Fundamentals of the management decisions theory

Размещено на http://allbest.ru

Kherson State University

Fundamentals of the management decisions theory

Iuliia Ushkarenko

Doctor of economic sciences, professor



Management decisions, as one of the key and defining elements of management, are aimed at achieving the goals of the organization - optimizing performance results. The science of «management» studies the problems of justification, adoption, and implementation of management decisions in close interaction with the mathematical theory of decision making, which in the 19^th-20th centuries. had revolutionary development and is being dynamically improved today. The concept of a management decision in science is usually interpreted as choosing the best way to solve a problem from a variety of alternatives. One cannot but agree with this definition.

Existing in a management system, management decisions and the mechanism for making them directly depend on the type of management itself. In the practice of management (management), three methodological approaches are known: traditional, systemic, situational. Traditional management (approach) develops and uses management principles and rules that are suitable for any organization. The traditional approach understands management as a fairly simple one-dimensional interaction of people in an organization. This approach implies a simplified attitude to the processes of forming management decisions.

The systems management approach focuses on the interaction of parts in an organization and emphasizes the importance of studying each individual part in the context of the whole. The main elements of the system approach are: login (incoming resources); the process of converting incoming resources into a product; logout (product); feedback (knowledge of the result influencing the chain in the opposite direction). Methods for making management decisions in a system management environment are subject to the laws of linear programming and are also obviously simplified.

Situational management (approach) is based on the fact that in managing an organization there is not only one set of principles (rules) that could be used in all situations. In systems engineering, a situation is understood as the triple «state of the control object» - «available control actions» - «consequences of control actions» [6].

Later, it was proposed to distinguish three more types of management: social-ethical, moral-ethical, stabilization.

Social and ethical management is aimed at reducing the likelihood of making decisions that could lead to unacceptable damage to the financial, technological, technical, personnel, external and internal structures of objects falling within the sphere of influence of the decisions being made. In this case, the object of activity is chosen as a result of social and ethical marketing. Objects falling within the sphere of influence of the decisions made can be classified at various levels of the hierarchy: individuals (consumers, intermediaries and personnel), legal entities (suppliers, intermediaries, consumers), wildlife, society as a whole, if their dependence on these decisions cannot be considered negligible. It is important that operations are considered that are not intended to cause unacceptable damage.

If in the management process a decision is made that leads to unacceptable damage to objects falling within the sphere of influence of the decisions made, then social and ethical management requires the development of sufficient compensating solutions. forecasting planning management social

Management goals (the ideal result of activity in the future, for example, profit maximization, etc.) in social and ethical management should take into account, as a limitation, the requirement of not causing unacceptable damage to other elements of the market system. This requirement must also be taken into account when formalizing management goals in the process of synthesizing a criterion for assessing the effectiveness of a decision. For example, the criterion can be formulated as follows: «Maximize net profit while avoiding certain consequences (recognized as unacceptable: changes in market shares by more than ...% in a calendar period, price changes by more than ...% per month and etc.) for certain market participants» [9, p. 115].

The implementation of social and ethical concepts of marketing and management is possible if the following problems are solved. Firstly, it is necessary to predict the consequences of impacts in the future, exceeding, in particular, the total duration of development cycles, market and life cycles of goods. For this purpose, appropriate forecasting methods can be used. Secondly, it is necessary to justify the norms for the values of the most important parameters in accordance with the classification of states (for example, into desirable, acceptable, undesirable, unacceptable) of objects falling within the sphere of influence of the decisions made.

For this purpose, methods of system analysis and management theory can be used. Thirdly, special procedures for developing and making decisions in social and ethical management must be synthesized.

Social and ethical management is closely related and can be used to manage social processes, ensure life safety, legal regulation and other areas of life.

To reduce the likelihood of making decisions that could lead to unacceptable consequences for the object of activity chosen as a result of social and ethical marketing, it is necessary to develop generally acceptable standards and define the concept of «unacceptable damage». Researchers agreed to consider the state of a person or organization unacceptable if, due to at least one of their needs, they are located in an area that does not allow them to support the life of a person or the functioning of an organization.

Socio-ethical management can be effective in ensuring the development and consolidation in scientific, organizational, and in some areas or hierarchical levels (for example, the state) of decision-making and legal plans of special decision-making algorithms.Stabilization management has as its goal either to ensure that the control object is in a given range of parameter values, or to prevent this object from moving into the area of uncontrollable, unacceptable states. This type of management does not set new independent goals.

