home » Spring clothes » The main problems of using the structuring method. A method for structuring the problem of constructing a “tree”

The main problems of using the structuring method. A method for structuring the problem of constructing a “tree”

1. INTRODUCTION

2. STRUCTURIZATION METHOD

3. CONCLUSION

4. LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION

Development system analysis is inextricably linked with such concepts as “brainstorming”, “scenarios”, “goal tree”, morphological methods, etc. The listed terms characterize one or another approach to enhancing the identification and generalization of the opinions of experienced experts (the term “expert” translated from Latin means “experienced”). Sometimes all these methods are called “expert”. However, there is also a special class of methods related directly to the survey of experts, the so-called method of expert assessments (since in surveys it is customary to give ratings in points and ranks), therefore the above-mentioned and similar approaches are sometimes combined with the term “qualitative” (noting the convention of this name, since when processing opinions received from specialists, quantitative methods can also be used). This term, to a greater extent than others, reflects the essence of the method that specialists are forced to resort to when they not only cannot immediately describe the problem under consideration with analytical dependencies, but also do not see which of the methods of formalized representation of systems discussed above could help obtain a model for decision making.

The emergence of the listed methods, as a rule, is associated with specific research conditions, or even with the name of the author of the approach. However, the options for subsequent application of the methods are so diverse that it is now difficult to talk about the unambiguous use of the given methods.

Let's consider one of the expert methods - the structuring method or the goal tree method.

STRUCTURIZATION METHOD

The idea of the goal tree method was first proposed by W. Cherman in connection with the problems of decision making in industry.

The term “tree” implies the use of a hierarchical structure (hence the name “structuring method”) obtained by dividing common goal into subgoals, and these, in turn, into more detailed components, which can be called subgoals of lower levels or, starting from a certain level, functions. As a rule, the term “goal tree” is used for hierarchical structures that have strictly tree-like relationships, but the method itself is sometimes used in the case of “weak” hierarchies. Therefore in Lately The term “forecast graph” proposed by V.M. Glushkov, which can be represented both in the form of a tree-like hierarchical structure and in the form of a structure with “weak” connections, is becoming increasingly widespread.

When using the goal tree method as a decision-making tool, the term “decision tree” is often introduced. When using a “tree” to identify and clarify management functions, they speak of a “tree of goals and functions.” When structuring the topics of a research organization, it is more convenient to use the term “problem tree”, and when developing forecasts, the term “tree of development direction (or development forecasting)” or the above-mentioned term “forecast graph”.

The “goal tree” method is aimed at obtaining a complete and relatively stable structure of goals, problems of directions, that is, a structure that has changed little over a period of time with the inevitable changes occurring in any developing system. To achieve this, when constructing structure options, one should take into account the patterns of goal formation and use the principles and methods of forming hierarchical structures of goals and functions.

To successfully apply this method, three main types of input data are required:

1. clearly defined goals, objectives, systems and their components at all levels;

2. interrelated criteria for measuring the relative importance of components at each level;

3. numerical assessments of significance according to the criteria of each level.

It should be noted that the relationship of tasks in the goal tree is established regardless of the probability of intermediate outcomes and possible solutions; it does not take into account that the exclusion or addition of several intermediate links has an impact on the work program as a whole.

Another serious difficulty is associated with the need for a numerical assessment and synthesis of various technical, time and cost characteristics of alternatives, which is poorly achieved when using the goal tree principle.

To eliminate some of these selection difficulties, the branching tree principle, which is process-oriented rather than goal-oriented, can be used. Process orientation provides an analysis of the dynamics of successive stages of the program, taking into account the probabilistic outcomes of each stage.

However, in practical activities, a significant part of the work is qualitatively new and insufficiently defined with regard to the technical implementation of costs and deadlines.

In all cases, a complex logical situation arises when each job is random variable, and the occurrence of each of the expected network events depends on the probability of the occurrence of previous events and on external conditions.

The analysis of such situations can be performed using decision trees that provide modeling difficult situations arising when choosing directions scientific research, development options and capital investments. The decision tree includes options for action, as well as possible events and results of actions that are influenced by chance and factors beyond our control. Naturally, the results of various decision options are based on the information available to us at the time of decision making. Despite the fact that some of these events will not materialize, when making a decision on the choice, it is necessary to assess the likelihood of their occurrence.

