sustainability

Article
Use of the Value Chain in the Process of Generating a
Sustainable Business Strategy on the Example of
Manufacturing and Industrial Enterprises in the
Czech Republic
Jarmila Straková 1, * , Ismi Rajiani 2, * , Petra Pártlová 1 , Jan Váchal 1 and Ján Dobrovič 1
1 Faculty of Corporate Strategy, Department of Management, Institute of Technology and Business in České
Budějovice, Okružní 517/10, 370 01 České Budějovice, Czech Republic; [email protected] (P.P.);
[email protected] (J.V.); [email protected] (J.D.)
2 Faculty of Economics & Business, Department of Management, Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik, Jl.
Sumatra 101 Gresik, Jawa Timur 61121, Indonesia
* Correspondence: [email protected] (J.S.); [email protected] (I.R.); Tel.: +420-725-564-423 (J.S.)




Received: 4 January 2020; Accepted: 12 February 2020; Published: 18 February 2020


Abstract: This paper presents a method of generating a business strategy using value chain analysis.
There were 186 manufacturing and industrial enterprises from the Czech Republic. The analysis
was carried out using mathematical–statistical methods (dimensional reduction, logit regression
and its transformation in order to objectify the opinion level of the managers) and with a neural
network in terms of validation of the results of the mathematical–statistical methods. The aim was
to determine the significance of different parts of the value chain in terms of their impact on the
profitability of an enterprise and to demonstrate its important role in the process of generating
business strategy. The significance for the profitability of the enterprises was statistically proven in
the area of scientific and technological development, input logistics and human resource management.
These parts were identified by the authors as the golden triangle of manufacturing and industry.
Purchasing and output logistics were identified as the parts with a negative impact to the profitability
of the enterprises. Strong underestimation of scientific and technological development by the top
managers of the manufacturing and industrial enterprises is seen as a very negative finding. Neural
networks showed higher statistical sensitivity compared to the mathematical–statistical methods
(dimensional reduction and logit regression). They defined the value sector chain with the following
structure (ranked from the highest degree of positive impact on the profitability of the enterprise):
human resource management, scientific and technological development, production, input logistics,
purchasing, material management, output logistics, enterprise infrastructure, marketing and sales,
service and other supporting services. In conclusion, it is stated that the sector value chain of
manufacturing and industrial enterprises will be further decomposed into value chain models of
specific industries of the production and industry, such as engineering and construction, intended for
direct use in different business entities to generate their unique value chains and corporate strategies.

Keywords: value chain; business strategy; profitability; competitiveness; sustainability;

competitive advantage

1. Introduction
The impact of a new paradigm related to the introduction of new information technologies,
innovation, and digitization processes taking place in the internal environment of enterprises is
increasingly reflected in business practice [1–3]. Such changes, however, are not followed by appropriate

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1520; doi:10.3390/su12041520 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1520 2 of 15

changes taken by the enterprises in the enterprise architecture, including the generation of corporate
strategies. Scientific institutions, including universities, need to play a crucial role in addressing this
limiting issue in terms of sustainability of enterprises.
The current state of scientific knowledge in the field of corporate strategy creation, its structure,
form and implementation, together with its decomposition into partial strategies including the methods
of its implementation, is described as inconsistent and difficult to use in business practice.
The authors of this paper were directly confronted with such a negative and worsening situation
in the framework of cooperation with business practice, in particular with top business managers. A
similar situation arises in the educational field at universities, where the requirements of enterprises for
knowledge and skills competences of university graduates in a number of areas, especially in the field
of strategic management and decision making of companies, differ considerably from the content and
form of teaching of courses related to business strategy. These facts have become the main accelerator
and motivation to start our research activities and write this paper. This paper focuses on one of the
possible approaches to creating a business strategy, using a value chain, with the aim of contributing to
the above-mentioned paradigm in business management.

2. Literature Review
Demir et al. [4] and Dagnino et al. [5] notice an increased pace of change in the current business
environment disrupting established industry practices, stating that increasing the speed and intensity
of process changes might have a profound impact on business strategy. The gradual digitization
of the strategy is mentioned by Wirtz, Pistoia and Ullrich [2], and digitizing business models
are also mentioned [2,3,6]. Major changes are also taking place in the world and the European
market ring, including the internationalization of trade [7,8], ending globalization and beginning
glocalization, together with geographic changes in terms of economic world centers [9,10]. What is
important, however, is that these changes disrupt the existing competitive advantage of enterprises [11].
Borshchevska [12] states that, like any complex phenomenon, competitiveness is factor-based or rather
factor-dependent. For this reason, there are a myriad of ways to define competitiveness depending on
the factors preferred [12].
The resources and concepts of building a competitive advantage have been analyzed and discussed
in detail for many years and other new exploitation strategies are proposed, some of which, for example,
Adamik and Nowicki [13], are more accurate, others less, confusing the enterprises in relation to
the strategic steps the organization should follow. Strategy itself has been studied as an implicit
management concept since the 1950s and has always been primarily aimed at gaining a competitive
advantage, which may be one of the keys to corporate sustainability [14]. The pressure on enterprises
to operate sustainably will gradually increase, requiring enterprises to adopt a systemic approach
that integrates all dimensions of sustainability, creating value not only for the customer but for all
stakeholders (including the society or the environment) [15,16].
For the projection of corporate strategy, enterprises use strategic situational analysis (SSA) of
varying degrees. The internal and external business environment is analyzed and evaluated through
the use of the internal and external strategic analyses and the output is a basis for the formulation
of corporate strategy. Wang [17] states that the enterprises mostly do not process strategic analyzes
themselves because of their time-consuming nature, using rather the services of external organizations,
which, however, tend to be very costly. Downey [18] describes that all analytical tools rely on historical,
backward data extrapolating future assumptions, and he points out that caution is important when
interpreting their results, as the results may be affected by prejudices and pressures within the enterprise.
Frost [19] and Knott [20], on the other hand, argue that strategic analysis tools and techniques support
the strategic thinking of managers, reduce the risk associated with their decision-making and are the
starting point for strategic management activities. According to an internal survey by the authors,
strategic analysis tools are used by about a quarter of the enterprises in the Czech business environment,
compared to more than 50% of enterprises [21] globally, by the survey of Gunn and Williams [22].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1520 3 of 15

