In the dynamic realm of service enterprises, the pursuit of assessing management effectiveness takes on a profound significance. This quest draws from a diverse array of theoretical foundations, meticulously examined by scholars who have dedicated their intellectual vigor to unraveling the intricacies of managerial prowess within the context of service provision.

F.W. Taylor, an architect of scientific management, aptly stated that the art of management is not a mere invention but a gradual evolution. Taylor emphasized the need for methodical analysis and systematic orchestration in both skilled and unskilled labor. His philosophy underscores the indispensable role of management across vital domains—planning, organization, leadership, and oversight—each underpinning the cornerstone of effectiveness [6; 7].

A. Fayol, an esteemed contributor to modern management theory, further deconstructed management functions into broad and specific attributes that transcend diverse arenas of activity. Fayol’s insights crystallized into a formal elucidation of management functions: planning, organizing, leading, coordinating, and controlling. This delineation breathed life into a framework that resonates across a spectrum of enterprises [11].

Weber, in his seminal works on “ideal bureaucracy,” accentuated the essentiality of authority for organizational existence. The absence of structured authority, he contended, leads to chaos. In a contemporary context, the clarion call for modernized governance resonates. The past paradigms fall short in shaping the “New Uzbekistan,” necessitating an infusion of innovative governance methodologies across sectors.

P. Drucker, a luminary of the twentieth century management theory, advocated for “goal-oriented management.” Drucker’s approach prioritized goal setting as the bedrock of effective management, cascading from top leadership to all tiers. His counsel underscores the importance of engaging with customers for accurate needs assessment [3; 4; 10].

In the economic domain, thinkers like K.R. McConnell and S.L. Brew underscored economics’ role in efficiently allocating finite resources to fulfill human material needs, reinforcing the nexus between management and human interests.

Within this intricate tapestry, the compass of high management efficiency guides the assessment of management effectiveness, serving as a cornerstone for achieving core objectives and functional prowess. Various methodologies stand ready to gauge the effectiveness of enterprise management.

As we navigate this intellectual landscape, the insights gleaned from diverse scholars coalesce into a mosaic that illuminates the path towards optimal management in the ever-evolving realm of service enterprises.

Research Methodology

Within the realm of economic research methods encompassing data collection, analysis, synthesis, and logical reasoning, extensive exploration into evaluating services has been conducted. This evaluation pertains to the pivotal role of the services market within the socio-economic fabric and economic advancement of the nation [4].

Analysis and Discussion of Results

The Norton Kaplan Balanced Scorecard System (BSC) serves as a multifaceted model for balanced scorecard systems. It engenders a comprehensive set of analytical metrics with controlled values that epitomize operational profitability over both short and long durations, strategically aligned with the company’s new visionary framework as a complex web of interrelations. This approach not only introduces a tool for appraising the influence of accumulated intellectual capital on business value, unaccounted for in financial reports, but also underpins an evaluation mechanism for a company’s performance across four dimensions: financial, customer relations, internal processes, and staff development. This model facilitates not only financial analysis but also opens avenues for the integration of intellectual capital into business dynamics, thereby regulating the acquisition of intangible assets for subsequent growth [9].

Lawrence S. Maisel proposes an alternate balanced scorecard model that hinges on the interplay of enterprise efficiency with both process and system enhancements, as well as employee professionalism. The model’s components serve to unveil factors influencing performance: financial (profitability, total value growth, earnings per share), customer service (service quality, time, price/cost), business processes (quality, time, productivity, costs), and human resources (innovation, training, intellectual development) [9].

In 1990, K. McNair, R. Lanch, and K. Cross introduced the Pyramid of Efficiency model. This pyramid comprises four hierarchical levels that enable bidirectional flow. The manager’s role involves methodically shaping indicators that cascade to lower pyramid levels in the form of objectives. Subsequently, these objectives guide enterprise strategies at the summit, ensuring effective data circulation within the system. Information processing, assimilation, and refinement occur at each tier of the pyramid, promoting a seamless exchange of insights and directives between levels [10].

– EVA (Economic Value Added) or EVA®-based management constitutes a model for monitoring and assessing decisions made by key personnel and support staff. This model operates on the principle that owners invest capital to yield profits, leading to increased share value through enterprise enhancement. This mathematical framework encompasses net income after taxes and capital value within a company’s goal tree, allocating tasks accordingly. Stern Stewart & Co. employs this approach to annually rank companies with significant value augmentation [9].

– The 4M concept, known as the “management system,” is attributed to German scientists Stuart and Stern. Rooted in the EVA model and indicator, this concept revolves around four dimensions: Measurement (profitability indicator), Management system (encompassing strategic planning, capital allocation, asset transactions, and goal setting), Motivation (tying managerial and shareholder interests through incentive wages), and Mindset (instilling corporate culture-based management) [9].

– KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) serve as direct measurement tools for the overall performance of a company, individual departments, and employees. These indicators, both quantitative and qualitative, assess business process performance, alignment with implementation algorithms, resource utilization, and the efficiency of results relative to resource investment [4].

– MBO (Management by Objectives) propounds goal management, whereby main objectives are divided into operational and sub-goals, fostering incremental actions toward realization. While this method emphasizes high-quality service within specific areas, its precision in revealing the exact parameters of services is limited [10].

