The Rand Corporation: the most influential shadow corporation in the United States. Scientific electronic library Expert method developed by the American corporation rand

This center was founded in the California town of Santa Monica in 1948 under the auspices of the United States Air Force. During the first decades, RAND was mainly concerned with solving technical tasks- designing aircraft, rocketry and satellites. In the early 60s, RAND specialists were actively involved in computing technology and programming. But already in the early 50s, RAND began to work on orders from other American government organizations, conducting research on national security problems. First, exclusively in military technical, and then in strategic aspects... At the same time, RAND remained non-profit organization, his entire budget went and goes to ongoing projects.

Over time in research center social scientists appeared - political science, economics, sociology, psychology, etc., and RAND began to fulfill orders from the US government on an ever wider range of problems. Today, RAND publishes reports on a wide range of topics - from health and drug issues to labor market research, regional integration, the environment, international relations and security issues in the United States and other countries.

So, among its customers are the automobile giant Ford Motor and the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, Harvard and Stanford Universities, the UN, the European Commission and the World Bank, Soros and Rockefeller foundations and even the Chinese Ministry of Health and many others.

Organizational structure

The headquarters of the corporation is still located in Santa Monica (Santa Monica, California (corporate headquarters)), but over time, RAND opened offices in New York (New York (Council for Aid to Education)), Washington (Arlington, Virginia (just outside Washington, DC)), Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), and since the early 90s outside the United States - in the Netherlands (Leiden, The Netherlands (RAND Europe headquarters)), Great Britain (Cambridge, United Kingdom), Germany (Berlin, Germany) and Qatar (Doha, Qatar). In addition to branches, RAND also has three field sites - in Langley (where the CIA is headquartered), in Boulder (Colorado) and more recently in Moscow.

V early period The development of the RAND corporation had a very flexible and flexible structure, its management avoided excessive administration. However, as the total number of staff grew, the administration had to develop stricter organizational principles and a permanent structure.

The RAND Corporation has 11 research departments - the Washington Department of Defense Problems, Departments for Management Problems, Resource Analysis, Engineering Sciences, and environment, social sciences, physics, systems studies, mathematics, computer science and economics (i.e. departments correspond to academic disciplines rather than research nomenclature, the division is professional rather than functional).

Basic organizational principle RAND - high degree decentralization. The department has considerable freedom of action not only in the selection of employees, but also in the determination of the research program. It is an independent unit and financially - each department has its own budget, approved annually by the management of the corporation; from these funds the work of any employee of the department is paid, regardless of whether he performs work within the department or participates in an interdisciplinary project.

The work of the RAND Corporation is carried out either within a department or in an interdisciplinary group specially created for the implementation of a particular project. Work on a project begins with the appointment of a team leader. For some time, the leader works alone, trying to formulate a clear statement of the problem, the goal of the study and the means to achieve it. After completing the preparatory work, he proceeds to the selection of the group, and this selection is mainly on a voluntary basis. The size of the group can be different - from one or two people to several dozen. Quite a typical case is when a group includes three or four specialists in different fields of knowledge.

The result of work on any assignment is a report. Initially, the group develops a draft report exclusively for internal use (sometimes at this stage a decision may be made about the inappropriateness of further work on the topic and about the dissolution of the group). Then the material is finalized and sent to the customer in the form of a final report, and each report is traditionally considered an expression of the personal opinion of its authors, and not the entire corporation as a whole (the corporation is responsible only for the general professional level and the timing of the work). Only in especially important cases - when it comes to either a vital problem for the country, or an extremely controversial issue - the RAND management can make an official recommendation to the customer on behalf of the entire corporation.

Targets and goals

RAND Corporation is officially "a non-profit institution dedicated to improving [American] public policy through research and analysis."

The goals of the organization are defined succinctly but broadly - to promote and facilitate scientific, educational, and charitable activities in the interests of the public welfare and national security of the United States.

RAND also sets the task of developing and identifying new methods for analyzing strategic problems and new strategic concepts.

To achieve its goals, the corporation organizes conferences (international and national), symposia and seminars, briefings; issues press releases; participates in the creation of radio and television programs; organizes briefings and presentations for members of the government, opposition political forces, political and industrial organizations, and conducts educational and training programs.

Rand also has a “fully accredited” graduate school, which is eligible to award a Ph.D. in social and political science.

RAND Corporation Management

James A. Thomson has served as RAND President and Chief Executive Officer since August 1989. Under the leadership of Dr. Thomson, RAND has moved the focus of its research agenda towards the post-era. cold war", Expanded customer base and reached a larger clientele in the public and private sector, and dramatically increased philanthropic support for its programs.

Michael D. Rich is the executive vice president of RAND and the institution's second-highest ranking official. He has led numerous classified and unclassified works at RAND, including research on B-2 bomber strategy, research on weapons trends, multinational co-production of aerospace systems, various readiness issues, and other topics related to national defense.

The history of development

During the war in the United States, a significant group of civilians — mostly scientists and engineers — were mobilized to wage war on the "technology front." In a relatively short time, this group created such innovations as the atomic bomb, radar and proximity fuse. A new analytical method, Operations Research, was also developed and refined, which has been successfully applied to improve the effectiveness of air defense, bombing and naval operations.

At the end of the war, when this collective began to disintegrate, the military department decided to retain some of the most talented employees so that they would develop military technology in subsequent years, and in particular, also continue to work in the field of operations research. It was for this purpose that General X. X. Arnold, the commander of the air force of the ground forces, submitted to the higher authorities a proposal to conclude an agreement between the Air Force and the aircraft company "Douglas". The proposal was approved, and in accordance with it, a unique experimental institution was created, which was named the "RAND Project". The abbreviation RAND was formed from the first letters of the English words Research and Development. The RAND Project was created as a division of Douglas under a $ 10 million contract.

The organization began its activities in 1946 with the official aim of carrying out "a research program on a wide range of topics devoted to intercontinental war in all aspects, with the exception of ground warfare." The task also included providing the Air Force with recommendations on "preferred methods and means." Project RAND personnel were immediately tasked with exploring new and unexplored opportunities that might interest the military.

His first major work was a study entitled "Preliminary Design of an Experimental Spacecraft Orbiting the Earth." Despite the fact that artificial satellites at that time were considered mainly the property of science fiction, this document of 1946 gave a detailed assessment of the prospects for the use of scientific satellites and space exploration, prepared by 50 scientists. Because this study turned out to be surprisingly prophetic, it subsequently contributed greatly to RAND's prestige. (Space exploration "RAND" turned out to be prophetic not only in this case. So, when in the middle of 1957 the estimated date of launch of the first satellite was announced, then, as it turned out later, the error was only two weeks.).

Other early research by RAND covered completely new areas such as the use of rocket engines for strategic weapons (missiles), nuclear power plants, game theory as applied to military affairs, new air defense concepts, the design of new types of aircraft, metal fatigue and high energy radiation. ...

Already in its first year of existence, RAND began to replenish its staff with policy specialists, economists and psychologists, so that theoretical research was not limited to the exact sciences.

As the RAND Corporation grew, it became clear to its creators that the experiment was a success. The point was not only that it was partially possible to preserve the talented scientific team created during the war, but, in addition, the military department received at its disposal a creative apparatus of such a scale and capabilities that it would have been impossible to create in any other way for any money. RAND has provided long-term theoretical research in a wide variety of areas, and these recommendations cannot be developed in the offices of official government agencies, whose employees have adapted their thinking to everyday needs and solving narrow problems.

It also became apparent that an organization like the RAND Corporation is more agile and more manageable than any university center, where too many problems arise in connection with the need to ensure security and overcome departmental boundaries between faculties when recruiting large scientific teams to study problems affecting various scientific disciplines.

