Methods for determining output at enterprises depend on the units in which production volume and labor costs are measured. Figure 1 shows three main methods: natural, labor and cost, each of which has its own advantages and disadvantages.
Figure 1 - Methods for determining production at an enterprise
Using the natural method, production is calculated based on production volume expressed in physical units - tons, pieces, kilograms, meters, etc. Its advantage is that it is simple and more accurately characterizes labor productivity. However, this method is applicable only for the production of homogeneous products. When producing several types (brands) of homogeneous products, production is determined in conventional accounting natural units. In practice, it is not always possible to use natural indicators to calculate output, since most industrial enterprises produces several types of products that are not comparable in their in kind. In addition, production in physical terms does not take into account the quality of the product.
If an enterprise produces several types of homogeneous products, then output is calculated in conventionally natural units. The use of so-called conditionally natural meters allows us to expand the possibilities of using these indicators.
When using the labor method as a product meter, they use its labor intensity in standard hours, i.e. labor cost standards. If production standards do not change over a certain period, then the estimate in standard hours quite accurately shows the change in labor productivity. This method is universal.
It is suitable for assessing the level of labor productivity in individual areas of production, in workshops, in cases where heterogeneous products, a large volume of semi-finished products and work in progress are produced, but it requires strict validity of labor standards. When using labor standards that provide for different tensions, which occurs in enterprises, the labor method significantly distorts the indicator of labor productivity, which is why it has not yet been found wide application. Despite the differences, both methods considered have a fairly high degree of objectivity and diagnostic ability, since they use real and normative data.
The cost method is the most universal; it allows for comparisons of the level and dynamics of labor productivity at an enterprise, in their groups, industry, region, and the economy as a whole. With the cost method of measuring labor productivity, the amount of work is given in monetary terms.
The cost method allows you to compare worker productivity different professions, qualifications, such as pastry chef and cook, turner and driver. The advantages of this method are ease of calculation, the ability to compare labor productivity levels in different industries, as well as determine its dynamics in different periods of time. But the disadvantage of the method is the influence price factors: market conditions, inflation, as well as material intensity of work.
The indicator of the cost of gross output, on the basis of which production volumes were planned and taken into account for many years, is good in that the products of different enterprises and different years was calculated in uniform wholesale prices of enterprises as of some time. This made it possible to level out price changes in different periods and achieve comparability of indicators based on this criterion. However, the cost of production reflects not only the costs of living labor, but also the past, embodied in raw materials, materials, purchased semi-finished products, parts and units supplied through cooperation. More expensive raw materials sent for processing increased the cost of gross output and, accordingly, the level of labor productivity without any participation of the enterprise's employees.
The cost of gross output also includes the difference in the value of work in progress at the beginning and at the end of the period. This will enable enterprises to increase the value of gross output, and with it the indicator of labor productivity by increasing the volume of work in progress. The indicator of the cost of marketable products is free from the influence of the volume of work in progress, but retains other disadvantages inherent in the indicator of gross output.
The indicator of the standard cost of processing (NSC), which included the standard cost of living labor costs: wages of main production workers with social insurance contributions, shop and general plant expenses calculated according to standards. The advantage of the VAT indicator is that it is basically free from the influence of past labor costs - the cost of raw materials, supplies, purchased products (with the exception of a part of such costs included in general workshop and factory expenses). The disadvantages of the VAT indicator are that it does not characterize the entire newly created value and does not take into account the actual cost of processing, but only its standard value. The economic content of this indicator is vague, so the appropriateness of its use is questionable.
Theoretically, the most complete picture of the enterprise’s contribution and the creation of products is provided by the indicator of the cost of net production - newly created value, since its value is not affected by the costs of raw materials, materials, purchased semi-finished products and components, it is free from the cost of depreciation and amortization deductions.
Net production (wages with accruals plus profit) accurately characterizes the newly created value if it (products) is sold at market prices. But in our reality big influence have monopoly prices that distort the real contribution of the enterprise to the creation of new value, and establishing the value of net products becomes problematic.
The indicator of conditionally pure products includes, in addition to wages with accruals and profits also the amount of depreciation of fixed assets, i.e. part of past work. It is used in industries with high level technical equipment. The practice of using this production volume meter with significant differences in profitability various products and large differences in the share of profit in the wholesale price of enterprises did not provide reliable results on the comparability of the enterprise’s real contribution to product output and its reflection in the form of the corresponding profit amount. This was the case with the expression of production volume in formulas 1 and 2.
