home Mortgage Evaluating the effectiveness of metrological support work. Improving metrological support for production as a factor in increasing the competitiveness of an enterprise Criteria for assessing the work of metrologists

Evaluating the effectiveness of metrological support work. Improving metrological support for production as a factor in increasing the competitiveness of an enterprise Criteria for assessing the work of metrologists

Silyakov Evgeny Vladimirovich.

Sections of the discipline.

General provisions, definitions of economic efficiency of metrological support of production.
The mechanism of formation of economic losses from measurement errors.
General definition of costs for metrological support.
Methods for calculating the economic effect of work on MOB.
Calculation of the cost of metrological work carried out by Gosstandart bodies.
Economic efficiency of introducing new methods and measuring instruments.
The economic effect of certification of non-standardized measuring instruments, technological, control and testing equipment.
Economic effect from the introduction of working standards and testing equipment.

Economic efficiency.

Another important task is unified metrology, which allows assessing the economic efficiency of implementing metrological support programs.

The actual and expected economic effect is calculated using the comparative effectiveness method, according to which the size of the effect is determined as the difference in costs for the basic and implemented options.

Let us analyze the applicability of this method for assessing the effectiveness of metrological support at the program development stage, i.e. when planning and when assessing the actual effect. To do this, consider the expression of the absolute effect as the difference between the result and the costs of achieving it. The result is a fixed value.

Let's assume there are two options for the plan. The absolute economic effect for the first and second options is as follows:

where useful result due to metrological support activities; - cost estimate of the costs of implementing measures for metrological support according to the first and second options of the plan, respectively.

Since metrological support work is part of the work to improve product quality and production efficiency, part of the useful production result can be allocated to it, i.e. , where is the useful result of production; - coefficient of share of work on metrological support in the overall useful result of production.

In this case, we are not interested in the determination method, because further reasoning does not depend on this.

Inequalities (1.2.1, 1.2.2) mean that both options are effective and the achieved result is the same. If so, then the second option is the best.

When choosing options for metrological support, it is also possible that one of them has a negative effect.

Since we assumed, then, then

The second option is also better here. Let us consider whether the comparative efficiency method, based on a comparison of costs across options, is applicable to the situation described by inequalities (1.2.1-1.2.4). To do this, subtract expression (1.2.1) from formula (1.2.2). we find that the comparative effect

In this case, the value (useful result) will decrease and a comparative efficiency formula will be obtained using the difference in costs. If, then the results of calculations using formulas (1.2.1, 1.2.2) and expression (1.2.5) allow one to make the same decision to select the best option. Similarly, inequalities (1.2.3, 1.2.4) also confirm that the second option is better.

This means that when the absolute economic effect of at least one option is positive, the absolute and comparative efficiency methods give the same result when choosing the best option.

Another situation arises when considering the case when both options for the work plan for metrological support are not economically feasible, i.e.:

If this is the case, then again the second option is preferable. It would seem that in this case, too, the effect can be calculated by the difference in costs, as established by formula (1.2.5). but if the effect is assessed using this formula, then its value will be positive, because . On the other hand, both options are ineffective in accordance with inequalities (1.2.6, 1.2.7). therefore, when obtaining negative values of absolute economic effects, the comparative efficiency method is not applicable, since in accordance with it the effectiveness of a “bad” option among many “very bad” ones is erroneously justified. Therefore, the method based on comparison of costs when planning work on metrological support and choosing the best option must be supplemented with a condition for checking the positivity of absolute effects for all alternative options.

Such a test can be carried out using very approximate methods, since it is not the size of the effect that needs to be established, but only the sign of this value. All options with a positive effect are included in the number of potential options, and then the best one is selected based on the difference in costs. In this case, the beneficial result should be permanent. If such a situation is not observed, then when forming programs and plans for metrological support it is necessary to use the method of absolute efficiency. This condition is a guarantee of the effectiveness of the planned measures for metrological support, because the result always exceeds the costs of achieving it.

The specificity of the programs, and therefore of metrological support programs, is that their effect is not assessed by the sum of the effects from the implementation of the tasks included in them.

In this case, the “program effect” itself, due to the following factors, must also be taken into account:

Reducing the level of duplication of work;
The presence of mutual correlation, when any development in the field of metrological support must be carried out in conjunction with another;
The systematic nature of the program is determined by the well-known principle of system analysis: “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” At the same time, taking into account the relationship between the work on metrological support and the systematic factor is an unexplored problem, the solutions to which need to be outlined.

One of these ways is to identify program “blocks” containing a number of interrelated works.

The effectiveness of such a block is assessed by the final result, and then the effect is divided in accordance with the share of each work.