By the 60s. RAND turned to domestic policy issues and brought its model of empirical, disinterested, independent analysis to the study of current social and economic problems inside the country.

Today the corporation continues to work on long-term socio-political programs covering all spheres of public life; within the framework of these programs, it identifies new strategic dimensions of national problems. On the basis of piece sponsorship funding, there are also individual projects, policy and technology assessment and research, program development, operational analysis.

Achievements of RAND Corporation

The RAND Corporation carried out significant work to study the problems of nuclear proliferation, during which it analyzed the economic, political and technical aspects of creating nuclear potential in various countries.

The corporation has also carried out a number of secret programs to develop technical means for military needs, including a rotating scanning camera for aerial reconnaissance, an over-the-horizon radar installation, a "silent" aircraft for night aerial reconnaissance, as well as new methods of bombing

The Corporation has done a lot of work for the Atomic Energy Commission in the design and study of nuclear weapons. At least one of the more powerful new nuclear bombs now in the US arsenal was inspired by research ideas from the RAND Corporation.

The RAND Corporation has also developed another method based on the use of a computer. This is electronic modeling or the creation of a computer system that simulates the operation of another system, which can be anything from a model of the human heart to a projected weapon system.

RAND Corporation has developed a number of highly sophisticated and subtle mathematical methods, in particular linear programming, dynamic programming, problem sequencing, nonlinear programming, Monte Carlo method, game theory, etc. Also, the RAND Corporation is the developer of the concept of "flexible response", "counterforce", etc. RAND also develops new approaches in the field of methods of futurology and technical forecasting. The most famous method is known as Delphi.

Coordinates: 34 ° 00'34 ″ s. sh. 118 ° 29′27 ″ W etc. / 34.00944 ° N sh. 118.49083 ° W etc./ 34.00944; -118.49083(G) (I)

The area of activity is the promotion of scientific, educational and charitable activities in the interests of public welfare and national security of the United States. Development and identification of new methods for analyzing strategic problems and new strategic concepts.

Story

Write a review on "RAND (corporation)"

Notes (edit)

Literature

Bogush D.A.
RAND Corporation // Foreign Policy Research Centers of the USA and Canada: Handbook / Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Institute of the USA and Canada; Compiled by L. B. Berezin. - 3rd ed. - M .:, 1989. - S. 109-111. - 193 p.
Gavrilova N.V. The Rand Corporation in the Service of US Militarism // Legal Aspects implementation of foreign economic relations: collection of scientific. Proceedings / MGIMO USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dept. int. and private law; ed. S. N. Lebedeva, V. A. Kabatova, R. L. Naryshkina. - M., 1985. - S. 140-147. - 171 p.
RAND Corporation (RAND Corporation) // Sovietological centers of the USA: Handbook / auth.-comp. Ph.D. philol. n. Ya.A. Blinkina. - 2nd ed., Rev. add. - M .: INION, 1989 .-- S. 72-80. - 353 p. - 500 copies.
Filatov V.P."Russian Centers" in the USA // USA - Economics, Politics, Ideology. - 1970. - No. 4. - S. 110-114.

Excerpt from RAND (corporation)

Among the gentlemen of the suite, Rostov noticed Bolkonsky, lazily and dissolutely sitting on a horse. Rostov remembered his yesterday's quarrel with him and the question presented itself whether he should or should not be summoned. “Of course, you shouldn't,” Rostov thought now ... “And is it worth thinking and talking about this at such a moment as now? In a moment of such a feeling of love, delight and selflessness, what do all our quarrels and insults mean !? I love everyone, I forgive everyone now, ”thought Rostov.
When the sovereign drove around almost all the regiments, the troops began to pass by him in a ceremonial march, and Rostov, in a Bedouin bought from Denisov, rode through the castle of his squadron, that is, alone and completely in full view of the sovereign.
Before reaching the sovereign, Rostov, an excellent rider, twice thrust spurs into his Bedouin and brought him happily to that frenzied gait of a trot, which the heated Bedouin paced. Tucking his foaming muzzle to his chest, separating his tail and, as if flying in the air and not touching the ground, gracefully and high raising and changing his legs, the Bedouin, who also felt the sovereign's gaze on him, walked excellently.
Rostov himself, with his legs tucked back and his stomach tucked up and feeling like one piece with a horse, with a frowning but blissful face, damn, as Denisov said, rode past the sovereign.
- Well done Pavlohradtsy! - said the sovereign.
"Oh my God! How happy I would be if he told me to throw myself into the fire now, ”thought Rostov.
When the review was over, the officers, who had come again and the Kutuzovskys, began to converge in groups and began to talk about awards, about the Austrians and their uniforms, about their front, about Bonaparte and how badly he would be now, especially when the Essen corps came up, and Prussia will take our side.
But most of all in all circles they talked about Tsar Alexander, conveyed his every word, movement and admired him.
All only wanted one thing: under the leadership of the sovereign, they would rather go against the enemy. Under the command of the sovereign himself, it was impossible not to defeat anyone, so Rostov and most of the officers thought after the review.
After the review, everyone was more confident of victory than they could be after two won battles.

The day after the show, Boris, dressed in his best uniform and encouraged by the wishes of success from his comrade Berg, went to Olmutz to see Bolkonsky, wishing to take advantage of his affection and arrange for himself the best position, especially the position of adjutant in front of an important person, which seemed to him especially tempting in the army ... “It’s good for Rostov, to whom his father sends ten thousand rubles each, to talk about how he doesn’t want to bow to anyone and will not go to anybody as a lackey; but I, who have nothing but my own head, need to make my career and not miss opportunities, but use them. "
In Olmutz, he did not find Prince Andrew that day. But the sight of Olmutz, where the headquarters, the diplomatic corps stood, and both emperors lived with their retinues - courtiers, confidants, only strengthened his desire to belong to this supreme world.
He did not know anyone, and, in spite of his dandy guards uniform, all these high-ranking people scurrying through the streets in dandy carriages, plumes, ribbons and orders, the courtiers and the military, seemed to stand so immeasurably higher than him, a guards officer, that they did not not only did not want to, but also could not admit its existence. In the office of Commander-in-Chief Kutuzov, where he asked Bolkonsky, all these adjutants and even orderlies looked at him as if they wanted to impress upon him that there were a lot of officers like him hanging around here and that they were all already very tired of them. Despite this, or rather because of this, on the next day, on the 15th, after dinner he again went to Olmutz and, entering the house occupied by Kutuzov, asked Bolkonsky. Prince Andrew was at home, and Boris was led into a large hall, in which, probably, they used to dance before, but now there were five beds, a variety of furniture: a table, chairs and clavichords. One adjutant, closer to the door, in a Persian robe, sat at the table and wrote. Another, a red, fat Nesvitsky, was lying on the bed with his hands under his head and laughing with the officer who had sat down to him. The third played a Viennese waltz on the clavichord, the fourth lay on these clavichords and sang along with him. Bolkonsky was not there. None of these gentlemen, noticing Boris, changed their position. The one who was writing, and to whom Boris turned, angrily turned around and told him that Bolkonsky was on duty, and that he should go to the left through the door, into the waiting room, if he needed to see him. Boris thanked him and went to the waiting room. There were about ten officers and generals in the waiting room.

Does the US really want to attack China? Now there are rumors about close political relations between the authorities of Turkey, Russia and China. But will China be able to pursue its own geostrategic interests in this way?

Until recently, things have not gone so badly between the two great powers, the US and China, especially in light of shared concerns about nuclear issues on the Korean Peninsula. Of course, on this issue, the political forces of the United States and China pursued similar goals, but there were also obvious problems in the relations between the powers: China blamed the United States part of the responsibility for the escalation of tensions in Korea, and also criticized the too obvious military build-up of the Americans in region.

