Achieving a certain goal or, more precisely, moving towards a certain goal implies choosing an alternative from a set of alternatives. A criterion or a system of criteria will allow you to choose exactly the right alternative from the set. The theory of choice takes a somewhat formal approach to the problem of creating a set of alternatives and assumes that the set of alternatives is given, i.e. there is something to choose from. The main question is how to choose. This approach – a clear example of a purely formal problem statement: all the main, fundamental difficulties are considered to have already been overcome, and we are talking, one might say, about technical difficulties. But it is precisely the formation of a multitude of alternatives that is the most difficult, most creative stage of system analysis. So, according to A. Hall, the stage of searching for ideas is the culmination point of the process of solving a problem, because without ideas there is nothing to analyze and choose.
How to choose is a purely technical process, but specifying a set of alternatives is the most creative, responsible stage of system analysis. The fact is that all our efforts are aimed at finding the best alternative in a given set. And if the best alternative is not included in this set for some reason, then no selection methods will calculate it. From the point of view of mathematics, the set of alternatives can be interpreted as the vertices of the simplex, and the best alternative as the vertex of the simplex that maximizes the objective function.
There are various ways to generate alternatives:
1) attraction of qualified experts with diverse training and experience - brainstorm;
2) generating alternatives through associative thinking, searching for analogies to the task ( synectics);
3) development of scenarios;
4) business game.
As a rule, when generating alternatives, specialists use the following simple rules: increasing the number of alternatives by combining them, creating favorable conditions for generating alternatives; reduction in the number of alternatives.
It is important to consciously generate as many alternatives as possible. Various methods are used for this. – search for alternatives in patent and journal literature; the involvement of several qualified experts with a variety of training and experience; an increase in the number of alternatives due to their combination, the formation of intermediate options between those proposed earlier; modification of an existing alternative, i.e. the formation of alternatives that are only partially different from the known; the inclusion of alternatives that are opposite to those proposed, including the “zero” alternative (“do nothing”, that is, consider the consequences of the development of events without our intervention); stakeholder interviews and broader questionnaires; including even those alternatives that at first glance seem primitive or far-fetched; generation of alternatives designed for different time intervals (long-term, short-term, emergency); etc.
When organizing work at the stage of generating alternatives, one should remember the existence of factors that both inhibit creative work and promote it. Allocate internal (psychological) and external factors.
Internal factors include:
– consequences of misperception of reality; extreme manifestations – either we perceive what is not, or we do not perceive what is;
– intellectual barriers (inertia of thinking, prevailing stereotypes, subconscious self-restraints associated with beliefs, loyalty, etc.);
– emotional barriers, such as being too preoccupied with criticizing others or, conversely, fear of criticism from others, fear of a negative reaction from the customer or superiors to the proposed alternatives, subjective attitude towards the preferred types of alternatives (for example, some ardent supporters of the queuing theory try to reduced to priority tasks), etc.
External factors include:
– physical (weather and climatic) conditions that affect the productivity of creative work. Some researchers believe that there is a connection between the creative activity of entire peoples and the geographical conditions of their life. Individual performance is also affected by physical conditions. It is said that Niels Bohr dismissed students from classes if it was so hot that the wax in the test tube melted; that Timofeev-Resovsky once, on a hot day, held a meeting of an international symposium right in the pond, and this was, according to the recollections of the participants, the most fruitful meeting. It is also known the negative impact of extraneous noise, various inconveniences on labor productivity;
– social conditions, general cultural background, ideological atmosphere, which have a significant impact on individual creativity; approval of a particular social group – one of the strongest stimuli for human creativity.
If we strive to ensure that as many alternatives as possible are obtained at the initial stage, then for some problems their number can reach many tens. Obviously, a detailed study of each of them will lead to unacceptable costs of time and money. In such cases, it is recommended to carry out a rough screening, not comparing the alternatives quantitatively, but only checking them for the presence of some qualities that are desirable for any acceptable alternative. Signs of good alternatives include stability under changing certain external conditions, reliability, multi-purpose suitability, adaptability, other features of practicality . The detection of negative side effects, failure to achieve control levels for some important indicators (for example, too high a cost), etc., can also help in screening. Preliminary screening is not recommended to be too harsh, at least several alternatives are needed for a detailed analysis.