It is important to consider that different types of management: firstly, in general, use forecasting and planning as a management tool to varying degrees; secondly, in particular, they use different methods of forecasting and planning management decisions to varying degrees.

Thus, typical traditional management is more inclined to rely on forecasting results by analogy with expert forecasting. System management more often uses functional- logical and structural forecasting.

In situational and socio-ethical management, functional-logical, structural, and mathematical parametric forecasting are used. At the same time, social and ethical management additionally requires a forecast and assessment of the admissibility of the states of objects falling within the zone of influence of the solutions being developed.

The existing classification of solutions makes it possible to study their features and select the most effective ones under the conditions of a specific task. However, due to the complexity of the conditions (number of influencing factors), decision-making goals, requirements and decision structure, it seems quite problematic for the author to create a simple and clear classification of them. Therefore, there can and do exist different classifications of management decisions.

First of all, according to the nature and specificity of the methods of influencing the control object, researchers distinguish political, economic, technical (design, technological) solutions [4, 5, etc.]. However, it is immediately necessary to note the interconnection and interdependence of «political - economic - technical decisions». And, conversely, from the author's point of view, it is possible to trace how the political system influences the prevailing type of management (traditional, situational, etc.) and economic priorities, and these priorities and the type of management predetermine the decisions made.

With another approach, it is possible to classify decisions according to the number of subjects (active parties) influencing it [2]:

- one subject - determining decisions (internal decisions in the organization, decisions of government bodies, etc.);

- two or more entities - competitive solutions;

- one subject of decision and nature - adapting solutions.

In addition, in decision-making theory, it is customary to distinguish individual classification features, namely [4, p. 16]:

- the number of objectives of operations pursued by each of the operating parties;

- dependence of the goals and conditions of the decision on time (static and dynamic decision-making problems);

- the presence of random and uncertain conditions.

At the same time, it seems possible to classify solutions where the following factors are considered as classifying features [6]:

- organizational (prescribed by job descriptions and powers) or dispositional, initiative (generated by the current situation);

- factors of the problem that gave rise to them (functional, structural, parametric);

- frequency of adoption (one-time, cyclical, constant (process));

- the degree of structure of the solution: programmed (standard) and unprogrammed (original);

- time of onset of consequences: strategic, long-term, current, operational;

- target (allowing you to achieve independent goals) and stabilization (ensuring that the parameters of the control object are within certain tolerance limits);

- target decisions, which, according to the factor of the methodology of adoption, can be divided into decisions of traditional, systemic, situational, socio-ethical, moral and ethical management;

- the nature and quality of the information available;

- efficiency (ineffective, rational, optimal solutions can be distinguished);

- factor for assessing the acceptability or unacceptability of consequences for control object and (or) elements of the external environment;

- possibility of implementation: realizable or unrealizable (the solution may be unrealizable due to the lack of necessary organization, motivation, control, resources, opposition from groups (group egoism), conflicts during implementation.);

- degree of risk: with acceptable, critical or catastrophic risk;

- responsibility: legal (criminal or civil), social, moral;

- subject area of management (political, economic, technical, technological, constructive, marketing, production, sales, financial decisions, decisions on development, management, planning, organization, motivation, control, etc.);

- stage of the development cycle: life cycle or market cycle;

- control object: system (systems engineering) and process (operations research);

- the nature of the efficiency of resource use and technology: ordinary (conventional), synergistic or asynergic.

Other approaches to classifying solutions are also possible. This is due to the variety of solutions and factors significant for a particular case. Based on the technology for developing solutions, researchers identify the following types of solutions [2, 9, etc.].An organizational decision is a choice that a manager must make in order to fulfill the responsibilities of his position. These solutions fall into two categories.

A programmed decision is the result of implementing a certain sequence of steps or actions (decisionmaking algorithm), similar to those taken when solving a mathematical equation. Typically, the number of possible alternatives is limited and choices must be made within the directions given by the organization.

The development of decision-making algorithms can be called an important auxiliary tool in making effective organizational decisions. Moreover, the development of special decision-making algorithms can ensure the necessary level of quality of organizational decisions and reduce the role of subjective factors.

Unprogrammed decisions are required in situations that are somewhat new, internally unstructured, or involve unknown factors. Since it is impossible to draw up a specific sequence of necessary steps in advance, the manager must develop a decision-making procedure. Programmed decisions include decisions with a high degree of creativity, for example, what should be the goals of the organization, how to improve products, etc.

