OPPORTUNITIES OF USE OF EXPERT KNOWLEDGE AS THE SOURCE OF CONCEPTS OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE ORGANIZATIONS

The purpose of article – to prove the approach expanding opportunities of use of expert knowledge as a source of formation of individual concepts of development of the organizations as social and economic objects. As is known, today there is no standard general theory of development. But there are individual theories or concepts of development which quantity has the expressed tendency of increase as in natural, and humanitarian areas. In these individual concepts development is understood differently, i.e. their authors suggest different forms of development. Development as an object of research is one of the most difficult and least investigated areas as in natural-science, and humanitarian sphere. In this connection it is necessary to ascertain, that, despite of the urgency, research of development in an insignificant degree provides practice by control facilities by development. Among experts there can be carriers of individual concepts of development, both expert-practice, and experts-theorists. Author’s concepts of experts are the most complete kind of knowledge containing advantages of a science, experience and practice. They contain features of rational analytical knowledge, intuitive-creative its irrational condition, and also feature of empirical sensually perceived knowledge – experience. Alongside with the quantitative approach in ideology of methods of the expert estimation basing on expert knowledge, there is also a qualitative approach. Thus, existing technology integration of individual experts concepts, as a representative of a qualitative approach, developed for the integration of individual experts and practitioners in the general concepts integrated concept. On a new level of the social and scientific importance the technology of integration of individual concepts in the complete general if the opportunity of integration of individual concepts of experts-theorists will be created can be lifted. But in this case other way, other requirements should be applied to integration of such individual concepts to formation of individual concepts of experts, their selection, to the form of a statement of the contents of concepts, their formal synthesis as a result of which the integrated complete concept is formed. Meeting the challenge of developing technology concepts integration of private experts-theorists in general theoretical concept, it is possible if you use an abstract theory of development, built on the basis of the corresponding construct. In a new approach to integrate the concepts of individual experts, theorists assumed the use of the methodology and conceptual analysis of the appropriate structural mathematics. As there is a theoretical groundwork article is proposed to use for the development of the theory of development as a multidimensional poliaspektnoy disjunctive network with increasing difficulty. For reasonable application of conceptual methods in solving the problem of the integration of the concepts of private experts, theorists need to consider the following features characterizing the state of the test domain. Firstly – it ourselves existing subject specific concepts of different authors to express their points of view on what’s inside the analyzed object, how it manifests itself, how the point of view of the author tested practice. All concepts should have the status of waste, of proven concepts with which he achieved a real effect. Typically, each of the concepts claim to universality, that it is able to explain the whole thing presented science (sociology, psychology, etc.), all of its phenomena. This effect is absolute expert of their private point of view. As among concepts can be such which with each other are not correlated, consequence of it is the aspiration of their authors to belittle other concepts, to declare them not to the full proved. Second – this is a feature that consists in the fact that science (or a separate domain), represented in partial concepts, general estimates of representatives of the science and their communities, just does not yet have a specific (“developed”) object, which allowed to conceptualize this area. The latter is represented by a mosaic weakly correlated with each other ideas. In theory and practice, the use of expert knowledge this statement of the problem is innovative. The problem is not developed. But it can be assumed that the concerted effort of sociologists and experts in the field of theoretical research tool – conceptual equipped with appropriate methods – will help to solve this difficult and urgent task.

the expert, expert knowledge, a method of expert estimations, integration of private concepts of experts, the private concept of socio-economic development of the object

1. Averin Yu.P. Teoreticheskoe postroenie kolichestvennogo sotsiologicheskogo issledovaniya [Theoretical construction of quantitative sociological research]. M., 2014 (in Russian).

2. Bal’tser V., Mulinz K.U., Snid Dzh.D. Arkhitektonika nauki. Strukturalistskaya programma [Architectonics of science. Structuralist program] // Obshchestvennye nauki za rubezhom. Ser. Naukovedenie [Social Sciences Abroad. Ser. Science]. 1989. N 2 (in Russian).

3. Baranov L.T., Ptushkin A.I., Trudov A.V. Nechetkie mnozhestva v eks-pertnom oprose [Fuzzy sets in the expert survey] // Sotsiologiya: 4M [Sociology: 4M]. 2004. N 19 (in Russian).

4. Beshelev S.D., Gurvich F.G. Ekspertnye otsenki [Expert assessments]. M., 1973 (in Russian).

5. Beshelev S.D., Gurvich F.G. Matematiko-statisticheskie metody eks-pert-nykh otsenok [Mathematico-statistical methods of expert estimates]. M., 1980 (in Russian).

6. Burgin M.S., Kuznetsov V.I. Sistemnyi analiz nauchnoi teorii na osnove kontseptsii imenovannykh mnozhestv [System analysis of the scientific theory on the basis of the concept of named sets] // Sistemnye issledovaniya. Ezhegodnik 1985 [System studies. Yearbook 1985]. M., 1986. S. 136–160 (in Russian).