Method brainstorming specially designed to get the maximum number of offers. Its effectiveness is amazing: six people can come up with 150 ideas in half an hour. A design team working by conventional methods would never have come to the conclusion that the problem under consideration has such a variety of aspects. This is the brainstorming technique. A group of individuals selected to generate alternatives is assembled; main principle of selection – variety of professions, qualifications, experience (such a principle will help to expand the fund of a priori information that the group has). It is reported that any ideas that have arisen both individually and by association when listening to the proposals of other participants are welcome, including those that only partially improve other people's ideas (it is recommended to write each idea on a separate card). Any criticism is strictly prohibited this is the most important condition for brainstorming: the very possibility of criticism inhibits the imagination. Each in turn reads out his idea, the rest listen and write down on the cards new thoughts that arose under the influence of what they heard. Then all the cards are collected, sorted and analyzed, usually by another group of experts. The most remarkable thing is that the total result of the work of such a group, where the idea of one can lead the other to something else, often exceeds the total number of ideas put forward by the same number of people, but working alone.
The number of alternatives can then be significantly increased by combining the generated ideas. Among the ideas obtained as a result of brainstorming, there may be many stupid and unworkable ideas, but such ideas are easily excluded by subsequent criticism, because competent criticism is easier to obtain than competent creativity. There are many examples of successful brainstorming. Here is just one of them, illustrating the usefulness of the prohibition of criticism. During the war, the problem of countering enemy mines and torpedoes at sea was brainstormed. One of the ideas was as follows: "Let, as soon as a mine or a torpedo is discovered, the whole team will stand on board and blow on it!". This seemingly frivolous idea was not rejected, and upon further analysis, the rational grain contained in it was transformed into a proposal to use powerful pumps to create water flows that repel a dangerous object.
Synectics is designed to generate alternatives through associative thinking, search for analogies to the task. In contrast to brainstorming, the goal here is not the number of alternatives, but the generation of a small number of alternatives (even a single alternative) that solve a given problem. The effectiveness of synectics has been demonstrated in solving specific technical problems such as “find a simple principle for the device of drives with a constant angular velocity”, “design an improved can opener”, “invent a stronger roof”, “develop a hermetic fastener for an astronaut's suit”. There is a well-known case of a synectic solution to a more general problem of an economic plan: “to develop a new type of product with an annual sales potential of $300 million.” There are attempts to use synectics in solving social problems such as "how to distribute public funds in the field of urban planning."
The essence of synectics can be summarized as follows. A group of 5 is formed – 7 people selected on the basis of flexibility of thinking, practical experience (preference is given to people who have changed professions and specialties), psychological compatibility, sociability, mobility (the latter, as it will become clear from what follows, is very important). Once the group has developed certain skills in working together, the group engages in a systematic directed discussion of any analogies to the problem to be solved that spontaneously arise in the course of the conversations.
Synectics attaches particular importance to analogies generated by motor sensations. This is due to the fact that our natural motor reflexes are themselves highly organized and their understanding can suggest a good systemic idea. It is suggested, for example, to imagine one's body in the place of the mechanism being improved, to "feel like it", or to put oneself in the place of a fantastic organism that performs the function of the system being designed, etc. The emancipation of the imagination, intense creative work create an atmosphere of spiritual uplift, characteristic of synectics. There are also psychological difficulties that beginners experience when using this method: the appearance of remorse ("we get money for a pleasant pastime"); arrogance after the successful solution of the first problem; exhaustion of the nervous system as a result of intensive work.
The success of the work of synectic groups is facilitated by the observance of certain rules, in particular, it is forbidden to discuss the merits and demerits of members of the group; everyone has the right to stop work without any explanation at the slightest sign of fatigue; the role of leader periodically passes to other members of the group, etc.
In the United States, a special firm, Synectics, Incorporated, has been established to provide consulting and training in the field of synectics. We emphasize that, unlike brainstorming, when using synectics, special and lengthy preparation is required. During the year 5 or 6 people. must spend 1/4 of their working time on training. A team of trained full-time synectors is able to find acceptable solutions to about four minor and two major problems over the course of a year.