Thus, as a result of considering the economic aspects of work on analyzing the state of measurements and program-target planning of metrological support for production, we can conclude about the relevance and practical feasibility of conducting research in the following areas:

Metrology of formation of the final result of metrological support of production;
Establishing the influence of measurement accuracy on the technical and economic indicators of production;
Justification of the criterion for the effectiveness of metrological support of production;
Creation of scientific and methodological foundations for assessing the economic efficiency of work on metrological support of continuous measurement processes;
Optimization of the range of measured parameters and measurement accuracy according to economic criteria;

The main of these directions is the first, because it allows us to isolate from the total final result of production the share due to metrological support activities. When conducting the remaining listed studies, the final result indicator will also be included in the criteria.

The final result of metrological support activities for production.

In social production, when assessing the effectiveness of scientific and technological progress, the end result is understood as the valuation of products or services performed using new means of labor manufactured at a given enterprise. Work on metrological support is part of the work on the creation of new means and objects of labor, therefore, part of the final result and, accordingly, a share of the resulting economic effect can be attributed to these works.

The economic effect obtained from the production of products

where is the cost estimate of the overall final result of production; - valuation of the costs to achieve this result.

It should be noted that formula (1.3.1) calculates the integral economic effect, i.e. effect that occurs during the billing period. This means that it is necessary to determine the results and costs for each year of this period and add them up.

In the following, in order to avoid introducing a summation index, annual costs and results will be considered. If necessary, they can be added and the integral effect is obtained for any billing period.

To highlight the share of the effect and result attributable to work on metrological support of production, we multiply both parts of inequality (1.3.1) by the coefficient of share participation of metrological support:

It turns out that the share of the effect and result is determined in direct proportion to the costs. This selection has two significant disadvantages:

To increase the value of the coefficient, it is necessary to increase costs, i.e. stimulate the cost mechanism;
It is assumed that in proportion to the costs of metrological support, the result obtained also increases.

Since the share of the production result attributable to metrological support is, then

The metrological support factor is equally effective as other production factors.

Control is an element of the quality management system. This element is an obstacle or barrier in the way of defective products and prevents their penetration into further stages of production.

Measurement errors during control lead to making incorrect decisions, namely, defective control. Thus, some products are falsely rejected, and some defective products are accepted. When using measurement information to control technological processes, errors lead to a deviation of the actual mode values from the nominal values specified and also lead to a decrease in technical and economic indicators.

Table 1.

To form the concept of the final result of metrological support of production, we use a table as a system corresponding to input, output and function.

The system input is formed on the basis of the objective need for reliable measurement information about the quality and quantity of products, technological process parameters, and the condition of equipment and tools. Quantitatively, this need is manifested in a set of measurement parameters, requirements for the efficiency of obtaining measurement information and the accuracy of measurement of each parameter. Accuracy depends on the permissible deviation of the parameter and its importance, from the point of view of its influence on the technical and economic indicators of production. To ensure accuracy, certified measurement techniques are used (GOST 8.010-72). This GOST regulates the maintenance of working equipment in working condition.

The function of the system is to implement measurement processes and sets of production parameters with the required accuracy.

The system outputs measurement results, the quality of which is determined by their efficiency and accuracy. Characteristics of how quickly information can be obtained can be described in terms of measurement error, because information is received with a delay and this is equivalent to information with increased error. During the time of information transmission, the characteristics of the object change, as a result, an additional error caused by such a change is superimposed on the measurement error. The formation of a set of measured parameters is closely related to the accuracy of measurements, i.e. The completeness and quality of information about the parameters of production processes and products depends on:

The size of the complex of measuring parameters;
Efficiency of transmission and receipt of information;
The accuracy of measurements, on which the optimality of decisions made depends.

It is known that measurements are always burdened with errors, so decisions have to be made under conditions of some uncertainty or complete certainty, which leads to their non-optimality and economic losses. This is observed in the field of metrological servicing of measuring instruments, where the size of units of physical quantities from the standard to standard and working measuring instruments is transferred with an error. In this regard, measurement errors appear in two areas:

During metrological maintenance of working measuring instruments;
When measuring during the production process.

Economic losses from measurement errors during metrological maintenance of working measuring instruments arise in the testing circuit along the chain. From the main standard, part of the errors is transferred to the standard measuring instruments and from the standard measuring instruments to the working measuring instruments. Inevitable measurement errors when transmitting the size of a physical quantity lead to verification defects; this is characterized by errors of the 1st and 2nd types:

Errors of the 1st type this is the probability of incorrect rejection of suitable products;
Errors of the 2nd type are the probability of missing defective products.

For verification, such products are exemplary and working measuring instruments. During metrological certification using standards, some products will be falsely rejected, and some will be missed. Economic losses from their false rejection will arise due to unproductive costs for setup, minor repairs, adjustments, and re-certification of standard measuring instruments. Economic losses arising from false rejection of working measuring instruments also manifest themselves in the form of unproductive costs for repairs, adjustments and verification.

In accordance with GOST 1.25-76 under metrological support means ensuring the unity and required accuracy of measurements. Total economic losses are losses from measurement error during metrological support of production. With the improvement of metrological support for production, we can observe a reduction in economic losses, but such a reduction requires economic costs. The share of the final production result attributable to metrological support is formed during the implementation of measurement processes, i.e. during the operation of working measuring instruments, since metrological maintenance only maintains their performance. The measurement error reduces the theoretical result by the amount of national economic losses and their difference is the actual result of metrological support. The effect of metrological support is the difference between results and costs:

Costs of creating and operating the standard.

costs of creating and operating a model measuring instrument.

costs for the creation and operation of measuring production equipment.