Such estimates can be summed, allowing the conditional probability of achieving each of the following to be calculated. possible results. When analyzing problems, these results can be expressed in terms of the expected cost of each action or possible results of the work.

In addition, with the help of such a tree in a complex chain of decisions, one can take into account the time factor and costs by analyzing the tree starting from the last of the decisions in the direction reverse flow time, up to the initial decision and assessing the relative importance of each node in the tree as the difference between the expected costs of achieving it and the expected results.

Tree branches are arcs (activities) of a network with two or more end nodes (events). Nodes are states in which the possibility of choice arises, both due to the actions of the decision maker and due to the influence of external, uncontrollable factors (“nature”). In decision tree diagrams, squares indicate nodes where the choice is made by the decision maker, and circles indicate nodes where the choice depends on the influence of external conditions.

The idea of the goal tree method was first proposed by W. Cherman in connection with the problems of decision making in industry.

The term “tree” implies the use of a hierarchical structure (hence the name “structuring method”), obtained by dividing the overall goal into subgoals, and these, in turn, into more detailed components, which can be called subgoals of lower levels or, starting from a certain level , - functions. As a rule, the term “goal tree” is used for hierarchical structures that have strictly tree-like relationships, but the method itself is sometimes used in the case of “weak” hierarchies. Therefore, recently the term “forecast graph” proposed by V.M. Glushkov, which can be represented both in the form of a tree-like hierarchical structure and in the form of a structure with “weak” connections, has become increasingly widespread. Trifonov Yu.V., Plekhanova A.F., Yurlov F.F. Choosing effective solutions in the economy under conditions of uncertainty. Monograph. N. Novgorod: Nizhny Novgorod State University Publishing House, 2009. - 140s

To successfully apply this method, three main types of input data are required:

1. clearly defined goals, objectives, systems and their components at all levels;

2. interrelated criteria for measuring the relative importance of components at each level;

3. numerical assessments of significance according to the criteria of each level.

However, in practical activities, a significant part of the work is qualitatively new and insufficiently defined with regard to the technical implementation of costs and deadlines. In all cases, a complex logical situation arises when each job is a random variable, and the occurrence of each of the expected network events depends on the probability of the occurrence of previous events and on external conditions.

The analysis of such situations can be performed using decision trees that provide modeling of complex situations that arise when choosing areas of scientific research, development options and capital investments. The decision tree includes options for action, as well as possible events and results of actions that are influenced by chance and factors beyond our control. Naturally, the results of various decision options are based on the information available to us at the time of decision making. Despite the fact that some of these events will not materialize, when making a decision on the choice, it is necessary to assess the likelihood of their occurrence.

Such estimates can be summed, allowing the conditional probability of achieving each possible outcome to be calculated. When analyzing problems, these results can be expressed in terms of the expected cost of each action or possible results of the work.

In addition, with the help of such a tree, in a complex chain of decisions, one can take into account the time and cost factors by analyzing the tree, starting from the last decision in the direction opposite to the flow of time, up to the initial decision and assessing the relative importance of each node of the tree as the difference between the expected costs for its achievement and expected results.

Introduction 4

1. Structuring method 7

1.1. Hierarchical structures and goal tree 7

1.2. Decision tree structure 9

2. Tree construction problems 12

2.1. The concepts of “decomposition” and “decomposition criteria” 12

2.2. Structuring rules and tree options 13

2.3. Level of structuring when building a tree 16

2.4. Tree building 18

2.5. Tree detail level 22

Conclusion 26

References 27

The description of the relationship between goals and means can be reflected in a special diagram (graph) called the “goal tree,” which was proposed back in 1957 by a group of American scientists, then was successfully used in a number of large military and industrial programs in the United States, and in is now an everyday tool for almost any modern manager. For successful preparation decisions, what is especially important is that this method allows you to break down a complex, intractable problem into a set of relatively simple ones, for solving which there are proven techniques and methods. Indeed, unlike many other areas of activity, management is associated with solving problems that are caused by a huge number of different factors and conditions, which are not always expressed in quantitative terms. All this makes each problem that is solved in the management sphere unique in its own way, without a ready-made solution. Consistent division of the problem being solved into individual subproblems is important stage system analysis. The division should continue until the division into familiar, obvious sub-problems, solved by proven techniques, is achieved. It is this side of system analysis that has great practical significance for creating management decisions.