Scenario development. In some problems (especially in sociotechnical ones), the solution sought must determine the real future course of events. In such cases, alternatives are various (imaginary, but plausible) sequences of actions and events arising from them that may occur in the future with the system under study. These sequences have a common beginning (the present state), but then the possible states differ more and more, which leads to the problem of choice. Such hypothetical alternative descriptions of what might happen in the future are called scripts, and the method in question – scenario development. Alternative scenarios are of value to decision makers only when they are not just a fantasy, but logical models of the future, which, after the decision is made, can be considered as a prediction, as an acceptable story about what will happen if ...
Scenario creation refers to typical non-formalizable procedures, is a creative, scientific work. Nevertheless, certain experience has been accumulated in this matter, and there are some heuristics. For example, it is recommended to develop "upper" (optimistic) and "lower" (pessimistic) scenarios – as if extreme cases, between which there may be a possible future. This technique allows one to partly compensate or explicitly express the uncertainties associated with predicting the future. Sometimes it is useful to include an imaginary actively opposing element in the scenario, thus modeling the "worst case". In addition, it is recommended not to develop detailed (as unreliable and impractical) scenarios that are too “sensitive” to small deviations in the early stages.
Important steps in creating scenarios include: compiling a list of factors influencing the course of events, with a special allocation of persons who control these factors directly or indirectly; highlighting aspects of the fight against such factors as incompetence, negligence and indiscipline, bureaucracy and red tape; accounting for available resources, etc.
Morphological analysis - a simple and efficient way to generate alternatives. It consists in selecting all independent variables of the designed system, listing the possible values of these variables and generating alternatives by enumeration of all possible combinations of these values.
Let us illustrate the essence of morphological analysis on a simplified example of the development of a television communication system (Table 1)
Table 1
Tab. 1 generates 8 · 2 · 2 · 3 · 2 · 2 = 384 different possible systems. Only one alternative corresponds to modern television broadcasting: 1.4 – 2.1 – 3.1 – 4.2 – 5.1 – 6.1. There is reason to wonder why other alternatives have not yet attracted the attention of engineers.
We also note that the number of options can be increased by introducing new independent variables (in the example considered, enter image sizes with gradation from today's usual to the size of the entire wall, introduce additional information transmission channels, for example, skin-electric or tactile; switch from a single-screen system to multi-screen, etc.). One of the main problems of morphological analysis with an increase in the number of variables – it's a bust reduction problem. It is solved by imposing various restrictions that allow us to discard options that are not subject to consideration.
business game called simulation of real situations, during which the participants in the game behave as if they actually perform the role assigned to them, and reality itself is replaced by some model. Examples are staff games and maneuvers of the military, work on simulators of various operators of technical systems (pilots, power plant dispatchers, etc.), administrative games, etc. Despite the fact that most often business games are used for learning, they can also be used to experimentally generate alternatives, especially in poorly formalized situations. An important role in business games, in addition to the participants, is played by control and arbitration groups that manage the model, register the course of the game and summarize its results.
If you ask a person who is well versed in management problems how he could characterize the degree of experience of a manager, then most often you can find the following answer: the ability to predict the situation and quickly find the best way to solve the problem. But what is the “best way to solve?” how to form ways to achieve the goal of the operation in general?
Before suggesting the best approach to solving a problem, it is necessary to determine the system requirements that a set of alternatives must meet.
First, the set of alternatives should be as wide as possible. But this requirement is in conflict with the natural restrictions on time, place and opportunities in which the decision maker usually has to work. It is impossible to develop a solution indefinitely. Otherwise, there will not be enough time to implement it. This implies the second requirement of the set of alternatives - it should be visible, narrow enough so that the decision maker has more time to evaluate the preference of alternatives, and the performers have more time to implement the found best solution in practice.