In fact, these losses are due to the imperfection of the measuring system. If we substitute the effect formula into the cost formula, we get:

By subtracting the 2nd expression from the first we get:

In order to move again to the absolute effect, we take as the basic version the following state of metrological support when the parameters do not change:

Where national economic economic losses, i.e. the parameters do not change.

This means that the ideal final result for metrological support is numerically equal to the national economic losses from measurement errors. In fact, the end result will be:

In this formula, the value is fixed, therefore, the smaller the national economic losses, the higher the result.

and - economic losses. Arise due to unforeseen expenses (setup, adjustment, re-certification of standard measuring instruments). They arise from false rejection of funds, and manifest themselves in the form of unproductive costs for their repair, adjustment, and verification.

That. indicators and represent losses from false rejection of standard and working measuring instruments, respectively.

They do not depend on the type of production and reflect losses only when transferring the size of a physical quantity.

Economic losses depend on two factors:

From the measurement task being solved;
From the belonging of the measured parameter to any element of the production process.

Since the economic consequences of measurements are considered, the classification of measurement tasks should also be based on economic principles.

In metrological practice, classifications according to types of measurements are accepted:

Straight;
Indirect.

With this division, the mechanism of the relationship between measurement error and economic losses is not revealed, so the classification sign can be the consequences of suboptimal decisions made on the basis of information obtained during measurements. Based on this, we classify measurement tasks as follows:

Measurement control;
Flow measurement, as well as measurement during accounting and dosing operations (in relation to consumables);
Measurement in process control.

During measurement control, a parameter is measured and the resulting value is compared with a given standard, therefore, a decision is made whether it is passable or not. This solution cannot be called optimal, because there is an error. When accounting for consumption, such a decision is not made; errors also distort the true picture and, as a result, negative economic consequences arise (associated with an unreliable assessment of the resource).

The information that is used to control the technological process is also burdened with errors; as a result, the values of technological process parameters deviate from the optimal ones and also reduce the technical and economic indicators of production. Let's consider which elements of the production structure are associated with measurements using the example of a typical production system. Material, energy, semi-finished products, and components are supplied to the input of the system. They are subject to input control in terms of qualitative and quantitative parameters. All these elements are processed using technological equipment, equipment, and tools. Equipment parameters are monitored and measured to obtain information for process control. At the output of the production system, the quality of the products and their quantity are controlled. But in order to effectively organize and carry out metrological support activities, one must strive to obtain high final results. This task cannot be an end in itself, because Unreasonable costs may arise. Therefore, the problems of assessing the final result are closely related to the problems of increasing efficiency. We obtain the criterion for the most effective activity, take expression (3) and transform it taking into account expression (6):

In the first brackets is the difference between the final result and costs when implementing measurement processes in production. In the second bracket is the sum of costs and economic losses when transferring the size of a physical quantity according to a verification scheme to working measuring instruments. The effect will be maximum if the following conditions are met:

reflects optimal performance in the implementation of measurement processes, i.e. is a criterion for optimal measurement accuracy.

criterion for optimizing work on metrological maintenance of measuring instruments.

From the last 3 expressions it follows that the criterion for the optimality of metrological support is:

those. the sum of all losses from measurement error should be minimal.

Methodological basis for assessing the economic efficiency of metrological support.

Metrological support is an element that provides information for production management and is part of a set of works to improve product quality. The main principle of the economic justification is this approach, which assumes:

Selecting from possible options the best work from the point of view of the final national economic result for its subsequent inclusion in the plan;
Taking into account when assessing the effectiveness of these works, subsequently their implementation, both in this area and in others where their influence appears;
Full accounting of all types of limited resources;
Application of uniform standards for the efficiency of capital investments and their adjustment according to the time factor.

Methods, as a rule, are based on the method of comparative effectiveness, according to which the effect is calculated by the difference in the reduced costs of the basic and new options. It is important to remember that the costs of creating and operating measuring instruments differ.

At the stage of creating the means, the given costs include its cost and its specific capital investments, consisting of pre-production costs for metrological, research and development work (R&D) and investments in production assets in the manufacture of measuring instruments.

In the case of operating measuring instruments, the given costs consist of current costs and associated capital investments necessary for the normal functioning of measuring instruments. Because metrological support of production is not an industry, but a type of activity and is intersectoral in nature, it would be logical to require from each ruble of capital investments a certain return averaged across industries and areas.

There is such a concept regulatory comparative efficiency ratio. The comparative efficiency ratio is the ratio of cost savings to additional capital investments:

and unit cost of production;

and specific capital investments;

capital investment efficiency ratio.

STP scientific and technological progress.

Features of determining the metrological efficiency of MOB.

