Дипломная работа: The manager as a teacher: selected aspects of stimulation of scientsfsc thinking

Gurvitz’s criterion testifies in favor of the construction of high power capacity line (as 50> 25). Advantage and simultaneously disadvantage of Gurvitz’s criterion consists in the necessity of assigning weights to the possible outcomes; it allows taking into account specificity of situation, however, assigning weights always implies some subjectivity. As a result of the fact that in real situations there is often lack of information on the probabilities of outcomes the use of the above methods in engineering of investment projects is quite justified. However, the choice of concrete criterion depends on the specificity of situations and individual preferences of an analyst (the company’s strategy).

“Data mining”, getting/acquisition of information (it should be noted that many modern “data mining” techniquesfocus mainly on search of information based on key parameters (words, images, matrixes, algorithms), but in that way we will only be able to bring out ties/links that have already been exposed by someone else). According to the theory of information (Stanislav Yankovsky), requisite condition of activity of intellectual (higher) system is the redundancy of incoming and generated information, read and think “to lay up in store/as a reserve”, accumulate “assets” which expands your possibilities and get rid of “liabilities” which reduce your potential. Any phenomenon should be analyzed from the view point of what it gives to you and what it takes from you. Even two most universal resources – money and information (sometimes “time” is added thereto) – also limit to some extent the possibilities of their holder. A very important point in the evaluation of information is reliability of the source of information and credibility of data itself. Specific code of marking information carriers is applied for this purpose. Reliability of source: A – absolutely reliable source; B – usually reliable source; C – quite reliable source; D – not always reliable source; E – unreliable source; F - reliabilityof source cannot be defined. Credibility of data: 1 – credibility of data is proven by data from other sources; 2 – data are probably correct; 3 – data are possibly correct; 4 – doubtful data; 5 – data are improbable; 6 – credibilityof data cannot be established. It should be noted that many elements of scientific, research and analytical activity are weakly formalizable, in which connection practical experience in the concrete field of activity gains great importance.

Issues recommended for independentstudy: the Game theory, the theory of fields, the theory of crises, the chaos theory, the theory of relativity, the management, strategy and tactics theories, basics of logic and statistics – concepts, substance/essence, stereotypes, paradoxes. See also: Software “Archivarius 3000” http://www.likasoft.com - highly effective searcher in database on the basis of keywords.

Now, be prepared, it is going to be a little bit difficult.

Part 2. Basics of general theory of systems (GTS) and systemic analysis

The world as a whole is a system which, in turn, consists of multitude of largeand small systems. In the classical theory of systems one can single out three various classes of objects: the primitive systems, which structure is invariable (for example,the mathematical pendulum); analytical systems, which almost always have fixed structure, but sometimes undergobifurcations – spasmodic changes of structure (simple ecosystem); chaotic systems continually changing their structure (for example, atmosphere of the Earth). Chaos is essentially an unstable structuralsystem. In this sense chaos is a synonym of changeable, internally inconsistent, unstable developing systemwhich cannot be referred to analyticalstructures. Having established the general principles of management in any systems, one can try to determine how the system should be organized to work most effectively. This approach to research of problems of management from general to particular, from abstract to concrete is named organizational or systemic. Such approach provides the possibility of studying of a considerable quantity of alternative variants, the analysis of limitations and consequences of decisions made.“The system is a set of interacting elements”, said Berthalanfie, one of the founders of the modern General Theory of Systems (GTS) emphasizingthat the system is a structure in which elements somehow or other affect each other(interact). Is such definition sufficient to distinguish a system from non-system? Obviously, it is not, because in any structure its elements passively or actively somehow interact with each other (press, push, attract/draw, induce, heat up, get on someone nerves, feel nervous, deceive, absorb, etc.). Any set of elements always operates somehow or other and it is impossible to find an object which would not make any actions. However, these actions can be accidental, purposeless, although accidentally and unpredictably, they can be conducive to the achievement of some goal. Thougha sign of action is the core, it determines not the concept of the system, but one of the essentialconditions of this concept. “The system is an isolated part, a fragment of the world, the Universe, possessing a special property emergence/emergent factor, relative self-sufficiency (thermodynamic isolation)”, said P. Etkins. But any object isa part or a Universefragment, and each object differs from the others in some special property (emergence/emergent factor – a property which is not characteristic of simple sum of all parts of the given system), including a place of its location, period of existence, etc.And at that, each object is to a certain degree thermodynamically independent, although is dependent on its environment. Hence, this definition also definesnot only a system itself, but some consequences of systemic nature as well. Adequate/comprehensive/ definition of the concept “system” is possibly, non-existent, because the concept “goal/purpose” has been underestimated. Any properties of systems are ultimately connected with the concept of goal/purpose because any system differs from other systems in the constancy of its actions, and the aspiration to keep this constancy is a distinctivefeature of any system. Nowadays the goal/purpose is treated as one of the elements of behavior and conscious activity of an individual which characterizes anticipation/vision of comprehensionof the result of activity and the way of its realization by means of certain ways and methods. The purpose/goal acts as the way of integration of various actions of an individual in some kind of sequence or system. So, the purpose is interpreted