In cases of deterministic or naturally indeterminate mechanisms of the situation, the method of forming the initial set of alternatives involves the improvement of fairly simple actions. At the same time, the decision maker explores the possibility of simultaneously influencing the "controlled" component of these factors, since it is precisely this method of control that most often leads to the emergence of positive properties in future alternatives. Moreover, if the decision maker intentionally affects, for example, the quality of active resources, then in this case all methods of forming alternatives are classified as so-called engineering synthesis. If the objects of the application of the efforts of the decision maker will be factors from the classes "Conditions" and "Methods", then we will have in mind the methods operational synthesis solution options. The set of options for solving the problem obtained in the course of engineering or operational synthesis will be called the set target alternatives. After receiving the target alternatives from the set, it is necessary to select those options that are logically consistent and can be implemented within the time allotted for the operation. Let's call these options physically realizable.
The obtained subset of physically realizable alternatives is supplemented with options that provide the necessary flexibility and stability in relation to possible changes in future conditions of operations. As a result of the work done, they get what we will later call original set of alternatives.
Conventionally, all methods of forming a set of alternatives can be divided into classes that differ in the degree of formalization of the technologies used:
empirical
logical-heuristic
abstract-logical
reflexive.
First arose empirical method. Meaning is a common feature inherent in certain practical methods for solving specific problems. Logical-heuristic- involve the gradual division of the problem or task under consideration into separate subtasks, questions, to such elementary actions for which heuristic solutions and specific technologies for their implementation are already known. Among the abstract-logical methods of generating alternatives, we will refer to those that allow you to abstract from the essence of specific actions or methods of work, focus only on their sequence. Typical representatives of such methods of forming the initial set of alternatives are the methods of forming plans for the execution of interrelated work and scheduling methods. reflexive used when the leading type of uncertainty is behavioral. The method is based on the consistent hypotheses about the possible goals of another subject of operations and the formation of responses on the assumption that he will not change his line of behavior under any circumstances. Form a list of possible alternatives to decision makers. Once this is done, a "parallel list" of the opponent's responses is started. The generated list of responses is then analyzed in order to find weaknesses and possible counter-actions of the subject of the operation to any action of the operating party. Thus, the "parallel lists" of alternatives of subjects are corrected and refined one by one.
If you ask a person who is well versed in management problems, how he could characterize the degree of experience of a manager, then most often you can find the following answer: the ability to predict the situation and quickly find the best way to solve the problem. What is "the ability to predict the situation" we have already discussed in the previous paragraph. What is the "best way to solve a problem"? How to form ways to achieve the goal of the operation in general?
The ability of decision makers to generate new, non-standard solutions is generally identified in the minds of many with art. Apparently, this is due to the fact that the task of forming the initial set of alternatives cannot be fully formalized. Since the solution of such a problem is a creative process, in the results of which the decision maker is primarily interested, the main role in this process, of course, belongs to the decision maker. However, before proposing a scientific approach to solving this very difficult problem, let's define the system requirements that many alternatives must meet.
First, the set of alternatives should be as wide as possible. In the future, this will provide the necessary freedom of choice for decision makers and will minimize the possibility of missing out on the “best” solution. But this first, fundamental requirement is in conflict with the natural restrictions on time, place and opportunities in which decision makers usually have to work. It is impossible to develop a solution indefinitely. Otherwise, there will be no time for its implementation. Therefore, most often in practice, decision makers are required to develop a solution as soon as possible. This immediately implies the second requirement for the original set of alternatives. This set should be visible, narrow enough so that the decision maker has more time to evaluate the preference of alternatives, and the performers have more time to implement the found best solution in practice. In order to satisfy these conflicting demands in a reasonable manner, art is required, and in order not to make gross mistakes, science must be involved. So, in accordance with the systemic principle of decomposition, science first recommends forming a set of alternatives, all elements of which potentially, according to their appearance, the possibilities hidden in them, ensure the achievement of the goal.
In cases of deterministic, stochastic or naturally indeterminate "mechanisms of the situation", the method of forming the initial set of alternatives involves performing fairly simple actions. To some extent, they all come down to a series of purposeful modifications of controllable factors that determine the effectiveness of the operation. At the same time, the decision maker explores the possibility of simultaneously influencing the "controlled" component of these factors, since it is precisely this method of control that most often leads to the emergence of positive emergent properties in future alternatives. Moreover, if the decision maker intends to influence, for example, the quality of active resources, then in this case all methods of forming alternatives are classified as so-called engineering synthesis. If the objects of the application of the efforts of the decision maker will be factors from the classes "Conditions" and "Methods", then we will have in mind the methods operational synthesis solution options.
