Quality management as a key element of the mechanism for the successful development of socio-economic systems
Zhumabekova S., Usmanov N. (2017)
On January 23, 2017, a joint article by Director of the Center for Industrial Policy S. Zhumabekova and chief expert of the Center for Industrial Policy Usmanov N. was published on the corporate website of the Kazakhstan Institute of Industry Development.
Artificial barriers in the economy have a significant impact on the uneven development of reforms. The basis of their appearance and development lies, most likely, in the field of human psychology in production, in management, in all spheres of life. One of the important factors in the successful development of socio-economic systems is high-quality management, which implies the professional competence potential of decision-makers at all vertical and horizontal levels of the economic system. The role of quality management in the socio-economic system is most accurately conveyed by Lu Kuan Yew’s quotes from the book “From the Third World to the First” (which later became the Singaporean experience of personnel management, the origins of which arose in Japan): “The lack of resources (natural, land) had to be compensated superiority in intelligence, discipline and ingenuity (of the population)……. An analysis of the development experience of Asian countries led me to the conclusion that in order to have a good government, you need to attract good people to it. No matter how good the system of government is, bad leaders will bring harm to their people.”
To date, the most common management styles are: Japanese and Western, which are radically different in style, but each of them has proven its effectiveness. (Table 1).
On January 23, 2017, a joint article by Director of the Center for Industrial Policy S. Zhumabekova and chief expert of the Center for Industrial Policy Usmanov N. was published on the corporate website of the Kazakhstan Institute of Industry Development.
Artificial barriers in the economy have a significant impact on the uneven development of reforms. The basis of their appearance and development lies, most likely, in the field of human psychology in production, in management, in all spheres of life. One of the important factors in the successful development of socio-economic systems is high-quality management, which implies the professional competence potential of decision-makers at all vertical and horizontal levels of the economic system. The role of quality management in the socio-economic system is most accurately conveyed by Lu Kuan Yew’s quotes from the book “From the Third World to the First” (which later became the Singaporean experience of personnel management, the origins of which arose in Japan): “The lack of resources (natural, land) had to be compensated superiority in intelligence, discipline and ingenuity (of the population)……. An analysis of the development experience of Asian countries led me to the conclusion that in order to have a good government, you need to attract good people to it. No matter how good the system of government is, bad leaders will bring harm to their people.”
To date, the most common management styles are: Japanese and Western, which are radically different in style, but each of them has proven its effectiveness. (Table 1).
Researchers of the Japanese method of economic management believe that the success of the Japanese economy was the result of the formation and functioning of a specific Japanese management system. The Japanese method of management differs from management according to the Western method primarily in that the main subject is labor resources. The Japanese believe that people are the key to a company's success, and all "Japanese management technologies" are based primarily on successful personnel management. All lean production systems (JIT1, Kanban, etc.) are impossible without the human factor.
Japanese management has been a mystery to the rest of the globe for many years. Today, applying the ideas, methods and lessons of Japanese management, young Asian tigers are developing, such as Hong Kong, South Korea, and Singapore.
The foundation of the competitiveness of Japanese management has two goals: 1) to be better, not to lag behind; 2) to be, if not better, then different.
The Western type of management is based on the principles of management in the United States and many European countries, because quite close cultures, and in this regard, they borrow a lot from each other and the exchange of any achievements or technologies occurs among them quite quickly and without fundamental difficulties.
The European (American) type of management is characterized by a rigid organization of management, which is most characterized by the desire to formalize management relations. For American management is also very characteristic of the idea of personal responsibility of the employee. So American management is inflexible, that is, strictly formalized.
Japanese management has been a mystery to the rest of the globe for many years. Today, applying the ideas, methods and lessons of Japanese management, young Asian tigers are developing, such as Hong Kong, South Korea, and Singapore.
The foundation of the competitiveness of Japanese management has two goals: 1) to be better, not to lag behind; 2) to be, if not better, then different.
The Western type of management is based on the principles of management in the United States and many European countries, because quite close cultures, and in this regard, they borrow a lot from each other and the exchange of any achievements or technologies occurs among them quite quickly and without fundamental difficulties.
The European (American) type of management is characterized by a rigid organization of management, which is most characterized by the desire to formalize management relations. For American management is also very characteristic of the idea of personal responsibility of the employee. So American management is inflexible, that is, strictly formalized.
Table 1: Key differences between Western and Japanese management styles in personnel management
In world theory and practice, since the 60s of the last century, the task of improving personnel management has been solved on the basis of taking into account such a factor of economic growth as "human capital", which complements the traditional classical factors - capital and labor. In 1992, G. Becker received the Nobel Prize in Economics, substantiating the effectiveness of investments in human capital and formulating an economic approach to human behavior.