Many authors (including the authors of this paper) believe that generating a corporate strategy based
on a number of internal and external analytical tools is starting to fail in the corporate sector [21,23–27].
The authors agree that this traditional approach (the use of SSA) provides only a retrospective view of
the competitive position of the enterprise and shows above all the financial nature of the performance.
Kennerley and Neely [27] note that the shortcomings of traditional approaches have revolutionized
corporate strategy generation.
Porter’s scientific work marked a turning point in the perception of corporate strategy
generation [28–30]. M. Porter speaks of corporate strategy as a competitive strategy and describes a
different procedure for generating it. It underlines the strong importance, role and role of the model
of five competitive forces and the value chain, defined as a powerful tool to break down a business
into strategically important activities that result in higher prices or lower costs [31]. The value chain
analysis is a tool for understanding the activities that create the business value. It helps the enterprises
identify their position and analyze value chain activities, and to eliminate the activities that do not add
value to the product or service [32]. Porter’s value chain assumes that an enterprise is a system of
inputs, transformation processes, and outputs. Each activity in the system involves the acquisition and
consumption of resources. The way an organization performs value chain activities determines the
costs and profits [33,34]. The value chains of the enterprises in different industries are different, and
also different value chains are created by the enterprises in the same sector. Such structure depends on
the strategy of the enterprise and corporate traditions [35]. The value chain approach is a method of
decomposing an enterprise into strategically important activities, while the overall logic of creating a
value chain with generic categories of the activities is valid in all industries [28,36].
The concept of the value chain was also discussed by many other authors, such as Hill and
Jones [37], Robbins and Coulter [38], Mallya [39], Feller et al. [40] and Bedeley et al. [41]. McGuffog and
Wadsley [42] notice that the profitability of enterprises depends both on the structure of the industry,
and on the value that the enterprise creates over its competitors. Understanding whether an enterprise
has the potential to create added value and whether it can use it in the future is an essential step in
diagnosing its potential [43]. Feller et al. [40] describe that by implementing primary and secondary
activities, the business entity creates a value that customers are willing to pay for, and if that value
exceeds the costs incurred for all activities carried out, the business entity becomes profitable.
McPhee and Wheeler [44] discussed the value development and noted that in the context of
economic globalization and concepts such as offshoring, outsourcing, brand marketing and the
knowledge economy, the rankings of values have changed dramatically in last twenty years. They
consider the name and reputation of the business entity and its skills and abilities (goodwill) to be the
new sources of value added. Both Porter and Magretta [31] take a different view, disagreeing with
the managers who talk about how skills and competences create value. According to them, it is the
activities that completely decide whether a business entity has a competitive advantage or not. The
experience of famous companies in terms of value chain theory resulted in these organizations being
often subject to radical restructuring in both primary and ancillary activities, causing high volatility
and a challenge for market competition, and significant changes in supply chain structure [45,46].
The authors respect and do not trivialize the importance of strategic situational analysis. However,
they are in favor of M. Porter’s view and consider the value chain analysis, including the analysis
of the internal structure of the sector, as the primary approach in developing a competitive business
strategy. Only the business strategy, generated in this way, ensures the required competitiveness and
sustainability for an enterprise in the new geographic and economic–economic context of the world,
Europe, region and municipality.
Two research hypotheses are formulated in the research:
Hypotheses (H1): The sector value chain is the first step in generating a sustainable business strategy.
Hypotheses (H2): Dimensional reduction method and logit regression including the use of neural networks are
suitable methods for value chain analysis with production and economically sustainable outputs.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1520 4 of 15

3. Material and Methods

Research dealing with the issue of strategy management and decision making, strategic situational
analysis and the use of its most common analytical tools to generate corporate strategy in Czech
enterprises started in 2016.
It was carried out through an extensive questionnaire survey, where the target group consisted of
the top managers of the enterprises. Before starting the field survey, the questionnaire was assessed
by the representatives of the business community and representatives of the scientific community
of the relevant field. In order to ensure the quality of the research, the interviewer team was set
up and trained, and the research was conducted both on the basis of direct personal questioning
and electronically. The trained interviewing team comprised 21 interviewers. A total of 70% of the
enterprises completed the answers using a contact questionnaire and 30% were done electronically.
More than 15% of the questionnaires were discarded due to incorrect and incomplete answers. The
research was carried out in the period of economic growth, so that the profitable enterprises are the
most common in the sample.
The sub-sample of 186 industrial enterprises used in the research is a part of the total sample
of more than 550 business entities for the sectors of production and services from the whole Czech
Republic. Its size and sectoral categorization corresponds to the structure of enterprises in the Czech
Republic with a significant prevalence of the SMEs.
The methods of dimensionality reduction [47,48], regression analysis (general linear model) [49]
and its transformation were used to test the significance of individual components of the value chain
and for the objectification of the responses of the top managers of the sample enterprises. Neural
networks were used to validate the results obtained from dimensional reduction calculations.

3.1. Dimensionality Reduction

This method estimates the dimension and central subspace of the general linear model. That is, to
find the p x d dimensional matrix B of the minimum value of d such that
 
F ( y  x ) = F ( y  B0 x ) , (1)

The calculation of dimensionality reduction is based on the inverse distribution of F (x | y).

