Administration of the President of Ukraine 

Office for treatment of citizens 

05.09.2014 № 22 / 043019-05 

                                                                                   Vasilyev AV 

                                                                                   Seversk, Donetsk region, 

                                                                                   Donetsk region., 84520 

On your appeal on 30.08.2014, which was received by the Administration of the President of Ukraine, to inform. 

In accordance with subsection 20, paragraph 4 of the Administration of the President of Ukraine about, approved by Presidential Decree of 2 April 2010 № 504, according to the administration entrusted to her job organizing consideration of citizens who come to the President of Ukraine, performs accounting and analysis of such appeals, based on an analysis of appeals develops and submits to the President of Ukraine proposals for consideration raised in him problems. 

Considering the above, your appeal submitted to the Department of information and analytical work with citizens to record and use in their work. 

Deputy 

Head of the Office                                                                       K. Kokarev 

* * *

Institute ESKI and Azov Branch of the Academy ENiPD pay attention primarily to the following: 

In general, a systematic approach can not be based on the concept of a random finding optimal solutions by trial and error. It is essentially a dead-end line of research. Only on the basis of a reasonable goal-setting activities of all stakeholders active, you can see the possibility of a positive development of joint activities in the operation of complex economic systems. 

It is very difficult to agree with Simankova VS, Lutsenko EV, Laptev VN ("System Analysis in adaptive control: Monograph (SCIENCE EDITION)"), that the current situation of a systematic approach, which they have set out to take the opportunity to give optimal management decisions. 

No such decisions on the methodological foundation that they set. Strong management solution with their help can not be accepted! 

Probably only in the lectures Polish philosopher B. Trentovsky which he read in the University of Freiburg (lectures published in Polish in 1834 "The attitude of philosophy to cybernetics as the art of government by the people"), you can see the real foundation for an effective, modern working a systematic approach. 

Indeed, B. Trentovsky set a goal to build the scientific basis of the practical work of the head ("Cybernetics"). He emphasized that "truly effective management must take into account all the major internal and external factors affecting the property management." The main difficulty in managing it videl- "in the complexity of human behavior." 

But the main thing - it is considered from the standpoint of dialectics society, the collective, and the man himself (as a system, the unity of contradictions, the resolution of which is the development). Therefore, he believed that "Cybernetics should be able, on the basis of the common good, some contradictions reconciled, others - aggravate, directing development to the desired goal." 

Half a century later in 1891, Academician Fedorov tried to revive public interest in the problems of the system. Very original, he drew the attention of thinking people to virtually unlimited combinations of structures and organization of the systems of a small amount of the original forms. It showed that there are only 230 different types of crystal lattice and any substance under certain conditions, may crystallize. A principal means of viability and progress of systems is "not their fitness, and the ability to adapt (" vital mobility "), not harmony, the capacity for resilience." 

Therefore, all modern attempts Simankova VS, Lutsenko EV, Laptev VN speak of materialist dialectics, exposing the fore random selection or selection of the most viable design, does not hold water. 

We need not engage in replicating outdated methodological ideas in system analysis and adaptive management (and better not talk about adaptive management, and on creative based management), and a fundamentally different way to look at yourself and find ways to implement them in purposeful activity. 

Thought is always based on experience, which happens to be congenital or acquired, but never random or the undertaken or where. 

We can agree with Academician Glushkov that the complexity R objectively necessary management tasks is growing faster than the square of m people employed management activities: R> b m², where b = Const. You can also agree with the calculations given Simankova VS, Lutsenko EV and Laptev VN that the successful management of the sector, which employs n people and there are m of managed objects, the total complexity of management tasks defined by the relation R = c (n + m) ² (as a rule, c = 1). And also the fact that the objective trend of increasing management complexity, which takes place in the modern world, takes place in Russia (where n = 2731, m = 107). This leads to an increase in necessary costs of living labor, ie R resources management, and the ability of the human brain to remember and process information is limited. On average, the amount of memory the human S = October 16 bits, and the average performance computing V = 1/3 106 operas / s. We like their striking conclusion that in dealing with complex information problems only administrative authorities of the municipal and federal level we obtain R = 1 (2731 + 10000000) ² = 10002731² = 100054627458000 Oper. / Year, and for the satisfactory management of the country at hand technology required at least, N = R / V = ​​3x100054627458000 / 1,000,000 = 3,001,636,882 people. ie 300 million. This is more than 2 times the population of the country. Of course, we are not entirely clear, as it was possible to increase the effectiveness of human labor in the management of the Russian Federation (by Simankova VS, Lutsenko EV, Laptev VN in N / m = 300 times!?) By automating information -analytic operating controls with the help of a computer. But in principle, the introduction of computers has had an impact. 

Here, only the automation and modeling, which write and write a lot can not give the expected results. The latter is obvious to us. 

And why not get the expected results? Because systematic substitute a simplified scheme with like feedback, but working on such a primitive level that the expert group gives much better solutions than all the super complex models. And talk about peer group rather too loud, because is using the results of the analytical work of one, at best two or three experts, and the rest mass of experts in practice only confirms the correctness of the conclusions of these "close" to his real bosses. The results of today there are (!). 

Live search for ways to optimize the flow of resources, often substitute bureaucratic formalism with mathematical justifications.

http://azov-academy.ucoz.org/publ/rekomendacii_mezhdunarodnogo_nauchnogo_seminara_s_21_ijunja_po_10_ijulja_2014/1-1-0-295

http://azov-academy.ucoz.org/publ/samoe_znachitelnoe_sobytie_2014_goda_vystuplenie_n_a_nazarbaeva_na_7_om_astaninskom_ehkonomicheskom_forumese/7-1-0-288

http://iescr-catholic.ucoz.de/blog/budushhee_donbassa_v_novykh_politicheskikh_realijakh_perspektivy_sozdanija_evroregionov_v_vostochnoj_evrope_nauchnyj_seminar_21_27_ijunja_2014_g/2014-06-12-154

http://iescr-catholic.ucoz.de/blog/otvet_iz_soveta_federacii_27_maja_14_46/2014-05-29-153