In practice, few management decisions turn out to be programmed or unprogrammed in their pure form. Most likely, they are extreme reflections of some spectrum in the case of both every day and fundamental decisions. Almost all decisions end up somewhere between the extremes. Few programmed decisions are so structured that the personal initiative of the person making them is completely excluded. And even in the situation of the most difficult choice, the methodology for making programmed decisions can be useful.

Moreover, throughout the study of the organizational decision-making process, it should always be remembered that it is so closely related to the management process as a whole that, provided that the approach is realistic, they cannot be considered separately.

It is important to note that in almost all cases it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a manager to make a decision that does not have negative consequences. Every decision must «balance such conflicting values, goals, and criteria that, from any point of view, it will be less than optimal. Every decision or choice that affects the entire enterprise will have negative consequences for some parts of it» [6]. That is why the organization should be viewed from the perspective of a systems approach and the possible consequences of a management decision for all parts of the organization should be taken into account.

An effective leader understands and accepts as a fact that the alternative he chooses may have disadvantages, perhaps significant ones. He makes this decision - he makes a compromise - because, taking into account all the factors, it seems to be the most desirable from the point of view of the final effect. There are situations in which temporarily refusing to choose at all would be a good solution. For example, if additional information is due soon and time is not a critical factor, it may be better not to make a decision immediately. The literature also contains a classification of decisions, according to which the decision-making process is intuitive, based on judgment, or rational in nature [2, 5, 6].

A purely intuitive decision is a choice made only on the basis of a feeling that it is correct. The decision maker does not consciously weigh the pros and cons of each alternative and does not even need to understand the situation. In a complex organizational situation, thousands of choices are possible. From a statistical point of view, the chances of making the right choice without some application of logic are low. Judgment-based decisions are relevant in this situation.

Such decisions sometimes seem intuitive because their logic is not obvious. A judgment based decision is a choice driven by knowledge or experience. A person uses knowledge of what has happened in similar situations before to predict the outcome of alternative choices in an existing situation. Using common sense, he chooses an alternative that has brought success in the past.

Judgment as a basis for organizational decision is useful because many situations in organizations tend to repeat themselves frequently. In this case, the previously made decision can work again no worse than before (this is the main advantage of programmed decisions).

Since a decision based on judgment is made in the head of the manager, it has such a significant advantage as the speed and cheapness of its adoption. It relies on common sense, but true common sense is very rare. Perhaps more importantly, judgment alone will not be sufficient to make a decision when the situation is unique or very complex.

The judgment cannot be related to a situation that is truly new because the manager has no experience on which to base a logical choice. This should include any situation that is new to the organization, for example, a change in the range of products produced, the development of a new technology, or the trial of a reward system that differs from the current one. In a complex situation, judgment may turn out to be poor, since the factors that need to be taken into account are too many for the «naked» human mind and it is not able to comprehend and compare them all.

Since judgment is always based on experience, excessive emphasis on experience biases decisions in directions familiar to managers from their previous actions. Because of this bias, a manager may miss a new alternative that should be more effective than familiar choices. More importantly, a leader who is overly committed to judgment and experience may consciously or unconsciously avoid taking advantage of opportunities to venture into new areas. If you take this thought to its conclusion, fear of new areas of activity can end in disaster.

The risk of failure due to making a bad decision cannot be ruled out, but in many cases a manager can significantly increase the likelihood of making the right choice by approaching the decision rationally. The main difference between rational and judgmental decisions is that the former is not dependent on past experience. In accordance with the predicted effectiveness, we can distinguish, first of all, ordinary and synergistic solutions [10].Ordinary decisions are decisions in which the efficiency of resource expenditure per unit of effect obtained corresponds to the norms and standards adopted for the industry or type of activity under consideration.

Synergistic solutions are solutions in which the efficiency of resource expenditure per unit of effect obtained increases sharply, that is, the effect is clearly disproportionately increasing. Synergistic solutions arise when developing new intensive technologies or integrating elements of systems or operations. Since the effect is most often expressed in monetary terms, the synergistic effect is most often found in the financial sector. In financial management, synergistic solutions are called leverage or leverage. The indicator of the synergy of a management decision can be included in the criterion for assessing effectiveness, in particular, as an additional parameter of the effect.