After all, it is completely insufficient, based on general goals, to correctly determine the tasks facing the management bodies of a particular organization at a certain stage. Significant difficulties always arise when moving to practical forms and methods for solving them. If a gap is allowed between goals and means, then the organization will not be able to achieve its goals. Thus, the inability to use techniques by which goals and means are linked into a single whole leads to the inability of managers to realize their purpose - to achieve goals.

A method of system analysis aimed at ensuring the unity of the chosen goal and the means to achieve it is the construction of a “tree of goals.” It begins with a structuring procedure, dividing the main goal into component elements called subgoals, each of which is a means, direction or stage of its achievement. Then each of the subgoals in turn is considered as a goal and is divided into components. Any of the received elements must also be considered as a goal and decomposed into its component parts. If all these elements are represented graphically, you will get a so-called “goal tree” with the “crown” facing down. In this case, the main goal is at the top level. The process of dismemberment should be carried out until at the lowest level of the “tree” there are means, the implementation of which does not cause fundamental difficulties and doubts.

This method has apparent simplicity, and this may cause a desire to use it without deeply mastering all its aspects and features, without adapting it to the development of management decisions taking into account their specifics. In practice, the structuring process is very difficult to carry out; it requires special rigor of thinking, since in real systems there are many informal relations, complex interactions that are difficult to isolate and take into account.

The essential advantage of this method lies in the organic unity of analysis and synthesis. Experience shows that organizations often use mainly analysis in the narrow sense of the word, the breakdown of tasks, problem situations into component parts. The situation is much worse with synthesis, which requires dialectical thinking and a certain philosophical culture. At the same time, management requires synthetic, systematic approach, since management is an activity that is primarily aimed at unifying, at synthesizing the interests of people. The use of the “goal tree” method serves to combine analytical and synthetic work in the process of creating a management decision. The very process of dividing a common goal into subgoals serves as a way to combine them, since not only individual components are identified, but also the relationships between them, the connection with main goal. In this way, structuring is carried out simultaneously with integration.

Although the tree of goals does not reflect the structure of systems completely, and cannot replace the entire set of procedures for system analysis, at the same time, it helps to clearly express the “target” approach to organizing a modern enterprise, which is especially important in a dynamic environment, constantly influencing the goals of the enterprise.

1.1. Hierarchical structures and goal tree

The idea of the goal tree method was first proposed by W. Cherman in connection with the problems of decision making in industry.

To successfully apply this method, three main types of input data are required:

1. clearly defined goals, objectives, systems and their components at all levels;

2. interrelated criteria for measuring the relative importance of components at each level;

3. numerical assessments of significance according to the criteria of each level.

Bibliography

Issues for discussion

1. What types of methods would you use to study the management system of the organization you work for or know well?

2. Does the quality of research depend on the quality of development? terms of reference for design?

Ansoff I. Strategic management / Abbr. lane from English; Scientific ed. and preface L.I. Evenko. – M.: Economics, 1989. – 519 p.

Valuev S.A. and others. System analysis in economics and production organization: Textbook. – L.: Politekhnika, 1991. – 398 p.

Vikhansky O.S., Naumov A.I. Management: person, strategy, organization, process: Textbook. 2nd ed. – M.: Gardarika Firm, 1996. – 416 p.

Glushchenko V.V., Glushchenko I.I. Development of a management solution. Forecasting - planning. Experiment design theory. – Zheleznodorozhny, Moscow. region: NPC Wings LLP, 1997. – 400 p.

Dobrov G.M. Forecasting science and technology. – M.: Nauka, 1969.

Evenko L.I. Methodological apparatus for designing organizational management structures // Principles and methods of forming management structures for organizations and target programs: Sat. tr. Vol. 7. – M.: All-Russian Research Institute of System Research, 1978. – P. 37–66.

Zenina N.N. Management problems forest complex Khabarovsk Territory// Problems economic policy in Russian Far East: Materials of international scientific and practical work. conf. – Khabarovsk: RIOTIP, 2001. – P. 262–266.