The statistical software “R” was used for the calculation and the calculation method of dimensional
reduction known as slice inverse regression (SIR) was used. This method uses information from the
inverse regression curve to produce a weighted analysis of the major parts to identify the effective
directions of the dimensional reduction.

3.2. Generalized Linear Model

GLM expresses the relation between the explained variable and the set of explanatory variables
(regressors) using a regression function, which is a linear function of unknown estimated parameters.
This function is usually called the link function. Using the Statistica software, a logit model was used
where the explained variable has either a binomial distribution, known as a logistic regression, or a
multinomial distribution, known as a multinomial logit model.
µ
Xβ = ln( ) (2)
1−µ

with:

The X matrix of the independent variables (regressors, covariates) is n × p. Its jth column is labelled as XJ .
β = [β1 , . . . βp ]T is the vector of the parameters.
The response is the column vector of the random variables, type n × 1, means y = [ y1 , y2 . . . yn ]T .
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1520 5 of 15

The random part of the model is of a vector of the expected value E(Y) = µ type n × 1 and the
covariance matrix of cov(Y).
Linear predictor η is the system part of the linear model, as follows:
p
X
η= x jβ j, (3)
j=0

with xj as the jth column of X matrix, i.e., the vector n × 1.

3.3. Transformation Model

In order to compare the data reported by top managers and the results of a logit model that is
optimal against profit maximization, estimates of the model’s regression parameters were transformed
into the scale used by the top managers in their responses.
The value chain was transformed in the following way:

βej = (β j − min βi )/( max βi − min βi ), j = 1, . . . , p, (4)

i=l,...p i=l,...p i=l,...p

The values of transformed estimates have the same range as the values reported by the managers.
By comparing the average of the values given by the managers and the transformed value chain
estimate, the percentage difference between reality and the optimal model was obtained.

3.4. Neural Networks

The calculation used Statistica software, version 12, from DELL, using the neural network
datamining tool in particular. The “automated neural networks” tool was used for the calculation. The
dependent variable was the profit and the independent variable was the HRZ—value chain. The data
was divided into three groups:

1. Training: 70%,
2. Testing: 15%,
3. Validation: 15%.

The random seed value was set to be 1000.

Sub-sampling was random. Multilayer perceptron networks (MLP) and radial basic function
neural networks (RBF) were used to determine the appropriate classification neural structure. In the
case of multilayer perceptron networks, the minimum number of hidden neurons in the hidden layer
was set to two and the maximum number of hidden neurons to 25. For RBF, at least four neurons were
used in the hidden layer. The maximum number was not set.
Both the hidden layer and the output layer of the neural structure were determined as activation
functions:

1. Identity:
f (x) = ld x, (5)
2. Logistic function:
L
f (x) = , (6)
1 + e−k(x−xe )
3. Hyperbolic tangens:
1 − e−t
S(t) = , (7)
1 + e−t
4. Exponential function:
f (x) = bx + c, (8)
5. Sinus:
f (x) = sinx, (9)
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1520 6 of 15

In the model, 10,000 neuron structures were generated and five of them with the best characteristics
were used. The error was measured by the sum of the least squares and by entropy. If each other
trained network did not show a significant improvement, the training was terminated. Other settings
were default. Finally, a correction was made using the VNS tool [50].
If the network performance was high in all three samples (test, training and validation), i.e., higher
than 0.7, the top managers behaved in their decisions quite rationally. If the performance ranged from
0.5 to 0.7, the managers behaved mostly rationally. However, if network performance was less than 0.5,
the managers acted irrationally.

4. Results
The results from dimensional reduction in terms of significance of value chain value factors are as
follows. The following equation was used for the calculation:
Dr( f ormula = HV ∼ VSTUPLOG + VYROBA + VYSTUPLOG + MARK + SERVIS
+NAKUP + VTR + RLZ + PINF, data = MS, MVP, method = “sir”)
Variables of the value chain:
VSTUPLOG—input logistics, VYROBA—production, VYSTUPLOG—output logistics,
MARK—marketing and sales, SERVIS—repair and other services, NAKUP—purchase/material
management, VTR—scientific and technical development, RLZ—human resource management,
PINF—enterprise infrastructure, MVP—production and industry, HV—profit/loss.
Using the method of dimensional reduction, a positive impact on the profitability of business
entities was found for scientific and technological development and input logistics, and for human
resource management to a lesser extent. These factors are considered to be dominant in terms of
value-added creation.
However, another issue is related to their real use in business practice. Scientific and technological
development is generally considered to be an accelerator of the national economy; a statistically
significant result for this part of the value chain is considered as rather favorable and a theoretically
positive finding.
Similarly, two related indicated parts of the value chain are characterized this way, as the
importance of input logistics for the manufacturing and industry sector is unquestionable (it is
dominant for many business entities, especially for complex, demanding and highly innovative
products) in generating the added value.
Such positively important parts are summed up into the golden triangle of the manufacturing and
industry sectors in the current market environment. The golden triangle is not fixed and its validity
is limited by the developmental stages of the economy and the interaction of competitive factors in
the competitive ring of the industry. It can be said that it is a basic prerequisite for generating unique
value-creating processes in an enterprise and its competitiveness.
Purchases and partly also output logistics were found to be negative parts affecting the profitability.
Purchasing results are explained by price volatility in the area of raw materials resources and the creation
of new raw materials centers in Europe and in the world, and also by the increasing market competition
for production inputs in some industries such as engineering, plastics, chemicals and the food industry.
Output logistics in this sector is currently focused mainly on strengthening final inspection due to
the ever-increasing demands of customers on product quality.
Environmental issues are also at the forefront, i.e., ensuring production that will not endanger
different parts of the environment. In the future, operations related to the storage and shipping of
finished products will continue to be subject to automation and robotization processes to streamline
output logistics within the enterprise. Based on the above-mentioned, it is possible to expect
strengthening and refurbishment of output logistics and its even closer connection with input logistics
in the long term. In this sector, the differences between input and output logistics will be eliminated
gradually and business logistics will be ensured as one process component in two access levels.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1520 7 of 15