Now it could be that Donald Trump, with his declared power politics and America First, may resort to disastrous solutions. What can I say if even the "democratic" Obama administration has more than once aggressively suppressed further efforts by the Chinese leadership to expand territories in the South China Sea. As always, it all comes down to power sharing. If we look at the issue more specifically, then in the South China Sea we are talking about economic and military potential. Here it is not only about the safety of the water area, but also about the fact that the South China Sea is also very rich in fish and provides about 12% of the world's fish catch. And there is no need to talk about potential deposits of oil and gas.

RAND Corporation at a glance
The RAND Corporation, short for Research and Development, is the world's first think-tank.

It was created in stages. At the end of 1945 in Santa Monica, US Army Generals Arnold, Bowles, Norstad and Douglas created a unique experimental facility called Project RAND within the Douglas Aviation Company to support the country's national security. The abbreviation RAND was coined from the first letters of the English words Research and Development. In May 1948, RAND began its own life when it spun off from the Douglas Company and became an independent, private, non-profit, non-partisan organization. Since then, RAND's mission has been to contribute to policymaking and decision making. One of RAND's core missions remains to ensure US national security through research and analysis of the most pressing problems facing the US government. The corporation works closely with the Pentagon, and also conducts research on social and international problems.

During the first decades, RAND was mainly engaged in solving technical problems - the design of aircraft, missile technology and satellites. In the early 60s, RAND specialists were actively involved in computing and programming. But already in the early 50s, RAND began to work on orders from other American government organizations, conducting research on national security problems. First, exclusively in military-technical, and then in strategic aspects. At the same time, RAND remained a non-profit organization, its entire budget went and goes to ongoing projects.

Over time, specialists in the social sciences appeared in the research center - political science, economics, sociology, psychology, etc., and RAND began to fulfill orders from the US government on an increasing range of problems. Today, RAND publishes reports on a wide range of topics - from health and drug issues to labor market research, regional integration, the environment, international relations and security issues in the United States and other countries.

The RAND Corporation has 11 research departments - the Washington Department of Defense, Management Problems, Resource Analysis, Engineering Sciences, Environmental Sciences, Social Sciences, Physics, Systems Studies, Mathematics, Electronic Computing, and Economics (i.e., departments rather correspond to academic disciplines, and not to the nomenclature of research, the division is professional, not functional).

The basic organizational principle of RAND is a high degree of decentralization. The department has considerable freedom of action not only in the selection of employees, but also in the determination of the research program. It is an independent unit and financially - each department has its own budget, approved annually by the management of the corporation; from these funds the work of any employee of the department is paid, regardless of whether he performs work within the department or participates in an interdisciplinary project.

The result of work on any assignment is a report. Initially, the group develops a draft report exclusively for internal use (sometimes at this stage a decision may be made about the inappropriateness of further work on the topic and about the dissolution of the group). Then the material is finalized and sent to the customer in the form of a final report, and each report is traditionally considered an expression of the personal opinion of its authors, and not the entire corporation as a whole (the corporation is responsible only for the general professional level and timing of work). Only in especially important cases - when it comes to either a vital problem for the country, or an extremely controversial issue - the RAND management can make an official recommendation to the customer on behalf of the entire corporation.

Targets and goals

RAND Corporation is officially "a non-profit institution dedicated to improving [American] public policy through research and analysis."

RAND also sets the task of developing and identifying new methods for analyzing strategic problems and new strategic concepts.

Rand also has a “fully accredited” graduate school, which is eligible to award a Ph.D. in social and political science.

The history of development

Already in its first year of existence, RAND began to replenish its staff with policy specialists, economists and psychologists, so that theoretical research was not limited to the exact sciences.

The corporation also carried out a number of secret programs to develop technical means for military needs, including a rotating scanning camera for aerial reconnaissance, an over-the-horizon radar installation, a "silent" aircraft for night aerial reconnaissance, as well as new methods of bombing

Indeed, it is this organization that can be designated as a phenomenon among all specialized research centers. It stands out sharply in the intellectual abilities of its employees, providing long-term theoretical research in a variety of areas, and these recommendations cannot be developed in the offices of official government agencies, since the unique method of work of the RAND corporation allows you to find non-standard and most effective solutions various problems in a short time. So, a fairly simple example can be given: RAND received a request from a certain administrative institution to solve the problem, which consisted in the insufficient number of elevators in the building. Consequently, employees constantly complained that they had to wait for an elevator for a long time. Increasing the number of elevators was costly. Therefore, RAND specialists came to the following decision. They offered to hang mirrors on each floor. Thus, women could look at themselves while waiting for the elevator, and men, in turn, had the opportunity to look at women in mirrors. Such is the non-standard way out. Thus, the problem was solved by changing the goal, which was not reduced to reducing the waiting time, but to create the impression that it became less. As for more serious problems, it is also possible that completely new means are being developed, which are by no means new goals. So, for example, the data of one of the war games, which was conducted with the aim of studying the military capabilities of the United States, served to take a number of measures to delineate powers between law enforcement agencies and national security agencies, which, in turn, ensured in the future a better defense of the country.

There are military and political signs of the growing US-China conflict, and the arguments in favor of the impossibility of such a conflict are untenable. The reasons for the confrontation between the two countries are classical, and are familiar from the days of the struggle of the European imperialist powers.

For example, modern China in terms of GDP per capita, taking into account purchasing power parity, is almost twice as low as Russia. At the same time, the PRC is already the largest importer of energy resources and the most important importer of many other types of raw materials. China's opportunities to develop as an assembly site for global brands have been exhausted: its population is aging, work force is shrinking, wage requirements are growing. The path of the PRC is becoming the largest world exporter in relation to high-tech products self-developed, produced by Chinese corporations under their own brands.

By now, such expectations are a thing of the past. Modern China in many ways resembles the powers of Europe during industrialization and urbanization - nationalism, fueled by growing power, exacerbation of internal contradictions, the popularity of radical views, the cohesion of big business, bureaucracy and the military, active economic expansion outside. All this is combined with a thousand-year imperial legacy and an acute thirst for revenge for the defeats and humiliations experienced in the 19th and 20th centuries.

The PRC is clearly not now a country capable of recognizing US domination and intending to rebuild its political and economic system according to the American model, even if such views are popular with part of the elite. China reminds Germany of the late 19th century: the struggle for a "worthy place" in the world has turned into a national idea, and Western liberalism is not popular in society.

The article by the prominent American Sinologist David Shambeau "The Impending Collapse of China", in which he argued that political system The PRC began to move in the wrong direction, leading it away from the main path of history, and, therefore, is doomed to collapse, and with a high probability of being accompanied by violence and chaos.

The inevitability of the collapse of any regime that does not develop in the direction of Western-style liberal democracy is a dogma for Americans. At the same time, they believe that until the collapse occurs, such a regime must be contained, if necessary, harshly, as was done in relation to the USSR.

The military aspects of such deterrence are visible and well distinguishable, along with a wide range of political and economic measures being implemented. Barack Obama bluntly stated that the purpose of the accelerated conclusion of the agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership was "to prevent China from writing the rules of world trade." The United States plays a key role in organizing international pressure on China on the problems of the South China Sea and the situation on the Korean Peninsula. New sanctions are periodically introduced against high-tech Chinese companies.

After January 20, it will become clear why the very first international call of Donald Trump, as the elected President of the United States, which was demonstratively advertised to the whole world, was made precisely to Taiwan, the main political enemy of China.

For materials taken from various sources in the Internet.