The theory proved to be extremely fruitful. Many experts summarize that at present, based on the theory and practice of human capital, a successful paradigm for the development of the United States and leading European countries is being formed and improved. In particular, on this basis, Sweden, which was lagging behind, modernized its economy and returned its leadership positions in the world economy in the 2000s. Finland in a historically short period of time has managed to move from a resource-based to an innovative economy.
However, at present, the underestimation of this factor leads to a consistent shift in the center of gravity of the public management system, which leads it to a state of less and less stability in terms of the positive impact of the management system on socio-economic processes.
Most likely, this trend is due to two multidirectional factors. On the one hand, there is a decrease in the role and a consistent refusal in modern management in market conditions from a systematic approach to justifying and analyzing decision-making. In our opinion, this is the main factor in reducing the quality of management.
On the other hand, ignoring the factor of human capital, which is quite understandable, since innovative ideas are hard to perceive by overbureaucratized management, unless there are sufficiently strong justifications for their effectiveness for socio-economic processes. Objectively, such conservatism is justified, since we are talking about unproductive spending by the state and business on education and the growth of the professional level of managerial personnel, spending on healthcare services, a wide range of social programs, etc.
In this regard, the urgent task is to search, form and constantly improve the methodology for assessing the impact of the human capital factor on economic growth. The complexity of this task is determined by the fact that, in principle, there are no and cannot be methods of direct assessment, such as the profitability of fixed assets, the productivity of living and materialized labor, etc.
In world practice, various methods of indirect, indirect accounting of the human capital factor are used, among which the approach based on econometric modeling is quite effective.
We will try to derive some estimates of the effectiveness of the main factors of production (capital and labor) and the factor of human capital in their comparison based on the derivation and analysis of an econometric model of economic diversification.
As a factor of human capital, it is advisable, in our opinion, to apply a narrower factor of intellectual capital, which determines the cost of education, advanced training and social packages for the managerial contingent of central and local executive bodies, or in other words, civil servants, on which the degree of training depends and quality of decisions made.
The theory proved to be extremely fruitful. Many experts summarize that at present, based on the theory and practice of human capital, a successful paradigm for the development of the United States and leading European countries is being formed and improved. In particular, on this basis, Sweden, which was lagging behind, modernized its economy and returned its leadership positions in the world economy in the 2000s. Finland in a historically short period of time has managed to move from a resource-based to an innovative economy.
However, at present, the underestimation of this factor leads to a consistent shift in the center of gravity of the public management system, which leads it to a state of less and less stability in terms of the positive impact of the management system on socio-economic processes.
Most likely, this trend is due to two multidirectional factors. On the one hand, there is a decrease in the role and a consistent refusal in modern management in market conditions from a systematic approach to justifying and analyzing decision-making. In our opinion, this is the main factor in reducing the quality of management.
On the other hand, ignoring the factor of human capital, which is quite understandable, since innovative ideas are hard to perceive by overbureaucratized management, unless there are sufficiently strong justifications for their effectiveness for socio-economic processes. Objectively, such conservatism is justified, since we are talking about unproductive spending by the state and business on education and the growth of the professional level of managerial personnel, spending on healthcare services, a wide range of social programs, etc.
In this regard, the urgent task is to search, form and constantly improve the methodology for assessing the impact of the human capital factor on economic growth. The complexity of this task is determined by the fact that, in principle, there are no and cannot be methods of direct assessment, such as the profitability of fixed assets, the productivity of living and materialized labor, etc.
In world practice, various methods of indirect, indirect accounting of the human capital factor are used, among which the approach based on econometric modeling is quite effective.
We will try to derive some estimates of the effectiveness of the main factors of production (capital and labor) and the factor of human capital in their comparison based on the derivation and analysis of an econometric model of economic diversification.
As a factor of human capital, it is advisable, in our opinion, to apply a narrower factor of intellectual capital, which determines the cost of education, advanced training and social packages for the managerial contingent of central and local executive bodies, or in other words, civil servants, on which the degree of training depends and quality of decisions made.
Speaking in a more specific plane of economic diversification, we can say that the scientific factor is still practically not used at the proper level, especially at the pre-project stage of justifying innovation and investment projects. In planned times, science and R&D were almost the main arguments for decision-making at the level of the State Planning Committee of the USSR, the state plans of the Union republics in the processes of formation of Schemes for the development and deployment of productive forces for the medium and long term; not to mention industry developments.
In this regard, it makes sense to assess the impact of the scientific factor on innovation activity, bearing in mind the share of science and R&D funding in GDP.