The set of options for solving the problem obtained in the course of engineering or operational synthesis will be called the set of "target alternatives". After receiving the "target alternatives" from their set, one should select those options that are logically consistent. and can be implemented within the time allotted for the operation. At the same time, the left alternatives must be necessarily satisfied both with active resources and correspond to the general system of preferences of the decision maker. These selected variants (from among the target ones) will be called "physically realizable". Thus, the remaining options that potentially lead to the goal, but are physically unrealizable, are discarded.
The resulting subset of "physically feasible alternatives" is supplemented with options that give the methods the necessary flexibility and stability with respect to possible changes in future conditions of the operation. As a result of the work done, they get what we will later call "the original set of alternatives". brainstorming association matrix
As for the technological methods for implementing the presented general methodology for the formation of the initial set of alternatives, everything here depends on which of the theoretical classes of DMT problems (decision theory) we are faced with in a particular situation. For obvious reasons, the greatest "technological tricks" have to be applied in situations with behavioral uncertainty.
Conventionally, all methods for generating a set of alternatives can be divided into the following classes, which differ in the degree of formalization of the technologies used:
empirical (causal);
logical-heuristic;
abstract-logical (mathematical);
reflexive.
Historically, empirical methods emerged first. The choice of a specific decision by the head (manager) is based on comparing the observed situation with the situation from the database and adjusting the solutions known for these situations in relation to the features of the case under consideration.
Logical-heuristic methods for generating a set of alternatives involve the gradual division of the problem or task under consideration into separate subtasks, questions, sub-operations, and so on to such elementary actions for which heuristic solutions and specific technologies for their execution are already known. In terms of frequency of application in practice, perhaps, it is the logical-heuristic methods that occupy the first place. Typical representatives of logical-heuristic methods are the decision tree method and the method of morphological tables. They acquired this position due to their inherent visibility, simplicity and universality of the approach, the convenience of computerization of their algorithms.
The problem of forming the initial set of alternatives
This problem has already been mentioned in the previous lecture. Considering its exceptional importance, let's consider it in more detail.
The degree of experience of the decision maker is largely characterized by the ability to correctly predict the situation and find the best way to solve the problem. At the same time, to correctly determine the mechanism of the situation means to quickly establish the leading factors, and the ability of the decision maker to generate new, non-standard solutions is generally identified in the minds of people with art. In this regard, it is clear that the task of forming the initial set of alternatives cannot be fully formalized. Solving this problem is a creative process, in which the main role, of course, belongs to the decision maker. The emergence of this problem as a theoretical object of study is a direct consequence of the use of the system principle of the plurality of alternatives in the TPR.
Before solving the problem of forming the initial set of alternatives, it is necessary to determine the system requirements that this set must meet. First, the set of alternatives should be as complete as possible. In the future, this will provide the necessary freedom of choice for decision makers and will minimize the possibility of missing out on the “best” solution. However, this first fundamental requirement is in conflict with the second, arising from the principle of matching the solution to the time, place and capabilities of the decision maker. Most often in practice, such compliance is understood as a requirement to develop a solution as soon as possible. Therefore, secondly, the original set of alternatives must be visible , rather narrow so that the decision maker has enough time to assess the consequences and preference of alternatives given the current resource constraints. The problem of meeting these two conflicting requirements is solved systematically, based on decomposition principle .
Following the systemic principle of decomposition, at first a set of alternatives is formed, all elements of which potentially, according to their appearance, according to the possibilities hidden in them, ensure the achievement of the target result in the current situation. The set of contenders obtained in this way for a method of solving the problem will be called many targeted alternatives .
Then, from the set of target alternatives, those options are selected that are logically consistent and can be implemented within the time allotted for the operation. In addition, the selected alternatives must be satisfied with the necessary active resources and meet the general preference system of the decision maker.
