Operational model of labor productivity in the management of distributed engineering infrastructure

Economy and management of enterprise and complexes
Authors:
Abstract:

Under conditions of limited opportunities for extensive infrastructure renewal, the impor-tance of labor productivity in contemporary service-industrial and manufacturing enterprises that ensure the functioning of a geographically distributed network of engineering facilities is increasing. The system of business processes of the economic activities of such enterprises constitutes the object of the present study. For such enterprises, labor productivity depends not only on the number of employees and the total volume of work performed, but also on the structure of tasks, planning density, intensity of site visits, and personnel travel time. This determines the need to search for models for improving labor productivity that take into account measurable characteristics of business processes. The aim of the study is to develop an operational model of labor productivity for these enterprises that represents this indicator as an analytically interpretable dependence on measurable characteristics of business processes, as well as to formulate and substantiate directions for optimizing economic activity. The research methodology is based on the operationalization of labor productivity through parameters that reflect the organization of work and working time costs. The empirical basis of the study is a cross-section of operational data from a large Russian service-industrial enterprise, Russian Television and Radio Broadcasting Network, for 2025, including indicators for engineering facilities, maintenance units, and territorial branches, as well as derived indicators calculated on their basis. The study identifies controllable factors and diagnostic indicators that characterize the structure of work, frequency and intensity of site visits, planning density, and personnel travel time. The scientific novelty of the study lies in transforming labor productivity from an aggregated reporting indicator into an operationally decomposable value linked to observable process characteristics. The results of the empirical testing show that the parameters of the proposed model are represented in operational data, can be calculated, and make it possible to interpret differences in labor productivity between comparable facilities and units. The practical value of the study lies in the possibility of using the model to identify organizational reasons for differences in labor costs and to justify directions for increasing labor productivity without reducing the analysis to universal standards. The study concludes that the proposed model is applicable for the analytical description of labor productivity using data from a large enterprise. The limitation of the study is related to the use of cross-sectional data for a single period. Further research should focus on the use of panel data, testing the stability of the identified relationships over time, and clarifying the boundaries of applicability of the model for different types of enterprises.

  • References

    1. Akaev A.A., Sadovnichii V.A. (2021) The Human Component as a Determining Factor of Labor Productivity in the Digital Economy. Studies on Russian Economic Development, 32 (1), 29–36. DOI: 10.1134/S1075700721010020

    2. Tian M., Chen Y., Tian G., Huang W., Hu C. (2023) The role of digital transformation practices in the operations improvement in manufacturing firms: A practice-based view. International Journal of Production Economics, 262, art. no. 108929. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2023.108929

    3. Fulgenzi R., Gitto S., Mancuso P. (2024) Information and communication technology and labour productivity growth: a production-frontier approach. Annals of Operations Research, 333, 123–156. DOI: 10.1007/s10479-024-05818-8

    4. Li W., Yang X., Yin X. (2024) Digital transformation and labor upgrading. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 83, art. no. 102280. DOI: 10.1016/j.pacfin.2024.102280

    5. Wang D., Shao X. (2024) Research on the impact of digital transformation on the production efficiency of manufacturing enterprises: Institution-based analysis of the threshold effect. International Review of Economics & Finance, 91, 883–897. DOI: 10.1016/j.iref.2024.01.046

    6. Zhou Y., Lyu J., Li L. (2025) Can digital transformation enhance labor productivity in enterprises: An analysis from the perspective of business process reengineering. PLOS One, 20 (6), art. no. e0325484. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0325484

    7. Wang J., Zhao H. (2025) Enterprise digital transformation and sustainable productivity. Discover Sustainability, 6, art. no. 308. DOI: 10.1007/s43621-025-01128-6

    8. Dalio R. (2017) How the Economic Machine Works: Leveragings and Deleveragings, Westport, CT: Bridgewater Associates.

    9. Solow R.M. (1957) Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39 (3), 312–320. DOI: 10.2307/1926047

    10. Arrow K.J. (1962) The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing. The Review of Economic Studies, 29 (3), 155–173. DOI: 10.2307/2295952

    11. Syverson C. (2011) What Determines Productivity? Journal of Economic Literature, 49 (2), 326–365. DOI: 10.1257/jel.49.2.326

    12. Zhuravlev D.M. (2024) Strategizing of digital transformation of complex socio-economic systems (ed. V.L. Kvint), St. Petersburg: IPTS SZIU RANKHiGS. DOI: 10.55959/978-5-89781-862-4

    13. Spanaki K., Dennehy D., Papadopoulos T., Dubey R. (2025) Data-driven digital transformation in operations and supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics, 284, art. no. 109599. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2025.109599

    14. Akaev A.A., Korotayev A.V. (2019) On the started upward phase of the 6th Kondratieff wave and the problems of global sustainable growth. Age of Globalization, 1 (29), 3–17. DOI: 10.30884/vglob/ 2019.01.01

    15. Brynjolfsson E., Hitt L.M. (2003) Computing Productivity: Firm-Level Evidence. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85 (4), 793–808.