as purely human factorinherent only in human being. There’s nothing for it but to apply the concept of “purpose/goal” not only to psychological activity of an individual, but to the concept of “system”, because the basic distinctive feature of any system is it designation for some purpose/goal. Any system is always intended for something, is purposeful and serves some definite purpose/goal, and the goal is set not only before the individual, but before each system as well,regardless of its complexity. Nevertheless, none of definitions of a system does practically contain the concept of purpose/goal, although it is the aim, but not the signs of action, emergence factor or something else, which is a system forming factor. There are no systems without goal/purpose, and to achieve this purpose the group of elements consolidates in a system and operates. Purposefulness is defined by a question “What can this object do?” “The system is a complex of discretionary involved elements jointly contributing to the achievement of the predetermined benefit, which is assumed to be the core system forming factor”. One can only facilitate the achievement of specific goal, while the predetermined benefits can only be the goal. The only thing to be clarified now is who or what determines the usefulness of the result. In other words, who or whatsets the goal before the system? The entire theory of systems is built on the basis of four axioms and four lawswhich are deduced from the axioms: axiom #1: a system always has one consistent/invariable general goal/purpose (the principle of system purposefulness, predestination); axiom #2: the goal for the systems is set from the outside (the principle of goal setting for the systems); axiom #3: to achieve the goal the system should operate in a certain mode (the principle of systems’ performance) – law #1: the law of conservation (the principle of consistency of systems’ performance for the conservation of the consistency of goal/ purpose), law #2: the law of cause-and-effect limitations (the principle of determinism of systems’ performance), law #3: the law of hierarchies of goals/purposes (the principle of breakdown of goal/purpose into sub-goals/sub-purposes), law #4: the law of hierarchies of systems (the principle of distribution of sub-goals/sub-purposes between subsystems and the principle of subordination of subsystems); axiom №4: the result of systems’ performance exists independently from the systems themselves (the principleof independence of the performance result). Axiom #1: the principle of purposefulness. At first it is necessary to determine what meaning we attach to the concept “system”, as far as at first sight there are at least two groups of objects”: “systems” and “non-systems”. In which case the object presents a system? It is not likely that any object can be a system, although both systems and non-systems consist of a set of parts (components, elements, etc.). In some cases a heap of sand is a structure, but not a system, although it consists of a set of elements representing heterogeneity of density in space (grains of sand in conjunction with hollows). However, in other cases the same heap of sand can be a system. So, what is the difference then between the structure-system and the structure-non-system, since after all both do consist of elements? All objects can be divided into two big groups, if certain equal external influence is exerted upon them: those with consistent retaliatory actions and those with variable and unpredictable response action. Thus, if we change external influence we then again will get the same two groups, but their structure will change: other objects will now be characterized by the consistency of response actions under the influence of new factors, while those previously characterized by such constancy under the former influencing factors will have no such characteristics under the influence of new factors any more. Let us call the systems those objects consisting of a set of elements and characterized by the constancy/consistency of actions in response to certain external influences. Those not characterized by the constancy of response actions under the same influences may be called casual sets of elements with respect tothese influences. Hence, the concept of “system” is relative depending on how the given group of elements reacts to the given certain external influence. The constancyand similarityof reactionof the interacting group of elements in respect of certain external influence is the criterion of system. The constancy of actions in response to certain external influence is the goal/purpose of the given system. Hence, the goal/purpose stipulates direction of the system’s performance. Any systems differ in constancy of performance/actions and differ from each other in purposefulness (predestination for something concrete). There is no system “in general”, but there are always concrete systems intended for some specific goals/purposes. Any object of our World differs from another only in purpose, predetermination for something. Different systems have different goals/purposes and they determinedistinction between the systems. Hence, the opposite conclusion may be drawn: if there any system exists, it means it has a goal/purpose. We do not always understand the goals/purposes of either systems, but they (goals/purposes) are always present in any systems. We cannot tell, for example, what for is the atom of hydrogen needed, but we can not deny that it is necessary for the creation of polymeric organic chains or, for example, for the formation of a molecule of water. Anyway, if we need to construct a water molecule, we need to take, besides the atom of oxygen, two atoms of hydrogen instead of carbon or any other element. The system may be such group of elements only in which the result of their general interaction differs from the results of separate actions of each of these elements. The result may differ both qualitatively and quantitatively. The mass of the heap of sand is more than the mass of a separate grain of sand (quantitative difference). The room which walls are built of bricks has a property to limit space volume which is not the case with separate bricks(qualitative difference). Any system is always predetermined for some purpose, but it always has one and the same purpose. Haemoglobin as a system is always intended for the transfer of oxygen only, a car is intended for transportation and the juice extractor for squeezing of juice from fruit. One can use the juice extractor made of iron to hammer in a nail, but it is not the juice extractor system’s purpose. This constancy of purpose obliges any systems to always operate to achieve one and the same goal predetermined for them.