Labor costs are most accurately reflected by the number of man-hours worked. But counting them is quite difficult.
Man-days provide a less accurate result of labor costs compared to man-hours, since they do not take into account intra-shift downtime.
The average number of personnel compared to man-days does not take into account all-day downtime, but, nevertheless, it is the indicator of the average number of personnel that is used when calculating annual labor productivity, since this ensures comparability of indicators of different enterprises, industries and the country as a whole. Indicators of hourly and daily output are used in internal production analysis economic activity enterprises.
So, to determine output, the corresponding indicators of the volume of production and labor costs are selected and the former are divided by the latter (formula 1).
Another indicator of labor productivity - labor intensity - represents the amount of labor spent on producing a unit of output.
To determine the labor intensity of those units of production, labor costs for the entire production are divided by the volume of output for a certain period (formula 2).
At the stage of developing a solution, mainly non-traditional, qualitative methods of sociology are used: case study, business games, focus groups, etc. A sociologist-consultant deals with a unique object, studies it for a long time, develops procedures and technologies for improving work, conducts experiments, i.e. in fact he becomes a participant Everyday life administration. Long-term “immersion” in the administrative environment makes it possible to consider a “specific case” in all its manifestations. This approach in sociology is called case study(case study). The specificity of this method lies in the in-depth study of the uniqueness of the administrative institution and its employees. Conclusions about the results are usually of a local, purely applied nature; they are aimed at developing decisions, recommendations, and technologies for more successful, efficient functioning of the administration.
In the practice of consulting state and municipal services, they are widely used gaming methods. Business games, like case studies, are usually considered in our country as learning tools. However, here we will not talk about educational, but about practical games, the participants of which analyze and solve their own, real problems. Of course, during practical play, elements of simulation and role-playing educational games can be used. But the behavior of people in this case is completely different. They playfully analyze their daily concerns and show real interest in solving important work issues.
Sociologists have developed many forms and methods of practical business games. Some of them cover almost the entire counseling cycle. First, the field of public service problems is determined. Participants in the game (no more than 20 people), after an initial consultation, receive a personal task to think and formulate one or two unresolved issues that significantly affect the effectiveness of the administration. After completing tasks, players jointly discuss which issues make sense to add to the list of problems. Then a rating of problems is carried out through their individual assessment according to such criteria as the significance of the problem, the degree to which it can be solved through one’s own efforts, and the tendency for the problem to worsen or fade. As a result, a problem field for the administration is formed.
At the second stage of the business game, solutions to selected problems are developed. Participants have the right to work both individually and in subgroups. The main thing is to offer new ideas for solving these problems and algorithms (technologies) for their implementation. In this case, players can aggregate problems, i.e. combine some of them into one, identify the nature of the relationship between them, etc. It makes sense for a sociologist to assemble a group according to positional principles, which will allow him to see the problem with different points views, for example, of innovators and conservatives. The result may be original solution actual problem.
In the counseling process, a significant place is given to the group work of the sociologist. If the group is made up of experts, then they talk about “brainstorming”, the Delphi method, etc. If from “ordinary” administration employees, the term “focus group” is used.
The essence focus group method comes down to holding a collective discussion according to a pre-prepared scenario. The discussion is led by a moderator. He proposes a topic and stimulates participants to discuss it, asks questions, and clarifies the answers received. The main task of the moderator is to creatively direct the discussion and organize a free exchange of opinions in a relaxed atmosphere. The sociologist focuses on both the subject of discussion and the behavior of a specific group of participants. Argumentation, vocabulary, intonation allow one to penetrate into the meaning of statements and record changes in the way of thinking and value orientations of state and municipal employees.
As an example, I will give a number of episodes from a series of discussions held with employees of the personnel service of the administration of the Rostov region.
The first episode (February 1997) was associated with the awareness of the possibility of using commercial methods in practice administrative activities. It was difficult for officials to imagine that they could work not only for the governor, but also for other consumers of personnel services. The simple idea that customer focus is leading to democratization of the public service was, in my opinion, very impressive.