In the following part of the research, the calculation was performed using the general linear model
and its transformation. The following equation was used to calculate the optimal model:
glm( f ormula = ZISK ∼ VSTUPLOGF + VYROBA + VYSTUPLOG + MARK + SERVIS
+NAKUP + VTR + RLZ + PINF + VELPOD, f amily
= binominal(link = “logit”), data = MVP
Variables of the value chain:
VSTUPLOG—input logistics, VYROBA—production, VYSTUPLOG—output logistics,
MARK—marketing and sales, SERVIS—repair and other services, NAKUP—purchase / material
management, VTR—scientific and technical development, RLZ—human resource management,
PINF—enterprise infrastructure, MVP—production and industry
By comparing the results in Tables 1 and 2 (dimensional reduction of the value production
potential of the enterprises and its optimal model), it sees three parts of the value chain in terms of
positive significance in input logistics and scientific and technological development and negative
significance in purchasing. In this case, the commentary on the results of Table 1 is fully valid. As
noticed before, the research took place in a period of strong economic growth, and it is assumed that
such economic reality significantly affects the dominance and weakness of the different components of
the value chain. This is particularly noticeable in the optimal model, which has precisely defined time
validity. In the growth period, the importance of input logistics as an organizational tool and scientific
and technological development as an innovative tool is increasing naturally. A further comparison of
the above tables shows that the human resource management component contained in Table 1 is not
represented in the optimal value chain model.

Table 1. From the dimensional reduction in terms of the significance of the value-creating factors of the
value chain.
Dir1
Value Chain Activities
Manufacturing and Industry
Input logistics 0.46983
Production 0.12189
Output logistics −0.21121
Marketing and sales 0.02312
Repair and other services −0.05822
Purchase −0.41119
Scientific and technological development 0.62247
Human resource management 0.37053
Enterprise infrastructure 0.14844
Input logistics 0.46983
Source: authors.

Table 2. Value chain model.

Estimate Std. Error Value Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept) 0.66333 0.53480 1.240 0.2148
Input logistics 0.78793 0.42570 1.851 0.0642 *
Production 0.34257 0.44925 0.763 0.4457
Output logistics −0.17256 0.42135 −0.410 0.6821
Marketing and sales 0.15658 0.36556 0.428 0.6684
Repair and other services −0.03553 0.39430 −0.090 0.9282
Purchase −0.72805 0.38936 −1.870 0.0615 *
Scientific and technological development 1.62826 0.79296 2.053 0.0400 **
Human resource management 0.62573 0.51448 1.126 0.2239
Enterprise infrastructure 0.22014 0.56030 0.393 0.6944
Size of enterprise: micro −0.60972 0.59206 −1.030 0.3031
Size of enterprise: middle-sized −0.36661 0.45623 −0.804 0.4216
Size of enterprise: large −0.29715 0.53138 −0.559 0.5760
Signif.codes: 0.01 ‘**’ 0.05 ‘*’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1; Source: authors.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1520 8 of 15

The identified output fully confirms the previous statement that when the value of the company,
production and efficiency grows, human resources are increasingly involved until they are exhausted
and become the limit of the existence and sustainability of the enterprise. This situation occurs both in
the Czech and in other European economies.
The results (Table 3) show a strong underestimation of scientific and technological development,
which is a general trend in the entire Czech national economy.

Table 3. Transformed optimal value chain—-“error rate” of the managers.

Value Chain Activities Transformed VC Values “Error Rate” of Managers

Input logistics 0.6433694 0.2240146
Production 0.4543599 −0.3735971
Output logistics 0.2357435 −0.2266221
Marketing and sales 0.3754306 −0.08693502
Repair and other services 0.2938995 −0.02330477
Purchase 0.0000000 −0.3548387
Scientific and technological development 1.0000000 0.8655914
Human resource management 0.5745327 0.3487262
Enterprise infrastructure 0.4024020 0.2411117
Source: authors.

Despite the ever-increasing financial and material investment in science and research by both
the government and the private sector, the transfer of actionable outputs to business practice is
not significantly increased and the Czech enterprise are lagging behind in this respect (with some
generalization). Objectively, it should be stated that 2019, and especially the following years, might
become a turning point in such a negative situation. When arranging the research projects and grants
to research organizations and the Academy of Sciences, business practice requirements are increasingly
respected and directly formulated by them, reporting a fundamentally different approach from the
previous period.
Such a negative business experience has contributed to the emergence of a negative attitude of
managers towards research organizations in the past. The outputs also show that to a lesser extent,
human resources, closely related to scientific and technological development, are underestimated and
both components are mutually dependent. The human resources are previously discussed in Tables 1
and 2; in addition to the above comments, another aspect is emphasized, namely their quality, where
the professional and uniform skills of the managers, including their competencies, grow significantly
in line with the growing technological and innovative maturity of the enterprises.
Neural networks were used to validate the results of the dimensional reduction, optimal model
and its transformation. Furthermore, the results of the statistical methods were compared. In case of
agreement of the results and slight deviations the results are considered credible.
Considering 10,000 neural networks, five best multilayer perceptron networks were kept (Table 4).
The performance of the training, testing, and validation datasets is above 70. All networks were created
using the Quasi-Newton (BFGS) algorithm. Entropy is used as an error function for networks 1, 2, 3,
and 5; and the sum of squares for network 4. Considering the activation in the hidden layer of neurons,
the exponential function is used in the first and fourth networks, the logistic function in networks 2
and 5 and the hyperbolic tangent in network 3. Softmax was used to activate the output neurons for
networks 1, 2, 3 and 5. For network 4, it is a logistic function.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1520 9 of 15

Table 4. Chain active networks.