The principle of goal-setting. A car is intended for transportation, a calculator – for calculations, a lantern – for illumination, etc. But the goal of transportation is needed not for the car but for someone or something external with respect to it. The car only needs its ability to implement the function in order to achieve this goal. The goal is to meet the need of something external in something, and this system only implements the goal while serving this external “something”. Hence, the goal for a system is set from the outside, and the only thing required from the system is the ability to implement this goal. This external “something” is another system or systems, because the World is tamped only with systems. Goal-setting always excludes independent choice of the goal by the system. The goal can be set to the system as the order/command and directive. There is a difference between these concepts. The order/command is a rigid instruction, it requires execution of just “IT”with the presetaccuracy and only “IN THAT MANNER” and not in any other way, i.e. the system is not given the “right” to choose actions for the achievement of the goal and all its actions are strictly defined. Directive is a milder concept, whereby the “IT” is set only the given or approximate accuracy, but the right to choose actions is given to the system itself. Directive can be set only to systems with well developed management unit/control block which can make choice of necessaryactions by itself. None of the systems does possess free will and canset the goal before itself; it comes to it from the outside. But are there any systems which are self-sufficient and set the goals before themselves? For example, we, the people, are sort of able of setting goals before ourselves and carry them out. Well then, are we the example ofindependent systems? But it is not as simple as it may seem. There is a dualism (dual nature) of one and the same concept of goal: the goal as the task for some system and the goal as an aspiration (desire) of this systemto execute the goal set before it: the Goal is a task representing the need of external operating system (super system) to achieve certain predetermined result; the Goal is an aspiration (desire) to achieve certain result of performance of the given system alwaysequal to the preset result (preset by order or directive). The fundamental point is that one super system cannot set the goal before the system (subsystem) of other super system. It can set the goal only before this super system which becomes a subsystem in respect of the latter. We can set the goal before ourselves, but we always set the goal only when we are missing/lacking something, when we suffer. Suffering is an unachieved desire. Any physiological (hunger, thirst), aesthetic and other unachieved desires makes us suffer and suffering forces us to aspire to act until desires are satisfied. The depth of suffering is always equal to the intensity of desire. We want to eat and we suffer from hunger until we satisfy this desire. As soon as we take some food, the suffering ceases immediately. At that, the new desire arises according to “Maslow pyramid”. Desire is our goal-aspiration. When we realize our wish we achieve the objective/goal. If we achieve the objective we cease to act, because the goal is achieved and the wish disappears. If we have everything we can only think of, we will not set any goals before ourselves, because there is nothing to wish, since we have everything. Therefore, even a human being with all its complexity and developmental evolution cannot be absolutely independent of other systems (of external environment). Our goals-tasks are always set before us by the external environment and it incites our desire (goal-aspiration) which is dictated by shortage of something. We are free to choose our actions to achieve the goal, but it is at this point where we are limited by our possibilities. We do not set the goal-task, we set the goals-aspirations. Then if it is not us, can there be other systems which can set goals before themselves regardless of whatsoever? Perhaps, starting from any certain level of complication the systemscan do it themselves? Such examples are unknown to us. For any however large and difficult system there might be another, even higher system found which will dictatethe former its goals and conditions. Nature is integrated and almost put in (good) order. It is “almost” put in order, because at the level of quantum phenomena there is probably some uncertainty and unpredictability, i.e. unconformity of the phenomena to our knowledge of physical laws (for example, tunnel effects). It is this unpredictability which is the cause of contingencies and unpredictability. Contingency /stochasticity and purposefulness are mutually exclusive.

