International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 8, Issue 11 (November 2021), Pages: 44-49

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

 Original Research Paper

 Title: Integral approach of assessment of interaction level of stakeholders of construction enterprises

 Author(s): Oleksandra Marusheva 1, *, Vitalina Konenko 2, Serhii Haidenko 2, Olha Voronina 2, Oksana Medvedchuk 1

 Affiliation(s):

 1Department of Public Administration, Educational-Scientific Institute of International Relations and Social Sciences, Interregional Academy of Personnel Management, Kyiv, Ukraine
 2Department of Entrepreneurship and Business Administration, O.M. Beketov National University of Urban Economy in Kharkiv, Kharkiv, Ukraine

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9126-4674

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2021.11.006

 Abstract:

This article is devoted to issues of interaction of stakeholders of construction enterprises. First of all, the peculiarities of the construction industry are defined, which form additional requirements for the development of an integrated system for assessing interaction with stakeholders. Second, approaches to the formation of a register of potential stakeholders have been identified. A template for analysis has been developed, and individual examples are grouped by interaction directions. The methodology of identifying potential stakeholders by means of a three-level process of applying different versions of expert assessment methods in order to minimize their negative factor – subjectivity, is proposed. Methods of direct selection of experts and algorithms of their assessment are defined. Proposals to rank stakeholders according to their priority and potential result from their interaction with the construction enterprise have been developed. According to the integral assessment, ways of controlling the processes of interaction with stakeholders of different ranking levels are proposed, recommendations for building a further strategy for managing these processes are given. A system of modeling interaction between construction enterprises and stakeholders to ensure planning, organization, monitoring, and control processes in optimistic, realistic, and pessimistic scenarios has been created. Recommendations for further use of the methodology of integral assessment of the interaction of stakeholders of construction enterprises in practice are given. 

 © 2021 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Production, Delphi method, Established quality criteria, Strategy for managing

 Article History: Received 20 June 2021, Received in revised form 27 August 2021, Accepted 30 August 2021

 Acknowledgment 

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Marusheva O, Konenko V, and Haidenko S et al. (2021). Integral approach of assessment of interaction level of stakeholders of construction enterprises. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 8(11): 44-49

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2   

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

 References (26)

