“I would not in the least contradict reason if I preferred that the whole world should be destroyed to that I should scratch my finger,” wrote the 18th-century philosopher David Hume.

There is no reasonable reason to choose a blue rather than a black handle, a checked shirt rather than a striped one. The mind can endlessly sort out arguments in favor of one decision or another. But the decision itself, as shown Elliot's case , he can only accept together with the body and emotions.

Reason cannot eliminate all doubts - it only gives them new food.

Long before modern neurobiology, this fact was well understood by ancient skeptical philosophers. They argued that human cognitive abilities are imperfect and limited. We cannot even prove that the world exists, much less that it has any certain characteristics. As strange as it may sound, skeptics have adopted the method of radical doubt as a way to achieve happiness. For the sake of happiness, the Epicureans proposed to evade the world, the Stoics - to come into agreement with it. Skeptics rejected both, doubting everything.

Skepticism will make you happy (or not)

The founder of the school of skepticism, Pyrrho, advised everyone who strives for happiness to pay attention to three circumstances: first, what is the nature of things; secondly, how they should be treated; and thirdly, what it should lead to.

Things in themselves, writes Sextus Empiricus, are “indifferent, indefinite and beyond jurisdiction.” We do not know what they are, because we do not see things, but only the phenomena of things.

Honey tastes sweet and salt tastes salty. But what are they in themselves? We cannot know this. Therefore, it is worth refraining from judgment, following your feelings and not ascribing additional values ​​to things.

By refraining from judgment, the skeptic achieves the desired equanimity - and for the Greeks this is the main condition for happiness.

The Greek cult of equanimity seems to be the exact opposite of modern ideas about happiness. But in fact, skeptics are trying to tell us one important thing: you can live as you like, but this has nothing to do with philosophy and science.

The ancient skeptic can live like all other people: eat when he wants; sleep when the need arises; wear plaid shirts if he likes that particular pattern. None of these actions can be justified based on reason alone. Theoretically, it is possible to prove that motion does not exist, as Zeno did in the famous paradox of Achilles and the tortoise. But people, writes Sextus Empiricus, “undertake journeys on foot and by sea, build ships and houses and give birth to children, not paying attention to reasoning against movement and origin.”

In theory, we can doubt everything. But in practice this is impossible to do.

Antonio Damasiocalls feelings that direct our thoughts and decisions in one direction or another, somatic markers. Anticipation of the pleasure of a good weekend, feelings of hunger, disappointment, anger or satisfaction - all this is expressed in certain states of the body.

A person does not follow things, but phenomena, reflections of things, say skeptics. He is guided not by knowledge, but by somatic markers, Damasio might add.

In its extreme form, skepticism always leads to irrationalism. If nothing can be proven, then everything is absurd. And if everything is absurd, you can only believe in reality. It is not surprising that the arguments of skeptics were readily used by the Fathers of the Church in polemics against ancient philosophy and pagan beliefs.

In the 16th century, the few surviving works of the skeptics were first published in Europe. This began the fashion for Pyrrhonism, which could take on a variety of forms. The author of the famous Essays, Michel Montaigne, while recognizing the weakness of human knowledge, does not at all reject faith. Neither does Rene Descartes, who builds the basis of scientific philosophy using the method of radical doubt.

Descartes says: suppose the world was created by an evil demon who controls all my impressions. Even if I do not have a body, even if my every memory and sensation is a lie and a deception, I still cannot doubt that the one who doubts really exists.

Few people are able to carry their skepticism as far as Descartes. But the procedure of radical doubt is found even in primitive cultures to which we usually deny rationality.

The Indonesians of Buli Island, studied by the anthropologist Nils Buband, attribute all their severe misfortunes to witches. But it cannot be said that they believe in the existence of witches - rather, they constantly doubt it. Witches can take any form and live somewhere on the borders of knowledge, remaining an insoluble contradiction. Nobody knows whether to believe in them or not. At the beginning of the 20th century, Indonesians adopted Christianity - with the help of the new religion, they hoped to get rid of evil spirits once and for all. But if someone who doubts the existence of witches may turn out to be a witch himself, this is not so easy.

Nothing is what it seems

By 1939, the hypothesis that the world actually existed was still unproven: after all, it could always be assumed that only René Descartes existed.