Overview of Active Networks (Data—Current State Calculation 2)

Name of Training Test Valid. Error Activation of Output
Training algorithm
network perform. perform. per. function hidden layer activation fce
MLP
1 71.96970 74.07407 70.37037 BFGS (Quasi-Newton) 6 Entropy Exponential Softmax
18-24-3
MLP
2 75.75758 74.07407 74.07407 BFGS (Quasi-Newton) 13 Entropy Logistic Softmax
18-16-3
MLP
3 75.75758 77.77778 77.77778 BFGS (Quasi-Newton) 14 Entropy Tang Softmax
18-19-3
MLP
4 73.48485 74.07407 74.07407 BFGS (Quasi-Newton) 17 Sum.sq. Exponential Logistic
18-15-3
MLP
5 76.51515 74.07407 74.07407 BFGS (Quasi-Newton) 15 Entropy Logistic Softmax
18-16-3
Source: authors.

Table 5 shows that none of the networks can predict the correct negative economic result (loss).
With some differences, networks can predict zero and positive economic results (profit). The best
estimate of future zero earnings are revealed by network MLP 18-19-3 in 13% of cases; network 5 MLP
18-16-3 correctly estimates zero profit in 11% of cases. A detailed view of the results is given in Table 6.

Table 5. Chain substitution matrix.

6HVSoucC (Substitution Matrix)

Prediction
(Data—-Current State Calculation 2)
Category Samples: Training, Testing, Validation
HVSoucC–1 HVSoucC-0 HVSoucC-1
1. MLP 18-24-3–1 0 0 0
1. MLP 18-24-3-0 0 4 5
1. MLP 18-24-3-1 9 38 130
2. MLP 18-16-3–1 0 0 0
2. MLP 18-16-3-0 0 10 5
2. MLP 18-16-3-1 9 32 130
3. MLP 18-19-3–1 0 0 1
3. MLP 18-19-3-0 1 13 5
3. MLP 18-19-3-1 8 29 129
4. MLP 18-15-3–1 0 0 0
4. MLP 18-15-3-0 0 10 8
4. MLP 18-15-3-1 9 32 127
5. MLP 18-16-3–1 0 0 0
5. MLP 18-16-3-0 0 11 5
5. MLP 18-16-3-1 9 31 130
Source: authors

Table 6. Chain summary of classifications.

HVSoucC (Summary of Classifications)

(Data—-Current State Calculation 2)
Samples: Training. Testing. Validation
HVSoucC–1 HVSoucC-0 HVSoucC-1 HVSoucC-Total
1. MLP 18-24-3 Total 9.0000 42.00000 135.0000 186.0000
Correct 0.0000 4.00000 130.0000 134.0000
Incorrect 9.0000 38.00000 5.0000 52.0000
Correct (%) 0.0000 9.52381 96.2963 72.0430
Incorrect (%) 100.0000 90.47619 3.7037 27.9570
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1520 10 of 15

Table 6. Cont.

HVSoucC (Summary of Classifications)

(Data—-Current State Calculation 2)
Samples: Training. Testing. Validation
HVSoucC–1 HVSoucC-0 HVSoucC-1 HVSoucC-Total
2. MLP 18-16-3 Total 9.0000 42.00000 135.0000 186.0000
Correct 0.0000 10.00000 130.0000 140.0000
Incorrect 9.0000 32.00000 5.0000 46.0000
Correct (%) 0.0000 23.80952 96.2963 75.2688
Incorrect (%) 100.0000 76.19048 3.7037 24.7312
3. MLP 18-19-3 Total 9.0000 42.00000 135.0000 186.0000
Correct 0.0000 13.00000 129.0000 142.0000
Incorrect 9.0000 29.00000 6.0000 44.0000
Correct (%) 0.0000 30.95238 95.5556 76.3441
Incorrect (%) 100.0000 69.04762 4.4444 23.6559
4. MLP 18-15-3 Total 9.0000 42.00000 135.0000 186.0000
Correct 0.0000 10.00000 127.0000 137.0000
Incorrect 9.0000 32.00000 8.0000 49.0000
Correct (%) 0.0000 23.80952 94.0741 73.6559
Incorrect (%) 100.0000 76.19048 5.9259 26.3441
5. MLP 18-16-3 Total 9.0000 42.00000 135.0000 186.0000
Correct 0.0000 11.00000 130.0000 141.0000
Incorrect 9.0000 31.00000 5.0000 45.0000
Correct (%) 0.0000 26.19048 96.2963 75.8065
Incorrect (%) 100.0000 73.80952 3.7037 24.1935
Source: authors.

Explanatory notes:

HVSoucC—1 negative results (loss)

HVSoucC-0 balanced results
HVSoucC-1 positive results (profit)

As revealed by Table 6, network 3 correctly estimates 30.95% of cases for zero profit and 95.56% of
cases for positive profit. MLP 18-16-3 network correctly estimates 26.19% of cases with zero profit and
96.30% of cases with positive profit. In practice, network 3 is applicable. Table 6 is followed by the
results of the sensitivity analysis (Tables 7 and 8).

Table 7. Value chain: summary of classifications.

Sensitivity Analysis (Data—-Current State Calculation 2)

Network Samples: Training. Testing. Validation
VSTUP VYSTUP
RLZ VTR VYROBA NAKUP PINF
LOG LOG
1. MLP
1.049400 1.243114 1.048622 1.081940 1.029558 1.016740 1.039805
18-24-3
2. MLP
1.783906 1.572670 1.245523 1.351343 1.359443 1.408332 1.425715
18-16-3
3. MLP
1.702912 1.803558 1.396182 1.298427 1.261572 1.232405 1.321617
18-19-3
4. MLP
1.477925 1.406646 1.342680 1.287669 1.228830 1.150128 1.032551
18-15-3
5. MLP
1.589430 1.481737 1.414520 1.397936 1.402258 1.367124 1.277908
18-16-3
Average 1.520715 1.501545 1.289505 1.283463 1.256332 1.234946 1.219519
Source: authors.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1520 11 of 15

Table 8. Value chain: sensitivity analysis (second part).