Ignatieva A.V., Maksimtsov M.M. Control systems research: Tutorial for universities. – M.: UNITY-DANA, 2001. – 157 p.

Quaid E. Analysis of complex systems / Transl. from English – M.: Sov. radio, 1969.

Kondratyev V.V., Krasnova V.B. Restructuring of company management: 17-module program for managers “Managing Organizational Development”. Module 6. – M.: INFRA-M, 2000. – 240 p.

Optner S.L. System analysis for solving business and industrial problems / Transl. from English – M.: Sov. radio, 1969.

Parkinson S. Wizards of the business world / Week. 1970. No. 23 (535).

Radvik B. Military planning and systems analysis. – M.: Voenizdat, 1972.

Sargsyan S.A. Theory of forecasting and decision making". – M.: Higher. school, 1977.

Fedorchenko N.P. On methods of socio-economic forecasting // Forecasting methodology economic development THE USSR. – M.: Economics, 1971.

Young S. System management of an organization. – M.: Sov. radio, 1972.

4. Main characteristics
and features of the use of types
and research methods

If there were no tailors, tell me: how would you distinguish between service departments?

Kozma Prutkov

The expert should be someone who believes that the work will take a lot of time and be very expensive.

Warren's rule

In the previous topic, we looked at the selection algorithm and classification of methods for conducting MIS. This topic will discuss both the four main types of research (goal structuring, expert-analytical, organizational modeling and combined), as well as their constituent research methods. It should be borne in mind that some research methods are used in different types of research, as shown in Table. 3.3.

4.1. Method of structuring goals.

4.2. Expert-analytical research methods.

4.2.1. Expert method research.

4.2.2. Examination methods.

4.2.2.1. General approaches.

4.2.3. Diagnostic methods.

4.2.4. Graphic methods.

4.3. Organizational modeling.

4.4. Combined methods.

4.5. Summary.

4.6. Training tasks.

The method of structuring goals involves clarifying existing or formulating new goals of the organization, including their quantitative and qualitative determination and subsequent analysis organizational structures s from the point of view of compliance of the structure itself and its elements (divisions) with the system of goals and mission of the organization (Fig. 4.1). As you know, I. Ansoff defines the strategic goals of an organization as internal and external, economic and non-economic. Each of these goals reflects one of the objective necessary parties functioning and development of the management system and its structure.

Rice. 4.1. Hierarchy and structuring of organizational goals

The goals of the organization are decomposed (deployed) into a hierarchical structure of goals at the highest, middle, and lower levels, and this hierarchy of goals is the basis for the rational construction of a functional and organizational structure.

It is not possible to develop algorithmic (computer) procedures for the transition from a system of goals to a functional and organizational structure, since goals are only one of the factors in the formation of the control system (Evenko, 1978). The formulation of goals is used in the study of functions, functional and organizational structures in the following areas:

1) identifying the main, large blocks (services, divisions), each of which should be focused on ensuring the achievement of the mission and goals of the organization;

2) checking the individuality and commonality of the goals of each unit, preventing a gap in responsibility for a single goal and duplication.

The study of goals can be carried out in the following sequence at the levels of the management hierarchy:

1) clarifying the mission of the organization;

2) identification of formal goals;

3) identification of informal (actual) goals;

4) clarification of possible discrepancies with formal purposes and the mission of the organization;

5) building a tree of goals;

6) determining the compliance of the goals of the divisions with the mission and the goals of the organization, their subsequent clarification and adjustment if necessary;

7) identification and study of factors that facilitate and hinder the achievement of goals.

The latter allows us to formulate necessary measures and actions to eliminate existing interference. When studying goals, the graphical method and its varieties are used (goal trees, matrices, tables, lists).

Laboratory work No. 2

Topic: “System analysis of object functions.
Goal tree"

Goal of the work: Based on the use of system methods, master the skills of identifying the functions of various systems; understand the essence of the properties of multifunctionality and polystructurality of complex socio-economic objects.

Exercise:

1. For the proposed function, identify as many systems as possible (at least 8) that implement it.

2. For a given socio-economic system, construct a tree of goals (or a tree of functions) with a description of the main levels and principles of construction.

Brief theoretical introduction.