Asynergic solutions are those that lead to a disproportionate reduction in the efficiency of the system and/or operation. Among the most common reasons for such decisions are: delay in decision, lack of necessary resources, ignoring the lack of organization and motivation for resolving conflicts generated by the solution, etc.

This classification, from the author's point of view, is most interesting for analyzing and managing the effectiveness of decisions, since it allows us to take into account many factors influencing the adoption and implementation of decisions in practice. In this regard, it seems to the author that it is advisable to distinguish the following types among ordinary solutions: ineffective, not allowing to solve the problem; rational, i.e. allowing you to solve the problem; optimal solution option - an option that allows you to solve the problem in the best way, in the sense defined by the criterion, or to build the best system in the sense defined by the criterion. The author intends to dwell on this in more detail in the paragraph devoted to the criteria for assessing the effectiveness of systems and operations.

Based on the importance of taking into account time constraints on the development, adoption and execution of decisions, the following types of decisions can be distinguished [7]:

- real-time decisions are decisions made and implemented quickly enough to monitor and manage the object, including in the event of emergency control situations. This category of decisions includes all decisions on actually occurring processes. It seems possible to distinguish «crisis solutions» from real-time decisions;

- decisions made during one of the stages;

- decisions that do not have obvious restrictions on the time of their adoption (these are, first of all, decisions on the start of a process or a single action).

Based on the composition and complexity of the solution implementation, two types of solutions can be distinguished [3, 7, 10]:

- simple - implemented by performing one action;

- process - implemented when a certain set is executedinterrelated actions.

Process decisions, in turn, can be divided into:

1) algorithmized - with a clearly defined sequence, deadlines for completing the component actions and a certain responsibility for their implementation (only such decisions can be implemented automatically, in a bureaucratic organization);

2) vague decisions - decisions poorly structured in terms of component actions and (or) deadlines for their implementation, in which there is no unambiguous distribution of duties and (or) responsibilities for the implementation of actions that make up the decisions (such decisions are more often carried out in the dialogue mode of an individualistic organization).

Based on the characteristics and nature of taking into account or not taking into account changes in the conditions of implementation, the following decisions can be distinguished [11]:

- flexible solutions, implementation algorithms, which in advance, already upon their adoption, provide for various options for action depending on emerging conditions;

- tough decisions that have a single implementation option under any conditions and state of the subjects and objects of management.

In general, it seems possible to assert that the knowledge and use of classification characteristics of a solution indicates the solution developer's understanding of the problem facing him.

In particular, understanding what kind of solution is being prepared allows the person developing the solution to more clearly formulate and solve the problems of the solution development stages. For example, the use of classification characteristics of a solution makes it possible to determine the composition of the information necessary to develop a solution. This helps concentrate efforts and more efficiently spend time and money when developing solutions. Thus, any of the proposed classification criteria may have practical utility in certain management decision-making circumstances.

In fact, all researchers who offer their classification of management decisions, from the author's point of view, are right. There is no scientific controversy in this area, and different approaches to the selection of classification criteria are explained only by different emphasis, and not by different views on the problem.

For the purposes of the study, it seems rational to the author to classify management decisions according to the number of influencing factors, the degree of structure, the time of onset of consequences, the nature and quality of the initial information. All these classification criteria are listed above. The criteria for classifying solutions chosen by the author are the most typical in science and practice. Thus, the reasons that create the need to solve problems in production can be different. Operational tasks in most cases arise as a result of random deviations from the normal course of production (machine breakdown, defects in the manufacture of products, lack of any material, tools, etc.). These types of problems must be solved in a short time.

Production tasks are related to the elimination of shortcomings existing in production (systematic overexpenditure of materials or wages, unsatisfactory organization of maintenance of the main production, etc.).

When solving such problems, it is necessary to carry out a deep systemic analysis of the reasons causing these shortcomings and develop measures to eliminate them. Solving problems of this kind can take quite a long time. Tasks of the third type consist in choosing optimal tactics and strategies in production management activities (creating new product designs, introducing new equipment into production, etc.). The fourth type of tasks may include issues related to forecasting production development.

Tasks of the second, third and fourth types are quite difficult to distinguish, since they have much in common and are closely related to each other. However, problems of the second type are much easier to solve than those of the third, since they depend less on random, probabilistic phenomena. The most difficult problems to solve are problems of the fourth type.