This year, the British philosopher George Edward Moore presented his controversial work "Proof of the External World."

Here's one hand, and here's the other, Moore argues. I know that my hands exist - this is an empirically obvious fact. And if hands exist, then the whole Universe exists.

Like many others, this evidence was not convincing. When we say “I know,” the statement can be confirmed or denied. But how can we confirm or deny the existence of George Edward Moore's hands? We can touch them, but this will not prove anything: maybe we are just dreaming or delirious. As a justification for the fact that his hands (and therefore the Universe) really exist, Moore offers only one reason - his own conviction that his knowledge is reliable. But this conviction itself needs justification.

At the philosophical level, radical skepticism was refuted only in the phenomenology of perception by Maurice Merleau-Ponty. If everything we perceive is an illusion, then there must be some non-illusory world, at least for comparison. Illusion is only an effect of perception; it cannot replace it entirely. If I am a brain in a jar, which is influenced by electrochemical impulses, then I have no way to divide perceptions into true (electrochemical impulses) and false (the whole world and my life). The world is what we perceive.

Scientific skepticism does not claim to discover absolutely reliable knowledge. Science does not strive for truth, but for coherent, effective, and functionally simple explanations.

Any theory can be proven wrong if only a single piece of evidence disproves it. If scientists find one flying unicorn, many physical and biological laws will have to be revised. But until this happens, it is more reasonable to consider existing theories correct, and the existence of unicorns as unlikely.

As historian Steve Shapin has shown, the values ​​of experimental science were largely borrowed from the gentlemanly culture of the 17th century. A gentleman, unlike a merchant or a courtier, has a high status and material independence, and therefore can afford to tell the truth. Let some gentlemen and scholars lie and commit adultery, but honesty remains the ideal for both. Since gentlemanly honor was closely related to scientific integrity, accusations of data manipulation could in some cases lead to a challenge to a duel.

Modern skepticism has little in common with ancient tradition. People who call themselves skeptics today are guided by cognitive principles that were not yet known to the ancient Greeks. If the ancient skeptic did not assert anything, today skeptics are constantly engaged in refuting popular misconceptions. They criticize the belief in telepathy and astrology, the belief in demons and witchcraft, the effectiveness of homeopathy and alternative medicine, the new chronology and the flat Earth theory. At the same time, as in antiquity, skeptics are not limited to theory and sometimes claim to create a certain way of life.

A skeptic must impartially consider the evidence in favor of a particular theory, get rid of cognitive errors and be guided primarily by the facts.

The principles of modern skepticism were well summarized by Bertrand Russell:

1) if the experts agree, the opposite opinion cannot be considered correct;
2) if they do not agree, non-experts should not consider any opinion correct;
3) when all the experts have decided that there is no sufficient basis for a certain opinion, it is best for the average person to withhold judgment.

Oddly enough, the closest thing to radical skepticism today is not science, but conspiracy theories. As researchers Mike Wood and Karen Douglas write, all conspiracy theories start from the premise that “there are two worlds: one real and largely invisible, and the other a harmful illusion that aims to hide the truth.” What this truth is remains unclear. Conspiracies always hide something, the final truth always remains unrevealed. Some extremely powerful forces control this world. They won't let us find out the whole truth.

Official explanations of events and scientific arguments are just part of this global dominance. Therefore, conspiracy theories are often more complex than the reality they explain.

Psychologists are well aware of the phenomenon of selective skepticism: we are more likely to apply critical thinking to those statements that we intuitively do not like.

As Rolf Reber's experiments showed, the shorter and clearer information is presented, the more often it is considered correct. The more complex and confusing it is, the more mistrust it causes. In one experiment, participants were given a description of a conspiracy theory written in two fonts: legible and illegible. People who read legible print tended to have greater faith in what was written. Of course, they didn’t think: “Hmm, this is a beautiful font, probably what is written here is true.” Even if doubt itself is rational, its basis is beyond consciousness.

No matter what we talk about, we will always have grounds for doubt. Most of us do not doubt the existence of the external world, but within the framework of a philosophical debate this doubt may be quite justified.

In theory, Achilles will never catch up with the tortoise, and George Edward Moore will never prove the existence of the universe by pointing to his hands. But radical skepticism today can only be realized within the walls of a psychiatric clinic or on the pages of philosophical journals. In everyday life, we can only be content with moderate doubt.