Principle of performance of action. Any system is intended for any well defined and concrete goal specific for it, and for this purpose it performs only specific (target-oriented) actions. Hence, the goal of a system is the aspiration to perform certain purposeful actions for the achievement of target-oriented(appropriate) result of action. The plane is designed for air transportation, but cannot float; for this purpose there is an amphibian aircraft. The result of aircraft performance is moving by air. This result of action is expectable and predictable. The constancy and predictability of functional performance is a distinctive feature of any systems – living, natural, social, financial, technical, etc. Consequently, in orderto achieve the goal any object of our World should function, make any purposefulactions, operations (in this case the purposeful, deliberate inaction is in some sense an action, too). Action is manifestation of some energy, activity, as well as force itself, the functioning ofsomething; condition, process arising in response to some influence, stimulant/irritant, impression (for example, reaction in psychology, chemical reactions, nuclear reactions). The object’s action is followed by the result of action (not always expected, but always logical and conditioned). The purpose of any system is the aspiration to yield appropriate (targeted) result of action. At that, the given object is the donor of the result of action. The result of action of donor system can be directed towards any other system which in this case will be the recipient (target) for the result of action. In this case the result of action of the donor system becomes the external influence for the recipient system. Interaction between the systems is carried out only through the results of action. In that way the chain of actions is built as follows: ... → (external influence) → result of action(external influence) →... The system produces single result of action for single external influence. No object operates in itself. It cannot decide on its own “Here now I will start to operate” because it has no freedom of will and it cannot set the goal before itself and produce the result of action on its own. It can only react (act) in response to certain external influence. Any actions of any objects are always their reaction to something. Any influence causes response/reaction. Lack of influence causes no reaction. Reaction can sometimes be delayed, therefore it may seem causeless. But if one digs and delves, it is always possible to find the cause, i.e. external influence. Cognition of the world only falls to our lot through the reactions of its elements. Reaction (from Latin “re” – return and “actio” - action) is an action, condition, process arising in response to some influence, irritant/stimulant, impression (for example, reaction in psychology, chemical reactions, nuclear reactions). Consequently, the system’s action in response to the external influence is the reaction of the system. When the system has worked (responded) and the required result of action has been received, it means that it has already achieved (“quenched”)the goal and after that it has no any more goal to aspire to. Reaction is always secondary and occurs only and only following the external influence exerted upon the element. Reaction can sometimes occur after a long time following the external influence if, for example, the given element has been specially “programmed” for the delay. But it will surely occur, provided that the force of the external influence exceeds the threshold of the element’s sensitivity to the external influence and that the element is capable to respond to the given influence in general. Ifthe element is able of reacting to pressure above 1 atmosphere it will necessarily react if the pressure is in excess of 1 atmosphere. If the pressure is less than 1 atmosphere it will not react to the lower pressure. If it is influenced by temperature, humidity or electric induction, it will also not react, howsoever we try to “persuade” it, as it is only capable to react to pressure higher than 1 atmosphere. In no pressure case (no pressure above 1 atmosphere), itwill never react. Since the result of the system’s performance appears only following some external influence, it is always secondary, because the external influence is primary. External influence is the cause and the result of action is a consequence (function). It is obvious that donor systems can produce one or several results of action, while the recipient systems may only react to one or several external influences. But donor elements can interact with the recipient systems only in case of qualitatively homogeneous actions. If the recipient systems can react only to pressure, then the systems able of interacting with them may be those which result of action is pressure, but not temperature, electric current or something else. Interaction between donor systems and recipient systems is only possible in case of qualitative uniformity (homoreactivity, the principleof homogeneous interactivity). We can listen to the performance of the musician on a stage first of all because we have ears. The earthworm is not able to understand our delight from the performance of the musician at least for the reason that it has no ears, it cannot perceive a sound and it has no idea about a sound even if (hypothetically) it could have an intelligence equal to ours. The result of action of the recipient element can be both homogeneous (homoreactive) and non-homogeneous, unequal in terms of quality of action (heteroreactive) of external influence in respect of it. For example, the element reacts to pressure, and its result of action can be either pressure or temperature, or frequency, or a stream/flow of something, or the number of inhabitants of the forest (apartment, city, country) etc. Hence, the reaction of an element to the external influence can be both homoreactive and heteroreactive. In the first case the elements are the