– Dr. Mikel Harry’s Motorola Six Sigma Research Institute method emphasizes improving process quality, reducing operational shortcomings and statistical deviations. This approach incorporates quality management techniques, statistical methods, measurable objectives, and results, fostering collaborative problem-solving projects within the enterprise [11].

– The Ishikawa diagram, also known as the Fishbone Diagram, offers root cause analysis for enhancing production quality. While traditionally used in production processes, its application in the services sector has not been detailed [12].

– Lean manufacturing aims for cost-efficient production by categorizing enterprise activities into value-adding processes and non-value-adding processes, seeking to minimize the latter. The “Just-in-Time” approach, focusing on reducing waste in production and delivery, has the potential to enhance efficiency and reduce non-profit services [13].

– TQM (Total Quality Management) is an organization-oriented approach emphasizing teams, processes, statistics, continuous improvement, and customer-oriented product and service production. TQM bases quality levels on customer perspectives, guiding organizational efforts [14].

It is imperative to assess various services optimally within our operations, interpreting and adapting methods for enhancing management efficiency and aligning key criteria with our context. This necessitates a balance between scientific, motivational management, proper organization, and strategic investment. Our research delved into the investment aspects of entities within the service sector, offering a model that captures the involvement of key players in the services market [9].

These market participants encompass:

1. Individuals and legal entities providing services.
2. Government agencies and other organizations engaged in public policy implementation.
3. Research and educational institutions, manufacturing entities, and organizations contributing to service creation.
4. Centers for innovative ideas, developments, and technologies.
5. Property owners offering intellectual property to the services.
6. Investors supporting service endeavors.
7. Providers of final products in the services market.
8. Private service entities operating via public-private partnerships.

The services market plays a pivotal role in setting the institutional foundation for innovative development [9]. The three-tier model captures the dynamic interplay between “investors, innovative fund, and subjects of the services market.” This model can also be extended to describe scenarios involving “investors and service sector start-up projects,” wherein service entities themselves function as innovation funds [9]. Thus, the introduction of corporate innovation funds is advisable, driven and supported by state intervention [9].

While each service market entity (i) invests in its start-up projects (Ni), its financial outcomes, as influenced by factors such as costs (c), type (y), and market attributes (r), contribute to the overarching objectives [9]. Simultaneously, the Innovation Fund, sourced from investors (Kj), invests in start-up projects (Nj) of these entities, with financial gains (D) and returns (C) intertwined [9].
This intricate ecosystem involves a range of financing mechanisms: independent (η), investment distribution (w), investment return (π and p), mixed (μ), cost allocation (q), and income distribution (γ). While all mechanisms contribute to the overall framework, a comprehensive approach considering all six mechanisms simultaneously is a complex task, and practical implementation often involves focusing on a subset of mechanisms [9].

The method of formulating the problem for synthesizing the aforementioned funding mechanisms does not encompass all practical scenarios. In practice, participants often lack complete awareness of all pertinent parameters, and funding mechanisms tend to be adaptable, contingent on various factors. Consequently, when the investment volume from the innovation fund is known, services market entities should initially decide on their own investment amounts. Subsequently, the Innovation Fund can determine how to financially support these entities. Further exploration can then focus on decision-making mechanisms employed by investors.

This discussion outlines three primary categories of financing mechanisms: independent financing mechanisms (pertaining to investment decisions by entities in the services market), resource allocation mechanisms (fund decisions), and cost and income distribution mechanisms (involving investors’ decision-making). The implementation of these mechanisms facilitates the commercialization of the service sector, transforming promising services into innovative activities, thereby enhancing the overall efficiency of services through the establishment of effective innovative service models [9].

References:
1. Weber, M. Selected Works. Translated by Y.N. Davydov et al. Progress, 1990.
2. Weber, M. Economy and Society. Translated by L.G. Ionin. HSE, 2010.
3. Drucker, P. Post-Capitalist Society: A New Post-Industrial Wave in the West. Academia, 1999.
4. Drucker, P. The Practice of Management. Williams, 2007.
5. Payazov, M.M. Scientific Approaches in the Sphere of Services: Implementation Algorithm of R&D Management. Gospodarka I innowacje, 2022.
6. Taylor, F.W. The Principles of Scientific Management. Translated by A.I. Zak et al. Transport, 1925.
7. Taylor, F.W. The Principles of Scientific Management. Controlling, 1991.
8. Drucker, P. People and Performance: The Best of Peter Drucker on Management. Harper & Row, 1977.
9. Fayol, A. General and Industrial Management. Republic, 1992.
10. Payazov, M. Modernization of Services on the Railways. Scientific Progress, 2022.
11. Payazov, M. View of Modernization of Services on the Railways. Galaxy International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 2022.
12. Payazov, M. Innovative Policy as the Main Task of the Modern Economy. Actual Science, 2019.
13. Available at: [link]
14. Khonkeldieva, G. Priority Directions of Regional Innovative Economy Development in the Republic of Uzbekistan. International Conference Proceedings, 2017.
15. Payazov, M.M., Rakhimov, Y.Y. Applying Biomimetic Approach in Architecture. Zhurnal “Dostizhenija nauki i obrazovanija,” 2019.
16. Achilov, A.N., Payazov, M.M., Akbarov, Z.N., Madaminov, O.B. Issues to Improving the Social Situation of the Population of the Republic of Uzbekistan and the Qualitative Organization of Municipal Services. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 2020.

Skip to content