The next episode (April 1997) involves a discussion on the topic “Can good government cost less?” Some debaters argued that such luxuries were only available to wealthy Western countries. But in the end they recognized that the management apparatus should not be a financial burden on the population, and the personnel service is called upon to contribute to this. That's the other one key moment in changing the thinking of officials.
Another episode (October 1997) was associated with the development of the work process profile analysis method, when the discussion participants came to the conclusion that in order to improve the efficiency of a process (for example, personnel selection), it is important to look at it through the eyes of their clients. I remember the remark of a wise official: “I just now discovered that even the text of an order, prepared taking into account the client’s expectations, is capable of democratizing public administration in itself.”
The methods used at the stage of problem formulation ensure its reliability and the most Full description. They include methods for collecting, storing, processing and analyzing information, methods for recording the most important events, factor analysis, comparison, and modeling. The set of methods depends on the nature and content of the problem, the timing and funds allocated at the formulation stage
At the stage of developing solution options, methods of collecting information are also used, but unlike the first stage, at which answers to questions like “what happened?” and “for what reasons?”” here they understand “how can the problem be solved, with the help of what management actions?”
Managers and specialists not only collect and process the necessary data, but also use their creativity, knowledge and skills to develop solution options. During group work, disclosure creativity and extraordinary thinking are facilitated by the nominal group technique method, the Delphi method and the method brainstorming.
At the stage of choosing a solution, it is necessary to determine methods for forming selection criteria. They are most fully developed for well-structured solutions where quantitative analysis and electronic data processing methods can be used. Economic and mathematical methods are often used to solve management problems, which make it possible to use target function, which usually needs to be maximized or minimized. This choice is called optimization. Examples of optimization criteria are: maximum profit, income, productivity; minimum costs, losses from defects.
To evaluate options for weakly structured solutions, a system of weighted criteria is used. A model is often used that makes it possible to make not an optimal, but a satisfactory solution, which is considered “good enough”, since it meets the set restrictions and ensures an improvement in the problem situation
The method of communicating the decision made to the executors is most often the drawing up of an implementation plan, which provides for a system of measures to ensure the successful achievement of the set goals. Along with methods of direct influence (order, instruction, direction), methods of material incentives are used, meetings between employees and management are held, and the essence of the decisions made is explained. All of them are aimed at overcoming resistance to innovation, at increasing the interest of employees in obtaining the planned result. Great importance has the use of methods for monitoring the performance of work related to the implementation of the solution.
Management decision making process
When solving relatively simple problems, an intuitive approach is often used, which is characterized by the following features:
the subject of the decision keeps the whole problem in his head;
As the problem develops, the approach to solving it may change radically;
it is possible to simultaneously consider several options;
the sequence of steps may not be followed;
the quality of a decision is based primarily on the decision maker's previous experience.
The intuitive approach does not give good results, when the manager’s experience is small, and previous situations do not correspond to the new one. Also, the quality of intuitive decisions may be influenced by an incomplete understanding of the current situation.
If the problem situation is not so obvious, its solution is ambiguous, then the decision-making process requires structuring, which will make it possible to determine the stages and procedures aimed at solving it. The decision-making process can be represented as next stages, each of which corresponds to certain procedures:
problem statement: the emergence of a new situation, the emergence of a problem, collecting the necessary information, describing the problem situation;
development of solution options: formulation of requirements-constraints, collection of necessary information, development of possible solutions;
choosing a solution: defining selection criteria; selection of solutions that meet the criteria, evaluation possible consequences, selection of the preferred solution;
organization of solution implementation and its evaluation: implementation plan for the selected solution; monitoring the implementation of the decision; assessment of the solution to the problem and the emergence of a new situation.
Mandatory elements of the process are the presence of a step-by-step plan and solution methods, as well as their information support. The work of collecting, processing and evaluating information is carried out at all stages of the process, but each time it has features that reflect the specifics of the actions being performed and the tasks being solved, as well as the manager’s work style. The presented decision-making process diagram displays the logic management activities. In practice, this process is more complex and allows for parallelism of a number of procedures, which can significantly reduce decision-making time.
K. Lewin's leadership theory
Research by Kurt Lewin. Difference between political systems The United States and Germany before World War II was the reason for a leadership study conducted in laboratory conditions by the famous American scientist Kurt Lewin. The study consisted of comparing the effect of using three leadership styles: authoritarian, democratic and liberal.
