Production and technical potential as the basis of building materials company competitiveness

Introduction. Despite the large number of studies on the nature and assessment of production potential of industrial companies, a number of issues are insufficiently elaborated, especially at the level of individual industries. In addition, there is no systemic perception of production and technical potential as a basis for the functioning and competitiveness of the companies. In this regard, the aim of the paper is to identify and develop a methodology for assessing the level of production and technical potential of the building companies in the context of industry specifics.

Materials and methods. To assess the level of production and technical potential, we propose an integral indicator obtained as a result of synergy of a number of relative indicators, taking into account their weighting coefficients. The system of evaluation indicators includes known indicators (the physical depreciation coefficient of the active part of the main production assets, the share of their active part, the labor stock), as well as new introduced indicators, such as the ratio of renewal and retirement rates of fixed assets, the coefficient of progressive technologies. All weighting coefficients used at different stages of calculation are determined on the basis of data obtained through electronic survey of production managers and employees of scientific and educational sphere.

Results. An essential definition is proposed, according to which the production and technical potential of building companies is formed on the basis of the relationship between the applied technologies and the corresponding main production means. The system of indicators and the methodology of their evaluation are developed. The calculation of the level of production and technical potential of several medium and large building companies of the Voronezh region, carried out on the basis of their survey, showed that only one enterprise has a high potential.

Conclusions. The developed nomenclature of indicators and the methodology of evaluation of production and technical potential of the building companies are characterized by comprehensiveness and take into account the specifics of the industry. Approval of the research results has revealed the urgent need for modernization of production in most building companies in the Voronezh region.

1. Fedoseev I.V., Vasilyeva N.V., Yudenko M.N., Vasilyev A.N. Construction complex of the XXI century : monograph. St. Petersburg, 2024; 91. EDN BTYRAU. (rus.).

2. Barbhuiya S., Das B.B. Life Cycle Assessment of construction materials: Methodologies, applications and future directions for sustainable decision-making. Case Studies in Construction Materials. 2023; 19:e02326. DOI: 10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02326

3. Elnour M., Trigaux D., Allacker K. Dynamic life cycle assessment of building stocks : a systematic review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2025; 218:115682. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2025.115682

4. Syarief R. Strengthening the competitiveness of state-owned enterprises. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2024; 10(1):100199. DOI: 10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100199

5. Li Y., Yu H., Shen Z. Dynamic prediction of product competitive position: A multisource data-driven competitive analysis framework from a multi-competitor perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2025; 85:104289. DOI: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2025.104289

6. Horta I.M., Camanho A.S. Competitive positioning and performance assessment in the construction industry. Expert Systems with Applications. 2014; 41(4):974-983. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2013.06.064

7. Somwethee Ph., Aujirapongpan S., Ru-Zhue J. The influence of entrepreneurial capability and innovation capability on sustainable organization performance: Evidence of community enterprise in Thailand. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2023; 9(2):100082. DOI: 10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100082

8. Anafiyaev A.M. The production potential of industrial enterprises and its role in the national economy. 2022; 5-2(128):6-8. DOI: 10.24412/2520-6990-2022-5128-6-8. EDN FTVTYF. (rus.).

9. Ibragimova R.S., Golovkin D.S. Economic potential as a strategic management concept of the industrial enterprise. Perm University Herald. ECONOMY. 2022; 17(4):474-486. DOI: 10.17072/1994-9960-2022-4-474-486. EDN HFDLEW. (rus.).

10. Kadirova Sh. Implementing sustainable practices in industrial enterprises: a pathway to economic potential growth. Iqtisodiy taraqqiyot va tahlil. 2024; 2(4):94-98. DOI: 10.60078/2992-877x-2024-vol2-iss4-pp94-98

11. Leonova N.G., Nizhnik D.A. Efficient use of fixed capital and development of a strategy for the development of productive capacity : monograph. Khabarovsk, TOGU Publishing House, 2019; 91. (rus.).

12. Fomin N.Yu., Mukhametzyanova A.I. Essence, structure and factors of development of the industrial and production potential of the enterprise. Economics and Business: Theory and Practice. 2022; 6-2(88):223-228. DOI: 10.24412/2411-0450-2022-6-2-223-228. EDN IQIVRH. (rus.).

13. Sun X. Methodological approach to the selection of the production strategy based on the assessment of the economic potential of the industrial enterprise. Modern Economics: problems and solutions. 2021; 10(142):89-100. DOI: 10.17308/meps.2021.10/2694. EDN VIVVBM. (rus.).

14. Kamynin D.A. Methodological approaches for analysis of the economic potential of industrial enterp-rises. Economics and Business. 2021; 10(135):1004-1006. DOI: 10.34925/EIP.2021.135.10.193. EDN YLAKXO. (rus.).

15. Stepanova S.M., Goloshchapova L.V., Speranskiy S.N., Pakhotin N.E. Integral assessment of the economic potential of industrial enterprises. Proceedings of Higher Educational Institutions. Textile Industry Technology. 2021; 1(391):5-10. DOI: 10.47367/0021-3497_2021_1_5 EDN KCDJDW. (rus.).

16. Akulova I.I., Slavcheva G.S. A New Approach to Identifying Top-Priority Step for Increasing the Building Materials Competitiveness. IOP Conference Series : Materials Science and Engineering. 2021; 1079(3):032030. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899x/1079/3/032030

17. Akulova I.I., Slavcheva G.S., Simonov D.А. Methodological approaches to assessing the technical and economic efficiency of the building materials and structures’ use. E3S Web of Conferences. 2021; 281:08008. DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/202128108008

18. Ibanez-Fores V., Martínez-Sanchez V., Valls-Val K., Bovea M.D. Sustainability reports as a tool for measuring and monitoring the transition towards the circular economy of organisations: Proposal of indicators and metrics. Journal of Environmental Management. 2022; 320:115784. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115784

19. Nowak M., Martineau S., Sobottka T., Ansari F., Schlund S. An indicator scheme for improving measurability of Sustainable Development Goals in manufacturing enterprises. Procedia Computer Science. 2024; 232:655-664. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2024.01.065

20. Azgal’dov G.G., Kostin A.V., Priven’ A.I., Smirnov V.V. Qualimetry in the measurement of competitiveness. Big Consulting. 2014; 2:22-25. EDN TQGLVV. (rus.).

21. Frenkel A.A., Surkov A.A. Determination of weighting factors in combining forecasts. Voprosy Statistiki. 2017; 12:3-15. EDN YQWNMT. (rus.).

22. Linden D., Cinelli M., Spada M., Becker W., Gasser P., Burgherr P. A framework based on statistical analysis and stakeholders’ preferences to inform weighting in composite indicators. Environmental Modelling & Software. 2021; 145:105208. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105208

23. Shekhovtsov A. Evaluating the Performance of Subjective Weighting Methods for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making using a novel Weights Similarity Coefficient. Procedia Computer Science. 2023; 225:4785-4794. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2023.10.478

24. Gonzalez M.K., Coll-Araoz M.J., Archenti A. Enhancing reliability in advanced manufacturing systems: A methodology for the assessment of detection and monitoring techniques. Journal of Manufacturing Systems. 2025; 79:318-333. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmsy.2025.01.015