STRUCTURING AND ANALYZING THE OBJECTIVE

Awareness of the role of purpose and determination in management systems led to the creation of foreign countries the so-called “thinking firms” and corporations such as REND, engaged in the development of development forecasts, the formation and analysis of goal structures (“goal trees”), first in the field of military potential management (PATTERN), then turned to the study of goal-oriented systems striving for the ideal. The development of these works was a number of studies on forecasting and long-term planning at companies and at the state level. In our country there is GOERLO, directives for five-year plans, a forecast for twenty years, etc. Currently, it is assumed that the role of commissions for developing forecasts of the desired future in the country's legislation should be played by committees and commissions under Federal Assembly, and the development of main directions of development and long-term planning remains the function of the country’s government. First of all, managers of enterprises and organizations are faced with the problem of formulating a common (global) goal, which at the beginning they strive to formulate in the form of an “ideal goal.” Using the pattern of equifinality when formulating goals. The formulation of the “goal-ideal” is associated with the system of values of the individual, society, forms of existence of communities - cities, regions, countries, etc.

The value system determines the desired future, the maximum level of development of an individual or society. In systems theory, this limiting level is characterized by the law of equifinality. IN different periods In life one can observe different states of equifinality. For a person, the following levels are: material level, determined by innate needs; emotional (entertainment, perception, admiration, love); family-social (procreation program); intellectual (development creativity); One of the fundamental features of system analysis is the development and use of tools that facilitate the formation and analysis of the goals and functions of management systems.

1 Problems of goal formulation in management developing systems

The role of goals in managing developing systems with active elements. Over a significant period of development of systems theory, the basis for research and modeling of a wide class of systems was the paradigm open system and the patterns studied by Bertalanffy (integrity, hierarchical ordering, equifinality). Then the open system paradigm, which helped to reflect well the essence of biological objects, began to be supplemented by increasing attention not to external factors environment influencing the existence and functioning of the system, but to internal active principles that lead to the manifestation of such properties in socio-economic objects as non-stationary parameters, instability of behavior, the ability to adapt to changing conditions, etc. Concepts have emerged that rely on the active principles of the system components. To realize the role of the goal in systems organizational management it is necessary to ensure the completeness of the definition of the goals and functions of the enterprise, organization, region, etc. at the appropriate stage of their development, evaluate functions in terms of their significance, labor intensity, frequency of execution, etc. and formulate a structure of goals and functions for the selected level of the management system or the type of activity under study. Main stages of development target management. Problems of goal setting are beginning to become the object of serious research in economics and management theory.

Using the example of the social level of development of society and its formations - cities, regions, etc. We state the need to take into account, when formulating the goals of managing a city, region, or country, the pattern of equifinality and its possible manifestations in the form of levels or spaces. However, at the same time, let us pay attention to the difficulty of realizing the desired level (space) in practice, since due to the second regularity of goal setting, the formulation and implementation of goals depend on internal factors, i.e. on the level of development of the population living in the region. To clarify the formulation of the generalized goal-ideal and its detail, it is necessary to apply structuring techniques, analyze options for the structures of goals and functions, and select the best ones for a specific period of development of the system.

PATTERN technique.

The first methodology that defined the procedure and methods for system analysis of goals was the PATTERN methodology (meaning “pattern,” “model,” “scheme” and meaning “assistance to planning through technical assistance indicators”) developed by the RAND Corporation in 1963. As for the formation of the structure (“tree of goals”), then the logic of its construction, as the authors themselves distinguished, was not worked out. No attention was paid to the development of principles and techniques of structuring and in subsequent modifications of the methodology - PATTERNMO, NASA - PATTERN, etc. Sensing this shortcoming, Soviet researchers, from the very beginning of the use of system analysis, paid great attention to developing principles and obtaining an initial version of the “tree of goals”, the components of which are then subject to evaluation and analysis. The first of these works were the works of Yu.I. Chernyak, who proposed not only the principles of forming a “tree of goals”, but also signs of structuring. For example, he proposed two methods for forming the upper levels of the “tree”. The first of them is based on the concept of the correspondence of the components of two scales of system development: spatial and temporal (Fig. 1).