Introduction
The methodology for generating knowledge about the future has developed as a set of expert forecasting methods, each of which has its own capabilities, a specific procedure and form for presenting anticipatory information, requires initial information, organizational and methodological prerequisites and works within certain constraints. This means that each forecasting method has certain areas of application and conditions for the most effective use.
These methods are united by the fact that, as the dominant source of predictive information, they appeal to the assessments, descriptions and argumentation of highly qualified specialists - experts.
Experts use a variety of information about a predicted object (area, phenomenon, process): both retrospective and present and even future, if it exists, in the form of separate or system forecasts. The more such information the experts possess, provided they are highly qualified, erudite, creative thinking, and competent, the more reasonable the forecast is. At the same time, each of the experts builds their assessments and judgments about the future individually on the basis of their personal ideas, logic and preferences, that is, they are subjective. To reduce the level of subjectivity of expert forecasts, a wide range of competent experts are involved in their development, contributing to the development of a generalized and coordinated group forecast assessment, which is more preferable. To achieve it, various organizational forms can be used, including face-to-face or correspondence, brainstorming, focus group, etc. However, it is difficult to achieve agreement of experts' opinions in one meeting or one correspondence survey.
The need to conduct repeated surveys of experts, where all participants in the discussion worked as part of one team, led to the emergence of "thought factories" and long-term strategic government projects.
The RAND Corporation and the Manhattan Project, implemented by the US Government, were among the first in this area.

RAND Corporation
The RAND Corporation, short for Research and Development, is the world's first think-tank.
This center was founded in the California town of Santa Monica in 1948 under the auspices of the United States Air Force. During the first decades, RAND was mainly engaged in solving technical problems - the design of aircraft, missile technology and satellites. In the early 60s, RAND specialists were actively involved in computing and programming. But already in the early 50s, RAND began to work on orders from other American government organizations, conducting research on national security problems. First, exclusively in military-technical, and then in strategic aspects. At the same time, RAND remained a non-profit organization, its entire budget went and goes to ongoing projects.
Over time, specialists in the social sciences appeared in the research center - political science, economics, sociology, psychology, etc., and RAND began to fulfill orders from the US government on an increasing range of problems. Today, RAND publishes reports on a wide range of topics - from health and drug issues to labor market research, regional integration, the environment, international relations and security issues in the United States and other countries.
So, among its customers are the automobile giant Ford Motor and the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, Harvard and Stanford Universities, the UN, the European Commission and the World Bank, Soros and Rockefeller foundations and even the Chinese Ministry of Health and many others.

Organizational structure
The headquarters of the corporation is still located in Santa Monica (Santa Monica, California (corporate headquarters)), but over time, RAND opened offices in New York (New York (Council for Aid to Education)), Washington (Arlington, Virginia (just outside Washington, DC)), Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), and since the early 90s outside the United States - in the Netherlands (Leiden, The Netherlands (RAND Europe headquarters)), Great Britain (Cambridge, United Kingdom), Germany (Berlin, Germany) and Qatar (Doha, Qatar). In addition to branches, RAND also has three field sites - in Langley (where the CIA is headquartered), in Boulder (Colorado) and more recently in Moscow.
In the early period of its development, the RAND Corporation had a very flexible and flexible structure, its leadership avoided excessive administration. However, as the total number of staff grew, the administration had to develop stricter organizational principles and a permanent structure.
The RAND Corporation has 11 research departments - the Washington Department of Defense, Management Problems, Resource Analysis, Engineering Sciences, Environmental Sciences, Social Sciences, Physics, Systems Studies, Mathematics, Electronic Computing, and Economics (i.e., departments rather correspond to academic disciplines, and not to the nomenclature of research, the division is professional, not functional).
The basic organizational principle of RAND is a high degree of decentralization. The department has considerable freedom of action not only in the selection of employees, but also in the determination of the research program. It is an independent unit and financially - each department has its own budget, approved annually by the management of the corporation; from these funds the work of any employee of the department is paid, regardless of whether he performs work within the department or participates in an interdisciplinary project.
The work of the RAND Corporation is carried out either within a department or in an interdisciplinary group specially created for the implementation of a particular project. Work on a project begins with the appointment of a team leader. For some time, the leader works alone, trying to formulate a clear statement of the problem, the goal of the study and the means to achieve it. After completing the preparatory work, he proceeds to the selection of the group, and this selection is mainly on a voluntary basis. The size of the group can be different - from one or two people to several dozen. Quite a typical case is when a group includes three or four specialists in different fields of knowledge.
The result of work on any assignment is a report. Initially, the group develops a draft report exclusively for internal use (sometimes at this stage a decision may be made that further work on the topic is inappropriate and the group is disbanded). Then the material is finalized and sent to the customer in the form of a final report, and each report is traditionally considered an expression of the personal opinion of its authors, and not the entire corporation as a whole (the corporation is responsible only for the general professional level and timing of work). Only in especially important cases - when it comes to either a vital problem for the country, or an extremely controversial issue - the RAND management can make an official recommendation to the customer on behalf of the entire corporation.
Targets and goals
RAND Corporation is officially "a non-profit institution dedicated to improving [American] public policy through research and analysis." The goals of the organization are defined succinctly but broadly - to promote and facilitate scientific, educational, and charitable activities in the interests of the public welfare and national security of the United States.
RAND also sets the task of developing and identifying new methods for analyzing strategic problems and new strategic concepts. To achieve its goals, the corporation organizes conferences (international and national), symposia and seminars, briefings; issues press releases; participates in the creation of radio and television programs; organizes briefings and presentations for members of the government, opposition political forces, political and industrial organizations, and conducts educational and training programs.
Rand also has a “fully accredited” graduate school, which is eligible to award a Ph.D. in social and political science.
RAND Corporation Management
James A. Thomson has served as RAND President and Chief Executive Officer since August 1989. Under Dr. Thomson's leadership, RAND has moved the focus of its research agenda towards the post-Cold War era, expanded its client base and reached a larger clientele. in the public and private sector, and has also dramatically increased philanthropic support for its programs.
Michael D. Rich is the executive vice president of RAND and the institution's second-highest ranking official. He has led numerous classified and unclassified works at RAND, including research on B-2 bomber strategy, research on weapons trends, multinational co-production of aerospace systems, various readiness issues, and other topics related to national defense.
The history of development
During the war in the United States, a significant group of civilians — mostly scientists and engineers — were mobilized to wage war on the "technology front." In a relatively short time, this group created such innovations as the atomic bomb, radar and proximity fuse. A new analytical method - Operations Research - was also developed and improved, which was successfully applied to improve the effectiveness of air defense, bombing and naval operations. At the end of the war, when this collective began to disintegrate, the military department decided to retain some of the most talented employees, with so that they continue to develop military technology in subsequent years and, in particular, also continue to work in the field of operations research. It was for this purpose that General X. X. Arnold, the commander of the air force of the ground forces, submitted to the higher authorities a proposal to conclude an agreement between the Air Force and the aircraft company "Douglas". The proposal was approved, and in accordance with it, a unique experimental institution was created, which was named the "RAND Project". The abbreviation RAND was formed from the first letters of the English words Research and Development. The RAND Project was created as a division of Douglas under a $ 10 million contract.
The organization began its activities in 1946 with the official goal of carrying out "a research program on a wide range of topics devoted to intercontinental war in all aspects, with the exception of ground warfare." The task also included providing the Air Force with recommendations on "preferred methods and means." Project RAND personnel were immediately tasked with exploring new and unexplored opportunities that might interest the military.
His first major work was a study entitled "Preliminary Design of an Experimental Spacecraft Orbiting the Earth." Despite the fact that artificial satellites at that time were considered mainly the property of science fiction, this document of 1946 gave a detailed assessment of the prospects for the use of scientific satellites and space exploration, prepared by 50 scientists. Because this study turned out to be surprisingly prophetic, it subsequently contributed greatly to RAND's prestige. (The RAND space exploration turned out to be prophetic not only in this case. So, when in the middle of 1957 the estimated date of the launch of the first satellite was announced, then, as it turned out later, the error was only two weeks).
Other early research by RAND covered completely new areas such as the use of rocket engines for strategic weapons (missiles), nuclear power plants, game theory as applied to military affairs, new air defense concepts, the design of new types of aircraft, metal fatigue and high energy radiation. ...
Already in its first year of existence, RAND began to replenish its staff with policy specialists, economists and psychologists, so that theoretical research was not limited to the exact sciences.
As the RAND Corporation grew, it became clear to its creators that the experiment was a success. The point was not only that it was partially possible to preserve the talented scientific team created during the war, but, in addition, the military department received at its disposal a creative apparatus of such a scale and capabilities that it would have been impossible to create in any other way for any money. RAND has provided long-term theoretical research in a wide variety of areas, and these recommendations cannot be developed in the offices of official government agencies, whose employees have adapted their thinking to everyday needs and solving narrow problems.
It also became apparent that an organization like the RAND Corporation is more agile and more manageable than any university center, where too many problems arise in connection with the need to ensure security and overcome departmental boundaries between faculties when recruiting large scientific teams to study problems affecting various scientific disciplines.
By the 60s. RAND turned to domestic policy issues and brought its model of empirical, disinterested, independent analysis to the study of pressing social and economic problems within the country.
Today the corporation continues to work on long-term socio-political programs covering all spheres of public life; within the framework of these programs, it identifies new strategic dimensions of national problems. Individual projects, policy and technology assessments and research, program development, and operational analysis are also conducted on the basis of piece-by-piece sponsorship funding.
Achievements
The RAND Corporation carried out significant work to study the problems of nuclear proliferation, during which it analyzed the economic, political and technical aspects of creating nuclear potential in various countries.
The corporation also carried out a number of secret programs to develop technical means for military needs, including a rotating scanning camera for aerial reconnaissance, an over-the-horizon radar installation, a "silent" aircraft for night aerial reconnaissance, as well as new methods of bombing.
The Corporation has done a lot of work for the Atomic Energy Commission in the design and study of nuclear weapons. At least one of the more powerful new nuclear bombs now in the US arsenal was inspired by research ideas from the RAND Corporation.
The RAND Corporation has also developed another method based on the use of a computer. This is electronic modeling or the creation of a computer system that simulates the operation of another system, which can be anything from a model of the human heart to a projected weapon system. RAND Corporation has developed a number of highly sophisticated and subtle mathematical methods, in particular linear programming, dynamic programming, problem sequencing, nonlinear programming, Monte Carlo method, game theory, etc.
Also, the RAND Corporation is the developer of the concept of "flexible response", "counterforce", etc. RAND also develops new approaches in the field of methods of futurology and technical forecasting. The most famous method is known as Delphi.