action transmitters, in the second case they are converters of quality of action. If the result of the system’s actions completely corresponds to the implementation of goal, it speaks of the sufficiency of this system (the given group of interacting elements) for the given purpose. If not, the given group of elements mismatches the given goal/purpose and/or is insufficient, or is not the proper system for the achievement of a degree of quality and quantity of the preset goal. Therefore, any existing object can be characterized by answering the basic question: “What can the given object do?” This question characterizes the concept of the “result of action of an object” which in turn consists of two subquestions: What action can be done by given object? (the quality of result of action); How much of such action can be done by the given object? (the quantity of result of action). These two subquestions characterize the aspiration of a system to implement the goal. And the goal-setting may be characterized by answering another question: “What should the given object do?” which also consists of two subquestions: what action should the given object do? (the quality of the result of action); how much of such action should the given object do? (the quantity of the result of action). These last two subquestions are the ones that determinethe goal as a task (the order/command, the instruction) for the given object or group of objects, and the system is being sought or built to achieve this goal. The closer the correspondence between what should and what can be done by the given object, the closer the given object is to the ideal system. The real result of action of the system should correspond to preset (expected) result. This correspondence is the basic characteristic of any system. Wide variety of systems may be built of a very limited number of elements. All the diverse material physical universe is built of various combinations of protons, electrons and neutrons and these combinations are the systems with specific goals/purposes. We do not know the taste of protons, neutrons and electrons, but we do know the taste of sugar which molecular atoms are composed of these elements.Same elements are the constructional material of both the human being and a stone. The result of the action of pendulum would be just swaying, but not secretion of hormones, transmission of impulse, etc. Hence, its goal/purpose and result of action is nothing more but only swaying at constant frequency. The symphonic orchestra can only play pieces of music, but not build, fight or merchandize, etc. Generator of random numbers should generate only random numbers. If all of a sudden it starts generate series of interdependent numbers, it will cease to bethe generator of random numbers. Real and ideal systems differ from each other in that the former always have additional properties determined by the imperfection of real systems. Massive golden royal seal, for example, may be used to crack nuts just as well as by means of a hammer or a plain stone, but it is intended for other purpose. Therefore, as it has already been noted above, the concept of “system” is relative, but not absolute, depending on correspondence between what should and what can be done by the given object. If the object can implement the goal set before it, it is the system intended for the achievement of this goal. If it cannot do so, it is not the system for the given goal, but can be a system intended for other goals. It does not mater for the achievement of the goal what the system consists of, but what is important is what it can do. In any case the possibility to implement the goal determines the system. Therefore, the system is determined not by the structure of its elements, but by the extent of precision/accuracy of implementation of the expected result. What is important is the result of action, rather than the way it was achieved. Absolutely different elements may be used to build the systems for the solution of identical problems (goals). The sum of US$200in the form of US$1 value coins each and the check for the same amount can perform the same action (may be used to make the same purchase), although they consist of different elements. In one case it is metal disks with the engraved signs, while in other case it is a piece of a paper with the text drawn on it. Hence, they are systems named “money” with identical purposes, provided that they may be used for purchase and sale without taking into account, for example, conveniences of carrying them overor a guarantee against theft. But the more conditions are stipulated, the less number of elements are suitable for the achievement of the goal. If we, for example, need large amount of money, say, US$1.000.000 in cash, and want it not to be bulky and the guarantee that it is not counterfeit we will only accept US$100 bank notesreceived only from bank. The more the goal is specified, the less is the choice of elements suitable for it. Thus, the system is determined by the correspondence of the goal set to the result of its action. The goal is both the task for an object (what it should make) and its aspiration or desire (what it aspires to). If the given group of elements can realize this goal, it is a system for the achievement of the goal set. If it cannot realize this goal, it is not the system intended for the achievement of the given goal, although it can be the system for the achievement of other goals. The system operates for the achievement of the goal. Actually, the system transforms through its actions the goal into the result of action, thus spending its energy. Look around and everything you’ll see are someone’s materialized goals and realized desires. On a large scale everything that populates our World is systems and just systems, and all of them are intended for a wide range of various purposes. But we do not always know the purposes of many of these systems and therefore not all objectsare perceived by us as systems. Reactions of sys