  1. Bharadwaj SS and Saxena KBC (2009). Building winning relationships in business process outsourcing services. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 109(7): 993-1011. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570910982328   [Google Scholar]
  2. Chen XR and Yang W (2012). Large-scale intelligent building energy-saving measures based on BA system. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 178: 144-146. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.178-181.144   [Google Scholar]
  3. Chernysh I, Glebova A, and Maksymenko O (2018). Business processes outsourcing in building enterprises. International Journal of Engineering and Technology (UAE), 7(3): 59-64. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i3.2.14376   [Google Scholar]
  4. Cheung SO and Qi X (2017). Managing for innovation developments in construction organisations. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 9(3): 249-273. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPOM.2017.087576   [Google Scholar]
  5. Chicu D, Valverde M, Ryan G, and Batt R (2016). The service-profit chain in call centre services. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 26(5): 616-641. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-10-2014-0243   [Google Scholar]
  6. Clarkson MB (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 92-117. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271994   [Google Scholar]
  7. Demenev AV, Lopatko RN, and Zharov VG (2019). Operation of buildings and structures based on BIM standards in the digital economy. In the International Multi-Conference on Industrial Engineering and Modern Technologies, IEEE, Vladivostok, Russia: 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1109/FarEastCon.2019.8934034   [Google Scholar]
  8. Donaldson T and Preston LE (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concept, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65–91. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992   [Google Scholar]
  9. Gibson K (2000). The moral basis of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 26: 245-257. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006110106408   [Google Scholar]
  10. Haiduchok T and Dmytrenko O (2018). Use of a balanced scorecard in strategic management accounting of enterprises. Scientific Horizons, 11(72): 46–56. https://doi.org/10.33249/2663-2144-2018-72-11-46-55   [Google Scholar]
  11. Holubka YV, Nesterova SV, and Myhalchinets HT (2019). Features of financial support of national construction companies. Scientific Bulletin of Mukachevo State University, 1(11): 117–123. https://doi.org/10.31339/2313-8114-2019-1(11)-117-123   [Google Scholar]
  12. Kubasova T, Tkach V, and Tsvigun I (2018). Priorities of the logistics risks management in the resource support of construction projects. In the MATEC Web of Conferences, EDP Sciences, 212: 08010. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201821208010   [Google Scholar]
  13. Loosemore M and Reid S (2019). The social procurement practices of tier-one construction contractors in Australia. Construction Management And Economics, 37(4): 183-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2018.1505048   [Google Scholar]
  14. Minaeva E, Lastochkina V, Gusev V, Fadeev A, and Manukhina L (2018). Formation of the strategy of management of innovation and investment activity of the enterprise. In the MATEC Web of Conferences, EDP Sciences, 193: 05082. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201819305082   [Google Scholar]
  15. Nikolaiev VP and Shcherbyna AA (2018). Maintenance management of the residential buildings of inefficient owners. Bulletin of Mukachevo State University, 1(9): 11–17. https://doi.org/10.31339/2313-8114-2018-1(9)-11-18   [Google Scholar]
  16. Pugachevska KYo and Gomba MV (2020). Genesis of essence of enterprise competitive advantages. Scientific Bulletin of Mukachevo State University, 1(13): 113–117. https://doi.org/10.31339/2313-8114-2020-1(13)-113-118   [Google Scholar]
  17. Rakovich O (2018). Integration of management by enterprise potential of rural territories. Scientific Horizons, 11(72): 62–73. https://doi.org/10.33249/2663-2144-2018-72-11-62-72   [Google Scholar]
  18. Ryzhakov D, Dikiy O, Druzhynin M, Petrenko H, and Savchuk T (2020). Innovative tools for management the lifecycle of strategic objectives of the enterprise-stakeholder in construction. International Journal on Emerging Trends in Engineering Research, 8(8): 4526-4532. https://doi.org/10.30534/ijeter/2020/78882020   [Google Scholar]
  19. Saprykina M and Kaba D (2011). Dialogue with stakeholders: recommendations to companies. Farbovanyi lyst, Kyiv, Ukraine.   [Google Scholar]
  20. Savchenko N, Savchenko R, and Sulimenko L (2020). The role of the brand in the enterprise sustainable development. Scientific Horizons, 8(93): 31–38. https://doi.org/10.33249/2663-2144-2020-93-8-31-38   [Google Scholar]
  21. Simenko IV (2010). Problems of formation of analytical information on the quality of enterprise management systems: Definition of analytical tools. Visnyk ZHDTU, 3(53): 237–241. 
  22. Thao LHN, Anh DNP, and Velencei J (2019). Measuring corporate social performance. Serbian Journal of Management, 14(1): 193–204. https://doi.org/10.5937/sjm14-18009   [Google Scholar]
  23. Tian L, Ma LY, Huang Y, and Li H (2016). Risk study of service outsourcing projects undertaken by high-tech innovative enterprise. Journal of Discrete Mathematical Sciences and Cryptography, 19(3): 635-647. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720529.2016.1178921   [Google Scholar]
  24. Tuan A and Moretti A (2017). Engaging consumers on social media: Empirical evidence from the communications analysis of a CSR oriented company. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 12(2): 180-205. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTMKT.2017.083371   [Google Scholar]
  25. Volkova N, Shoshinov V, Kosova L, Lavrova L, and Zemlyanskaya N (2018). Development of methods for managing innovation activities of economic systems. In the MATEC Web of Conferences, EDP Sciences, 193: 05081. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201819305081   [Google Scholar]
  26. Wang H and Islam SM (2017). Construction of an open innovation network and its mechanism design for manufacturing enterprises: A resource-based perspective. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 11(1): 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11782-017-0006-6   [Google Scholar]