We call these options selected from the target alternatives physically realizable alternatives from among the targets. The remaining options, potentially leading to the goal, but physically unrealizable, are discarded.
The options obtained as a result of such manipulations are complemented by methods of action that give the alternatives the necessary flexibility and stability in relation to the changing or currently unknown components of the operation conditions. As a result, they get the original set of alternatives.
Technologically, the method of forming the initial set of alternatives involves a number of special purposeful modifications of the main factors of the situation mechanism. They consist in the simultaneous or sequential impact on the controlled (subject to the will of the decision maker) part of the characteristics of the quality of the active resources used, the characteristics of the conditions and methods of action.
It is this idea that underlies most of the known methods and algorithms for the formation of the initial set of alternatives.
Historically, the first to appear empirical methods that require minimal formalization. The simplest of this class is the method based on the use of a cause-and-effect diagram. A typical modern representative of empirical methods is the CBR method (Case-Based Reasoning - "method of reasoning based on past experience").
The next class is formed logic-heuristic procedures , where the formalization is carried out at the level of managing logical relationships. As examples of the implementation of such methods are decision tree methods and morphological table method .
Typical representatives of the class of methods for generating alternatives, in which the greatest degree of formalization of all stages of generation has been achieved, are the methods of network and scheduling.
A special class is formed by the methods of forming alternatives in conditions where the decision is developed by a "group decision maker", when there is a complete or partial coincidence of interests of the participants in the decision-making process, however, due to the unequal interpretation of the goals of actions, the peculiarities of the individual perception of the problem situation, and for other reasons, the sovereign opinions of the participants the decision-making process must be agreed upon in the overall decision. Other representatives of the methods of this class are methods for generating alternatives in conditions conflict and opposition sovereign entities involved in the decision maker's operation either of their own free will or against their will. Such situations are characteristic of economic, social, political and military conflicts. In all such situations, as a rule, reflexive methods are used to form alternatives. Such methods are characterized by an average level of formalization using simple mathematical models.
In terms of frequency of application in practice, perhaps the first place is occupied by logical-heuristic methods. They acquired this position due to their inherent visibility, simplicity and universality of the approach, the convenience of computerization of their algorithms. The essence of these methods boils down to the fact that at first, on the basis of a logical analysis of the purpose of the operation, a tree of goals and objectives . Then each subgoal or task is also detailed, and this operation continues until the decision maker becomes clear which of the known means (or in what way) to solve each particular task.
If you ask a person who is well versed in management problems, how he could characterize the degree of experience of a manager, then most often you can find the following answer: the ability to predict the situation and quickly find the best way to solve the problem. What is "the ability to predict the situation" has already been discussed in the previous paragraph. But what is the “best way to solve a problem”? How to form ways to achieve the goal of the operation in general?
The ability of decision makers to generate new, non-standard solutions is generally identified in the minds of many with art. Apparently, this is due to the fact that the task of forming the initial set of alternatives cannot be fully formalized. Since the solution of such a problem is a creative process, in the results of which the decision maker is primarily interested, the main role in this process, of course, belongs to the decision maker. However, before proposing a scientific approach to solving this very difficult problem, let's define the system requirements that many alternatives must meet.
First, the set of alternatives should be as wide as possible. In the future, this will provide the necessary freedom of choice for decision makers and will minimize the possibility of missing out on the “best” solution. But this first, fundamental requirement is in conflict with the natural restrictions on time, place and opportunities in which decision makers usually have to work. It is impossible to develop a solution indefinitely. Otherwise, there will be no time for its implementation. Therefore, most often in practice, decision makers are required to develop a solution as soon as possible. This immediately implies the second requirement for the original set of alternatives. This set should be visible, narrow enough so that the decision maker has more time to evaluate the preference of alternatives, and the performers have more time to implement the found best solution in practice. In order to satisfy these conflicting demands in a reasonable manner, art is required, and in order not to make gross mistakes, science must be involved. So, in accordance with the systemic principle of decomposition, science first recommends forming a set of alternatives, all elements of which potentially, according to their appearance, the possibilities hidden in them, ensure the achievement of the goal.