Authoritarian leadership is characterized by a high degree of personal power; The leader determines all the group's strategies; no authority is delegated to the group. The leader is categorical and often harsh with people. He always orders, manages, insists, but never asks.
Democratic leadership is characterized by the sharing of power and the participation of workers in management. Responsibility is shared. The manager strives to resolve as many issues as possible collectively, systematically inform subordinates about the state of affairs in the team, and respond correctly to criticism. When communicating with his subordinates, he is extremely polite and friendly.
The liberal leader practically does not interfere in the activities of the team. Employees are given complete independence and the opportunity for individual and collective creativity. The manager is usually polite, ready to cancel earlier decision, especially if it threatens his popularity. The main place is persuasion and requests. He is afraid of conflicts and generally agrees with the opinions of his subordinates.
The results of this study surprised researchers who expected the highest satisfaction and productivity from a democratic leadership style. Kurt Lewin immigrated to the United States from Germany just before the war and believed that the repressive, authoritarian regime in Germany was less effective than a democratic society. He expected that the results of an experiment over four months in three groups of ten-year-old boys, each group led by suitably trained students, would confirm his hypothesis. It turned out that although the guys preferred a democratic leader, they were more productive under authoritarian leadership.
More recent studies have also confirmed the fact that democratic style is not always the most productive. Ultimately, no style was ever directly linked to effective leadership.
McGregor Theory (XY)
Douglas McGregor called the premises of autocratic leadership "THEORY X":
People initially do not like to work and avoid it whenever possible;
People have no ambition and they try to avoid responsibility, preferring to be led (what people want most is personal peace of mind);
People should be forced to work, controlled, directed, and threatened with punishment.
McGregor called the ideas of a democratic manager about employees “THEORY Y”:
The expenditure of physical and spiritual energy at work is just as natural as when playing or relaxing.
If people are committed to organizational goals, they will use self-management and self-control.
Involvement is a function of the reward associated with goal achievement.
The ability to creatively solve problems is common, and the average person's intellectual potential is only partially utilized.
Likert leadership theory
|
Leadership Dimensions |
System 1 |
System 2 |
System 3 |
System 4 |
|
Confidence in subordinates and trust in them |
Not confident in subordinates and does not trust them |
Condescending trust in subordinates and confidence in them as their servants |
Significant, but not complete confidence and trust with a desire to control decision making and implementation |
Complete confidence and trust in everything |
|
The nature of the motivation used |
Fear, threats, punishments and individual rewards |
Rewards and to a certain extent punishments |
Rewards, individual punishments and, to some extent, participation in management |
Material reward based on an incentive system designed taking into account employee participation in management |
|
The nature of influence on subordinates and interaction with them |
Weak communication based on fear and mistrust |
Weak interaction with some consideration of the opinions of those repaired; fear and caution among subordinates |
Moderate interaction with fairly frequent expressions of confidence and trust in employees |
Deep and friendly interaction with employees, high confidence in them and trust in them |
Blake-Mouton Leadership Styles
The management grid of Robert Blake and Jane Mouton is a matrix formed by the intersections of two variables or dimensions of leadership behavior: on the horizontal axis - interest in production and on vertical axis- interest in people. The variables of the management grid, in fact, are of the nature of a disposition (toward something or someone) and a view (of something), predetermining subsequent behavior, that is, both interests are associated with both human consciousness and human action, and not just one thing. Scaling each of the matrix axes from 1 to 9 makes it possible to outline the zones of the five main leadership styles.
1.1 - weakened control. A minimum of effort is required on the part of the manager to achieve the quality of work that allows one to avoid dismissal.
1.9 - people management (“rest home”). The manager is focused on good human relations but has little regard for task efficiency.
9.1 - work management. The manager cares very much about the efficiency of the work performed, but pays little attention to the morale of his subordinates.
5.5 - “middle of the road” style. The manager achieves acceptable quality of task performance by finding a balance between efficiency and good morale.
9.9 - participation management. Through increased attention to subordinates and efficiency, the leader ensures that subordinates consciously join the goals of the organization. This ensures both high morale and high efficiency.
Behavioral concepts of leadership are based on a very broad range of dimensions of leadership behavior.
The considered concepts once again clearly indicate that leaders are made, not born. Leadership behavior can be developed and improved through education and training. Knowing this, in turn, helps to design and implement management training programs that develop specific leadership skills and competencies.