The decision on the advisability of creating and introducing new technology is made based on the size of the annual economic effect. The greater the effect, the more effective the option.
When assessing the effectiveness of capital investments, the best option is selected based on the minimum given costs:

where is the comparative efficiency coefficient; - payback period for additional capital investments.

If or, where, are the standard values of the efficiency ratio and payback period, then the more capital-intensive option is effective.

At first glance, the criteria for deciding on the effectiveness of an option, expressed by formulas, are different. To prove their identity, we transform the formula under the condition:

From this expression it follows that in any case, if the effect is positive. And the greater the effect, the greater the value of the comparative efficiency coefficient.

Consequently, the criterion for maximum effect according to the formula and the criterion coincide. Since, the indicator is identical from the point of view of the effectiveness criterion.

Therefore, the indicators determined by the formulas are equivalent when choosing an effective option, i.e. decisions made on them are consistent.

The same judgment can be made regarding the criterion of minimum present costs. since the formula contains an indicator of the base option, the minimum of the entire set of values provides the maximum value of the effect, because the value is constant.

This means that the minimum cost criterion is fully consistent with the expressions.

A somewhat different situation arises when assessing efficiency using a method according to which the effect is determined by the difference between production results and the costs of achieving them:

where is the cost assessment of the results of implementing scientific and technical progress measures; - cost estimation.

In this case, it is not the annual, but the integral economic effect that is determined, which is not very significant, since the integral effect is the sum of the annual ones given by the time factor. The main difference, compared to the formula, is the introduction of the concept of the final result. This situation seems fair, because There may be cases when the costs exceed the results obtained:

However, if you compare options and calculate the effect using a formula, it may turn out that the effect is positive, although in fact this is not observed.

This situation is explained by the fact that the expression for assessing comparative effectiveness is a special case of a more general criterion relationship.

If we assume that the economic result for the two options for the NTP activity is constant, then the effects are:

This limitation is not fixed in the methodology. And in our opinion, it is advisable to calculate the effect based on the difference between results and costs.

On the other hand, the recommendation to choose the best option only based on the effect value is not entirely justified in the general case. Let us consider two scientific and technical progress activities with the same effect value, and for simplicity we will assume that the results and costs are obtained within one year.

Result for the first option: , costs;

And for the second: costs

The effect value is constant:

If you follow the criterion of maximum effect, then the options are equally effective. But logic dictates that the first option is better, because... he saves, compared to the second, 80 thousand rubles. These funds can be spent on another STP event and get additional effect.

To understand this situation, let's consider all possible design cases. If, then it is obvious that the best option is the measure that ensures the minimum cost of its implementation and, accordingly, the maximum effect.

In that case, it is necessary to choose the option that gives the greatest result. At the same time, we also get the maximum effect.

In the general case and. The trivial case when, is not considered, because It is obvious that the first event is more effective.

The situation determined by the following inequalities is interesting for economic analysis: ; .

Let, for example, ; ;;

Effect by options: ; respectively.

If we use the criterion of maximum effect, then the first event is preferable. On the other hand, it turns out that the absolute efficiency coefficient is:

For the first option, and for the second.

For ease of analysis, let’s imagine the first event as the sum of the second and some additional event. It is obvious that the economic indicators of the additional option:

In this case, the following relationships are satisfied:

Additional measure effectiveness coefficient:

For our case, where the index 1.2 means a comparison of the first and second options.

It turns out that the additional measure is ineffective, because The efficiency standard and, accordingly, the increase in national economic profit should be equal to 10%. But in our example it is 0.6% and the additional option is not effective. From this we can conclude that the second option is the best, although the effect of the first option is greater.

Let's consider the third option of the NTP event with the following indicators:

Absolute efficiency factor for this option. If you decide on the efficiency coefficient, then the third option is the best.

For the convenience of further analysis, we summarize the data in table. 2.2.1:

Table 2.2.1

	Index

	1000

When comparing the second option with the third we get:

Therefore, the second option is more effective, because the additional costs of the third option require an efficiency coefficient of 0.6, with a standard of 0.1.

Consequently, in conditions of non-identity of results and costs, the feasibility of a scientific and technical progress measure cannot be justified only by the size of the effect or by the absolute efficiency coefficient. In this case, it is necessary to check the level of effectiveness of additional costs.

Therefore, the algorithm for selecting the best option contains, in general, the following elements:

Calculation of the effect and ranking of activities according to its significance;
Pairwise comparison of options to evaluate the effectiveness of additional costs using the formula:

If, then the option is effective, and vice versa.

Bringing the compared options into an identical form in terms of quality indicators.

Since the result is often unknown at the preliminary stages of justification, comparative effectiveness is determined by the difference in costs, adjusted for changes in quality indicators.

When justifying the methodology for bringing options into an equivalent form, it is necessary to clearly understand the concept of identity. The compared options must solve identical national economic problems, i.e. cover needs that are equal in volume, composition, location, and time.