In cases of deterministic, stochastic or naturally indeterminate "mechanisms of the situation", the method of forming the initial set of alternatives involves performing fairly simple actions. To some extent, they all come down to a number of purposeful modifications of controllable factors that determine the effectiveness of the operation (Fig. 2.2.). At the same time, the decision maker explores the possibility of simultaneously influencing the “controlled” component of these factors, since it is precisely this method of control that most often leads to the emergence of positive emergent properties in future alternatives. Moreover, if the decision maker intends to influence, for example, the quality of active resources, then in this case all methods of forming alternatives are classified as so-called engineering synthesis. If, however, the factors from the classes "Conditions" and "Methods" become the object of application of the decision maker's efforts, then we will have in mind the methods of operational synthesis of solutions.
The set of options for solving the problem obtained in the course of engineering or operational synthesis will be called the set of “target alternatives”. After receiving the "target alternatives" from their set, one should select those options that are logically consistent and can be implemented within the time allotted for the operation. At the same time, the left alternatives must be necessarily satisfied both with active resources and correspond to the general system of preferences of the decision maker. We will call these selected options (from among the target ones) “physically realizable”. Thus, the remaining options that potentially lead to the goal, but are physically unrealizable, are discarded.
The obtained subset of "physically feasible alternatives" is supplemented with options that give the methods the necessary flexibility and stability in relation to possible changes in future conditions of the operation. As a result of the work done, they get exactly what we will further call the “initial set of alternatives”.
As for the technological methods for implementing the presented general methodology for the formation of the initial set of alternatives, everything here depends on which of the theoretical classes of TPR problems we encounter in a particular situation. For obvious reasons, the greatest "technological tricks" have to be applied in situations with behavioral uncertainty.
Conventionally, all methods of forming a set of alternatives can be divided into the following classes, which differ in the degree of formalization of the applied technologies:
§ empirical (causal);
§ logical and heuristic;
§ abstract-logical (mathematical);
§ reflexive.
Historically, empirical methods emerged first. At first, people noticed some common features inherent in various practical methods for solving specific problems. Then this experience was creatively generalized and turned into a set of rules on how to act in this or that case. Similar methods are still in use today. For example, the CBR (Case-Based Reasoning) machine technology is known. Its essence is that. the analyzed decision-making situation is compared in the computer memory with all similar situations known from the past. From the database, the machine selects several situations similar to the analyzed one and presents them to the decision maker.
The choice of a specific decision by the head (manager) is based on comparing the observed situation with the situation from the database and adjusting the solutions known for these situations in relation to the features of the case under consideration.
Logical-heuristic methods for generating a set of alternatives involve the gradual division of the problem or task under consideration into separate subtasks, questions, sub-operations, and so on to such elementary actions for which heuristic solutions and specific technologies for their execution are already known. In terms of frequency of application in practice, perhaps, it is the logical-heuristic methods that occupy the first place. Typical representatives of logical-heuristic methods are the decision tree method and the method of morphological tables. They acquired this position due to their inherent visibility, simplicity and universality of the approach, the convenience of computerization of their algorithms.
Consider the technology of the decision tree method. For a holistic and unified understanding of it, we will use three basic concepts: “important circumstance”, “measurable characteristic”, “final” element. We will consider as an "important circumstance" any factor that the decision maker considers necessary to take into account in the process of working on the problem. Important circumstances, properties of objects or tasks that can not only be described verbally, but also measured, will be called "measurable characteristics". An important circumstance, which ends any branch of the tree, we will call "final". By analogy, we will use the concepts of the final subgoal, the final measurable characteristic.
As already noted, first, on the basis of a logical analysis of the purpose of the operation, the decision maker builds a “tree of goals”. This is the first stage. At the same time, the goal tree should be built either on the basis of a detailed description of the “desired” state (chain), or the decomposition of the “actual” state (which does not satisfy the decision maker in it, which must be eliminated). In fact, this is the same thing, because the decision maker must understand "what it wants." However, in terms of the form of logical activity, these are different approaches (like synthesis and analysis).