7. Burgin M.S., Kuznetsov V.I. Nomologicheskie struktury nauchnykh teorii [Nomological structures of scientific theories]. Kiev, 1993 (in Russian).

8. Dalkey N.C. The Delphi method: an experimental study of group opinion. Memorandum. RM-5888-PR. Santa-Monica, 1969.

9. Delphi: a technique to harness expert opinion for critical... // Educational Psychology. 1997. Dec. Vol. 17. Iss. 4. Ch. 1. P. 373.

10. Ekspertnye otsenki v sotsiologicheskikh issledovaniyakh [Expert assessments in sociological research] / Otv. red. S.B. Krymskii [Ed. by S.B. Crimean] Kiev, 1990 (in Russian).

11. Evlanov L.G. Teoriya i praktika prinyatiya reshenii [Theory and practice of decision-making]. M., 1984 (in Russian).

12. Gordon T., Helmer O. Report on a long range forecasting study. RAND Paper P-2982. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, 1964.

13. Grigor’ev S.I., Rastov Yu.E. Nachala sovremennoi sotsiologii [The beginning of modern sociology]. M., 1999 (in Russian).

14. Incorporating judgments in Salez Forecasts: applications of the Delphi method at American Hoist & Derrick // Interfaces. 1977. May. Vol. 7. Iss. 3.

15. Ivanov A.Yu. Osnovnye formal’nye struktury prototipa teoreticheskoi psikhologii [The main formal structures of the prototype of theoretical psychology] // Osvoenie i kontseptual’noe proektirovanie intellektual’nykh sistem: Sb. tez. dokl. i soobshch. / Pod red. S.P. Nikanorova. Nauch. konf., Moskva, 21–27 aprelya 1990 [Mastering and conceptual design of intellectual systems: Sat. Tez. Doc. And communication. Ed. S.P. Nikanorova. Scientific. Conf., Moscow, April 21–27, 1990]. M., 1990. Ch. I. S. 167–170 (in Russian).

16. Ivanov A.Yu., Nikanorov S.P. Metody teoreticheskogo issledovaniya pro-tsessov filogeneticheskogo razvitiya [Methods of theoretical investigation of the processes of phylogenetic development] // Sistemnoe upravlenie – problemy i resheniya [System management – problems and solutions]. M., 1995 (in Russian).

17. Ivanov V.G., Krivorotov V.F., Malinovskaya E.V., Nikanorov S.P. Kompleksirovanie kontseptsii kak metod postroeniya tselevykh kompleksnykh programm bez apriorno zadavaemykh tselei [Integration of concepts as a method of constructing targeted complex programs without a priori set goals] // Programmnotselevoi metod: problemy razvitiya i osvoeniya (Vsesoyuznyi simpozium) [Program-target method: problems of development and development (All-Union Symposium)]. Sverdlovsk, 1983 (in Russian).

18. Khelmer O. Analiz budushchego: metod Del’fi [Future analysis: Delphi method] // Nauchno-tekhnicheskoe prognozirovanie dlya promyshlennosti i pravitel’stvennykh uchrezhdenii [Scientific and technical forecasting for industry and government agencies] / Pod red. Dzh. Braita [Ed. by J. Bright]. M., 1997 (in Russian).

19. Kukushkina S.N. Metod Del’fi v Forsait-proektakh [The Delphi Method in Foresight Projects] // Forsait [Foresight]. 2007. N 1 (in Russian).

20. Larichev O.I., Mechitov A.I., Moshkovich E.M., Furems E.M. Vyyavlenie ekspertnykh znanii (protsedury i realizatsiya) [Identification of expertise (procedures and implementation)]. M., 1989 (in Russian).

21. Lebedev S.A. Znanie [Knowledge] // Filosofiya nauki: kratkaya entsiklopediya (os-novnye napravleniya, kontseptsii, kategorii) [Philosophy of Science: a short encyclopaedia (main directions, concepts, categories)]. M., 2008. S. 366 (in Russian).

22. Litvak B.G. Ekspertnye tekhnologii v upravlenii [Expert technologies in management]. M., 2004 (in Russian).

23. Maracha V.G., Matyukhin A.A. Ekspertiza, kak “institut obshchestvennykh izmenenii” [Expertise as an “institution of social change”] // Etyudy po sotsial’noi inzhenerii [Etudes on social engineering]. M., 2002. S. 113–133 (in Russian).

24. Maslennikov E.V. Metod integratsii kontseptsii ekspertov v sotsiolo-gicheskom issledovanii (vyyavlenie, otsenka i obobshchenie empiricheskogo znaniya) [The method of integrating the concepts of experts in sociological research (identification, evaluation and generalization of empirical knowledge)]. M., 1992 (in Russian).