The issue of identity at the location of metrological work is not related to metrological support, since this is a general problem of optimal production location and management. With such optimization, all control and measuring operations are regulated by the technological process of product manufacturing.

In the 1977 methodology, reduction is carried out using an equivalence coefficient, which has the form:

In this case, the equivalence coefficient takes into account the change in productivity and service life of the new equipment compared to the base one. The economic meaning of this coefficient is quite simple: it shows how many basic models replace one new model of equipment. But the specifics of metrological production support activities require taking into account other qualitative characteristics of measuring instruments, such as accuracy, metrological reliability, measurement range, etc.

When considering methods for bringing measuring instruments into an equivalent form, three main directions can be distinguished:

Using a comprehensive quality indicator;
Selection of single quality indicators as the equivalence coefficient;
Application of a probabilistic information approach.

The use of a complex indicator means the use of qualimetry methods, when the coefficient is replaced by a complex quality indicator. In practice, the weighted arithmetic average is most often used, which is written in the form:

Where is the weight of the i-th quality indicator; - relative single i-th quality indicator; - number of compared indicators.

The relative unit indicator is determined by the fraction:

Where is the value of the i-th quality indicator for the new and basic measuring instruments.

The weight of indicators is assessed, as a rule, by an expert method, and normalization conditions are imposed on their sum:

It follows from the formula that a complex indicator allows you to aggregate information about a number of qualitative properties of an object into one number. This property is very useful in comparative assessments of the technical level and quality of products, but it is unlawful to mechanically transfer this approach to the theory of assessing economic efficiency.

To prove the illegality, consider a situation where two measuring instruments differ in service life and performance, and; ; performance ratio. Since for deductions for renovation it is approximately inversely proportional to the service life, and.

From the relations and condition we obtain:

From equality and the first condition we obtain: ; .

The meaning of the weights contradicts the inequality given in the expression, as well as logic: they are greater than one and one of the values is even negative.

It turns out that increasing the service life of a measuring instrument, all other properties being equal, reduces its quality.

This situation arises because the complex indicator is a kind of average value and, in terms of its economic content, cannot serve as an equivalence coefficient. To confirm this thesis, consider another more general example: a new measuring instrument has twice the performance of the basic one, with the same service life.

In accordance with the formula, the value of the equivalence coefficient is:

subject to conditions.

Obviously, the obtained result does not depend on the values of the weight coefficients, since their sum is always equal to one. The expression does not lend itself to meaningful interpretation, since a change in both one performance indicator and quality indicators leads to one value of the equivalence coefficient.

In a number of methods, another complex characteristic is assumed as an equivalence coefficient - the ratio of the levels of metrological support for the basic and new version. But the level of metrological support characterizes a specific production as a whole, and not local metrological work. Improving, for example, the accuracy characteristics of a certain measuring instrument reduces losses from its error, but does not have a practical impact on the level of metrological support, because An enterprise can operate tens and hundreds of thousands of devices, and the weight of this tool among them is close to zero. Therefore, the use of this complex characteristic to bring the options into a comparable form cannot be considered justified.

The third approach to definition is to apply probabilistic information theory. in this case, the main indicator is the so-called information capacity, calculated as the product of the amount of information in one dimension by the annual number of dimensions. The equivalence coefficient is determined by the ratio of the information abilities of the new and basic measuring instruments.

The information ability indicator takes into account the following factors:

Characteristics of the measured object;
Metrological and technical characteristics of measuring instruments;
The degree of connection between the object and the measuring instrument;
Efficiency of measurement for each parameter;
Completeness of information on all parameters;
Basic indicators of reliability of measuring instruments.

Let us consider the legitimacy of such statements for all of the listed positions.

Firstly, of the numerous technical characteristics of the object, only the standard deviation of the measured value is taken into account, and the economic essence is not considered.

Secondly, among the metrological characteristics, only the standard deviation of the measurement error is considered, and other technical characteristics are not taken into account.

Thirdly, the formula for calculating information ability does not reflect a single indicator that describes the relationship of an object with a measuring instrument.

Fourthly, the efficiency of obtaining information does not depend on the number of dimensions and information in one dimension, and therefore is in no way related to information ability.

Fifthly, information is obtained in bits, which does not characterize the quantitative and qualitative properties of a particular object at all.

For example, if the values of voltage and current are known, then the power consumption can be estimated for mutual calculations. But the voltage and current values obtained in bits do not provide information about the power consumption for which you need to pay.

Sixthly, from the calculated expressions it follows that the information ability depends on the standard deviations of the measured parameter and the measurement error and is not directly related to reliability.

In addition to these objections, one more can be cited: for continuous measurement processes, information ability cannot be determined. For example, when measuring temperature, pressure, flow, there is no concept of the performance of measuring instruments and, accordingly, information ability.

However, if the same temperature is measured at certain time intervals, the information capacity can be calculated. It turns out that with continuous measurement of a parameter, the information ability tends to zero, but if this parameter is controlled discretely by the same means, then the information ability differs from zero. The results are again contradictory, because It is obvious that continuous measurement of the parameter better characterizes the state of the object.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Economic efficiency.