Figure 1 - Techniques for forming the upper levels of the “tree”

The subgoals of the top level of the “tree” are determined by the diagonal of the matrix so that, depending on the specific conditions, decision makers have the opportunity to limit the “tree” by excluding either the entire branch of subgoals of the distant future and the distant environment, or the branch of “internal” current goals, if they are easily achieved and not require additional attention. At the same time, the remaining branches of the “tree” are preserved, which ensures the relative stability of the goal structure. The second technique is that to analyze a new, unclear problem, the components of the top level of the structure are determined by three questions: 1. What needs to be learned to solve the problem? 2. What needs to be created to solve it? 3. What needs to be organized in the process of solving a problem?

Figure - 2

Table 1 shows the signs of structuring recommended for different levels control systems in works early period development of system analysis and structuring methods, and identified sources of information that can assist in the formation of different levels of the “tree” - upper, middle and lower.

Table 1

Proposed in early techniques the principles and signs of structuring are obtained on the basis of cumulative experience in the formation of goal structures. This is in accordance with the basic principles of systems analysis - the use of intuition and experience of specialists, partial formalization of this experience in the form of principles and techniques and their use to activate, in turn, the intuition and experience of other specialists who form goal structures in new conditions, for solving new problems. However, this approach does not guarantee the completeness of the analysis. Therefore, in the future, in search of principles that ensure the completeness of the structure of goals and functions, researchers turned to the philosophical justification of system concepts and the development on this basis of system models that allow the completeness of structuring, defeat the intended concept and guarantee, at least within the framework of the accepted concept and models, reflecting it. A technique based on the dual definition of a system. The first technique, which was based on philosophical concept, was a technique based on the dual definition of the Umov system, in one of which properties characterize elements, and in the other, properties characterize connections (relationships). In relation to control systems, it was shown that these definitions correspond to two ways of representing the system:

1) procedural – as a set of objects A, a predetermined relation on which is implemented with fixed properties t. For control systems, if the relationship is defined in time, this representation corresponds to the structuring of the system according to the “control cycle”: planning, organizing, regulation, accounting, etc.

2) factorial - as a set of objects A, possessing a predetermined property t, with fixed relations a between them. For example, components such as main production, main and revolving funds, labor resources and other management objects at the enterprise.

At the same time, it is shown that each of these methods of representing the system separately gives an incomplete description of the control system and in order to identify the systemic features of a particular enterprise, one of the description methods must be supplemented with another, dual to it, then the analysis of the control system problem will be complete (Fig. 3).

Found the technique wide application in various industries when developing automated control systems. A technique based on the concept of a system that takes into account the environment and goal setting. The fundamental feature of the methodology is that it is based on the definition of Sagatovsky’s system, which takes into account the concept of “goal”, and therefore the process of goal formation, which requires interaction between the system and the means. This technique was developed and studied by scientists from Tomsk universities under the leadership of F.I. Peregudov and V.Z. Yampolsky. The main stages of the methodology, corresponding to the levels of structuring, are illustrated in Fig. 3

Figure - 3

Chamber of Commerce and Industry – technical training production;

MTS – material and technical means;

OP – production of main products;

SbP – product sales;

PR – forecasting;

PP – forward planning;

TP – current planning;

OU – operational management.

Figure - 4

Level 1. Formation of the global goal of the system. The goal is either set by a higher organization or recreated based on the analysis of policy documents. It must describe the final product for which the system exists or is being created. The final product can be any result of social activity: material products, a new scientific result, scientific information, management decisions, etc.

Level 2. Decomposition based on “types” final product" Carried out in cases where the system produces different types product. If there are a large number of product varieties, the classifier by

this feature can be two-level. The types of final product depend on why the goal structure is being built. If we're talking about about production, then the final product is the manufactured product, and if the structure of the goals of the management apparatus is built, then these are plans, decisions, instructions and

other regulatory and methodological documents ensuring the release of relevant types of products.

Level 3. Decomposition based on the “goal initiation space” feature. Subgoals of the system under study are formed, initiated by requirements and needs. environment, affecting the production of the final product. At the same time, all systems with which the system under study interacts are divided into four classes: higher-level systems that form the main requirements for the final product (decision-making bodies, higher-level organizations); subordinate (subordinate) systems, the requirements for which act mainly as restrictions on the properties of the final product or the need for organizing repairs and other types of maintenance of the material and technical base for the production of the final product; essential (or actual) environment, i.e. systems that are relevant to the production of the final product (suppliers, consumers, similar enterprises whose experience may be useful, etc.); the system under study itself, which always, in addition to the global goal, fulfills goals initiated by its own (internal) needs and motives, which are also transformed into requirements for the final product.