According to the number of factors (subjects) of decision-making, they are divided into one-factor, two- factor and adaptive. Single-factor decisions should be understood as the sole decisions of the manager, decisions of an administrative nature. Two-factor decisions mean competitive decisions, the adoption of which takes into account the opinions of two or more persons who have an equal position in the organization's management hierarchy. These decisions are the fruit of discussion and compromise. Finally, adaptive decisions are a consequence of the need to harmonize the desired management result with the objective characteristics of the production environment.

Standard and original solutions are fundamentally different in terms of structure, that is, in the presence (absence) of a proven algorithm for their adoption. Typical decisions are most often made frequently; they can relate to any area of production management, but are predominantly of an operational or current nature. Prospective, and especially strategic decisions, by definition cannot be typical due to the originality of the situation in which each organization finds itself and the lack of experience in making such decisions at each subsequent stage of its development.

Based on the time of onset of consequences, the author divided decisions into operational, current, long-term and strategic. The author considers it unnecessary to define specific time frames for classifying decisions into one category or another, since these very conditional criteria can negatively affect the approach to solving the problem on the merits. As a result, the author defines operational decisions as those made daily as part of the normally ongoing production process. Current solutions are also short-term, but more ambitious than operational ones.

They may affect several areas of management. Prospective decisions are made, as it seems to the author, within the framework of the planning period. Finally, strategic decisions are much less specific and are designed for real implementation in the long term. They mainly concern the establishment and revision of the organization's goals, activities carried out, etc.

Finally, decisions vary significantly in the nature and quality of the input information. Recognizing the fact that every decision is made under conditions of uncertainty, it should be noted that the degree of uncertainty is ambiguous. At the same time, trying to ensure the quality and array of information, one should not forget about the time limitations of the period of justification and decision-making.

It is obvious that the implementation of the production management process through the adoption of management decisions and their subsequent implementation should be in close relationship with the methods of making management decisions. In order to be effective, that is, to achieve certain goals, the solution must, from the author's point of view, satisfy a number of requirements:

- be real, i.e. proceed from achievable goals, actually available resources and time (the decision must contain goals, decomposition (division) of the goal into tasks, an assessment of the available and required resources, a scenario for achieving goals as a result of solving problems and other elements of the relevant focus);

- contain an implementation mechanism, that is, the content of the decision should include sections covering organization, stimulation, control during the implementation of decisions;

- be resistant in efficiency to possible errors in determining the initial data;

- prepare, accept and execute in real time those processes that are controlled, taking into account the possible speed of development of abnormal, emergency situations (sometimes they try to ignore this most important requirement - only control in normal situations is considered);

- be implementable, that is, not contain provisions that will disrupt implementation as a result of the conflicts they generate;

- be flexible, that is, change the goal and/or algorithm for achieving the goal when external or internal conditions change, contain a description of the states of the control object, the external environment, in which the implementation of the decision should be suspended and the development of a new solution should begin;

- provide for the possibility of verification and control of execution;

- Goals and objectives must be realistic and correlated with available

- resources and their types to solve specific problems, as well as those methods and technologies that are supposed to be used. This involves the use of various types of standardization when forecasting and planning decisions.

The solution will be implementable if it provides for: organization, stimulation (motivation), control of implementation. Organizing the implementation of a decision can include two aspects. First, it is the organization of a new system to solve a major new problem. In this case, the method of functional-logical design of the structures of organizational and production systems can be used [2]. Secondly, this is a change in the functions, structure, parameters of an existing system. In particular, it is important to avoid linear-functional conflict in the organization, generated by the discrepancy between the administrative division (departmentation) of the organization and the technologies used. At the same time, there is a redistribution of the functions of departments, their specialization and, accordingly, power, responsibility, the roles of individual managers, with all the ensuing consequences.

Stimulating the implementation of a decision can also be twofold: organization-wide or targeted. Organization-wide incentives are usually called incentives provided by the fact of working in a given organization in a given position, with corresponding material rewards, social status, and the opportunity for self-realization.

The threat of losing a position can ensure the implementation of a decision as long as the health factors corresponding to this position (workload, remuneration, safety, etc.) are in an acceptable range for this category of managers. When health factors go beyond the above range, organizational motivation becomes insufficient. Therefore, when developing a solution, it is first necessary to check whether the level of corporate incentives is sufficient and, if not, to provide targeted measures and allocate appropriate resources for this. At the same time, not only material, but also moral incentives, as well as the expectation of career growth, can be used as motivating resources.

