < i> n. In such cases, objects are assigned the so-called standardized ranks. For this purpose, the total number of standardized ranks is assumed to be equal to and, and objects having the same ranks are assigned a standardized rank, the value of which is the average of the sums of seats divided by objects with the same rank.
Let, for example, experts assign the following ranks to six objects (alternatives, factors):
Number of the object .............. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
Rank ............................... |
2 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
2 |
4 |
Then the standard rank (weight) R = (1 + 2)/2 = 1,5 is assigned to objects 1 and 5, which divided the first and second places among themselves, and objects 2 and 3, which divided the third and fourth place, R = (3 + A)/2 = 3.5. As a result, we get the following ranking situation:
The object number, n ............ |
1 |
2 |
3 |
L |
5 |
6 |
Rank, ri. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... |
1.5 |
3.5 |
3.5 |
6 |
1.5 |
5 |
Thus, the sum of ranks R n, obtained as a result of ranking n of objects, will be equal to the sum of the numbers of the natural series:
When ranking is done by several experts ( m ), first, for each object, the sum of ranks is counted
received from all experts, and then based on this value set the resulting rank for each object. The highest (first) rank is assigned to the object that received the smallest amount of ranks, and vice versa, the object receiving the highest amount of ranks is assigned the lowest rank N. The remaining objects are ordered in accordance with the value of the sum of ranks relative to the object that is assigned first rank.
Consider ranking example, where the group of competitors is the object. To solve the problem, we consider the method of pairwise comparisons by any criterion. Proceeding from the principles of the model of paired comparisons, it is assumed that if among the compared objects (goods) A i , A j, the ratio A i & gt; A j by the criterion k (the key success factor), then in the crosshairs of the compared objects of the expert table. 6.1 the number 1,5 is entered; if the equality A i = A j is observed, 1.0 is entered in the table; if A i & lt; A j, then 0.5 is entered, where A i - compared firms by competitiveness level based on the criterion k. Let's compile a table of competing products that affect the adoption of the optimal marketing management strategy (see Table 6.1).
Table 6.1
Expert judgments of competing firms by k
Competitive Firm |
A 1 |
a 2 |
A 3 |
a 4 |
The sum of scores on the lines (Σi) |
The weight of the factor ( a i) |
Rank of firms |
A 1 |
1 |
1.5 |
0.5 |
1.5 |
4.5 |
0.29 |
1-2 |
a 2 |
0.5 |
1 |
0.5 |
1.0 |
3.0 |
0.19 |
4 |
A 3 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
1 |
0.5 |
4.5 |
0.29 |
1-2 |
a 4 |
0.5 |
1.0 |
1.5 |
1.0 |
4.0 |
0.25 |
3 |
Total |
16.0 |
1.0 |
- |
Based on the significance of the weight of the factors a ij {a 1 = a 3 & gt; a 4 & gt; a 2) the competitiveness (ranking) of the firms under consideration will take the following form: A 1 = A 3 & gt; A 4 & gt; A 2 (see Table 6.1).
As a result of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each competitor (their strategies and objectives), competitors are ranked by key success factors, which are the most significant characteristics of the market, firm, competitors. For example, it is necessary to assess the attractiveness of two local commodity markets (Table 6.2).
In Table. 6.2 shows that the market for a weighted valuation is more attractive than the market 2 at 6.5/5.85 = 1.11 times, or 11%.
Table 6.2
Market Valuation Data
Market appeal criterion |
The relative importance of the criterion |
Expert evaluation |
Weighted Score |
||
Market |
|||||
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
||
Market size |
0.3 |
5 |
3 |
1.5 |
0.9 |
Market Growth Rate |
0.25 |
8 |
9 |
2.0 |
2.25 |
Easy entry and exit |
0.15 |
2 |
4 |
0.3 |
0.6 |
Profitability |
0.3 |
9 |
7 |
2.7 |
2.1 |
Total |
1.0 |
24 |
23 |
6.5 |
5.85 |
How to ...
We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)