Delphi method in the study of socio-economic and political processes
The Delphi method was developed in the 1950s for the study of military-strategic and military-technical problems. The authors of this method are O. Helmer, T. Gordon, N. Dolky. Project Delphi was patronized by the authorities state power and was supposed to become the main form of participation of experts in the adoption government decisions on the widest range of problems, but primarily on military issues. It is no coincidence that the first task assigned to the developers of Delphi was to determine, using expert assessments, the system of optimal targets in the United States for delivering a nuclear strike and the required number of nuclear charges for the implementation of such a plan from the point of view of the USSR leadership. This method became known to the scientific community only in the mid-60s after the publications in the open press of the works of O. Helmer and T. Gordon, who tried to take the Delphi method beyond the framework of purely military decisions.
The name of this method comes from the Greek city of Delphi, located at the foot of Mount Parnassus, where the Temple of Apollo was located, famous for its oracle, which was asked to solve certain problems not only by ordinary residents, but also by representatives of the ruling political elites. Such a name, as it were, symbolizes the need for the political leadership of various states and other subjects of the political process to use expert knowledge, which, however, is currently being generated into councils not with the help of intuitive forms, but with the use of scientific technologies.
Delphi is such a method of expert assessments, in which experts independently answer the proposed questions, presenting their answers on paper. In addition to experts, a special organizing group participates in Delphi, which is engaged in the development of questionnaires, processing of the received answers, as well as providing experts with the necessary information.
The first stage of Delphi is to develop a questionnaire - the experts express their views on what specific questions need to be discussed and how to formulate them, request the necessary information, and also provide information they themselves have that would be advisable to use in the discussion. The organizing group analyzes and summarizes all the proposals, draws up the first questionnaire and sends it to each expert. Together with the questionnaire, information is disseminated, both available to the organizational group and provided by experts. Special attention should be paid to the last moment - after all, information exchange is carried out in this way, which is quite important. For example, if metropolitan analysts and representatives of regional analytical structures participate in the examination, the former will receive first-hand information without visiting the regions, republics and territories, and the latter will be able to get acquainted with the vision of the problem situation from the federal center.
Formation of the questionnaire is a rather important part of Delphi - it should be drawn up in such a way that all aspects of the problem being solved are taken into account. Suppose that the executive branch, realizing the need for administrative reform, is trying to develop the most optimal version of it. In this case, the proposals of experts should take into account the most varied consequences of the implementation of their ideas, and it is in the questionnaire that it should be shown on what the customer is trying to concentrate the main attention. Each expert should be asked questions about why his reform path is able to improve the quality of public administration; how will it be built new system decision-making in government bodies and what are its advantages; is the proposed reform option capable of optimizing information flows from downstream to higher levels of the administrative system; how different sentences will be articulated and aggregated in it; what should be the system of recruiting for administrative bodies; how effectively you can control its functioning; whether the resistance of officials to the proposed innovations will be great and at what cost it will be possible to overcome it; how other branches of government will react to the reform; what will be the reaction of voters to such changes; what resources will be required for the reform - financial, organizational, temporary, etc.
Then the feedback principle begins to operate, which in this case should be understood in a slightly different way than in D. Easton's scheme - the experts return questionnaires with ready-made answers reflecting their thoughts on possible ways to solve the problem. They can also make suggestions for changing the questionnaire: to include new questions and exclude, in their opinion, unnecessary ones. Experts can request additional information about the research object. After that, the organizational group re-enters the work - the second stage begins. The organizational group draws up the second version of the questionnaire, which is fundamentally different from the first. First, all ambiguous and unrelated questions are excluded. Secondly, based on the opinions of experts, the questionnaire may include new questions that fell out of sight in the preparation of the first option. Third, and this is most important, the new questionnaire includes the opinions of all experts participating in Delphi, expressed by them at the first stage. At the same time, none of the experts can be ignored - the respondents must be sure that each expert has an equal opinion and no one is given preference in advance.
At the next stage, the experts will have to express their attitude to the options for solving the problem proposed by their colleagues. It is better to use special scales here, which will help the organizational group to process the questionnaires correctly, more accurately identify the proposals that the experts considered the best, and discard the ideas that did not find approval from most of them. X. Linston and M. Turoff recommend four evaluation criteria, for each of which there are rough estimates.
Efficiency:

Very effective - will have a positive result when used as an independent solution;

Effective - will have a positive result when used in conjunction with other proposals;

Ineffective - will have a negative result;

Extremely ineffective Its implementation will lead to very dangerous consequences.

Feasibility:

Fully feasible - there are no obstacles to implementation;

Possible Feasibility - Requires refinement and more careful prescription of details;

Possible impracticability - a number of points are not covered, certain difficulties in implementation are possible;

Complete impracticability - the proposal will not work.