Another important task is unified metrology, which allows assessing the economic efficiency of implementing metrological support programs.

Let's assume there are two options for the plan. The absolute economic effect for the first and second options is as follows:


;

where is the useful result due to metrological support activities; is the cost estimate for the implementation of metrological support activities according to the first and second options of the plan, respectively.

Since metrological support work is part of the work to improve product quality and production efficiency, part of the useful production result can be allocated to it, i.e. , where is the useful result of production; is the coefficient of the share of work on metrological support in the overall useful result of production.

In this case, we are not interested in the method of determination, because further reasoning does not depend on this.

Inequalities (1.2.1, 1.2.2) mean that both options are effective and the achieved result is the same. If so, then the second option is the best.

When choosing options for metrological support, it is also possible that one of them has a negative effect.

Since we assumed, then, then

;
;

This means that when the absolute economic effect of at least one option is positive, the absolute and comparative efficiency methods give the same result when choosing the best option.

Another situation arises when considering the case when both options for the work plan for metrological support are not economically feasible, i.e.:

;
;

If at the same time, then again the second option is preferable. It would seem that in this case, too, the effect can be calculated by the difference in costs, as established by formula (1.2.5). but if the effect is assessed using this formula, then its value will be positive, because... On the other hand, both options are ineffective in accordance with inequalities (1.2.6, 1.2.7). therefore, when obtaining negative values of absolute economic effects, the comparative efficiency method is not applicable, since in accordance with it the effectiveness of a “bad” option among many “very bad” ones is erroneously justified. Therefore, the method based on comparison of costs when planning work on metrological support and choosing the best option must be supplemented with a condition for checking the positivity of absolute effects for all alternative options.

The specificity of the programs, and therefore of metrological support programs, is that their effect is not assessed by the sum of the effects from the implementation of the tasks included in them.

In this case, the “program effect” itself, due to the following factors, must also be taken into account:

Reducing the level of duplication of work;

The presence of mutual correlation, when any development in the field of metrological support must be carried out in conjunction with another;

The systematic nature of the program is determined by the well-known principle of system analysis - “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” At the same time, taking into account the relationship between the work on metrological support and the systematic factor is an unexplored problem, the solutions to which need to be outlined.

One of these ways is to identify program “blocks” containing a number of interrelated works.

The effectiveness of such a block is assessed by the final result, and then the effect is divided in accordance with the share of each work.

Metrology of formation of the final result of metrological support of production;

Establishing the influence of measurement accuracy on the technical and economic indicators of production;

Justification of the criterion for the effectiveness of metrological support of production;

Creation of scientific and methodological foundations for assessing the economic efficiency of work on metrological support of continuous measurement processes;

Optimization of the range of measured parameters and measurement accuracy according to economic criteria;

The assessment of the activities of any enterprise is carried out on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of the final results of its effectiveness. The economic essence of enterprise efficiency is to achieve a significant increase in profit for each unit of cost. Quantitatively, it can be determined by comparing the result obtained in the production process and the costs of living and embodied labor to achieve it. The economic result is expressed in natural and cost indicators that characterize the intermediate and final results of production on the scale of an enterprise, industry and the entire economy of the country as a whole. Such indicators include the volume of gross output (sometimes net output), the amount of profit received, savings of various types of resources and general savings from reducing production costs, the amount of national income and total social product, etc.

In the literal sense, the word “effective” means “giving an effect that leads to the desired results.” The word “efficiency” defines the relative effect, effectiveness of a process, operation, project, result obtained in relation to the costs, expenses that determined the receipt of this result.

Economic efficiency of production is understood as the degree of use of production potential, which is revealed by the ratio of the results and costs of social production. The higher the result at the same costs, the faster it grows per unit of useful effect, the higher the production efficiency. Production efficiency is an indicator of production activity in the distribution and processing of resources for the purpose of producing products.

Since all of the above determines the effectiveness of any type of activity (work), it fully applies to metrological work. On the one hand, metrological work requires certain costs (expenses), and on the other hand, they affect the cost of production and its quality. The correct organization of all metrological work allows not only to reduce the costs of the enterprise during the development, production, operation and disposal of products, but also to increase profits due to a higher level of quality.

The economic efficiency of metrological work is assessed at all stages of the implementation of programs to improve metrological support. In this regard, preliminary, expected and actual economic efficiency are distinguished. Preliminary economic efficiency is determined at the stage of setting up metrological research and development work and at the stage of developing programs and action plans to improve metrological support. Expected cost effectiveness is calculated when introducing new measuring equipment into metrological practice, new organizational forms for performing metrological work, when approving programs and action plans to improve metrological support, etc. Actual cost effectiveness is determined based on the results of the introduction of new equipment into the practice of the metrological service, after the implementation of programs and plans based on the actually obtained economic results and serves as the basis for economic incentives.