Whatever we doubt, we cannot doubt everything - it goes against our innate tendency to want and believe. Without her, we wouldn't even be able to get out of bed. Indeed, are there any reasonable grounds for this?

Which leadership style is more effective: commanding, authoritarian or liberal, democratic? In the past, many spears have been broken in favor of one position or another. The current level of development of leadership psychology argues that there are no better or worse leadership styles on the “authoritarianism-liberalism” continuum. The effectiveness of a particular leadership style is determined by a number of factors - the personal qualities of the leader, his past experience, the willingness of the group to accept this or that leadership style, the characteristics of the work that the group performs, the urgency and importance of the task, organizational culture, traditions, customs and habits, which are accepted in the organization and many other factors. Leadership theories that seek to take into account the diversity of such factors in their recommendations and instructions are called situational theories of effective management.

As will soon become clear, these theories differ in content, terminology, and the scope of proposed organizational change. However, what they have in common is that they are built on some common principles.

First, these theories are built on the principle of situationality: it is recognized that there is no one preferred management style and that the main task of researchers of organizational behavior is to determine which management style will be most effective in a given environment.

Secondly, all theories are devoted to the problem of effective management. They look for the matching conditions and factors that determine whether, and to what extent, organizational leaders will improve the levels of productivity and satisfaction of subordinates.

Let's look at some of these theories.

Situational theory of F. Fiedler

The American researcher F. Fiedler began building his theory by stating the fact that leadership cannot be carried out in a social vacuum. Leaders try to influence a group of people according to certain situations. Because situations can change, it is important to understand that there is no specific approach or management style that will always be best, and the most effective strategy is to vary your management style depending on the situation. The acceptance of these postulates lies at the core of situational theory. The situational aspect of the theory lies in the assumption that the leader’s contribution to the successful execution of the organization’s tasks by members of his group is determined both by the characteristic features of the leader himself and by various features of the situation. To finally understand the essence of effective leadership fully, both factors must be considered.

As for the characteristic features of managers, F. Fiedler identifies the attitude towards the least preferred employee (LPE) as the most important. This refers to the manager's tendency to evaluate, in a positive or negative manner, the employee with whom he finds it most difficult to work. Managers who rate NPS negatively (i.e., managers who score low on the NPS criterion) are primarily task-focused and concerned about production.

In contrast, those who rate NPC in a positive light (managers who score high on the NPC criterion) focus on establishing good relationships with subordinates (as you can see, this value - NPC - refers to the two aspects of managerial behavior described above). It is important to note that Fiedler views NPC as a decisive factor in influencing individual leadership style, which is not subject to change. As we explain below, this has important implications for the practical application of the theory to improve leadership effectiveness.

Which type of leader - with a high or low rating according to the NPC criterion - is the most effective? F. Fiedler's answer is: it depends on the following situational factors:

• the nature of the manager’s relationship with his subordinates (i.e., the extent to which the manager needs the loyalty of subordinates);
• the degree of structuring of the task to be performed (goals, tasks and roles of subordinates are clearly defined);
• the manager's official powers (i.e., his ability to insist or yield to subordinates).

Combining these three factors, we find that a leader's situational control can be very high (positive relationships with subordinates, a highly structured task, large job authority) or very low (negative relationships with subordinates, an unstructured task, little authority).

But let's return to the main question: when are management types most effective? F. Fiedler believes that task-oriented managers (low-rated NPCs) outperform people-oriented managers (high-rated NPCs) when situational control is either very low or very high. On the contrary, managers with a high rating on the criterion of NPS outperform managers with low NPS when situational control is in the average range.

F. Fiedler's situational theory of NPS suggests that managers with a low rating on the NPS criterion (i.e., task-oriented) will be more effective than managers with a high rating on the NPS criterion (i.e., human relations-oriented) when the situational control is either very low or very high, and vice versa, when situational control is in the average range.

The reason for these differences is the following: in conditions of low situational control, subordinates need directions to carry out the instructions of the leader and accomplish assigned tasks. Because managers with low ratings on the NPS criterion are more preferable to providing structure to tasks than managers with high ratings on this criterion, they are more effective in such cases.