Output is an indicator measured in the number of units of product that were produced in a certain time or by one worker.
How is output determined?
Output is a direct indicator of labor productivity. There are three main methods for determining it, namely: natural, monetary and labor.
The first option involves dividing the volume of products that were manufactured or sold by average number workers directly involved in the production process. This technique is applicable only to those enterprises that produce products of the same name.
If an organization produces heterogeneous products that cannot be reduced to one unit of measurement, then it is advisable to use the cost method. In this case, output is the ratio of the monetary equivalent of all manufactured goods to the number of workers.
As for the labor method of determining output, we note that it is used to assess the labor productivity of individual teams, jobs or departments. The indicator is determined in standard hours. This takes into account not only finished products, but also work in progress. The value of this indicator is that it helps to assess the efficiency of labor organization and the rational use of labor.
Production rate
Production is an indicator that is determined based on the results of a certain period. However, there are also standards that define the desired state of affairs. It's about on regulatory development. To determine this indicator, it is necessary to multiply the duration of the period by the number of workers participating in production process. The result is divided by the time that, according to the standards, is allotted for the production of a unit of product. This determines maximum result, which can be achieved in the enterprise.
Production analysis
Output is the most important indicator of an enterprise's performance. To draw any conclusions based on it, it is necessary to conduct a thorough analysis. It may consist of the following:
- dynamics of the indicator over time (based on data for several years, it is possible to determine trends in the operation of the enterprise, as well as make forecasts for the future situation);
- factor analysis (determines which factors most influence labor productivity and output, which makes it possible to adjust further work);
- determination of growth rates and increments (shows the ratio of the increase in output for different periods, which allows you to study in more detail the periods with unsatisfactory indicators).
Indicators for determining output
Output, as an indicator of labor productivity, is regularly calculated to evaluate the functioning of the enterprise. In order to determine given value, you need to collect the following information:
- volume of production in physical or value terms (and you can take the actual value of the indicator, or you can take the planned value in order to calculate standard output);
- the number of employees who are directly involved in the production process (this makes it possible to assess the effectiveness of their work, as well as determine areas for rationalization of personnel);
- duration of work of production units (irreplaceable if you need to estimate product output per unit of time).
How production is accounted for
Output is a quantitative expression of labor productivity. Since this indicator plays a fairly important role in analyzing the operation of an enterprise, it is necessary to somehow keep records of it. This is especially true in cases where a piece-rate wage system is used, which directly depends on the output indicator. Keeping such records gives the entrepreneur the following opportunities:
- availability of data on the performance results of each employee;
- fair distribution of wages in accordance with production indicators (excluding defective products);
- ensuring control over the compliance of the quantity of products produced with the materials and raw materials released to the workshop);
- definition " bottlenecks", complicating the movement of semi-finished products between workshops and departments.
Concerning modern systems accounting, then in relation to the production greatest distribution received the following:
- in accordance with the work order for performing a certain amount of work;
- in accordance with the so-called “route map”;
- assessment of the indicator based on the final results of the work.
Output level
Output is the amount of finished products (in some cases, components and semi-finished products are also taken into account) that were produced by one unit of labor or per unit of time. In addition, the concepts of output level indicators are also distinguished:
- average output per hour - determined by dividing the volume of products manufactured during the period by the number of man-hours of work in the workshop;
- average output per day - directly related to the previous indicator (determined by multiplying the value per hour by the length of the working day or shift);
- the output of one worker is determined by the ratio of products manufactured per month (or any other reporting period) to the average number of production personnel.
What can affect production
Output is the amount of products produced per unit of time. It is worth noting that this indicator is not stable and may fluctuate depending on a number of factors:
- the introduction of new technologies or operations can have two effects: on the one hand, it leads to the rationalization of the production process, and on the other, it can cause delays during the development period;
- adding new workers to the team who need time to adapt and become familiar with the production process;
- the use of previously unused raw material resources (here, too, production may decrease for some time);
- mass production leads to natural fluctuations this indicator.
Conclusion
Output can be considered one of the key indicators, because it, in fact, is a reflection of labor productivity. This value makes it possible to evaluate the results of work in physical or monetary terms. This indicator is especially important for enterprises that use a piecework wage system, because it makes it possible to fairly distribute monetary resources between employees.