Degree of attitude to the problem at hand:

Very high - the proposal solves many of the tasks;

High - the proposal is relevant to the problem, but its implementation is secondary;

Low - the proposal has little relation to the problem situation, the priority of its implementation is very low;

Extremely low - the proposal has nothing to do with the problem at all.

Degree of confidence in the proposal:

Full - small risk that the proposal is wrong, all the conclusions contained in it are correct. The final decision should be based on that basis;

High - there is some risk that the proposal is incorrect. I would like the final decision to be based on this proposal, but with some changes and improvements;

Low - the offer is risky. It is undesirable for the final solution to be built on its basis, but a number of ideas can be borrowed from it;

Extremely low - a high probability that the proposal is incorrect and therefore should be strongly rejected.

At the same time, each expert, responding to the options for solving the problem proposed by colleagues, must justify why he assessed the proposed ideas in this way, highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal and express his opinion on what exactly in the assessed proposal should be used in the final solution, and what should be discarded.
Suppose that a group of experts was tasked with developing an election campaign strategy for a public association. Answering the question "How to organize campaigning in the media?" , each of which will be made for someone in a separate region, taking into account its specifics. The rest of the Delphi participants, who used the system of criteria described above to evaluate all the proposals, for the most part assessed the proposed idea as effective, possibly feasible, solving many of the tasks set, and also expressed high confidence in this proposal. On closer examination of the questionnaires, the organizing group found that in the section on media use in the election campaign, this proposal outpaced the others, which received lower marks. However, a number of experts made their comments. For example, it was recommended not to shoot special videos for those territories where the popularity of the party, according to the available information, was very low, and to use the released funds to buy a small amount of time on state channels. However, the general concept of using television for advertising purposes proved to be approved. The remarks made were included in the third version of the questionnaire, which was again sent to the experts. Most of the experts agreed with the comments, which was reflected in the final document. A similar evaluation procedure occurs with every proposal.
This example shows that Delphi is carried out in several stages of the same type, which are repeated until the experts agree on all the items of the questionnaire. Then the organizing group collects all the proposals made into a single document, which is also sent to all experts for final approval, after which the prepared forecast or solution goes to the customer. At the same time, one cannot exclude the option when a separate group of experts does not agree with the majority and defends its point of view on the analyzed issue. In our opinion, in this case, their considerations should be formalized as special opinion and also included in the final note. This procedure resembles decisions made by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation - a judge of the Constitutional Court who does not agree with his decision has the right to a dissenting opinion, which is attached to the case file and must be published together with the decision of the Constitutional Court. But in the Delphi method, the process of taking into account the opinion of the majority may be more significant, since if the Constitutional Court directly makes decisions, then the project of the group of political experts is often only their proposal for the person or group of persons who will make the final decision. For this reason, it is quite possible that the latter will find the arguments of the minority more convincing and they will form the basis of the decision.
Despite the fact that the Delphi method has become widespread in the process of organizing expert knowledge, it has many critics, whose opinion also needs to be presented. One of the main accusations concerns the comparison of the quality of intramural and intramural group discussions - a number of scholars believe that the quality of the former is obviously higher than the latter. For example, this opinion is shared by J. Farquhar, who conducted comparative studies of decision-making processes in full-time and part-time groups. However, research by other scientists in this area gave directly opposite results - for example, N. Dolky and R. Campbell found a tendency towards significantly better solutions in the case of correspondence group interaction. As a result, we can assume the presence of a high level of subjectivity in such assessments, and, in addition, a violation of the purity of the experiment - it is important that both face-to-face and correspondence methods are carried out using psychological procedures and without possible distortions. Only in
etc.................

Forecasting tasks, solved using the methods of expert assessments, include two formally unrelated elements: the definition of possible options for the development of the forecasting object and their assessment. Analysis of expert methods shows the feasibility of using "brainstorming" to determine possible options development. Their use allows you to get productive results in a short period of time and involve all experts in an active creative process.

Brainstorming techniques can be classified according to the presence or absence of feedback between the leader and the participants " brainstorming»In the process of solving some problem-lem situation. The presence of feedback allows the participants to focus only on options that are useful according to one criterion or another for solving a problem situation. However, by artificially introducing restrictions, we are deprived of the opportunity to see all the variety of approaches, and thus there is a possibility of missing original thoughts that have potential, but not currently realized value. Lack of feedback, i.e. maximum stimulation of statements, involves carrying out complex and large-scale work at the stage of their assessment. The resulting situation required the development of a “brainstorming” method capable of qualitatively and quickly enough to assess the options, without limiting their number.

The essence of this method lies in the actualization of the creative potential of specialists during the "brainstorming" of a problem situation, which first implements the generation of ideas and the subsequent destruction (destruction, criticism) of these ideas with the formulation of counter-trips. Working with the brainstorming method involves the implementation of the following six stages.

First stage- formation of a group of participants in the "brainstorming" (in terms of number and composition). The optimal size of a group of participants is found empirically: groups of 10-15 people are recognized as the most productive. The composition of the group of participants assumes their purposeful selection: 1) from persons of approximately the same rank, if the participants know each other; 2) from persons of different ranks, if the participants are not familiar with each other (in this case, each of the participants should be leveled by assigning him a number and then referring to the participant by number). As for the need to specialize a participant in the area of a problem situation, this condition is not mandatory for all members of the group. Moreover, it is highly desirable that the group includes specialists from other fields of knowledge who have a high level of general erudition and understand the meaning of the problem situation.

Second phase- drawing up a problem note of a brainstorming participant. It is compiled by the problem analysis group and includes a description of this method and a description of the problem situation. This description contains: the principle on which the method is based; conditions that ensure the highest efficiency of the "brainstorming", authorship of the results of the attack; basic rules for conducting an attack. The description of the problem situation contains: the reasons for the emergence of the problem situation; analysis of the causes and possible consequences of the problem situation that has arisen (it is advisable to hyperbolize the consequences so that the need to resolve contradictions is felt more acutely); analysis of world experience in resolving such a problematic situation (if any); classification (systematization) of existing ways of resolving a problem situation, the formulation of a problem situation in the form of a central question with a hierarchy of sub-questions.

Third stage- generation of ideas. It begins with the presenter revealing the content of the problem note. Predicting the description of the method, the presenter focuses the participants' attention on the rules for conducting a brainstorming: 1) the statements of the participants should be clear and concise; 2) skeptical remarks and criticism of previous speeches are not allowed; 3) each of the participants has the right to perform many times, but not in a row; 4) it is not allowed to read in a row a list of ideas, which may be prepared by the participants in advance. Retelling the content of the problem situation, the presenter concentrates the participants' attention on the main issue. The presenter should build his speech in such a way as to awaken the psychological receptivity of the participants, to make them feel the need to do what he asks them to do. The desired response of the participants is the will to purposeful thinking aimed at solving a problem situation.

Vigorous activity of the leader is assumed only at the beginning of the "brainstorming". Once the participants are sufficiently aroused, the process of putting forward new ideas proceeds spontaneously. The leader in this process plays a passive role, regulating the participants according to the rules of the attack. It should be remembered that the more diverse and greater the number of statements, the wider and deeper the issue under consideration is covered and the more likely it is that valuable statements will appear. Taking into account the above circumstance, the leader when conducting an attack must be guided by the following rules:

Focus the participants' attention on a problematic situation, setting a framework for its specific requirements and terminological severity of the ideas expressed;

Not to declare false, not to condemn and not to stop researching any idea, i.e. consider any idea regardless of its apparent relevance or feasibility;

Encourage an improvement or a combination of ideas, giving the floor first to whoever wishes to speak in connection with a previous presentation;

Provide support and encouragement to participants so necessary to release them from their constraints;

To create a relaxed atmosphere, thus contributing to the activation of the attackers.