    16. Brynjolfsson E., Rock D., Syverson C. (2021) The Productivity J-Curve: How Intangibles Complement General Purpose Technologies. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 13 (1), 333–372. DOI: 10.1257/mac.20180386

    17. Bloom N., Van Reenen J. (2007) Measuring and Explaining Management Practices Across Firms and Countries. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122 (4), 1351–1408. DOI: 10.1162/qjec.2007. 122.4.1351

    18. Bloom N., Brynjolfsson E., Foster L., Jarmin R., Patnaik M., Saporta-Eksten I., Van Reenen J. (2019) What Drives Differences in Management Practices? American Economic Review, 109 (5), 1648–1683. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20170491

    19. Si G., Xia T., Gebraeel N., Wang D., Pan E., Xi L. (2022) A reliability-and-cost-based frame- work to optimize maintenance planning and diverse-skilled technician routing for geographically distributed systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 226, art. no. 108652. DOI: 10.1016/j.ress. 2022.108652

    20. Tusar M.I.H., Sarker B.R. (2024) Technician assignment in multi-shift maintenance schedules in an offshore wind farm. Renewable Energy Focus, 51, art. no. 100616. DOI: 10.1016/j.ref.2024.100616

    21. Chen X., Li K., Lin S., Ding X. (2024) Technician routing and scheduling with employees’ learning through implicit cross-training strategy. International Journal of Production Economics, 271, art. no. 109208. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2024.109208

    22. Monfared M.A.S., Zio E. (2025) Maintenance planning: Reflections, lessons learned and a novel categorization. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 207, art. no. 111272. DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2025.111- 272

    23. Salzano A., Parisi C.M., Acampa G., Nicolella M. (2023) Existing assets maintenance management: Optimizing maintenance procedures and costs through BIM tools. Automation in Construction, 149, art. no. 104788. DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2023.104788

    24. Alsaffar A., Beach T., Rezgui Y. (2025) Enhancing asset management: Integrating digital twins for continuous permitting and compliance – A systematic literature review. Journal of Building Engine- ering, 99, art. no. 111515. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobe.2024.111515

    25. Gladysz B., Quadrini W., Ruppert T., Smagowicz J., Szwed C., van Erp T., Macchi M. (2025) Digital Twins in maintenance and asset management: evidence on the technology adoption from scien- tific literature and patents. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 59 (24), 452–457. DOI: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2025.11.907

    26. Afsharian M., Ahn H., Kamali S., Vilela B. (2025) DEA-based benchmarking of water and wastewater utilities: A comprehensive literature review. Utilities Policy, 95, art. no. 102024. DOI: 10.1016/j. jup.2025.102024

    27. Maziotis A., Molinos-Senante M. (2025) Benchmarking technical efficiency of water utilities in Chile under heterogeneity: A latent class frontier approach. Utilities Policy, 97, art. no. 102076. DOI: 10.1016/j.jup.2025.102076

    28. Oum T.H., Wang K., Yu C., Coppola P., Castagna L., Kato H., Le Y., Luo X., Gan S., Kim K., Kim W., Patil G., Gaur V., Circella G., Mohiuddin H., Lecompte M.C., Lim C. (2025) The WCTRS global subway efficiency benchmarking task force inaugural report: The key findings, lessons learned, policy issues investigated. Transport Policy, 162, 353–363. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2024.12.012

    29. Gunasekaran A., Patel C., McGaughey R.E. (2004) A framework for supply chain performance measurement. International Journal of Production Economics, 87 (3), 333–347. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2003. 08.003

    30. Zhuravlev D.M., Trotsenko A.N., Chaadaev V.K. (2022) Methodology and instruments of strategizing of socio-economic development of the region. Russian Journal of Industrial Economics, 15 (2), 131–142. DOI: 10.17073/2072-1633-2022-2-131-142

    31. Zhuravlev D.М., Chaadaev V.К. (2023) Modeling the Processes of a Complex Socio-Economic System and Strategic Development Priorities. Strategizing: Theory and Practice, 3 (1), 1–20. DOI: 10.21-603/2782-2435-2023-3-1-1-20

     

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Previous articleNext article