in capitalist society – for competition. Such situations are dealt with by a special branch of mathematics – game theory. (It is often presented as part of the discipline «operations research.») The most pronounced case of a conflict situation is direct antagonism, when two sides A and B clash in a conflict, pursuing directly opposite goals («us» and «adversary»).
The theory of antagonistic games is based on the proposition that we are dealing with a reasonable and far-sighted adversary, always choosing his behavior in such a way as to prevent us from achieving our goal. In the accepted proposals, game theory makes it possible to choose the optimal solution in some sense, i.e. the least risky in the fight against a cunning and malicious opponent.
However, such a point of view on the conflict situation cannot be absolutized either. Life experience suggests that in conflict situations (for example, in hostilities), it is not the most cautious, but the most inventive who wins, who knows how to take advantage of the enemy’s weakness, deceive him, go beyond the conditions and methods of behavior known to him. So in conflict situations, game theory provides an extreme solution arising from a pessimistic, «reinsurance» position. Yet, if treated with due criticism, it, along with other considerations, can help in the final choice.
Closely related to game theory is the so-called «statistical decision theory». It is engaged in the preliminary mathematical justification of rational decisions in conditions of uncertainty, the development of reasonable «strategies of behavior» in these conditions. One possible approach to solving such problems is to consider an uncertain situation as a kind of «game», but not with a consciously opposing, reasonable adversary, but with «nature». By «nature» in the theory of statistical decisions is understood as a certain third-party authority, indifferent to the result of the game, but whose behavior is not known in advance.
Finally, let’s make one general remark. When justifying a decision under conditions of uncertainty, no matter what we do, the element of uncertainty remains. Therefore, it is impossible to impose too high demands on the accuracy of solving such problems. Instead of unambiguously indicating a single, exactly «optimal» (from some point of view) solution, it is better to single out a whole area of acceptable solutions that turn out to be insignificantly worse than others, no matter what point of view we use. Within this area, the persons responsible for this should make their final choice.
2.4 Multi-criteria Operations Research Tasks
Despite a number of significant difficulties associated with the uncertainty of the conditions of the operation, we have still considered only the simplest problems of operations research, when the criterion by which the effectiveness is evaluated is clear, and it is necessary to turn into a maximum (or minimum) a single indicator of efficiency W. It is he who is the criterion by which one can judge the effectiveness of the operation and the decisions made.
Finally, let’s make one general remark. When justifying a decision under conditions of uncertainty, no matter what we do, the element of uncertainty remains. Therefore, it is impossible to impose too high demands on the accuracy of solving such problems. Instead of unambiguously indicating a single, exactly «optimal» (from some point of view) solution, it is better to single out a whole area of acceptable solutions that turn out to be insignificantly worse than others, no matter what point of view we use. Within this area, the persons responsible for this should make their final choice.
Despite a number of significant difficulties associated with the uncertainty of the conditions of the operation, we have still considered only the simplest problems of operations research, when the criterion by which the effectiveness is evaluated is clear, and it is necessary to turn into a maximum (or minimum) a single indicator of efficiency W. It is he who is the criterion by which one can judge the effectiveness of the operation and the decisions made.
Unfortunately, in practice, such tasks, where the evaluation criterion is clearly dictated by the target orientation of the operation, are relatively rare, mainly when considering small-scale and modest-value activities. As a rule, the effectiveness of large-scale, complex operations affecting the diverse interests of participants cannot be exhaustively characterized using a single performance indicator W. To help him, he has to attract other, additional ones. Such operations research tasks are called «multi-criteria».
Such a multiplicity of criteria (indicators), of which it is desirable to turn some into a maximum, and others into a minimum, is characteristic of any somewhat complex operation. We suggest the reader to formulate in the form of an exercise a number of criteria (performance indicators) for the operation in which the work of urban transport is organized. Fleet of mobile vehicles (trams, buses, trolleybuses) it is considered set; the solution swings routes and stops. When choosing a system of indicators, think about which of them is the main one (most closely related to the target orientation of the operation), and arrange the rest (additional) in descending order of importance. Using this example, you will see that a) none of the indicators can be chosen as the only one and b) the formulation of the indicator system is not such an easy task as it may seem at first glance.
So, typical for a large-scale task of operations research is multi-criteria – the presence of a number of quantitative indicators W1, W2,…, one of which is desirable to turn into a maximum, and others into a minimum, and others into a minimum («so that the wolves are fed and the sheep are safe»).
The question is, is it possible to find a solution that satisfies all these requirements at the same time? With all frankness, we answer: no. A solution that turns any indicator to a maximum, as a rule, neither turns into a maximum, nor a minimum of others. Therefore, the phrase «achieving maximum effect at minimum cost», which is widely used in everyday life, is nothing more than a phrase and should be discarded in scientific analysis. Another wording will be legitimate: «achieving a given effect at minimal cost» or «achieving the maximum effect at a given cost» (unfortunately, these legal formulations seem to be somehow not «elegant» enough in oral speech).
What if you still have to evaluate the effectiveness of the operation by several indicators?
In practice, the following technique is often used for this: they try to compile one of several indicators and, when choosing a solution, use such a «generalized» indicator. Often it is composed in the form of a fraction, where in the numerator are those values, the increase of which is desirable, and in the denominator – the increase of which is undesirable. For example, the enemy’s losses are in the numerator, own losses and the cost of funds spent are in the denominator, etc.
In practice, another, slightly more intricate method of compiling a «generalized» performance indicator is often used. They take individual private indicators, attribute some «weights» to them (a1, a2,…), multiply each indicator by the corresponding weight and add them up; Those indicators that need to be maximized are with a minus sign.
With the arbitrary assignment of weights attributed to particular indicators, this method is no better than the first. Proponents of this technique refer to the fact that a person, making a compromise decision, also mentally weighs the pros and cons, attributing greater importance to factors that are more important to him. This may be true, but, apparently, the «weighting coefficients» with which different indicators are included in the mental calculation are not constant, but change depending on the situation.
Here we meet with an extremely typical technique for such situations – «the transfer of arbitrariness from one instance to another.» Indeed, the simple choice of a compromise solution in a multi-criteria problem based on a mental comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of each solution seems too arbitrary, not