Similarly, managers with low NPC ratings outperform managers with high ratings in conditions that involve a high degree of situational control. Managers with a low rating according to the NPC criterion realize that the conditions are favorable and the successful completion of the task is almost guaranteed. As a result, they focus on improving relationships with subordinates and often establish a more democratic management style. Subordinates appreciate this attitude towards them, and thereby both the morale of the group and its productivity increase. On the contrary, managers who have a high rating on the NPC criterion understand that relations with subordinates are already good and therefore attention should be paid primarily to task completion.

Attempts by managers to give instructions to subordinates may be perceived by them as unnecessary interference, resulting in a decline in productivity. It is often necessary to address situations that offer managers moderate situational control, mixed production conditions, and attention to maintaining good relationships with subordinates. Managers who have a high rating on the NPS criterion, with their interest in people, often have an advantage in such cases. On the contrary, managers with low ratings, i.e. those that emphasize task completion may become even more autocratic. Negative reactions from subordinates to such behavior can be detrimental to group productivity.

Since F. Fiedler's theory takes into account the individual traits of managers, situational factors and the reactions of subordinates, it is fully consistent with the modern view of management described earlier. However, research has sometimes produced results opposite to those predicted by situational theory. For example, it was found that when classifying individual situations according to the amount of situational control, some ambiguity may arise. While situations can be accurately classified as very low, low, medium, etc., it is difficult to make assumptions regarding effective management. Also, some critics have wondered about the appropriateness of the questionnaire used to assess which level of NPC a manager belongs to. In addition, the reliability of such assessments is not high enough compared to other widely used personality assessments. Thus, although the situational theory of NPS helps to understand the essence of effective leadership, it still cannot be applied unconditionally in practice.

And, as we have discussed at length, wherever action appears to be guarded by rule or prohibition, it must be attributed either to the will or consent to the action, rather than to the action itself; however, nothing related to merit was prohibited; [actions] the less worthy of instruction, the less they are in our power. For there is much that prohibits us from acting, but will and consent are always in our power. Thus, the Lord said: Do not kill Don't bear false witness(Deuteronomy, V, 17, 20). [In the words] regarding the act and speech there is neither a prohibition of guilt nor a warning about it, if we take them literally, but only about the act [as an expression of] guilt. For sin is not in killing a person and not in lying with someone else’s wife, because [these actions] can sometimes be done without sin. Indeed, if a prohibition of this kind - regarding an action - is taken literally, then the one who wants to bear false witness or even agrees [to it] in words, will not become accused under the law until it becomes known that for some reason he is silent about something. After all, it is not said that we do not want to bear false witness or do not want to verbally agree to this, but only that we really do not say so. Or: The law prohibits us from marrying our sisters or having incestuous relations with them. However, there is no one who could keep this covenant, since no one can accurately identify in this or that woman his sister, no one, I affirm, if He had not established a covenant not so much on actions as on consent [to them]. . If it happens that someone ignorantly marries his sister, is he a covenant breaker, even though he did what the Law forbade doing? Not a criminal, you will answer, because he did not agree to the violation, because he did not know what he was doing. So one should speak of a criminal not as one who commits forbidden things, but [about one] who agrees to what is known as forbidden things. The prohibition, therefore, must be understood not on the basis of an act, but on the basis of consent [to it], which is obvious when they command: do not do this or that, or, as they say, do not consciously anticipate this. And Blessed Augustine, having carefully considered this [and realizing] that every sin is attracted to goodness or greed rather than to [committing] actions, said: No law prescribes anything but goodness, and prohibits nothing but greed. Hence the apostle: All the commandments - speaks, - are contained in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” and then: Love is the fulfillment of the law(Episode to Romans, XIII, 9-10). Of course, merit will not decrease if you give ready alms to the poor, and mercy prompts you to distribute it, but let your will be ready for this when there is no such opportunity and you do not have the strength [to do anything], because there are no conditions, It is known Of course, there are actions that should be performed or not performed at all by both good and bad people. And one (only) intention distinguishes them. As the above-mentioned doctor reminds us, in the same act in which God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are revealed to us, we also discover [the actions of] Judas the traitor. The same thing (that by God and the Lord Jesus) was done by this traitor, as the apostle reminds: How the Father betrayed His Son, and the Son betrayed, so Judas betrayed his Teacher. The traitor committed the same act as God. But did he do anything good? After all, even if it is [ultimately] good, then under all the circumstances it is not good, or: he should not have [done] what was beneficial to him personally. Indeed, God does not measure by what people do, but by the soul with which they can do [something]; and it is not in the act, but in the intention (intentio) of the act that the merit or achievement consists. Often, however, the same thing is accomplished in different ways: thanks to the righteousness of one and the unrighteousness of another. Two, for example, hang a certain criminal. One is driven by jealousy of justice, and the other by inveterate enemy hatred, and although the same act is committed - hanging - and in all circumstances they commit what is good to do, and what justice requires, but because of the difference in intention the same thing is done differently: by some - with evil, by others - with good.