Fourth stage- systematization of ideas expressed at the generation stage. The group for analyzing the problem situation carries out systematization of ideas in the following sequence: a nomenclature list of all expressed ideas is drawn up; each of the ideas is formulated in commonly used terms; duplicate and complementary ideas are identified; duplicating and (or) complementary ideas are combined and formulated as one complex idea; highlights the signs by which ideas can be combined; ideas are combined into groups according to the selected attributes; a list of ideas is compiled by groups (in each group, ideas are written in the order of their generality: from more general to specific, supplementing or developing more general ideas).

Fifth stage- destruction (destruction, criticism) of systematized ideas (a specialized procedure for evaluating ideas for practical implementation in the process of brainstorming, when each of them is subjected to comprehensive criticism from the participants in the brainstorming).

The main rule of the destruction stage is to consider each of the systematized ideas only from the point of view of obstacles on the way to its implementation, i.e. the participants in the attack put forward arguments that refute the systematized idea. Especially valuable is the fact that in the process of destruction, a counter-idea can be generated, formulating the existing restrictions and proposing the possibility of removing these restrictions.

The group of participants in the brainstorming at this stage consists of highly qualified specialists in the area under discussion, its number reaches 20-25 people, and the duration is 1.5 hours. The process of destruction continues until each of the systematized ideas of the list is not criticized. The voiced criticisms and counter-ideas are recorded on a magnetophone.

Sixth stage- evaluating criticisms and compiling a list of practical ideas. The implementation of the stage is carried out by the group for analyzing the problem situation:

1. A list of all critical remarks received at the destruction stage is compiled. If necessary, critical remarks are specified, duplicate ones are discarded.

2. A summary table of the stages of systematization and destruction of ideas is compiled, as well as a list of indicators of the practical applicability of ideas (these indicators in each case are specific and depend on a specific problem situation). The first column of the table is the results of the stage of organizing ideas; the second is criticism that refutes ideas; third - indicators of practical applicability of ideas; the fourth - counter ideas expressed at the stage of destruction.

3. Each criticism and counterattack is assessed:

a) is deleted from the table if it is refuted by at least one indicator of practical applicability;

b) is not deleted if it is not refuted by any indicator.

4. A final list of ideas is drawn up; only those ideas are transferred to the list that have not been refuted by critical remarks and remained in the table, as well as counter ideas.

The method of collective idea generation has been tested in practice and allows you to find a group solution when determining possible options for the development of the forecasting object, excluding the path of compromises, when a common opinion cannot be considered the result of an impartial analysis of the problem.

Delphic method... In the last two decades, separate methods have been created that allow, to a certain extent, organize the statistical processing of the opinions of expert experts and achieve a more or less consistent opinion of them. The Delphi method is one of the most widespread methods of expert assessment of the future; expert forecasting. This method was developed by the American research corporation RAND and is used to determine and assess the likelihood of certain events.

The Delphi method is built on the following principle: in imprecise sciences, expert opinions and subjective judgments, by necessity, must replace the exact laws of causality reflected in the natural sciences.

The Delphi method allows you to summarize the opinions of individual experts into an agreed group opinion. All the shortcomings of forecasts based on expert assessments are inherent in it. However, the work carried out by the RAND Corporation to improve this system has significantly increased the flexibility, speed and accuracy of forecasting.

The Delphi method is characterized by three features that distinguish it from the usual methods of group interaction of experts. These features include: a) anonymity of experts; b) using the results of the previous round of the survey; c) statistical characteristics of the group response.

Anonymity lies in the fact that during the expert assessment of the predicted phenomenon, the object, the members of the expert group are unknown to each other. In this case, the interaction of the group members when filling out the questionnaires is completely eliminated. As a result of such a statement, the author of the answer may change his opinion without a public announcement about it.

The use of the results of the previous round of the survey is as follows: since group interaction is carried out directly by answering the questionnaire, a specialist or organization conducting research using the Delphi method extracts from the questionnaires only the information that is relevant to this problem ... A forecaster takes into account the opinion of experts "for" and "against" for each point of view. The main result of the functioning of this system is to prevent the group from accepting its own goals and objectives. This system makes it possible for a group of specialists to concentrate their efforts on the initial tasks, and not to assume something new every time.

The statistical characteristic of the group response is that a group of specialists makes a forecast containing the point of view of only the majority of the expert, i.e. a point of view that the majority of the group would agree with. However, there can hardly be any indication of the degree of difference of opinion that may have existed among the members of the group. Instead, the Delphi method uses statistical characteristics of a response that includes the opinion of the entire group. Each answer within the group is taken into account when constructing the median, and the size of the spread of answers is characterized by the size of the interval between quarters. In other words, the group response can be presented as a median and two quartiles, i.e. in the form of such a number, the estimates of which by one half of the group members were more than this number, and the other half - less. The Delphi method allows for effective interaction between the jury members, although the results of this interaction are controlled by the group leader by summing up the arguments. Jury members change their assessments precisely when the arguments of their colleagues are convincing, otherwise they stubbornly adhere to their opposite points of view.

The Delphi method is feasible and effective in gaining benefits from group participation in forecasting; at the same time, this method minimizes or eliminates most of the difficulties associated with the work of the commission, although it may take more time than the commission with personal communication of members, especially if the survey is done by mail.

In the development of the Delphi method, cross-correction is applied. The future event is presented as a huge set of interconnected and transitioning paths of development.

Presenting the forecast of scientific and technical shifts as D 1, D 2, ..., D n, and the corresponding probabilities as P 1, P 2, ..., P n and putting P 1 = 100%, we find changes in the values of P 2, ... , Р i,…, Р n.

With the introduction of cross-correlation, the values of each event due to the introduced certain relationships will change either in a positive or in negative side, thereby adjusting the probabilities of the events under consideration. For the purpose of future correspondence of the model to real conditions, elements of randomness can be introduced into the model.

The essence of the methods of expert assessments for the development of forecasts is to determine the consistency of the opinions of experts on the promising directions of the development of the object of forecasting, formulated earlier by individual experts, as well as in the assessment of aspects of the development of the object, which cannot be determined by other methods (for example, analytical calculation, experiment, etc.).

I. Creation of groups. To organize the conduct of expert assessments, working groups are created, whose functions include conducting a survey, processing materials and analyzing the results of a collective expert assessment. The working group appoints experts who provide answers to the questions posed regarding the prospects for the development of this industry. The number of experts involved in the development of the forecast can vary from 10 to 150 people, depending on the complexity of the object.

II. Formulation of the global goal of the system. Before organizing a survey of experts, it is necessary to clarify the main directions of the object's development, as well as to draw up a matrix reflecting the general goal, sub-goals and means of achieving them. At the same time, during the preliminary analysis, together with a group of specialists, the most important goals and sub-goals are determined for solving the task. The means of achieving the goal are understood as the directions of research and development, the results of which can be used to achieve the goal. At the same time, the directions of research and development should not overlap with each other.

III. Development of a questionnaire. It consists in the development of questions that will be proposed to the experts. The question form can be developed in the form of tables, but their content should be determined by the specifics of the predicted object or industry. In this case, the questions should be drawn up according to a certain structural-hierarchical scheme, i.e. from broad to narrow questions, from complex to simple.

When conducting a survey of experts, it is necessary to ensure the unambiguity of understanding of individual issues, as well as the independence of the judgments of experts.

IV. Calculation of expert assessments. It is necessary to process the materials of expert assessments, which characterize the generalized opinion and the degree of consistency of individual assessments of experts. The processing of expert assessments data serves source material for the synthesis of predictive hypotheses and options for the development of the industry.