Sensitivity Analysis (Data—-Current State Calculation 2)

Network Samples: Training. Testing. Validation
MARK SERVIS
1. MLP 18-24-3 1.032285 1.003745
2. MLP 18-16-3 1.277958 1.083770
3. MLP 18-19-3 1.300687 1.134536
4. MLP 18-15-3 1.172191 1.111847
5. MLP 18-16-3 1.240417 1.087514
Average 1.204708 1.084282
Source: authors.

Explanatory notes:
VSTUPLOG—input logistics, VYROBA—production, VYSTUPLOG—output logistics,
MARK—marketing and sales, SERVIS—repair and other services, NAKUP—purchase / material
management, VTR—scientific and technical development, RLZ—human resource management,
PINF—enterprise infrastructure.
Sensitivity analysis using neural networks showed significant agreement with the results of
dimensional reduction, and partly with the regression analysis as performed, in the following parts:
scientific and technological development, input logistics and human resources. Table 7a,b show that
the first position of predictors affecting profit/loss is the human resource management, followed
by the scientific and technological development, production, input logistics, purchasing, material
management, output logistics, enterprise infrastructure, marketing and sales. Repair and other services
were ranked as the least important. At the same time, the agreement in the outputs also indicates the
suitability of the methods used for the analysis of the value chain.

5. Discussion
The results presented in this paper are aimed at verifying scientific hypotheses. These were based
on the scientific direction which the authors of the paper fully respected in their scientific work, namely
from Porter’s scientific approach of creating competitiveness and value in the enterprise. There are
many followers of such approach, such as Hill and Jones [37], Robbins and Coulter [38], Magretta [31],
Zhang [32], and Nagy et al. [35]. In general, it says that a business strategy is a competitive strategy. It
also emphasizes the irreplaceability of the five competitive forces model and the value chain [51,52].
In order to test the first hypothesis, claiming that the value chain is the first step in generating a
sustainable business strategy, the answer needs to be divided into two levels. It was confirmed in
accordance with the research direction that it is possible to test the activities of the value chain for
their impact on the profitability of the enterprise. It is possible to differentiate such activities, their
dimension and the direction of their impact in terms of corporate sustainability.
The authors are aware that the outputs might be limited by the sectoral testing level. In further
research, the authors consider it necessary, following the findings of the analysis of the value chain, to
descend from the sectoral level to the level of different industries where several value chain models
can be defined. Based on general industry-specific models, an enterprise can create a unique value
chain that would provide the enterprise with a long-term sustainable competitive advantage and
profitability. Here too, the theory of the irreplaceability of the sectoral level in generating a highly
competitive business strategy ensuring the financial and economic sustainability of the enterprise and
its stability is confirmed. The hypothesis is considered confirmed together with the scientific direction
of its definition.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1520 12 of 15

Regarding the second hypothesis concerning the suitability of the use of mathematical and
statistical methods and neural networks for the analysis of the value chain with production and
economically sustainable outputs, its confirmation by the following outputs is proved.
The methods used are suitable for testing the value chain and demonstrate the agreement of
the results and corresponding level of sensitivity. The neural networks show higher sensitivity. The
researchers assume the use of methods verified at this first sectoral level and also at the industry
level. The requirements for outputs from the sectoral analysis of the value chain are given by the
requirements of the business sphere itself, meaning their direct usability in generating the corporate
strategy. In particular, the authors of the paper consider the refinement of the input information
requirements together with the process of the analysis for the industry level. Within this hypothesis, it
is proved that these methods are suitable for testing the enterprise production flows.

6. Conclusions
This paper presents a new approach designed to generate sustainable corporate strategies.
Traditional approaches that use situational analysis methods fail in current business practice. This
approach cannot be rejected in principle, however it is considered outdated and its methods are
seen as the diagnostic, signaling and pre-analysis stages of the analysis of value-creating business
processes itself.
A competitive advantage, and a competitive position generating lower costs than a competitor
and higher selling price with higher margin is fulfilled and realized within the value chain activities.
Achieving competitive advantage and long-term corporate profitability and prosperity means being
original and unique both in the product portfolio and at the same time in the management of the
corporate value and the material flow, only possible within the value-generating business components
and processes.
The customer is the most important part, and their decision is essential for the following production
process as they see the offer by the prism of its value (price, quality and attractiveness), however it
must be unique as well as the way of its realization in the business subject.
The results as discussed in the paper at the sectoral level can be perceived as method and
methodological verification and pre-accession stage before the industry analyses.
The results of the research are summarized in the following way:

