Methodological Approach to Assessing the Efficiency and Resilience of Integrated Automotive Service Enterprises

by

Abstract

This article proposes a methodological approach to assessing the efficiency and resilience of integrated automotive service enterprises. Based on the previously developed model of three-loop integration, a system of indicators is introduced to analyze the interaction between technical, procurement, and customer-related components. Particular attention is given to measuring the operational coherence of processes and identifying factors that influence business resilience. The proposed approach enables a transition from descriptive analysis to a structured evaluation of small enterprise performance under conditions of institutional instability.

Keywords:

methodological approach, integrated automotive service enterprises, business efficiency, enterprise resilience, operational model, systems analysis, small business, process management, performance evaluation, institutional environment, entrepreneurial risks, three-loop integration model

Author:

  • Nikolai Fedenev ORCID: ORCID: 0009-0004-5073-195X

Reviewers:

  • Igor Leonov ORCID: 0009-0004-3645-6031
  • Sergey Otnelchenko ORCID: 0009-0006-8118-0569

DOI: pending

Full Text (PDF)

Methodological_Approach_to_Assessing_the_Efficiency_and_Resilience

References

  1. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press.
  2. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown Publishing.
  3. Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893–921.
  4. Beck, T., Demirgüç-Kunt, A., & Maksimovic, V. (2005). Financial and legal constraints to firm growth. Journal of Finance, 60(1), 137–177.
  5. Djankov, S., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2002). The regulation of entry. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(1), 1–37.
  6. Aidis, R., Estrin, S., & Mickiewicz, T. (2008). Institutions and entrepreneurship development in Russia: A comparative perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6), 656–672.
  7. Smallbone, D., & Welter, F. (2001). The role of government in SME development in transition economies. International Small Business Journal, 19(4), 63–77.
  8. Puffer, S. M., McCarthy, D. J., & Boisot, M. (2010). Entrepreneurship in Russia and China: The impact of formal institutional voids. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3), 441–467.
  9. Williams, C. C., & Round, J. (2009). Evaluating informal entrepreneurs in transition economies. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 14(3), 253–273.
  10. OECD. (2017). Enhancing the Contributions of SMEs in a Global and Digitalised Economy. OECD Publishing.
  11. World Bank. (2020). Doing Business 2020: Comparing Business Regulation in 190 Economies. World Bank Group.
  12. Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 78–93.
  13. Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Harper & Row.
  14. Chopra, S., & Meindl, P. (2016). Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning, and Operation. Pearson Education.
  15. Christopher, M. (2016). Logistics and Supply Chain Management. Pearson.
  16. Rhoades, J., & Waller, M. (2013). Automotive Service Management: Principles and Practices. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
  17. Ganesan, S., & George, M. (2002). Customer retention and service quality in automotive repair services. Journal of Service Research, 4(4), 298–310.
  18. National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA). (2019). Service Department Operations and Benchmarking Report. NADA Publishing.