An econometric multifactorial model that determines the best dependence of the indicator of innovative activity in industry (Iak) on the factors of capital (INV), labor (Z), the share of science and R&D financing in GDP (Dsn) and intellectual capital (IC), is calculated on the basis of the data for the period 2006-2014 and has the following final form:
Iak = 6,3654 · INV-2,0205 · Z-2,6104 · Dsn0,6893 · IC5,3541 ,
The coefficient of determination R2 = 0.98 indicates a high degree of approximation of the development trend of the indicator of innovative activity of enterprises in the manufacturing industry and the suitability of the derived model for analytical research.
In particular, it follows from the analysis of factors' elasticity coefficients that innovation activity has a more significant positive impact than the classical growth factors, namely the factors of science and intellectual capital.
At the same time, the influence of the intellectual capital factor is 7.8 times greater than the science factor, since an increase of 1% of these factors determines an increase in innovative activity by 0.69% from the science factor and 5.35% from the intellectual capital factor.
It is necessary to pay attention to the insufficient contribution of the science factor, which is at odds with global trends in the development of an innovative economy. However, this is a reflection of the current declining trend in science funding: for example, the share of funding for R&D in Kazakhstan decreased from 0.24% of GDP in 2006 to 0.17% in 2015. In developed countries, the share of spending on science from GDP among the leaders reaches up to 4.3% (Table 2).
In this regard, the following should be noted: despite the fact that the indicator of innovative activity is not explicitly included in the list of the main indicators of the State Program for Industrial and Innovative Development for the period up to 2019, it still remains an important and estimated indicator of the degree of innovativeness of production development.
In the previous five-year industrialization plan, the task was to ensure that by 2014 the innovative activity of manufacturing enterprises would reach the level of 10%. However, by this date the figure of 8.1% was achieved. An analysis of the model allows us to conclude that in order to achieve at least a 10% level, it is necessary to increase funding for science and R&D by 2.9 times and bring the share of funding in GDP to 0.46%.
The calculations and assessments carried out, of course, can only be in the nature of posing problematic questions. The necessary updating of the above-mentioned factors for activating the innovative economy can determine the risks for the full implementation of the program for diversifying the country's economy.
In this regard, it makes sense to assess the impact of the scientific factor on innovation activity, bearing in mind the share of science and R&D funding in GDP.
An econometric multifactorial model that determines the best dependence of the indicator of innovative activity in industry (Iak) on the factors of capital (INV), labor (Z), the share of science and R&D financing in GDP (Dsn) and intellectual capital (IC), is calculated on the basis of the data for the period 2006-2014 and has the following final form:
Iak = 6,3654 · INV-2,0205 · Z-2,6104 · Dsn0,6893 · IC5,3541 ,
The coefficient of determination R2 = 0.98 indicates a high degree of approximation of the development trend of the indicator of innovative activity of enterprises in the manufacturing industry and the suitability of the derived model for analytical research.
In particular, it follows from the analysis of factors' elasticity coefficients that innovation activity has a more significant positive impact than the classical growth factors, namely the factors of science and intellectual capital.
At the same time, the influence of the intellectual capital factor is 7.8 times greater than the science factor, since an increase of 1% of these factors determines an increase in innovative activity by 0.69% from the science factor and 5.35% from the intellectual capital factor.
It is necessary to pay attention to the insufficient contribution of the science factor, which is at odds with global trends in the development of an innovative economy. However, this is a reflection of the current declining trend in science funding: for example, the share of funding for R&D in Kazakhstan decreased from 0.24% of GDP in 2006 to 0.17% in 2015. In developed countries, the share of spending on science from GDP among the leaders reaches up to 4.3% (Table 2).
In this regard, the following should be noted: despite the fact that the indicator of innovative activity is not explicitly included in the list of the main indicators of the State Program for Industrial and Innovative Development for the period up to 2019, it still remains an important and estimated indicator of the degree of innovativeness of production development.
In the previous five-year industrialization plan, the task was to ensure that by 2014 the innovative activity of manufacturing enterprises would reach the level of 10%. However, by this date the figure of 8.1% was achieved. An analysis of the model allows us to conclude that in order to achieve at least a 10% level, it is necessary to increase funding for science and R&D by 2.9 times and bring the share of funding in GDP to 0.46%.
The calculations and assessments carried out, of course, can only be in the nature of posing problematic questions. The necessary updating of the above-mentioned factors for activating the innovative economy can determine the risks for the full implementation of the program for diversifying the country's economy.
Все права защищены © 2022 www.usmanov.kz
n@usmanov.kz
n@usmanov.kz
Все права защищены © 2022 www.usmanov.kz