The lack of real control measures, especially when this is known at the stage of developing decisions, can make all other work on preparing and making decisions meaningless. The quality of a management decision determines to a large extent the final result and the effectiveness of performing management tasks. It depends on a number of factors [1, 3, 6, 9]:

- the quality of the source information, determined by its reliability, sufficiency, protection from interference and errors, form of presentation (it is known that the accuracy of the calculation results cannot be higher than the accuracy used to calculate the information.);

- the optimal or rational nature of the decision being made;

- timeliness of decisions made, determined by their speeddevelopment, acceptance, transfer and organization of execution;

- compliance of decisions made with the current management mechanism and management methods based on it;

- qualifications of personnel involved in the development, adoption of decisions and organization of their execution;

- readiness of the managed system to execute decisions made.

Making a final decision is preceded by the formalization of the problem situation, the search for similar, previously encountered situations, and an attempt to break the decision-making process into several stages, which are easier to algorithmize than the entire decision-making process as a whole. It seems to the author that, regardless of the type of decision, and most often even unconsciously, the decision maker performs these actions when making each decision. Only the degree of detail of the model of a problem situation and the time of its construction differ. Thus, an ordinary operational decision is made, one might say, «automatically», but solving an original strategic problem may require a lengthy detailed analysis of possibilities, prospects, and consequences.

The formalization of a problem situation with the aim of resolving it is implemented in the construction of a model, the presence of which is especially important when making a decision in a complex situation. By complex decision-making situations we mean problem situations that differ from simple situations by the presence of at least one of the following features:

- the decision maker has not encountered a similar problem before, it is difficult for him to immediately formulate the purpose of the upcoming operation and select adequate criteria for its description, he does not have sufficient information to analyze the problem or does not have experience in building models to study the situation;

- the decision maker has previously encountered similar problems (he knows ways to solve analogous problems), but the problem he is currently considering has significant features in the listed aspects in comparison with analogous problems;

- the decision maker knows that the leading factors when making a decision are deterministic (unambiguous mechanism of the situation), but he is unable to adequately describe the purpose of the operation with a single target function (indicator) and is forced to resort to several evaluation criteria - multi-criteria decision-making situation;

- the decision maker does not have sufficient information about the genesis (nature, origin) and contributions of factors of different genetic nature to the operation of the situation mechanism, but the information he has about such factors indicates the predominance of factors of an uncertain nature, turning the situation mechanism into ambiguous;

- the decision maker is not the only subject on whose will the course and outcome of the operation depends. There are also (one or more) sovereign subjects whose opinion cannot be ignored when making decisions due to existing relations (legal, contractual or conflict).

It can be argued that when developing solutions in complex situations, gradual (over time) and abrupt (instantaneous) changes in ideas in the mind of the decision maker about the essence of the complex problem facing him and about the best way to solve it are observed.

The process of solving a problem begins with its formulation. However, it is not always immediately possible to do this accurately. As research progresses, new questions related to its solution often arise that may influence the results. In this regard, as the solution process progresses, clarifications and, in some cases, changes in the formulation of the problem are made. In cases where similar problems have already been solved, existing experience is used when formulating the problem, and therefore it can be formulated immediately with sufficient accuracy.

When considering the question of what caused the formulation of the problem, to a certain extent the general contours of the created situation are already clarified. However, for a more precise formulation of the problem and in order to make the right decision, it is necessary, on the basis of already available information, to first study the situation so that it is possible to identify the internal and external causes of its occurrence, to establish which of the workers was directly related to the area where such a situation was created , determine the importance of the influence of the results of solving the problem on the activity of both individual subsystems and the system as a whole, etc.

A decision made in a given situation can be correct if controllable and uncontrollable factors and limitations are sufficiently taken into account. Controllable factors are those that the decision maker can influence. This is the number of employees, the amount of equipment, the technological processes used, the size of the batch of parts to be processed, etc. Of course, some of the controlled variables may have certain limitations that should be taken into account. Having determined the list of controlled variables, it is necessary to establish the significance of each of them.

We consider uncontrollable factors to be those that the decision maker cannot influence within the framework of the problem being solved: changes in the product range and volume of output established from above, actions of consumers and suppliers, etc.

Most of the uncontrollable factors are random in nature, so determine the probability their appearance is difficult. However, in order to make the right decision, it is necessary to foresee as fully as possible everything that could happen over a certain period of time and could influence the chosen decision. This requires the decision maker to have deep system knowledge of production.