Level 4. Decomposition based on " life cycle" Various substages of obtaining final products are determined depending on their types and the formation or forecasting of the need for the product

before consumption or delivery to the customer. Starting from this level of decomposition, it usually becomes more convenient to operate not with the term “subgoal”, but with the term “function” and consider that the “tree of goals” somehow develops into a “tree of functions”.

Level 5. Decomposition according to the main elements (composition) of the system. Functions are formed that arise from the needs of the main elements of the system, combined into three groups: personnel, subject of activity, means of activity. The relationship between these groups and the final product must include both static and dynamic aspects, i.e. processes for producing the final product and organizational structure.

Level 6. Decomposition based on “management cycle”; the classifier is shown in Fig. 4.

Level 7. Decomposition based on “delegation of powers”; the classifier is also shown in Fig. 4.

The technique has found the most widespread practical use of those existing so far: it was used in developing the “tree of goals” for regional management, in forming the structures of the functional part of the territorial automated control system of the Republic of Adygea, in adjusting the organizational structure of universities, etc.

Methodology based on the concept of activity. The concept of activity in one form or another is used in any structuring technique. At the same time, there are methods in which this concept is the basis for the formation of goal structures, i.e. used at its upper levels. Ideas about activity and its structure have evolved. Accordingly, methods based on this concept use different points of view. Here, as an example, we consider one of these methods, which was proposed in the process of developing the main directions of promising scientific research, focused on finding ways to develop the industry, and has proven itself well in the analysis of new, little-studied areas of activity.

Figure - 5

The methodology includes two main stages, which are divided into substages, and the latter, in turn, into smaller parts.

Stage 1. Formation of the initial version (or several options) of the structure of goals and functions (Figure 5). When performing this stage, two approaches are used simultaneously: a target approach (structuring “from above”) and an approach that is called linguistic, morphological (formation of structure “from below”). In accordance with the approaches, substages 1.1 and 1.2 are identified, which can be performed in parallel. 1.1 Formation of structure “from above” (structuring). The number of hierarchy levels (1.1.1) is selected, which for convenience are usually assigned different names(directions, subsystems, sets of tasks, etc.). In accordance with the concept adopted in the methodology, at the upper levels of the goal structure, the signs of “field of activity” (1.1.2), “structure of activity” and “type of activity” (1.1.3) are used, and subsequent levels are structured (1.1.4) using various signs(from those recommended, for example, for the lower levels in Fig. 4.3). Two main areas of activity can be distinguished: technological process and organizational management. The activity structure classifier includes the following components: “goals”, “content and forms”, “methods”, “means”, “inputs”. The signs “structure of activity” and “type of activity” can be swapped.

1.2 Formation of the structure “from below” (preparation of proposals). Proposals are formed by employees of subordinate units - executors of the goals (1.2.1) and based on the analysis of scientific and technical information (1.2.2), and then the proposals are checked for completeness (1.2.3). A completeness check can be carried out by comparing the received proposals with lists of concepts generated based on the analysis of control objects, their characteristics, and implementation methods technological process etc.

1.3 Combining structures obtained using top-down and bottom-up approaches. A combined version (or several options) of the initial structure of goals and functions is formed, subject to evaluation at the second stage (1.3.1), and a decision is made on the further course of work (1.3.2). The proposals obtained as a result of substage 1.2 may have different generalities, complement each other, some of them may be a special case of others. To eliminate duplication, clarify the wording of proposals and distribute them among hierarchy levels, proposals are evaluated using the structure obtained during sub-step 1.1. The decision on the advisability of performing the second stage and the sequence of its implementation (2.1-2.2 or vice versa) is made taking into account the limitations of resources, time and the number of structure options received. If resources are limited, then in the case of this option you should proceed to substep 2.1, and in the case of several, first to 2.2 and then to 2.1. If there are several options, but resources are unlimited, then only substep 2.2 can be performed.