• Possibility and appropriateness of the value chain analysis based on Porter’s definition of the
competitive forces proves to be a perspective analytical method in strategic management and
decision-making, in particular in generating sustainable corporate strategies.
• The analyzed agreement in the outputs indicates the suitability and applicability of the tested
analytical methods (dimensional reduction, regression analysis and neural networks).
• The nature and form of the results, although at the sectoral level, make it possible to express an
opinion on their possible use directly in the practice, provided the methodological procedure is
simplified and the relevant user software for the industry level is created.
• Neural network sensitivity analysis showed significant agreement with the outcomes of
mathematical–statistical methods (dimensional reduction and regression analysis), considered to
be a positive promise for similar analyzes in specific industries.
• In the current market environment of industrial enterprises, the dominant value creation activities
using dimensional reduction are related to the scientific and technological development, input
logistics and human resource management. These factors are defined by the authors as a sectoral
golden triangle, which is not fixed and its validity is limited by the developmental stages of the
economy and the interaction of the competitive factors in the competitive ring of the relevant
sector and the industry with the assumption of its long-term stability in general.
• Regarding the neural networks in terms of their higher degree of sensitivity, a value-generating
sectoral chain with a structure is defined (ranked from the highest degree of positive impact on the
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1520 13 of 15

profitability): human resource management, scientific and technological development, production,

input logistics, purchasing, material management, output logistics, enterprise infrastructure,
marketing and sales, and repair and other activities.
• Negative parts of the value chain (intersection of the dimensional reduction and the neural
networks) include purchase (price volatility in the area of raw materials resources, emergence
of new economic centers, intensified market competition) and output logistics resulting from
increased output control due to increasing customer demand for product quality and increasing
emphasis on the environmental issues related to the production process and its sustainability.
• The underestimation of the scientific and technological development was proved, as the long-term
negative situation in this area in the Czech Republic was confirmed. This finding is in line with
real business practice; however it is in a complete contradiction with the declared government
policy in the field of transfer of scientific knowledge to the business sphere and with the new
innovation strategy of the Czech Republic 2019–2030.

Regarding the results, the following recommendations are produced for the next research period:

• Use the same analytical method at the industry level and choose the appropriate sample
of enterprises;
• Develop the detailed methodology for collecting and adjusting input information in accordance
with the requirements of the analytical methods;
• Set precise assessment criteria for each part of the value chain;
• Develop a unified methodology for the presentation of the results of the value chain analysis;
• Ensure the same share of profitable and non-profitable enterprises in the sample;
• Know the parameters of the corporate environment in all its parts (micro, mezzo, and macro) to
generate a sustainable strategy.

The authors of the paper continue to test the creation of the competitiveness of the enterprises
using the analysis of value-generating flows. Under the conditions of the Czech Republic, and also
some other EU countries, the authors are not aware of scientific work focusing on the research of
generating a sustainable corporate strategy using the value chain. The necessity and urgency of the
issue arises from the increasingly intense competitive environment both within the European and
world economic competition area.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.S.; methodology, J.S. J.V. and P.P.; validation, J.S. and J.V.; formal
analysis, I.R., J.S. and J.V.; resources, P.P. and J.D.; writing—original draft preparation, J.S. and J.V.; writing—review
and editing, I.R., P.P. and J.D.; supervision, I.R. and J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Technology Agency of the Czech Republic, programme of ETA, project reg.
no. TL01000349 – Stabilization and development of SME in rural areas.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Meskendahl, S. The influence of business strategy on project portfolio management and its
success—A conceptual framework. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 807–817. [CrossRef]
2. Wirtz, B.W.; Pistoia, A.; Ullrich, S. Business models: Origin, development and future research perspectives.
Long Range Plan. 2016, 49, 36–54. [CrossRef]
3. Singh, G.; Gaur, L.; Agarwal, M. Factors influencing the digital business strategy. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. Humanit.
2017, 25, 1489–1500.
4. Demir, R.; Wennberg, K.; McKelvie, K. The strategic management of high-growth firms: A review and
theoretical conceptualization. Long Range Plan. 2017, 50, 431–456. [CrossRef]
5. Dagnino, G.B.; King, D.R.; Tienari, J. Strategic management of dynamic growth. Long Range Plan. 2017, 50,
427–430. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1520 14 of 15

6. Casadesus-Masanell, R.; Ricart, J.E. From strategy to business models and onto tactics. Long Range Plan. 2010,
43, 195–215. [CrossRef]
7. Harris, P.R. European challenge: Developing global organizations. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2002, 14, 416–425.
[CrossRef]
8. Barlett, A.; Ghoshal, S. What is a global manager? Harv. Bus. Rev. 2003, 81, 101–108.
9. Harford, T. The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich are Rich, the Poor are Poor—And Why you Can
Never Buy a Decent Used Car! Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005.
10. Atkinson, A.B. Ekonomika Nerovnosti; Fragment: Prague, Czech Republic, 2016.
11. Porter, M.E. The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2008, 86, 78–93.
12. Borshchevska, Y. Putting a competitive advantage at stake? Energiewende in the discursive practices of
German industrial actors. J. Int. Stud. 2016, 9, 99–123. [CrossRef]
13. Adamik, A.; Nowicki, M. Pathologies and paradoxes of co-creation: A contribution to the discussion about
corporate social responsibility in building a competitive advantage in the age of industry 4.0. Sustainability
2019, 11, 4954. [CrossRef]
14. Rodrigues, M.; Franco, M. The corporate sustainability strategy in organisations: A systematic review and
future directions. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6214. [CrossRef]
15. Bocken, N.M.P.; Rana, P.; Short, S.W. Value mapping for sustainable business thinking. J. Ind. Prod. Eng.
2015, 32, 67–81. [CrossRef]
16. Shpak, N.O.; Stanasiuk, N.S.; Hlushko, O.V.; Sroka, W. Assessment of the social and labor components of
industrial potential in the context of corporate social responsibility. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2018, 17, 209–220.
[CrossRef]
17. Wang, G. Research on business environment of construction supervison in China. In Proceedings of the
CRIOCM 2007 International Research Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real
Estate, Sydney, Australia, 8–13 August 2007; pp. 649–659.
18. Downey, J.; Strategic Analysis Tools. CIMA Global. 2007. Available online: http://www.
cimaglobal.com/Documents/ImportedDocuments/cid_tg_strategic_analysis_tools_nov07.pdf.pdf (accessed
on 1 January 2018).
19. Frost, F.A. The use of strategic tools by small and medium-sized enterprises: An Australasian study.
Strateg. Chang. 2003, 12, 49–62. [CrossRef]
20. Knott, P. A typology of strategy tool applications. Manag. Decis. 2006, 44, 1090–1105. [CrossRef]
21. Straková, J. Strategic analysis methods and their influence on stability and development of small and
medium-sized enterprises in the Czech Republic. Stud. Comer. Bratisl. 2017, 10, 196–214. [CrossRef]
22. Gunn, R.; Williams, W. Strategic tools: An empirical investigation into strategy in practice in the UK.
Strateg. Chang. J. 2007, 16, 201–216. [CrossRef]
23. Jenkins, D. Measuring Performance: A Toolkit of Traditional and Alternative Methods; Gower Pub: Burlington, VT,
USA, 2012.
24. Gunasekaran, A.; Kobu, B. Performance measures and metrics in logistics and supply chain management:
A review of recent literature (1995–2004) for research and applications. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2007, 45, 2819–2840.
[CrossRef]
25. Gavur, B.; Delina, R. Approaches to measuring and managing performance and their application possiblities
in enterprises. Ekon. Manag. Podn. 2010, 8, 5–19.
26. Chenhall, R.H. Integrative strategic performance measurement systems, strategic alignment of manufacturing,
learning and strategic outcomes: An exploratory study. Account. Organ. Soc. 2005, 30, 395–422. [CrossRef]
27. Kennerley, M.; Neely, A. A framework of the factors affecting the evolution of performance measurement
systems. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2002, 22, 1222–1245. [CrossRef]
28. Porter, M. Competitive Advantage; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985.
29. Porter, M. Recent developments in competitiveness and strategy. In Proceedings of the Porter Prize
Conference, Hitotsubashi University, Graduate School of International Corporate Strategy, Tokyo, Japan,
5 December 2012.
30. Porter, M. Shared value and strategy. In Proceedings of the Shared Value Leadership Summit, FSG,
New York, NY, USA, 12 May 2015.
31. Magretta, J. Michael Porter Jasně a Srozumitelně; Management Press: Prague, Czech Republic, 2012.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1520 15 of 15