If the goal tree is built on the basis of the analysis of the "desired" state, it is more convenient to display the branching procedure graphically. The result of building a goal tree is not unambiguous. This is due to the fact that each decision maker decides for himself when to end the branching of goals. At the second stage, in the constructed tree of goals, each of the final particular tasks is associated with a method known from practice for solving it. The result is a decision tree. But since the goal tree is a subjective product of the creative activity of the decision maker, then the decision tree will most likely turn out to be unique, since the decision maker determines which heuristic methods to adopt for solving certain final tasks.
If the decomposition process is carried out during the analysis of the essence of the "real" state, then in this case the decision maker seeks to identify those "important circumstances" that, according to the decision maker, must be changed to achieve the goal. These important circumstances are also depicted in the form of a tree. After that, the decision maker again has only to replace all the important final circumstances in the resulting tree with specific heuristic ways to change them and get a decision tree. A feature of the technology for constructing a decision tree by decomposition of the "actual state" is that each of the important circumstances could be described by a measurable characteristic. If such a requirement is met, then it can be argued that the representation of the "actual state" will be unambiguous. In practice, the degree of unambiguous perception is determined by the degree of perfection of the scales used to describe the final elements.
Finally, it should be borne in mind that all the options obtained by the decision tree method can be mutually exclusive or compatible. If the options are mutually exclusive, then the number of possible alternatives is equal to the number of branches in the tree. For the case of compatible solutions, the number of alternatives is determined by the number of admissible combinations of solutions. The advantage of the decision tree method is the visibility and logical completeness of the set of alternatives. The disadvantage of this procedure is its cumbersomeness (however, all graphic-analytical methods sin with this).
The method of morphological tables, on the one hand, is a certain modification of the decision tree method. On the other hand, at a certain stage of the work, the decision maker abstracts from the essence of the final heuristic methods or techniques in order to generate non-traditional (previously unknown) options. To do this, the decomposition method is actively used for the informal and abstract (formal) stages of the process of the method.
First (informal, heuristic stage), the known methods of solving the problem are written out in an arbitrary order. Then these methods are analyzed (formal, logical stage) in order to identify their common system properties.
Acting in this way, it is possible to distinguish classes of methods of action and objects of application of efforts. The names of these classes are further used as headings of the morphological table (names of rows and columns). To facilitate the construction of a morphological table, the following sequence of actions is usually followed:
§ add to the morphological table ways to solve the problem from the compiled list;
§ consider sequentially each empty cell of the table. At the same time, based on your personal experience, intuition, or with the help of experts, formulate at least one simple solution for the considered combination of the object of application of efforts and the method of action.
Among the abstract-logical (mathematical) methods of generating alternatives, we include those that allow you to abstract from the essence of specific actions or methods of work, focus only on their sequence. To do this, you usually have to first build a mathematical model for the entire operation. Typical representatives of such methods for forming the initial set of alternatives are methods for forming plans for the execution of interrelated work (network planning and management methods) and scheduling methods.
Reflexive methods for generating alternatives are used when the leading type of uncertainty is behavioral. The method is based on the consistent hypotheses about the possible goals of another subject of the operation and the formation of responses on the assumption that he will not change his line of behavior under any circumstances. Form a list of possible alternatives to decision makers. Once this is done, a "parallel list" of the opponent's responses is started. The generated list of responses is then analyzed in order to find weaknesses and possible counter-actions of the subject of the operation to any action of the operating party. Thus, the "parallel lists" of alternatives of subjects are corrected and refined one by one. The reflexive action-counteraction process is repeated until the sets of actions and reactions stabilize.
A special class is formed by the methods of forming alternatives for the case when the decision is developed by a "group decision maker". In such a collective governing body, one can always see both full and partial coincidence of interests of the participants in the decision-making process, and various kinds of conflicts of interest. Often, discrepancies of interests are explained by an unequal interpretation of the goals of actions, due to the individual characteristics of the perception of a problem situation. Sometimes this may be the result of deliberate actions of individual sovereign participants in the “collective decision maker”. A typical example is departmental interests or a purposeful destructive policy. This is very characteristic of economic, social and political conflicts. It is in such situations that reflexive methods are most effective.