In order to make the right choice in favor of one way or another to solve a problem, it is necessary to have means for comparing acceptable alternatives. Criteria serve as such a means. In this case, a criterion is understood as any basis for comparing alternatives.

This means that the criterion for the quality of an alternative can be any of its features, the value of which can be fixed at least on an ordinal scale. Once such a characteristic has been found (the criterion has been determined), it becomes possible to set selection and optimization problems.

The criterion is the similarity of the goal or its model. A specific criterion is a projection (display) of the values ​​embodied in the goals onto the parameters of acceptable alternatives. Determining the criterion value for a given alternative is essentially an indirect measurement of the degree of its suitability as a means to an end. In other words, the criterion is a quantitative model of a qualitative goal.

In the future, in the practical solution of specific problems, goals are replaced by criteria that relegate them to the background. Consequently, the criteria are required to be as similar to the goals as possible so that optimization against the criteria corresponds to the closest possible approach to the goal. On the other hand, the criteria cannot completely coincide with the goals, if only because they are recorded on different scales: goals - in nominal ones, criteria - in ordinal and higher ones.

The multicriteria nature of real problems is associated not only with the multiplicity of goals, but also with the fact that one goal can rarely be expressed by one criterion. This is understandable, since, like any model, the criterion only approximately reflects the goal, and the adequacy of one criterion may be insufficient. For example, the number of students per teacher is not clearly related to the quality of training of specialists at a university, and the large capitalization of a company does not guarantee the competitive advantages of its products on the market.

In these cases, the solution may consist not so much in finding a more adequate criterion (perhaps it does not exist), but in using several criteria that describe the same goal in different ways and complement each other. Thus, the experience of forming criteria for achieving a fairly clear goal of improving the quality of training of specialists at a university shows that, along with the mentioned criterion “number of teachers per student”, it is necessary to take into account the costs per student per year, the amount of free time provided for working in computer networks, the number of graduates of a given university registered on the labor exchange, the share of teaching staff with academic degrees and titles, etc. However, it is obvious that the listed criteria reflect only certain aspects of the quality of specialist training.

Since, on the one hand, multicriteria is a way to increase the adequacy of the description of the goal, and on the other hand, it increases the complexity of solving the problem, it is necessary to minimize the number of criteria used while covering the goal fairly fully. This means that the criteria should describe all the important aspects of the goal, but there should be few criteria. The last requirement is met if the criteria are independent and not related to each other.

To ensure completeness and comprehensiveness of coverage of the goal, a formal model of the problem situation is very useful, including three interacting components (Fig. 22.1):

A problem-solving system that can influence the course of events in such a way that the problem disappears completely or weakens;

The external environment in which both systems exist and interact.

Rice. 22.1. Formal model of a problem situation

In relation to the formation of criteria, this model allows not only to increase the completeness of the set of criteria, but also to structure this set, establishing such differences between the criteria that will subsequently facilitate the formulation of optimization problems. The starting point for structuring the criteria is that the nature of the goals for the three components of a problem situation is different: for a problem-containing system these are achievement goals (the main thing is to solve the problem); the goals of the problem-solving system are related to the rational use of resources to resolve the problem (the main thing is to solve the problem economically); and the goals of the external environment are passive, but mandatory (the main thing is not to do anything that would contradict the laws of nature). The substantive side of this process is that the resources of the problem-solving system are coordinated with the needs of the problem-containing system under the constraints of the external environment.