Economic efficiency is determined by calculating and comparing technical and economic indicators of various options for solving the same problem. The basis for comparison is the technical and economic indicators and the level of metrological support for the best metrological equipment, the best replaceable forms and methods for performing metrological work in the year immediately preceding the calculation year. The accounting year is taken to be the year of achievement of the set goal - completion of the stage of measures to improve metrological support through the introduction of new various measures provided for by the relevant programs (plans), and the beginning of obtaining the expected economic results.

Indicators of economic efficiency are: E - general economic effect for all areas of the country’s economy (integral) for the estimated period of time T r; E g - average annual integral economic effect at the enterprise; calculated coefficient E r T 0 additional capital investments required to obtain Eg.

When assessing economic efficiency, the following indicators are determined: E pr g - average annual economic effect (additional profit) of the association (enterprise); P - profitability of capital investments in measures for metrological support (compared with the industry value of this indicator); calculated coefficient E* economic efficiency and payback period T* capital additional investments related to the implementation of comprehensive programs and action plans to improve metrological support for production.

In accordance with the objectives of metrological support, the average annual economic effect E g is determined in the areas of improvement of metrological support indicated in Table. 4.1.

The annual integral economic effect from the introduction of new equipment for long-term use (with a service life of more than one year) with improved quality characteristics (performance, reliability, operating costs, etc.) can be determined as follows:

where 3 t and 3 2 are the reduced costs for the production (introduction) of a unit of basic and new equipment, rubles; B t and B 2 - annual operational productivity of a unit of basic and new equipment (annual volume of products produced using a unit of metrological work); Bj/Bj is the coefficient taking into account changes in the annual operational productivity of a unit of new equipment compared to the base one; Pj and P 2 - the share of deductions for complete restoration (renovation) of the cost of a unit of basic and new equipment (Pj and P 2 are defined as the inverse of the physical service life of the equipment); E n - the coefficient of economic efficiency of capital investments adopted for all areas of the country’s economy (for approximate calculations, one can take E n = 0,15);

Coefficient of accounting for changes in the service life of a unit of new equipment compared to the base one; And 1 and I 2 - annual operating costs when using a unit of basic and new equipment, rub.; K E) and K E2 - common accompanying drops Table 4.1

Directions for improving metrological support

Event		for work
1. Development and implementation of new measurement tools and methods
Replacing SI with a more modern one	1. Reducing operating costs for servicing measuring equipment. 2. Reducing losses from measurement error	Costs of purchasing measuring instruments, their transportation, installation and maintenance
Development and implementation of new measurement methods	1. Reducing losses from measurement errors. 2. Reducing the cost of measurements	Costs for developing a new method, purchasing equipment and measuring instruments
2. Development and implementation of new tools and methods for technical and metrological maintenance of measuring instruments
Organization of calibration and repairs by the enterprise	1. Reducing current costs for verification, transportation and preparation of instruments. 2. Reducing the cost of purchasing and maintaining backup measuring instruments	1. Purchase and maintenance of testing equipment. 2. Additional costs for verification and repairs
Development and implementation of exemplary measuring instruments and testing equipment	1. Increased productivity and accuracy of testing work. 2. Reducing losses in the use of working measuring instruments verified using new verification equipment	1. Costs for the development, development and production of new measuring instruments and testing equipment. 2. Costs of servicing new measuring instruments and testing equipment
Introduction of new methods and means of verification		Additional costs for calibration equipment and associated capital investments
MVI certification	Improving measurement quality	Certification costs
Development and implementation of standard	1. Reducing the costs of verification and maintenance of measuring instruments.	Additional creation costs

Event	Possible sources of economic efficiency education	for work
samples of substances and materials	2. Reducing losses from measurement and control errors	and service of standard samples
3. Conducting metrological examination of design and technological documentation
Assessing the correct choice of measurement tools and methods	Reducing losses from measurement error	Costs of carrying out ME design and technological documentation
Determination of a rational nomenclature of controlled parameters	Reducing current costs in the measurement process and technological losses for product processing
Analysis of control provision with measurement tools and methods	Reducing product development time due to timely development or purchase of necessary measuring instruments
Correction of errors in design and technological documentation	Reducing the cost of adjusting documentation in production conditions

total consumer investments in the operation of a unit of basic and new equipment, rub.; A 2 is the annual volume of introduction of new equipment in the accounting year, pcs.

Presented costs

where Cj 2 is the difference in the cost of manufacturing basic and new equipment, rub.; K e e - the difference in total capital investments (one-time costs) per unit of basic and new equipment (specific capital investments), rub.

When determining K E2, it is necessary to take into account in time dynamics the costs of research and development, additional fixed assets and equipment during manufacturing, the costs of testing and fine-tuning a prototype, state acceptance tests, transportation and installation at the consumer.