Methods such as “brainstorming” or collective idea generation. The concept of "brainstorming" or "brainstorming" assault", has become widespread since the early 50s. XX century as a method of systematic training creative thinking aimed at discovering new ideas and achieving consensus among a group of people based on intuitive thinking.
The brainstorming method is based on the hypothesis that among a large number of ideas, there are at least a few good ones that are useful for solving a problem that need to be identified. Methods of this type are also known as collective idea generation(KGI), conferences of ideas, exchange of opinions.
Usually, when conducting a brainstorming session or a CGI session, they try to follow certain rules, the essence of which boils down to ensuring as much freedom as possible for the CGI participants to think and express new ideas. To do this, it is recommended to formulate the problem in basic terms, highlighting the central point of discussion, express and pick up any ideas, even if they initially seem dubious or absurd (discussion and evaluation of ideas are carried out later), do not allow criticism, do not declare false and do not stop discussing any idea, express it as much as possible more ideas(preferably non-trivial), try to create chain reactions of ideas, provide support and encouragement necessary to free participants from constraint, etc.
Depending on the adopted rules and the rigidity of their implementation, there are different direct brainstorming, method of exchange of opinions, methods such as commissions, courts(in the latter case, two groups are created: one group makes as many proposals as possible, and the second tries to criticize them as much as possible). Brainstorming can be done in the form business games, using training methodology stimulating observation, in accordance with which the group forms an idea of the problem situation, and the expert is asked to find the most logical ways to solve the problem.
In practice, advisory bodies are similar to OIG sessions various kinds– directorates, scientists, scientific and coordination councils, specially created temporary commissions, committees, “brain trusts” that do not rely on permanent staff, etc.
In real conditions, it is quite difficult to ensure strict compliance with the required rules, to create an atmosphere of brainstorming: at meetings with the chief designer or general director, meetings of councils (scientific, technical, coordination, etc.) are hampered by the influence of the official structure of the organization; It is difficult to gather specialists for interdepartmental commissions. Therefore, it is advisable to use methods of interviewing competent specialists that do not require their mandatory presence and verbal expression of their opinions in a specific place and at a specific time, discussed below.
Brainstorming methods were used in the development and implementation of long-term programs scientific research NATO, in military forecasting. However, already in the 60s. XX century From a primary method of generating ideas and finding the shortest way to solve a problem, MA has become an auxiliary tool in techniques that use other methods of analysis, and nowadays these methods are usually used as one of the elements of systems analysis techniques in the form of discussions of proposals or intermediate results of analysis , obtained using various methods, at collective meetings such as “brainstorming”.
Methods like "scripts". Methods of preparing and coordinating ideas about a problem or an analyzed object, set out in writing, are called “scenarios”. Initially, this method involved preparing a text containing a logical sequence of events or possible options solutions to problems unfolded over time. However, later the mandatory requirement of time coordinates was removed, and a script began to be called any document containing an analysis of the problem under consideration and proposals for its solution or for the development of the system, regardless of the form in which it is presented.
As a rule, in practice, proposals for the preparation of such documents are first written by experts individually, and then an agreed text is formed.
The “scenario” provides not only meaningful reasoning that helps not to miss details that cannot be taken into account in a formal model (this is, in fact, the main role of the scenario), but also contains, as a rule, the results of a quantitative technical, economic or statistical analysis of the state of the country or region , industries with preliminary findings. The group of experts preparing the scenario usually enjoys the right to obtain the necessary information from enterprises and organizations and the necessary consultations.
In practice, forecasts in industries were developed using the “scenario” type. A variety of “scenarios” can be considered complex programs of scientific and technological progress and its socio-economic consequences, which were developed during the period of reforms of the 70s. XX century special commissions under the USSR Academy of Sciences, the USSR State Planning Committee and the State Committee for Science and Technology under the USSR Council of Ministers for the next 20 years.
The role of systems analysts in preparing the scenario is as follows:
- 1) help the involved leading specialists in relevant fields of knowledge to identify general patterns of system development;
- 2) analyze external and internal factors influencing its development and formulation of goals;
- 3) analyze the statements of leading experts in periodicals, scientific publications and other sources of scientific and technical information;
- 4) create auxiliary information funds, contributing to the solution of the corresponding problem.