There is also a problem such as the difficulty of determining the goals of decision-making. This is explained by the fact that usually, with the exception of very simple tasks, it is not possible to limit oneself to one goal. In most cases there are several of them, sometimes they can be contradictory.

Thus, when solving the problem of reducing production costs, one cannot exclude such goals as improving product quality or at least maintaining it at the achieved level, etc. Thus, there may be goals that need to be achieved and goals that need to be maintained. Goals must be formulated precisely, since the choice of the best way to achieve them largely depends on this. In addition, the psychological side must also be taken into account: the more precisely the goal is formulated, the more confident and effective the performers work, on whom the implementation of this goal depends. When defining goals, it is necessary to take into account all possible goals (results) that need to be achieved. The complexity of solving a problem usually depends on the number of goals and the number of solution options being considered. Therefore, it is advisable, if possible, to strive to reduce the number of goals by enlarging and simplifying them. We propose to do it this way [5, p. 56]:

1. Consider whether any of the goals set are only subgoals for achieving another goal. If yes, then they can be excluded from the list of targets. For example, reducing production costs is a subgoal, a means to increase profits. Therefore, obviously, both of these goals should not be set simultaneously.

2. Analyze whether goals have been set that are impossible to achieve.

3. Try to combine those goals that basically coincide.

It should be noted that reducing or limiting production costs and other economic indicators should always be included in the goals of solving the problem, but not necessarily directly, it can also be done through other indicators. When several goals are identified, it is necessary to select the most important one in order to obtain the optimal solution for it. It is almost never possible to optimize a solution for several goals at once. A way out of this situation can be found by determining the optimum in relation to the main goal. But at the same time, certain restrictions should be set with the need to achieve other goals.

When determining goals for solving a given problem, it is necessary to take into account that sometimes goals that are desirable for one of the subsystems turn out to be unacceptable for other subsystems or for the entire system as a whole. In this regard, when setting goals for solving individual problems, it is necessary to proceed from the general interests of the system.

If there are in some cases incompatible goals, a higher order goal can be formulated. This becomes possible only if measurements applied to different purposes can be made on the same scale or converted from one scale to another. The formulation of more general goals makes it possible to resolve contradictions between specific goals and to better evaluate alternative courses of action.

Based on the above, we can conclude that at the first stage of the decision-making process, mainly logical reasoning is used, in which the techniques of analysis, synthesis, comparison, abstraction, generalization, analogy, forms of induction and deduction are used in various combinations. In addition, in some cases, the decision maker also uses intuition based on knowledge and experience.

At the next stage, it is necessary to select a criterion for assessing the effectiveness of the solution. To select it, we offer the following recommendations:

- for decisions related to planning, development of product designs and production processes, etc., in most cases, the volume of costs for production of products is taken as an efficiency criterion. Sometimes it is necessary to take the working conditions of workers or the complexity of service as a criterion;

- it is not necessary that the same criterion be applied to the entire system and its subsystems. But when choosing a criterion for evaluating subsystems, it is necessary to take into account the criterion for the effectiveness of the entire system, since the interests of subsystems may not always coincide with the interests of the entire system, and in some cases they may be completely opposite;

- when choosing an efficiency criterion, you should not always strive for the maximum or minimum of certain indicators. Sometimes, depending on the conditions, certain limits of indicator values can be taken as an efficiency criterion, if beyond these limits the efficiency of the system does not increase at all or increases too slightly, and achieving it is associated with great difficulties;

- in cases where the assessment of the system is associated with a large number of criteria, you should group them into interrelated groups, select the most important one, and then, examining the relationship between the criteria in this group, try to select the main criterion with which you could take into account and others. It is desirable that the selected criterion includes the requirements of all other criteria. The operation of the decision-making process under consideration, like the previous one, is based on logical reasoning and intuition. The right decision on any issue can be made only if there is sufficient and reliable information. Its volume depends, first of all, on the complexity of the problem under consideration. To solve simple, frequently encountered problems, it is required less than to solve complex, promising problems.

The amount of information required also depends to a certain extent on the qualifications and experience of the decision maker. A highly qualified person, especially when solving problems that are often encountered in practice, usually supplements the received data with logical reasoning, using his experience of behavior in similar situations. However, in any case, first of all it is necessary to collect complete information about the current situation. It can be presented in writing or orally. When solving urgent and at the same time important issues, the decision maker can personally familiarize himself with the situation on site. This does not take much time and makes it possible to obtain the most reliable information. When evaluating incoming information, the decision maker must take into account its source, the psychology of the people presenting the information, and even their mood.