When determining Eg in accordance with expression (4.1), the following are not taken into account:

Features of the formation of the overall effect of work to increase the level of MO and the quality of measurement information:
unevenness of operational indicators and costs over the years of use of measuring equipment (IT), measurement techniques (productivity, the scope of control and measurements increases over the years of operation);
reduction of economic losses and damages from improving the quality of measurements (quality of received measurement information), which is the main factor of economic efficiency;
dynamics of costs for the development and implementation of new achievements in the field of metrology and the formation of the overall result during their use within the limits of obsolescence;
incomparability of total present costs 3 { and 3 2 , And| and I 2, K E| and K E2 on the main and most important information and measurement characteristics (accuracy, range, measurement sensitivity, etc.) of the compared metrological support (MS) options.

Thus, calculations of the economic efficiency of MO products using formula (4.1) may not give sufficiently reliable and economically justified results. In this regard, when determining the economic efficiency of MO in relation to the specifics of the formation of a common economic effect in all areas of the country’s economy from work to improve MO, it is necessary to take into account the following factors:

1) the main factor in the development of MR depends on changes in the quality of the received measurement information about the physical object being studied (measured), which requires the mandatory development of special models and performance criteria;
2) the reliability of the analysis of the economic efficiency of any work to improve MO depends on the correct assessment and consideration in the general criterion of efficiency of changes in losses and losses from measurement errors;
3) in order to correctly assess the effectiveness of MO and make the optimal decision, it is necessary to take into account and compare the costs of development and implementation of technical innovations in the field of MO, as well as the service life of new measuring instruments and equipment, taking into account obsolescence in the long term.

Therefore, a criterion reflecting the formation of a general economic result while increasing the quality of the obtained measurement information can be taken as the basis for determining Eg and Eprg. This criterion is the minimum annual integral costs for the use of technical and organizational innovations in the field of MR and the resulting economic losses and losses from measurement errors (for a comparable amount of work):

where 3; nx - total annual integral costs and economic losses when using the i-th option for improving the medical education in one calculation, rub.; / - number of the compared option for improving the MO; And, - annual operating costs in the process of use in t-m year/th option for solving a metrological problem, rub.; T e- service life (validity) of the /th version of the Ministry of Defense, taking into account moral aspects, year; K e - one-time costs (capital investments) necessary for the development of the i-th solution to the metrological problem (capital investments), rub.; P, - annual integral economic losses from type I and II errors arising when used in t-m year/th option for solving the MO problem, rub.

Indicators I„K„P must first be brought to one point in time (to the calculation year) taking into account the time factor, the volume of measurements, the standards used and working conditions.

If the metrological properties of the compared options are equal, criterion (4.2) takes the following form:

Thus, in general terms, the annual integral economic effect in the i-th year of use of a unit of the analyzed object (MO measures) is the sum of economic costs obtained in the country, region, industry:

where I 1g and I 2/ are the annual current costs in the process of using a unit of the analyzed object in the i-th year before and after improving the MO; Kj and K 2 - total one-time costs per unit of the analyzed object before and after improving the MO (taking into account the dynamics and reduction to the calculated year by the time factor); B, and B 2/ - respectively, the annual volume of work performed using the replaced and new MO measure in t th year; and P 2 - total annual (integral) economic losses at a given level of MO (for the consumer and manufacturer) before and after improving MO.

An analysis of formula (4.3) shows that, in general, it is universal and can be used not only to assess the integral economic effect, but also to determine the economic efficiency of individual measures for MO both at the enterprise itself and among consumers of its products.

CONTROL QUESTIONS

1. What is meant by preliminary, expected and actual economic efficiency?
2. In what areas is the average annual economic effect of E g determined?
3. What does the annual integral economic effect from the introduction of new technology for long-term use depend on?
4. What factors must be taken into account when determining the economic efficiency of metrological support?
5. What does the annual integral economic effect depend on?

Panfilova Oksana Valerievna, Master's student, Faculty of Economics and Management, Volgograd State Technical University, Russia

Improvement of Metrological Facilities as Factor of Increasing Competitiveness of Industrial Enterprises

Publish your monograph in good quality for only 15 rubles!
The basic price includes text proofreading, ISBN, DOI, UDC, BBK, legal copies, uploading to the RSCI, 10 author’s copies with delivery throughout Russia.

Moscow + 7 495 648 6241

Sources:

1. Methods for determining the economic efficiency of metrological work. – M.: Standards Publishing House, 1987. – 96 p.
2. Recommendations of the State Survey Methods for determining the economic efficiency of metrological work.
3. Basic terms in the field of metrology. – M.: Standards Publishing House, 1989.
4. Chirkov A.P. On the formation and development of the economics of metrology in Russia // Legislative and applied metrology, 2010. – No. 3.

Evaluating the effectiveness of metrological support work. Improving metrological support for production as a factor in increasing the competitiveness of an enterprise Criteria for assessing the work of metrologists

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

Economic efficiency.

We recommend other articles

Evaluating the effectiveness of metrological support work. Improving metrological support for production as a factor in increasing the competitiveness of an enterprise Criteria for assessing the work of metrologists

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

Economic efficiency.

We recommend other articles

Improving metrological support for production as a factor in increasing the competitiveness of an enterprise Criteria for assessing the work of metrologists

OSAGO online at the insurance company Zetta