32. Zhang, D. Porter’s five forces analysis and value chain analysis of AUX air CONDITIONING Co., Ltd.
In Proceedings of the 3RD International Conference on Social Science and Technology Education (ICSSTE
2017), Wuhan, China, 8–9 April 2017; pp. 350–354.
33. Simatupang, T.M.; Piboonrungroj, P.; Williams, S.J. The emergence of value chain thinking.
Int. J. Value Chain Manag. 2017, 8, 40–57. [CrossRef]
34. Flanagan, D.J.; Lepisto, D.A.; Ofstein, L.F. Coopetition among nascent craft breweries: A value chain analysis.
J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2018, 25, 2–16. [CrossRef]
35. Nagy, J.; Olah, J.; Erdei, E.; Mate, D.; Popp, J. The Role and impact of industry 4.0 and the internet of things
on the business strategy of the value chain-the case of Hungary. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3491. [CrossRef]
36. Koc, T.; Bozdag, E. Measuring the degree of novelty of innovation based on Porter’s value chain approach.
Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2017, 257, 559–567. [CrossRef]
37. Hill, C.W.L.; Jones, G.R. Essentials of Strategic Management, 2nd ed.; South-Western Cengage Learning: Mason,
OH, USA, 2009.
38. Robbins, S.P.; Coulter, M. Management; Grada Publishing: Prague, Czech Republic, 2004.
39. Mallya, T. Základy Strategického Řízení a Rozhodování; Grada Publishing: Prague, Czech Republic, 2007.
40. Feller, A.; Shunk, D.; Callarman, T. Value Chains Versus Supply Chains; BPTrends: Newton, MA, USA, 2006;
pp. 1–7.
41. Bedeley, R.T.; Ghoshal, T.; Iyer, L.S.; Bhadury, J. Business analytics and organizational value chains:
A relational mapping. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2018, 58, 151–161. [CrossRef]
42. McGuffog, T.; Wadsley, N. The general principles of value chain management. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J.
1999, 4, 218–225. [CrossRef]
43. Hitt, M.A.; Miller, C.C.; Colella, A. Organizational Behavior: A Strategic Approach; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken,
NJ, USA, 2009.
44. McPhee, W.; Wheeler, D. Making the case for the added-value chain. Strategy Leadersh. 2006, 34, 39–46.
[CrossRef]
45. Krykavskyy, E.V.; Patora-Wysocka, Z. Porter’s value chain (construction, deconstruction, reconstruction)
and values management. Mark. Manag. Innov. 2015, 6, 121–133.
46. Gupta, S.; Palsule-Desai, O.D. Sustainable supply chain management: Review and research opportunities.
IIMB Manag. Rev. 2011, 23, 234–245. [CrossRef]
47. Cook, R.D.; Lee, H. Dimension reduction in binary response regression. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1999, 94,
1187–1200. [CrossRef]
48. Chiaromonte, F.; Cook, R.D.; Li, B. Sufficient dimension reduction in regressions with categorical predictors.
Ann. Stat. 2002, 30, 475–497. [CrossRef]
49. McCullagh, P.; Nelder, J.A. Generalized Linear Models, 2nd ed.; Chapman & Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA,
1989.
50. Vochozka, M.; Jelínek, J.; Váchal, J.; Straková, J.; Stehel, V. Využití Neuronových Sítí Při Komplexním Hodnocení
Podniků; C.H. Beck: Prague, Czech Republic, 2017.
51. Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K.; Kurowska-Pysz, J. Sustainable business development through leadership in
SMEs. Eng. Manag. Prod. Serv. 2016, 8, 57–69. [CrossRef]
52. Straková, J.; Pártlová, P.; Dobrovič, J.; Váchal, J. Situational analysis and its role in the process of strategic
business management. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2018, 18, 353–364. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).