This is how efficiency criteria (target criteria) arise that are subject to optimization, as well as limitation and conservation criteria that require constancy. The target criterion opens up the possibility

ability to put forward more and more new alternatives in search of the best one, and criteria-limitations and criteria-preservation, prohibiting some of the alternatives, obviously reduce their number. Some target criteria can be sacrificed for the sake of others, but limitation criteria and conservation criteria cannot be excluded; they must be strictly observed. In this sense, expanding the range of target criteria complicates the work of a systems analyst, and expanding the range of criteria-constraints and -savings simplifies it.

In order to make the right choice in favor of one or another method of solving a problem, it is necessary to have means for comparing acceptable alternatives. Such a means is criteria. In this case, a criterion is understood as any method of comparing alternatives. This means that the criterion for the quality of an alternative can be any of its features, the value of which can be fixed at least on an ordinal scale. Once such a characteristic has been found (the criterion has been determined), it becomes possible to set selection and optimization problems.

There are criteria dependent And independent.

Dependent, if the decision maker’s preferences when comparing alternatives change depending on the values ​​of the same assessments according to the second group of criteria. When buying a car, there are 3 criteria: price, size and gearbox. According to the 3rd, they are the same - dependent. Determining the criterion value for a given alternative is essentially an indirect measurement of the degree of its suitability as a means to an end.

The complexity of decision-making tasks is influenced by the number of criteria. The multicriteria nature of real problems is associated not only with the multiplicity of goals, but also with the fact that one goal can rarely be expressed by one criterion. Since, on the one hand, multicriteria is a way to increase the adequacy of the description of the goal, and on the other hand, it increases the complexity of solving the problem, it is necessary to take care of minimization the number of criteria used with sufficiently complete “coverage” of the goal. It means that the criteria should describe all important aspects of the goal, but there should be few criteria. This condition is met if the criteria are independent and unrelated to each other. They are combined into groups that have semantic meanings and names (cost and efficiency) and are distinguished by “+” “-”. Groups are generally independent.

To ensure completeness of the goal, it is useful to present a formal model of the problem situation, including three interacting components:

¾ a problem-solving system that can influence the course of events in such a way that the problem disappears completely or weakens;

¾ the environment in which both systems exist and interact with.

The nature of the goals for the three components of a problem situation is different: for a problem-containing system this achievement goals(the main thing is to solve the problem); the goals of the problem-solving system are related to rational use of resources to solve the problem (the main thing is to solve the problem economically); and the goals of the external environment are passive, but required character (the main thing is not to do anything that would contradict the laws of nature). This is how it arises structuring criteria:

¾ performance criteria (target criteria) to be optimized;

¾ limitation criteria and;

¾ conservation criteria requiring consistency.

Target criteria provide opportunities for putting forward more and more new alternatives in search of the best one, and restriction criteria and preservation criteria, prohibiting some of the alternatives, deliberately reduce their number.

Some target criteria can be sacrificed for the sake of others, but limiting criteria and conservation criteria cannot be excluded - they must be strictly observed. Expanding the range of target criteria complicates the specialist’s work, and expanding the range of limitation criteria and conservation criteria simplifies his work.

To organize criteria in system analysis, use measurement, which is formed in the form measuring scales.

Measuring scales, depending on the operations allowed on them, differ in their strength. The weakest are nominal scales, and the strongest are absolute. Three main attributes of measurement scales that determine whether a scale belongs to a particular category:

¾ orderliness data means that one scale item corresponding to the property being measured is greater than, less than, or equal to another item;

¾ interval data means that the interval between any pair of numbers corresponding to the properties being measured is greater than, less than, or equal to the interval between another pair of numbers;

¾ zero point(or reference point) means that the set of numbers corresponding to the properties being measured has a reference point designated zero, which corresponds to the complete absence of the measured property.

The following groups of scales are distinguished:

¾ non-metric or qualitative scales in which there are no units of measurement (nominal and ordinal scales);

¾ quantitative or metric (interval scale, ratio scale and absolute scale).

Types of scales:

Scale items (nominal or classification) represents a finite set of notations for states (properties) of an object that are in no way related to each other. This is the simplest scale used to distinguish one object from another.

When processing data recorded on a nominal scale, the data itself can only be processed directly operation of checking their coincidence or non-match.