Subsequently, the concept of a “scenario” expanded both in the direction of areas of application and forms of presentation and methods of their development: the “scenario” allowed the introduction of quantitative parameters and the establishment of their interdependence, methods for preparing a “scenario” using a computer, and methods for targeted management of preparation were proposed. script."
"Scenario" allows you to create a preliminary idea of the problem (system) in situations that cannot be immediately represented by a formal model. However, a “script” is still a text with all the ensuing consequences (synonymy, homonymy, paradoxes) that make it possible to have an ambiguous interpretation. Therefore, it should be considered as a basis for developing a more formalized view of the future system or problem being solved.
Group discussion methods or discussion methods. This type of methods for developing collective decisions is used when making management decisions.
Group discussion methods are a means of involving managers in developing collective style leadership, increase the motivation and involvement of participants in solving the problems discussed. The group discussion situation stimulates associative thinking. This is favored by the emotional atmosphere of intellectual competition that develops during the discussion.
A brief description of the main methods of group discussions is given in Table. 2.13.
Table 2.13
|
a brief description of |
|||
|
Method of analysis specific situations(AKS). Developed in the 20s. XX century at Harvard Business School |
It takes place in several stages.
|
||
|
Balintova |
The method is based on the principle of presenting your problem to others and discussing it collectively. the main objective– help a person delve deeper into this problem. A Balint group session is conducted as follows.
|
||
|
Method "635" |
This method combines the ideas of brainstorming and scenarios. It is carried out in the form of two main stages.
The condition for using the method is that the exchange of information between group members is permitted only in writing, which contributes to greater validity and clarity of ideas than oral statements |
||
|
Metaplan method |
Combines the advantages of the brainstorming method, as well as positive features visual observation. The steps to implement the method are as follows. 1. The group is instructed to identify the problem and draw up a loss map. Group members, answering the questions: “What are the losses?”, “What are the mobilized reserves?”, fill out multi-colored cards. Cards with answers go to a generalized board, the size of which is approximately 1.6 x 4 m. 6-7 cards of each of the 15 people in the group are freely placed on it, i.e. There are only 100-120 responses, which provides a good overview of them. 2. Cards with answers are systematized into a “bank” of information |
||
|
Method "behind- against" |
When preparing a voting method, the group identifies options for solving a problem and presents them in a diagrammatic form so that the main characteristics can be observed by all group members at the same time. From a variety of options, the necessary options are selected at a jury meeting by scoring the options by each jury member. For each option under discussion, it is necessary to attach two representatives of the concept “for” (i.e., “defenders” who positively characterize the option) and the same number of representatives of the concept “against” (i.e., rejecting the option) |
||
|
Delbecq |
Includes the following steps.
|
||
|
Roles method |
The roles method can be used: ■ to collect data proving the correctness of the chosen concept; ■ preliminary familiarization with counterarguments that may arise in the process of approving a specific solution to the problem and which need to be refuted; ■ using the data and arguments listed above in order to improve the chosen concept |
||
|
Block Methods |
Variants of these methods are the “discussion block” method and the “question block” method. The first of them is implemented in the form of a discussion between 2–6 participants in front of an audience of 20–25 people (who should be activated as a result of disputes) about a certain problem. Moreover, as mandatory condition no unambiguous definition of the problem is put forward. Speakers express their opinions concisely and quickly; The speakers' presentations are supplemented by proposals from the discussion participants. Subsequently, the entire audience joins the debate between the participants in the discussion. The second is methodologically similar to the first. The respondents discuss the question posed in the presence of the group, determine the list and the order of possible answers. At the end of the discussion, the group evaluates the importance (reality, relevance) questions asked and received responses using the preference matrix |
||
|
Discussion with division of intellectual functions |
This form of development and adoption of management decisions involves the division of functions for the generation, development, discussion, criticism and specific development of ideas between different groups of participants. A group of "generators" conducts brainstorm trying to push maximum amount ideas for solving this problem. A group of “erudites” develops the ideas put forward in the spirit of the latest achievements of science and technology. A group of “experts” subjects the proposed ideas to critical analysis, may reject some ideas or return them to the “erudites” and “generators” for revision. 8, the task of the “working group” is to finalize the proposals put forward and develop an action plan for their implementation |
||
- The table is compiled based on materials V. V. Khodyreva, presented in the work.