25. Maslennikov E.V. Ekspert v sotsiologicheskom issledovanii [Expert in sociological research] // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 18. Sotsiologiya i politologiya [Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 18. Sociology and Political Science]. 1995. N 4 (in Russian).

26. Maslennikov E.V. Ekspertnoe znanie: integratsionnyi podkhod i ego prilozhenie v sotsiologicheskom issledovanii [Expert knowledge: the integration approach and its application in sociological research]. M., 2001 (in Russian).

27. Maslennikov E.V. Osobennosti otbora ekspertov [Features of selection of experts] // Sotsiologiya [Sociology]. 2010. N 2. S. 82–93 (in Russian).

28. Maslennikov E.V. Instrumental’naya kontseptualizatsiya predmetnykh oblastei sotsiologii: nekotorye vozmozhnye resheniya [Instrumental conceptualization of subject areas of sociology: some possible solutions] // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 18. Sotsiologiya i politologiya [Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 18. Sociology and Political Science]. 2016. N 3. S. 56–73 (in Russian).

29. Nikanorov S.P. Kontseptualizatsiya predmetnykh oblastei. Seriya “Kontseptual’nyi analiz i proektirovanie”. Metodologiya i tekhnologiya [Conceptualization of subject areas. Series “Conceptual analysis and design”. Methodology and technology]. M., 2009 (in Russian).

30. Nikanorov S.P. Vvedenie v apparat stupenei mnozhestv. Seriya “Kontseptual’nyi analiz i proektirovanie”. Matematicheskii apparat [Introduction to the apparatus of steps of sets. A series of “Conceptual analysis and design”. Mathematical apparatus]. M., 2010 (in Russian).

31. Optner S. Sistemnyi analiz dlya resheniya delovykh i promyshlennykh problem [System analysis for solving business and industrial problems] / Vst. stat’ya S.P. Nikanorova [Vst. article S.P. Nikanorova]. M., 1969 (in Russian).

32. Orlov A.I. Ekspertnye otsenki [Expert assessments] // Organizatsionno-ekonomicheskoe mo-delirovanie: uchebnik: v 3 ch. Ch. 2 [Organizational-economic modeling: textbook: at 3 pm Part 2]. M., 2011 (in Russian).

33. Osuga S. Obrabotka znanii [Handling knowledge]. M., 1989 (in Russian).

34. Popov S.V. Metodologicheski organizovannaya ekspertiza kak forma organizatsii obshchestvennykh izmenenii [Methodologically organized examination as a form of organization of social change] // Etyudy po sotsial’noi inzhenerii [Etudes on social engineering]. M., 2002. S. 45–63 (in Russian).

35. Reshebnik zadach po kontseptual’nomu myshleniyu [Remaster of tasks on conceptual thinking] / Pod red. A.Yu. Ivanova [Ed. by A.Yu. Ivanova]. M., 2013 (in Russian).

36. Rohrbaugh J. Assessing the effectivness of expert teams // Expert Judgment and Expert Systems. B., 1987.

37. Samoorganizatsiya i nauka: opyt filosofskogo osmysleniya [Self-organization and science: the experience of philosophical reflection] / Otv. red. I.A. Akchurin,

38. V.I. Arshinov [Ed. by I.A. Akchurin, V.I. Arshinov]. M., 1994 (in Russian). Saushev A.V. Ekspertnyi analiz [Expert analysis] // Metody teorii eksperimenta [Methods of the theory of experiment]. SPb., 1996 (in Russian).

39. Silov V.B. Prinyatie strategicheskikh reshenii v nechetkoi obstanovke [Making strategic decisions in a fuzzy environment]. M., 1995 (in Russian).

40. The Delphi decision-making process // Journal of Psychology. 1983. Jan. Vol. 113. Iss. 1.

41. The Delphi method: techniques and applications / Ed. by H. Linstone, M. Turoff. Newark, 1975.

42. The reliability and convergence of the Delphi technique // Journal of General Psychology. 1978. Apr. Vol. 98. Iss. 2.

43. Tolstova Yu.N. Rol’ modelirovaniya v rabote sotsiologa: logicheskii aspect [The role of modeling in the work of a sociologist: the logical aspect] // Sotsiologiya: 4M [Sociology: 4M]. 1996. N 7 (in Russian).

44. Volkov A.M., Tsarev Yu.E., Fedchenko V.S. Ekspertnye sistemy: strukturnofunktsional’nyi podkhod k izvlecheniyu ekspertnogo opyta [Expert systems: a structured and functional approach to extracting expert experience]. M., 1991 (in Russian).

45. Zherarden L. Issledovanie al’ternativnykh kartin budushchego. Metod sos-tavleniya stsenariev. Rukovodstvo po nauchno-tekhnicheskomu prognozirovaniyu [Study of alternative pictures of the future. Method of making scenarios. Guide to scientific and technical forecasting]. M., 1977 (in Russian).