Scale order (ordinal, rank) is used in cases where the observed (measured) sign of a state is of a nature that not only makes it possible to identify states with one of the equivalence classes, but also makes it possible to compare different classes in some respect. It has orderliness, but lacks the attributes of intervalism and zero point. The ratings are ordered in ascending or descending order of the decision maker's (decision maker's) preferences: very clean, quite satisfactory, environmentally polluted.

Scale intervals (interval scale) has equal distances in quality measurement between estimates (additional profit - 1 million, 2, 3, etc.) Scales can have arbitrary reference points and a reference step too.

Scale differences. A special case of interval scales are cyclic (periodic) scales, scales, shift invariant. In such a scale, the value does not change with any number of shifts (changing the clock to summer time and back to winter time).

Scale relations(similarities) allows you to perform any arithmetic operations with numbers; all the attributes of measuring scales are present here: ordering, intervals, zero point. Quantities measured on a ratio scale have a natural, absolute zero, although there is freedom in choosing units. The scale shows how many times a property of one object exceeds the same property of another object.

Absolute the scale has both absolute zero and absolute unit; thanks to this feature, it is used in the form of a numerical axis as a measuring scale in explicit form when counting objects, and is present as an auxiliary tool in all other scales.

Interval and ratio scales are more commonly used.

Stages of system analysis. Problems arising from setting a problem, formulating goals and criteria, determining resource needs, assessing the external environment, identifying alternatives to achieving a goal, assessing goals and means, identifying possible consequences, structuring the system being designed, diagnosing an existing system, building a program for implementing the chosen alternative and monitoring execution.

Stages of system analysis

I.Formulation of the problem. At this stage the following is determined:

1) is there a problem;

2) the problem is precisely formulated;

3) an analysis of the logical structure of the problem is carried out;

4) the development of the problem in the past, the state today and in the future;

5) external relations problem;

6) its fundamental solvability.

The question of whether a problem exists is of paramount importance, since putting enormous effort into solving non-existent problems is not an exception, but a very common case. Contrived problems mask actual problems. Correct and precise formulation of the problem is the first and necessary stage of systemic research and, as is known, can be equivalent to half the solution to the problem.

Any problem usually arises for two reasons:

An acute conflict situation that has arisen as a result of contradictions between organizational participants, quality and technology, wages and employee competence, etc. These are “functioning problems.” They are the result of poor management. A well-functioning mechanism for resolving and preventing them is necessary.

The development of the system causes “growing problems”. They are associated with socio-economic, political and other changes in the infrastructure of the system.

Methods (of this stage): method of scenarios, diagnostic, goal trees, economic analysis.

II. Formulation of goals and criteria.

Determination of goals, requirements of the supersystem; determining the goals and limitations of the environment; formulating a common goal; definition of criterion; composition of a general criterion from criteria of subsystems.

The formation of system goals begins with the goals of the supersystem, which, for example, for an enterprise can be considered a financial industrial group, a concern, a region, or Russia as a whole. If the goals of the supersystem are not taken into account, then the requirements of system design are not met. In addition, the achievability of goals is directly related to the consistency of interests of all participants in the system and the external environment, which raises the question of the need to form a block of joint goals and common values ​​of the organization, which is based on the goals of the supersystem.

Methods: expert assessments (“Delphi”), SWOT analysis, goal trees, economic analysis, morphological, cybernetic models, normative operating models (optimization, simulation).

III. Decomposition of the goal, determination of resource needs.

At this stage, the formulation of top-ranking goals, current processes, efficiency, and development goals occurs; decomposition of goals and criteria into subsystems; assessment of resource availability and their cost; determination of interdependencies of goals for selected subsystems; determination of importance criteria for each subgoal.

Methods: goal trees, network, modeling method (descriptive models).

IV. Assessment of the state of the external environment.

The main factors causing crisis situations in an enterprise arise, as a rule, in the external environment, from where the organization draws the necessary resources.

This stage is closely related to the subsequent identification of alternative means, which requires the most objective approach to assessing the existing and predicted state of environmental factors.

Analysis of environmental factors ensures the identification of all uncontrollable factors that have a significant impact on the choice of alternatives for solving the problem.

Methods: scenarios, expert assessments, network methods, SWOT analysis, morphological analysis.