Stage 2. Assessment, analysis of the initial structure (structure options) and its adjustment (or choice the best option). There are two sub-stages of assessment, distinguished by different purposes and different principles.

2.1. Assessing the structure to identify the most significant components. When identifying the most significant subgoals and functions, expert (2.1.1) and indirect quantitative (2.1.2) assessments are used. Then the assessments are jointly processed (2.1.3), the structure is adjusted based on the results obtained (2.1.4) and a decision is made on the need to perform substep 2.2 (2.1.5). The rating system is similar in structure to the PATTERN method. It provides groups of criteria for assessing importance, interconnectedness, and economic assessments. The possibility of using indirect quantitative assessments follows from the analysis of hierarchical structures based on the information approach, from the results of which it follows, in particular, that the structuring of the branches of the hierarchical structure determines the actual significance attached to them. The following can be used as indirect quantitative estimates: the number of proposals received from performers, the number of performers, reporting materials and prepared documents in the previous planning period, “attention” to the relevant subgoals and functions in policy documents, etc.

2.2. Assessment of structure (structure options) from the point of view of management tasks. This assessment is based on an information approach to structure analysis. To assess the structure from the point of view of its application in making management decisions, (2.2.1) is used to assess the integrity and coefficient of use of the elements as a whole. These assessments help to select the desired degree of centralization of management and the “freedom” of performers and adjust (2.2.2) the structure of the plan, the functional part of the automated control system and other structures formed on the basis of the analyzed structure of goals and functions, taking into account accepted management principles.

Comparative analysis of methods for structuring goals. The given examples of methods for structuring goals and functions confirm the laws of integrity and hierarchy, according to which the same system, and, accordingly, its goal, can be represented by different structures, revealing the uncertainty of integrity in different ways. The difference in structures is determined by the accepted concept of the system and the preferences of the decision makers who formulate it. When comparing and comparative analysis structuring methods, first of all, attention is drawn to the fact that only in the PATTERN method and in the method based on the concept of activity, the stage of assessing the structure of goals using formulated criteria is explicitly provided. In the author’s presentation of other methods, the second stage is not even mentioned. Information analysis of structures shows that the structuring of branches is a reflection of the preferences of its authors, i.e. that the assessment of structures is actually carried out not only during the implementation of the second stage, but also in the process of forming the structure at the first stage. Moreover, the more levels of structuring provided in the methodology, the more differentiated are the assessments of the higher levels of this structure: when forming each level, decision makers evaluate its components based on the assessments of “include or not include” in the structure. In other words, at each step of structuring, almost both stages are carried out, but the assessment is carried out not in the form of a specially organized expert survey procedure, but by eliminating unimportant components.

By comparing the methods from the point of view of their principles and their underlying concepts, we can give some recommendations for their choice in specific conditions. Thus, the concept of a dual definition of a system by A.I. Uemov is focused on describing the DM’s ideas about it. It, of course, allows for the inclusion of new control elements, changes in functions in the control cycle (which occurs as the methodology develops), but it does not contain tools that would help identify new objects, new functions, types of activities, such as the introduction of new equipment, technologies , innovations in management activities. A methodology based on the concept of a system that takes into account its interaction with the environment is useful to apply at the stages of system development, revision of production and organizational structures, and when designing new enterprises. It, as shown by the example of comparison of hierarchical structures, helps to identify new types of activities and management objects. Thus, when choosing and developing a methodology for structuring the goals and functions of the management system, it is necessary to take into account the state of the system (whether it is in a stable state, or requires a significant revision of its goals and functions in connection with the reconstruction of production, the restructuring of the management system, or the system has not yet been studied enough) , the nature of the type of activity being analyzed, the degree of knowledge of the object, the allotted period of time for the design or transformation of the control system. Therefore, it is advisable to have a generalized methodology for the formation and analysis of structures of goals and functions, which would include several methods of structuring, several methods for assessing structures (when performing the 2nd stage) and provide for the possibility of choosing a method for obtaining the initial version (options) of the structure and methods for its evaluation, the most suitable for the relevant period of development of the enterprise and its organizational management system, taking into account the nature, volume and other specific features of the enterprise being created(organizations).

Related information.

Views