In order to study a problem in depth, scientific decision-making methods such as operations research, systems analysis and many others should be used. All this data can be used to accurately formulate the problem, develop solution options, and create mathematical models.

The precise formulation of the problem is carried out on the basis of processing data obtained as a result of studying the nature of the problem, the urgency of its solution, studying the current situation, setting goals and criteria for assessing the effectiveness of solving the problem.

In our opinion, a precisely formulated problem should reflect the following [5]: a fairly complete objective description of the current situation, including the main factors influencing decision-making, specific reasons for the occurrence of undesirable phenomena, the actual means available to implement the decision, the conditions in which the problem must be solved; the significance of the problem being solved for the activities of the company and its divisions; deadlines for solving the problem; purpose, quantitative and qualitative restrictions that must be taken into account when choosing a solution; specific quantitative and qualitative criteria for assessing the effectiveness of the solution.

At the stage of developing possible solution options, we recommend that you carefully consider each of the possible solution options, including those that at first glance seem impossible. First of all, it is recommended to use the experience gained in solving similar problems. If this experience is positive and individual solutions have given good results, then it is advisable to include them among the solution options, but you should not dwell on them only. We need to try to find even more effective ways to solve the problem.

When considering various options, the solution should be determined (through preliminary logical reasoning and partly with the help of intuition) [5, p. 53]: the development of which options may be useful, which options will be difficult to implement for one reason or another - lack of funds, necessary materials and equipment, lack of time, high labor intensity, etc. For the final choice, the most realistic solution options should be left, since The greater the number of options, the more labor-intensive the calculations to assess their effectiveness become.

The next stage is the compilation of mathematical models (if it is possible to apply mathematical modeling). At the stage of comparing solution options, it is necessary to make a calculation additional costs and losses for each of the options and choose one of them, at which the damage to production will be minimal. Decision-making is always carried out personally by the manager, who is directly responsible for it.

When using mathematical methods, a group of specialists involved in the development of solution options develops specific recommendations, based on appropriate calculations, and presents them to the decision-maker. In order to choose the most appropriate option for specific conditions, the manager needs to take into account all those qualitative factors that could not be taken into account in the mathematical model (the psychological impact of various decision options on subordinate and superior managers, the personal prestige of the manager, technical capabilities, time, necessary to implement the solution, etc.).

When making a decision based on logical reasoning and intuition, the manager must once again check how correct the course of logical operations was, whether everything was taken into account and provided for in the decision-making process. In order to make the most rational decision, especially in difficult situations and when considering promising issues, the manager should involve in the selection of decisions all employees who are familiar with these issues and can give useful advice and suggestions. In some cases, it is advisable to organize a discussion of the current situation and develop a program (plan) of action at production meetings, work meetings with the involvement of a wide range of workers and specialists.

The decision-making process is primarily a process of making planned decisions, which are necessary primarily for the creation of various automated control systems. It is known that the quality of plans is largely determined by the quality of decisions made during their preparation. The use of computer technology without a significant change in the methodology for making planned decisions will not bring much effect. In addition, planning decision-making processes, like no other planning information processes, depend on the individual characteristics of the planner.

Having summarized a large number of materials on this issue, we propose the following scheme of planning decision-making processes, including 13 stages:

1. Obtaining information.

2. Information analysis.

3. Identifying a problem situation.

4. Formation of goals.

5. Construction of a system model.

6. Development of alternatives.

7. Forecast of alternatives and their consequences.

8. Formation of a criterion and (or) preference profile.

9. Statement of the problem.

10. Search for procedures for solving the problem.

11. Choice.

12. Correction of the problem.

13. Implementation of the solution.

The information used by the decision maker can be determined by observing the external environment. Observation can be carried out in various ways, but it is necessary to combine the completeness and reliability of information (external criteria) with the costs of obtaining it (internal criterion). When searching for information, the task comes down to the method of selecting from a set of messages, be it passive selection or active influence on the elements of this set. Search criteria are determined depending on the conditions under which it is performed. In real-life problems, the timeliness of obtaining information is important. Accurate routing of the information that is actually needed will help fulfill this requirement.It is necessary to distinguish between primary and derived information. There is no need to store the latter if the algorithm for its formation based on primary information is known.

...