V. Identification of alternatives to achieving the goal. This is the process of searching and choosing the best ways to achieve goals. The effectiveness of CA is usually directly proportional to the number of possible alternatives. Their comparison makes it possible to more rationally select the preferred one and (or) combine them into different fragments. The choice of the preferred alternative is made based on the capabilities of the organization (personnel, equipment, materials, finances, etc.).

For economic systems, the choice of the preferred alternative is carried out according to the following parameters:

¨ Compliance with its condition and environmental requirements, that is, it is established how well it meets the requirements of all external entities of the organization.

¨ Compliance of the alternative with the potential and capabilities of the organization, that is, does the organization have the resources to implement the alternative and what are the possibilities of ensuring that they carry out future activities.

¨ Acceptability of the risk inherent in the alternative. Management of any activity is always carried out within the “field” of acceptable risk.” But sometimes the desire for a breakthrough in any direction requires going beyond the acceptable risk, but this is often fraught. Assessing the justification of the risk is carried out by determining the degree of realism of the prerequisites inherent in the alternative, the magnitude of the losses in the event of failure and answering the question whether the gain in the event of a risk justifies the costs of implementing the alternative.

Methods: expert assessments, brainstorming, matrix, economic analysis.

VI. Assessment of goals and means. This work is carried out by developing models and playing individual alternatives on them.

That is, the model makes it possible to establish with sufficient accuracy what will happen to each possible input at any stage of its passage through the system (simulation model), or to describe each response of the system. The general model of this class is a “black box”, when the corresponding parameters are supplied to the input of the model, and the results are measured at the output, by comparing which it is possible to make appropriate assessments of the proposed alternatives.

At this stage:

1) calculation of scores based on the criterion;

2) assessing interdependencies between goals;

3) assessment of the relative importance of goals (relative importance coefficients are established);

4) assessment of scarcity and cost of resources;

5) assessment of the influence of external factors;

6) calculation of complex calculated coefficients of relative importance for each direction (branches of the goal tree).

Influence of external factors. Assessing the level of compliance of the results of proposed actions with the goals set cannot yet be the basis for choosing the best alternative, since it is not always possible to establish the nature of the behavior of the external environment, therefore, when assessing a particular alternative, it is necessary to consider three options for the behavior of the external environment.

1. Optimistic - when the elements of the external environment will act in the previously proposed direction (everything will work in favor of the chosen option);

2. Pessimistic - when elements of the external environment will act in the opposite direction to the alternative (everything will work against the chosen option).

3. Probabilistic – when the behavior of the external environment is determined by the availability of information, expert assessments, and sometimes the intuition of the developers of alternatives.

Methods: expert assessments (since CA, as a rule, deals with unstructured or weakly structured problems, obtaining specialist assessments and their processing seems to be a necessary stage of SA for most problems); morphological, economic analysis; cybernetic, simulation, optimization models.

VII. Identifying Possible Consequences implementation of the chosen alternative.

This is the stage of developing a forecast, for which a forecast model for the state of the system and environmental parameters is built.

The implementation of any alternative can lead to results related and unrelated to achieving the goal. The result of the implementation of an alternative is a multidimensional phenomenon, that is, it consists of many qualitatively different parameters that, through various internal and external connections, mutually determine each other’s states. And therefore, predicting consequences should be as objective as possible in determining these interdependencies between the parameters of the alternative being implemented.

The most common forecasting method is extrapolation of changes in system parameters (changes in parameters in the future based on the known trends of these changes in the past period).

That is, when identifying the possible consequences of implementing the chosen alternative, it is necessary to analyze sustainable trends in the development of the system; forecast of development and environmental changes; predict the emergence of new factors influencing the development of the system; analysis of resource availability in the future; analysis of possible changes in goals and criteria.

Methods: scenarios, expert assessments (Delphi), network, economic analysis, statistical, modeling.

VIII. Structuring the designed system. The initial basis of this stage is goals and objectives grouped into functional subsystems (blocks, modules), since for each subsystem it is necessary to determine the leading division (the current functional department). The determination of the main functional subsystems is based on the achievement of final goals in the field of production, scientific, technical, economic and social goals included in the general tree of alternative goals.

Methods: goal trees, matrix, network methods, cybernetic models.