The final quantitative assessment is determined using four main methods of expert assessments and their many varieties:

1) simple ranking method (or preference method);

2) the method of setting the weighting factors;

3) method of paired comparisons;

4) the method of successive comparisons.

Simple ranking method is that each expert is asked to arrange the features in order of preference. The number one denotes the most important feature, number two the next in importance, etc. the data obtained are summarized in the following table.

Table 2.1 Expert assessments of features (areas of research)

The order of preference for a given feature over others.

Then, using the methods of mathematical statistics, a generalized opinion of experts is obtained. The average rank is determined, the average statistical value S j of the j-th feature:

where m kj is the number of experts evaluating j-th feature(m k m);

i - expert number; i = 1, ..., m;

j - feature number, j = 1,2,…, n.

The average rank of each feature is determined. The smaller the S j value, the greater the importance of this feature.

In order to be able to say whether the distribution of ranks is random or there is consistency in the opinions of experts, the concordance coefficient introduced by M. Kendall is calculated.

The average rank of the set of features is determined:

The deviation d j of the average rank of the j-th feature from the average rank of the population is calculated:

The number of identical ranks assigned by the experts to the j-th feature is determined - t q.

The number of groups of the same ranks is determined - Q. The coefficient of concordance is determined by the formula:

,(2.4)

,(2.5)

The coefficient can take values in the range from 0 to 1. If the opinions of experts are completely consistent, the coefficient of concordance is one, while there is complete disagreement - zero. The most real is the case of partial agreement of the opinions of experts.

As the consensus of experts' opinions increases, the concordance coefficient increases and tends to unity in the limit. However, even if it is equal to or close to zero, there is not always complete disagreement. Among the experts there may be groups with well-agreed opinions, but these opinions are opposite and generally neutralize each other. In this case, a cluster or combination analysis should be done to identify these groups.

Advantages of the simple ranking method:

1) the comparative simplicity of the procedure for obtaining estimates;

2) fewer experts in comparison with other methods when evaluating the same set of features.

Its disadvantage is that:

1) knowingly consider the distribution of estimates to be uniform;

2) the decrease in the importance of features is also assumed to be uniform, while in practice this does not happen.

Method for setting weights consists in assigning weight coefficients to all characteristics. Weighting factors can be set in two ways:

1) all signs are assigned weight coefficients so that the sum of the coefficients is equal to some fixed number (for example, one, ten or one hundred);

2) the most important of all the signs is given a weighting coefficient equal to some fixed number, and all the rest - coefficients equal to fractions of this number.

The generalized opinion of experts is also obtained using the methods of mathematical statistics according to formulas (2.1 - 2.5).

Sequential comparison method is as follows:

1) the expert orders all the features in order of decreasing their importance: A 1>A 2 >…> A n ;

2) assigns to the first feature a value equal to one: A 1 = 1, while assigning weight coefficients to the remaining features in fractions of one;

3) compares the value of the first feature with the sum of all subsequent ones.

There are three options:

A 1> A 2 + A 3 +… + A n

A 1 = A 2 + A 3 +… + A n

A 1< A 2 + A 3 + …+ A n

The expert chooses the most appropriate, in his opinion, option and brings the assessment of the first event in line with it;

4) compares the value of the first feature with the sum of all subsequent ones minus the very last feature.

Adjusts the assessment of the first feature in accordance with the inequality selected from three options:

A 1> A 2 + A 3 +… + A n-1

A 1 = A 2 + A 3 +… + A n-1

A 1< A 2 + A 3 + … + A n-1

5) the procedure is repeated until A 1 is compared with A 2 + A 3.

After the expert has specified the assessment of the first feature in accordance with the inequality he has chosen from three possible ones:

A 1> A 2 + A 3

A 1< A 2 + A 3

he proceeds to refine the estimate of the second attribute A 2 according to the same scheme as in the case of the first, i.e. the evaluation of the second characteristic is compared with the sum of the subsequent ones.

Its advantage lies in the fact that the expert in the process of evaluating the features analyzes his own evaluations. Instead of assigning coefficients, there is a creative process of creating those coefficients.

The disadvantages of the method are as follows:

1) its complexity; an untrained expert will find it difficult to cope with this procedure; instead of refining his initial estimates, he will be confused by them;

2) bulkiness; it requires four times more operations to evaluate the same set of features than the simple ranking method (in other words, four times as many experts are needed for the same job).

Pairwise comparison method

According to him, all the signs are compared with each other in pairs. On the basis of paired comparisons, further processing are then used to find the estimates of each feature.

To make it easier for the expert to make comparisons, the signs (A, B, C,… N) are entered in the table both horizontally and vertically.

The expert fills in the cells of such a table. Comparing a trait with itself gives one. In the first cell, the expert writes one, in the second - the result of comparing the first feature with the second, in the third - the result of comparing the first feature with the third, etc. Moving to the second line, the expert writes in the first cell the result of comparing the second feature with the first, in the second - one, in the third - comparing the second feature with the third, etc.

The half of the table above the diagonal reflects the lower half. In order not to introduce confusion, not to provoke an expert to calculate one half of the table according to the other, in order to reduce the number of operations, it is advisable to fill in only one half of the table (above or below the diagonal). Thus, the experts' answers will be presented in the form of the following matrix:

After a series of mathematical transformations, we get estimates for each feature A 1, A 2, ..., An from the point of view of this expert. The total scores of features are obtained by identical processing of the total matrix, each element of which is the sum of comparisons of features given by all experts.

The total matrix has the form

m is the number of experts evaluating a given set of features;

- estimates, respectively, 1, 2,…, j,…, m experts;

Aggregate scores given by all experts.

By determining the variance of the total matrix and comparing it with the maximum possible variance of a matrix with the same number of elements, it is possible to determine the consistency of expert opinions. The closer the variance of the total matrix is to the maximum possible variance, the higher the consistency of opinions. Thus, the method of paired comparisons makes it possible to conduct a rigorous, statistically valid analysis of the agreement of experts' opinions, to reveal whether the estimates obtained are random or not. Undoubtedly, the procedure of the method of pairwise comparisons is more complicated than the method of simple ranking, but it is simpler than the method of successive comparisons.

The number of experts required to assess a certain set of features by the paired comparison method is twice as large as when using the simple ranking method and two times less than when using the sequential comparison method.

Currently, in many methods of conducting expert assessments, the coefficient is proposed as an indicator of an expert's competence:

, (2.6)

where is the coefficient of the expert's competence;

Coefficient of the degree of familiarity of the expert with the problem under discussion;

Argument coefficient.

The coefficient of the degree of familiarity with the direction of research is determined by the expert's self-assessment on a ten-point scale. The self-assessment scores are as follows:

0 - the expert is not familiar with the question;

1,2,3 - the expert is not familiar with the issue, but the issue is within the scope of his interests;

4,5,6 - the expert is satisfactorily familiar with the issue, does not directly participate in the practical solution of the issue;

7,8,9 - the expert is familiar with the issue, participates in the practical solution of the issue;

10 - the question is included in the expert's narrow specialization circle.

The expert is invited to assess the degree of his familiarity with the issue himself and to emphasize the appropriate score. Then this score is multiplied by 0.1, and we get the coefficient.

The coefficient of argumentation takes into account the structure of the arguments that served as the basis for the expert for a certain assessment. The coefficient of argumentation is proposed to be determined in accordance with Table 2.2 by summing the values noted by the expert in the cells of this table.

Having determined the coefficient of competence, the value of the experts' assessments is multiplied by it.

Table 2.2 Values of the argumentation coefficient